User talk:Ivan Bajlo

Hello Ivan Bajlo and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Croatian 104th Brigade

You wrote in the edit summary:

Article doesn't contains similar information it contains SAME info from my page including factual error which could have been copied ONLY from the source and nowhere else on the net!

However, according to Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service facts cannot be copyrighted. The text describing the brigade is markedly different. Thus, I have removed the copyvio notice from the article. Regards, howch e ng {chat} 23:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may not be in the U.S., but the Wikimedia Foundation is, and therefore U.S. laws apply to the content that appears here. Basically, though, you are correct. Facts are not copyrightable, but the presentation of the facts is. In other words, the simple listing of the commanders of the brigade cannot be copyrighted (I could have looked it up from official records and written that part myself). The text you wrote, however ("2 July 1991 is celebrated as formation day of brigade...") can be copyrighted and in fact does not appear in the Wikipedia article anywhere. However, if I rewrite it, it's now in my own words and I can therefore assert copyright (except that all contributions to Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL). Does that explain things? howch e ng {chat} 23:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote from Wikipedia:Copyrights: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is perfectly legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate it in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. (See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context.)" Let me ask another question here: What will make you happy? The complete removal of the article? If so, I don't think you have a case here, because the material you wrote on your web site is not copied directly into Wikipedia. How about a link to your site that indicates that you are the source for the material? This actually should have been done by the original editor in any case. howch e ng {chat} 00:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Thanks for your message. Not revenge or anything, no. I work on a project reviewing external links on WP which tends to work through the URLs linked to particular sites (often where someone has pointed out a link being added by a site owner and asked for a review of links to that site). The links to your site are listed here: [1] a lot of these links were fairly old and put in when an article was first being written. I left 24 links in articles of this type where I could find addition information on the page linked to. I removed about 30 links where the page linked to did not seem to contain any information not included in the article. The reason why I left other links (and some may well be crummy) is that I was reviewing links out to an external site rather than the links from a list of articles. I am sorry if this looked personal; if you check my last 500 edits say you will see quite a lot of runs of this sort. I suggest you read WP:EL and WP:COI and if you think any of the links I removed were inappropriately removed give me a list and I will look again. I think if you own the site WP:COI prevents you replacing the links yourself and I would advise against doing this. --BozMo talk 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: when you add content to Wikipedia you don't retain any rights to a link-back or anything. Under WP:EL a link back would be put in place where the source was reliable enough to count as WP:RS. If you think your site is a "reliable source" under these guidelines (and that is very unlikely as a personal site) then a link back as a reference might be appropriate. --BozMo talk 14:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a wider consensus view on your site meeting WP:RS here:Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Advice_please --BozMo talk 16:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Samobor

Sorry mate. Feel free to delete any copyright violations I might've made. You run a very good site (with a lot of original material :P). Keep up the good work. --Thewanderer 15:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

links to your site

You have convinced me personally that your site is good enough standing for WP:RS.

However the suggestion that you make of creating a historical association or similar may well help with future challenges. --BozMo talk 10:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma/Myanmar

Hi! Please join us! Chris 22:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Austria-Hungary to the first Yugoslav Kingdom

About this edit to Janko Bobetko. I have to be honest, I didn't know quite which country to enter for his place of birth. I know that the Kingdom of SCS was formed in 1918, but it wasn't inaugurated (internatioanlly recongised) until the Treaty of Versailles was signed and put into effect, and this was at some point in that year 1919. This was when Austria-Hungary officially ceased to exist. With your background, as with mine, you know that there are many answers to when the South Slavic successor to AH took effect: The Versailles Treaty confirmed the existence of a country with set borders; Serbia's Kingdom preceded the start of the war, but its unity with the State of SCS was what internally created the country which you and I knew; obviously, this is what happened in 1918 when it was declared. The State itself (the region minus Serbia) was declared in 1916, but I personally argue that the beginning of the era was 1914 itself: as Belgrade was invaded by Austria, the Slavic peasants of Austria-Hungary hit back by revolting against the authorities, and that, as they say, took the biscuit; for although between 1914 and 1916, the state of war meant no real order, the Austro-Hungarians never were to recapture it and reinstall the authority as was known before. This is history and I am speaking roughly as I know things, nothing accurate. Accuracy is the key to this issue! I am not familiar with exact dates, but all I know is that countries which are not in some sense internationally recognised (presumably recognised by the UN, or the League of Nations for the time) are classed by some as illegal. User:Duja once removed an edit I made referring to the NDH which existed between 1941 and 1944 for someone born within it. He did this on the principle that it was illegal even though it was fully functioning, and known to the world. It's a hard call, do we class a piece of land as being a certain nation simply because of who controls it? What happens when a country is recongised by some states and not others? Or when the so-called "international community" recognise someone else as being the government in exile? That is why I never knew quite what to put for January 1918! Now are you absolutely sure that the Kingdom of SCS is adequate? Or does it require more research? Evlekis 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes ivan u got a bunch of fans here : ) . So what are you upto these days on wiki, adding more sites that i sent you link of from your dmoz category? Coolbunny 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: Commercial links

Dear Ivan, we all make mistakes. But instead of complaining that I removed some "external links" with commercial material (Google ads and Amazon.com ads etc...), you should souce your articles properly, and that is preferably not done with "external links". This is, of course, most important when you feel that your "external links" are the obvious source of a particular article. I trust that you know how to souce articles properly. regards, ---Camptown 10:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One option is to include a tag in the bottom of the article, such as "this article or section includes material from this specific website". :) Camptown 21:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kurov

Dobar dan/zdravo! Could you please write a stub about Kurov on Crnogorski jezik here - just a few sentences based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kur%C3%B3w , Srbska Vikipedija or Hrvatska Wiki? Only 3-5 sentences enough. Prosim.

PS. Article about Kurov is already on 174 jezikach. If your mjesto/celo isn't on PL wiki, I can do article about it. (I'm first author of requests) Pietras1988 ^TALK 12:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Croatian Military History Books

Bok Ivan, I couldn't help notice your vojska.net credentials. I am interested in getting a book on Croat military units through out the ages, from the time of the medieval kingdom to the Zrinski/Frankopan era to latest war of independence. I couldn't find anything in Zagreb. Given your background, can you recommend a book - preferably something that is well illustrated. Thanks, iruka 14:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm?

I'm sorry? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is this? --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

No problem imenjače, I'm sure no one will mind the two Brigade articles, they're correct anyway. great website, btw :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Brigade articles were only just started. I do intend to rewrite and improve them, but if you consider them a copyright violation feel free to nominate for deletion. I would not seriously mind. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your site

Hi Ivan. Actually I have seen your site, and in general, actually for the most part the information I have gathered elsewhere conforms to yours. My problem is not the Bibliography, but how it is used. In Wikipedia statements have to be referenced to specific sources, i.e. published works, so yes, as your site looks now, at least the parts I was interested in, they are unusable because I can not connect data on your site to specific pages in the works given in the Bibliography, most of which I don't have access to (yet). This is why I have resisted citing your site, and have advised the other editor to do likewise. I have used your bibliography, and I am grateful for the spelling of names which have helped. If you ever decide to update the referencing (pages) o your site, we would be able to use your site without actually linking to it so your rating with Google is not affected. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belgrade operation dispute

I wonder if I could bring just this matter to your attention, it may help both mrg and me with this matter. The text on your website here [2], states that the Belgrade operation was a "Joint operation of the Yugoslav partisans and the Soviet army...". The question is does this info come from a specific source, and can it be verified? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]