User talk:BraneJ

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

Hello BraneJ, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:

Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
Use the Show preview button
Provide an Edit summary
Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
Create a User page
Be bold
Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax ^τεχ 04:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia and Montegro articles[edit]

Hi, I see you're in the category for those Wikipedians from Serbia & Montenegro. I'm trying to create a project whereby seperate articles for just Serbia OR Montenegro are written to an acceptable level, especially considering the possibility that 2006 may see the two nations seperate and become independent states. If that were to occur Wikipedia should have articles written to the standard of other national articles. It would be useful to have the input of Wikipedians living in the area. Please post any views here, not at my talk page. Thank You Grunners 18:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usluga[edit]

Zamolio bih te da glasas "Strong Keep" na ovo stranci: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pilot_of_invisible_F-117-a%28song%29 ,posto su predlozili ovaj clanak za brisanje.Hvala unapredDzoni 12:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is being voted again [1] Dzoni 23:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Flag changes[edit]

If the information on the flag of Republika Srpska was wrong, is the same true for the flag of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina? Could you please change that article, as well? —Nightst a llion (?) 08:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mh. So, it should have been done by now -- has the law been changed? —Nightst a llion (?) 11:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Say, why hasn't there been any kind of move regarding the subnational flag issues up to now? —Nightst a llion (?) 23:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, to clarify: I meant the same two flags which I asked about earlier, i.e. the FoBaH's and the Republika Srpska's. —Nightst a llion (?) 12:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image "djeca nose ranjenika"[edit]

I removed the speedy deletion warning from Media:Ismet Mujezinovic Djeca nose ranjenika.jpg. The reason given in the note sounds fairly satisfactory (you may disagree): it is available from many PD sources and as a pic from x-Yu it probably does not enjoy copyright protection. However, I do agree that the picture is POV Yugoslav Partisan propaganda that does not add to the factual quality of either article that shows it. It probably belongs under a Yugoslav World War II art article or such. I'm thinking of replacing it with a better one, any ideas? Btw as far as I'm concerned feel free to remove the image from the articles if it annoys you :). Miranche 05:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree an edit war is not a solution at all :). I'm not sure whether there has been any attempt to actually establish Wikipedia copyright criteria for content originating from x-Yu. There is no, for example, Template:PD-Yugoslavia or such. While content originating in the West is fairly (one could argue, overly) regulated, my intuition, perhaps wrong, is that it is better to err on the side of boldness with x-Yu content, as (1) the legal issues are certainly complicated by the questions of succession after Yu breakup, and (2) in these cases our culture typically recognizes an unofficial fair use policy - meaning, if the pic is used for educational or informative purposes, the author or publisher will not call a lawyer on you. I realize that if you are legalist or a free-content purist this last bit probably makes your hair stand up on end. I also realize that English Wikipedia follows U.S. laws, that the rights surrounding x-Yu content, even if they can be established, are probably too vague to be cast in U.S. legal terms, and that in the U.S. legal practice, unintelligible usually means illegal. However, my argument is not legalistic but pragmatic: because it is difficult to establish the legal status of the pics, it is more constructive to let them be and put some effort into finding out what the laws are. Miranche 15:57, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BraneJ wrote: ...And the fact that it can be found at multiple sources means nothing if you can't find a waiver of copyright or some other proof it passed into public domain.

As for your other points:

this image was not marked as under fair use, so in this case, it does not matter. And even if it did, without proper source and copyright attribution, you can't claim fair use.
the pragmatic way in this kind of cases isn't "let's pretend its public domain" - that would be the most irresponsible way; that is not only against Wikipedia policies, but against one of the basic principles of Wikipedia. --Branislav Jovanovic 18:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't post the image, and as I said, I don't have any personal attachment to it; I think it's POV. I personally try to follow the rules about the content that I post, and I agree that whoever did post it is responsible for documenting its copyright status. In this sense, I agree that my use of the PD-because label was sloppy/ bad form.
However, while I agree that proper attribution is in order, and that whoever posts the pic should ideally take care of this, I generally disagree with just erasing things. The policies give you the right to do this, sure, but then you're just doing a bot's work. IMHO if you took this upon yourself, it would be more considerate and, yes, responsible, to actually try to establish the status of the pic. My stance is not "let's pretend it's public domain" but "it's probably fair use, and if one feels obliged to actively promote proper attribution, in the spirit of WikiLove, one should put in this effort rather than erase the pic".
Since this is only my personal opinion and not policy, and I don't feel the pic contributes to the article, do go ahead with the deletion if you want to. Miranche 20:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't written a book have you?[edit]

I recently read History of Slovakia 2nd edition because of a recent fascination with central and eastern europe, and the author had a very similar name to you (well, first name and a J for a middle inital, which he never expanded). Given your other languages and very professional writing style, I was just curious if that was you :) -M^ask? 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]