Dobrodošao na en.wiki pod novim imenom! BTW vidio sam da ti je netko dao crveni karton na tvojoj suradničkoj stranici na hr.wiki. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ne znam, valjda "mayor" (gradonačelnik) ili "municipal prefect" (nešto tipa župan). Nisam prije stavljao infoboxeve na općine jer ni o jednoj ovdje baš i nema puno. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 22:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao! I would like to understand if Lučke kapetanije & Obalna straža in Croatia are two different things or at the present day they merged together in a single corps like the italian Corps of the Port Captaincies - Coast Guard. Hvala! --Nicola Romani (talk) 21:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kanim proširiti članak o Jadranskoj aveniji, pa me zanima imaš li kakvih dobrih pogleda iz zraka ili koju sliku iz automobila. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 20:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puno hvala. Baš sam se pitao iz čega si slikao te slike? Kaj si otišao na neki panoramski let? Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da, trebao bih to jednom probati kad budem imao vremena. BTW upravo sam postao admin. :-) Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hvala. :-D Admiral Norton ^(talk) 18:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Da preselimo onda priču ovdje... Hvala na komentaru - članak je ispao iznad očekivanja, iako sam ipak dosta vremena utrošio na njega.

Također zahvali Roberti u moje ime. Gledao sam baš jučer sve one fotografije iz muzeja i to je fenomenalno, svaka čast na trudu, čovjek dobije inspiraciju za 20 članaka najmanje. (Bit će, jednog dana...)

Za sam članak jedino što možda nedostaje od tekućih stvari je slika samog parkirališta u Praškoj, recimo ovako nešto: [1][2]. Pa ako te put nanese... :-) GregorB (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Po svemu sudeći, tvoja slika ide na Main Page: {{Did you know/Queue}} - sutra u neko doba, ako dobro tumačim... GregorB (talk) 07:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sutra u 22:21 po našem vremenu... :-D GregorB (talk) 11:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hvala! Eto, obostrano zadovoljstvo... :-) GregorB (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hvala još jednom! Fotka je bolja od one iz Vjesnika... GregorB (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, this template has set the president. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rapid_transit_in_the_former_Soviet_Union If they have former soviet systems together, they can also have former Yugoslav ones. Frankly I don't see what the problem is for you to go about changing it, especially if you do not notify the person who spent some time making this. (LAz17 (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Stop renaming the article to Trams in Zagreb. The title Zagreb tram system is much better than Trams in Zagreb. We are not dealing with just what type of trams are in Zagreb, we are dealing with this entire streetcar/tram system, and so it is more appropriate to call it Zagreb tram system. Keep things in line with other articles, like this one : Prague tram system. Second, stop removing the template for urban rail in the former yugoslavia. If the soviet union's ex-republics can have it together, why should the yugoslav ones be different? You are trying to balkanize this all. For organizational and informational purposes there is nothing wrong with having links to other ex-Yu systems at the bottom. This is only improvement to the article. Now if you are an ultra-nationalistic croat who is insulted with any non-croat yugoslav stuff, then best leave wikipedia. As serbia and croatia have a joint hockey league (see Panonian League), so too is there other such cooperation. While there is no intimate cooperation in trams, it is nonetheless usefull to have all tram systems of the former yugoslavia in one template. It's not like there are too many so that it deserves a separate page.(LAz17 (talk) 20:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

And who says that is usefull?--Ex13 (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still hijacking the yugoslav urban rail template? (LAz17 (talk) 18:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Ex13, you were blocked on hrWiki for this kind of behavior. I suggest you stop and adopt a more sensible attitude. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is hijacking that template? I made {{Trams in Croatia}} which is totaly different from your template, different subject. In that template i include even a tram types. Please explain how i hijack that template. You redirect my template without an explanation. You didnt told me nothing what you do and why u did that.--Ex13 (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who speaks about what. Tko o čemu, DIREKTOR o nedoličnom ponašanju na Wikipediji.
DIREKTOR, you dare to preach to others about decent behaviour on Wikipedia?
You think that we've forgotten your (DIREKTOR's) conditional punishment of one year of limited reverting rights (on en.wiki)?
And I still see DIREKTOR's same editing behaviour. Što je on infiša, to ustrajno gura i zaludu se objašnjavat su njimen. Kubura (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your post on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't believe how many socks I saw (and reported)... Honestly? I don't know. All I know is that the Checkuser doesn't get people blocked if they really aren't socks. If you're not a sock, get a checkuser and you're fine. Afterward people will take you more seriously because of that confirmation of your legitimacy. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A šta da ti kažem... Pitaj Lazu za koje Usere misli da su tvoji sockpuppeti i onda detaljno prati upute na WP:SPI. Malo je glupo jer ćeš morat objasnit zašto misliš da si ti sockpuppet ovih usera koje LAz spomene heh. Bolje nagovori njega da šta prije podnese zahtjev za Checkuser. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppeteering nema veze sa argumentima i ti se nemaš šta opravdavat. Samo čekaj checkuser rezultate i to je to. Šta se tiče tvojeg ponašanja na hrWiki, to ima i te kako veze za enWiki, jer to govori o tvom "karakteru". Samo kažem da to Admini i te kako uzimaju u obzir. Definitivno nemoj ulazit u edit-warove.

LAz je poprilično uporan, to sam osjetio na svojoj koži [3] :), ali ovaj put je imho u pravu. U Zg sam često ali ne trenutno, hvala na pozivu. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hr:Predložak:naselje ima krivi naziv. Dogovor je da infookviri imaju "infookvir" na početku naziva. Stoga treba premjestiti taj predložak. Kako ga nisam mogao premjestit, trenutno sam stavio preusmjerenje da bi mi predlošci {{dodaj infokutiju}} imali plavu wikipoveznicu. Molim te da ga ti premjestiš, s obzirom da imaš administratorske ovlasti.

Kategorija nije nepotrebna jer takvih već imamo nekoliko, pa ne stvaram nikakav presedan. Te kategorije služe da bi se rasteretila hr:Kategorija:Nedostaje infokutija. Ako postoji kategorija hr:Kategorija:Nedostaje infokutija infookvir naselje, članci sa {{nedostaje infokutija|infookvir naselje}} se automatski svrstavaju tamo. Ako ne postoji, idu u hr:Kategorija:Nedostaje infokutija.

Što se tiče zatrpavanja, bracodbk je u pravu, bolje da zamolim nekog (tebe, ako nemaš ništa protiv) da to odradiš botom. Pozdrav. --Rotanev (talk) 12:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ex13, first of all: great work on the SVGs. However there are a number of problems. I did extensive research in the issue, and would like to help improve the new files. Here are the issues:

• No official flag of a subdivision within the Austro-Hungarian Empire had a coat of arms within it. Its a common mistake, but there was no coat of arms in the flag of Croatia-Slavonia.
• All Austro-Hungarian flags had the 2:3 (width:length) ratio. The 1:2 ratio your flag uses has only been used for Croatian flags from 1945 on.
• The colors in the tricolor and coat of arms were much softer than those you've used. I suggest that in the coat of arms and flag you use the colors from the previous 2:3 tricolor. The current red and blue in both the coat of arms and the flag are noticably off.
• Coat of arms details:
  • There was no black border seperating any of the three sections of the coat of arms.
  • Now please don't get offended, but the Dalmatian leopards are pretty poorly done when compared to the actual coat of arms. (Its not because I'm from Dalmatia, its simply the quality of the draw.)
  • The Slavonian coat of arms is way too large in relation to the other two.

It took me quite a while to dig-up all this information about Austro-Hungarian landesfarben. I'm hoping you'll correct these mistakes so that the great SVGs can replace the crappy formats, but first we should work towards making them historically accurate. Regards --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition if you're interested, this image really doesn't work in its current format. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Flag. Yes, I'm fully aware of the order you linked. Like I said, I did do some research into the subject. Here's the thing, though: that's an internal order of Croatia-Slavonia, Austro-Hungarian landesfarben never sport any CoAs. The shape of the flag is also against regulations. In short, the previous flag was not there for no reason, and you did not come across anything others haven't read before. The main difference, you see, is that between Austro-Hungarian state officials, and those of the Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia. This is just a small example. Another would be that "Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia" was the official Austro-Hungarian name for this state, while by "order" of the Ban, the name was "Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia, and Dalmatia". There is of course, no question as to who's version is more official on the level of the Austro-Hungarian state.

• Colors. The colors are quite off. Those are basic red and blue you're using. There is no way they were used. Please use the colors previously implemented. I assure you, they were not selected at random.

• CoA. It does look incorrectly proportioned, incorrectly drawn, and with amateurish work on the part of the CoA that's not copy/pasted from the Hungarian CoA.

Please don't get offended, and I know you put in a lot of work on this, but I'm going to revert your edit for now. Please don't edit war in an effort to push your edit. Instead, please try to fix the flag as I also would like a proper, quality SVG in use here. I'm hoping to be taken seriously, and I'm hoping for a little trust and good will on your part. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 08:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best and have expended a lot of effort to initiate a proper disussion with you on this. All I get in response are some worthless links to commercial websites you googled. You cannot think that simply edit-warring will allow you to insert your incorrect and (almost insultingly) inferior-quality work into encyclopedia articles, simply because they are SVG format. Edit-warring and POV-pushing will be reported. Since your edit has been reverted, please refrain from reintroducing it without a discussion on the matter. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ex13, what's wrong with this map [4] ?

Ta karta prikazuje koje su današnje BiH općine (ili njihovi djelovi) bili dio Banovine. To je njezina svrha. I to je uobičajen način crtanja karata (u nekim državama na svim povijesnim kartama imaš ucrtane današnje granice). A karta je 100% točna. Gdje vidiš i jednu grešku? --Čeha (razgovor) 17:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful Ex13. This guy always claims that his maps have no mistakes. His maps often can not be checked. Just notice what he said, that it is standard to write in present day borders - what is he smoking? Is he high? Is he drunk? I do not know, but such a statement is insanity. It is most untypical, but, Ceha likes this. I see some mistakes. First of all, there is no reliable source where the map can be checked for accurate borders. Around say Neverinje and Konjic I suspect that there are errors. Just north of Tuzla his blue territory has a sharp corner - something that the other map does not have. (LAz17 (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

[5] or you can google. And do please ignore Laz. Unfortunately he is a wikipedia stalker. --Čeha (razgovor) 21:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The map looks very imprecise. This map which seems to be better also has borders which are not perfectly clear. http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/kepek/netre/178.gif (LAz17 (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

Can you please show me where this map goes counter my map? --Čeha (razgovor) 08:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We appreciate your contributions to User talk:Ceha, but since this is the English Wikipedia, you should communicate only in English, especially if there is a conflict (like this case) and outsiders are monitoring the situation. See Wikipedia:Talk#Good_practices for more information. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colors are of great importance in flags. Please fix all your flags and coats of arms that use the basic blue and basic red. Use Yugoslav blue and Yugoslav red for flags such as that of the Banovina of Croatia, which were part of Yugoslavia (because the colors were always the same). Use the colors from the Yugoslav flag of the time. Never, ever use basic blue/red, and match the color shades with the colors on the coats of arms. Without these modifications, these are incorrect flags and will be removed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had you bothered to read my post you would've noticed I was primarily talking about 20th century flags. However, even without detailed knowledge of the shade used in the 19th century flags, we can safely say it certainly wasn't azure... I'll repeat: the colors are off. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks correct according to known sources. I am will try and reduce bytes so the loading times can become quicker. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which islands do you want included on the map? The very very small ones are not necessary. (LAz17 (talk) 17:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

I didn't think that some of those were too important, but I will add them. I have started so far... I added half of them, and will add some more. Don't worry, it will look good. (LAz17 (talk) 20:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)).[reply]

heh :). Ex13, čovjek je bio jugoslavenski parlamentarac. Bio je jugoslavenski državljanin čitav život (traženi kriminalac u azilu, bjegunac itd). I sad se ti čudiš kada netko napiše "Ante Pavelić was a Yugoslav Croatian politician."? Shvati da to samo tebi i meni zvuči malo "wrong", ali da to nije razlog zbog kojeg bi to trebalo automatski biti netočno. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Šta se tiče Tita, on je sebe smatrao Jugoslavenom, dakle njegov ethnonym je "Jugoslaven". Njegova država je Jugoslavija, dakle i njegov demonym je "Jugoslaven". Drugim rječima, ne trebaš se smatrati Jugoslavenom da bi bio Jugoslaven po demonymu. To je slično kao "Italian American". Može se Silvester Stallone jednog dana probuditi i deklarirati da nije Amerikanac, al koga briga? Ako nema tuđe državljanstvo on je Amerikanac. Mogu Ameriku okupirati Kanađani, pa potom osloboditi Meksikanci, i može Silvester Stallone voditi neku vladu "Suverene Republike Ohio" i smatrati se "Ohiočaninom", ali on je i dalje Amerikanac. Heh, malo slikovito, znam, ali shvaćaš šta želim reć'? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Poanta je da je bio državljanin Jugoslavije, a k tome još i Jugoslavenski političar. Kvragu ako nisi Jugoslaven (po demonymu) a član si Jugoslavenskog parlamenta tada zaista nitko nije bio "Jugoslaven". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I get the feeling you're following me around. Am I wrong? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weirdo. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop your edit warring on the urban rail issue. The issue was solved long ago, so stop trying to overturn that. (LAz17 (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

No it was not solved. --Ex13 (talk) 19:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No? Well then wouldn't the solution be to solve the problem and not to edit war? It stays under the broader yugoslav urban rail template until a consensus is reached. At any rate, you created your thing in response to the yugoslav urban rail article. You are the one changing. Not me. In order for you to be able to change it there has to be a consensus that supports this first. (LAz17 (talk) 19:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

For information - this issue has been raised at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Trains#serious_problem , and I recommend that any further discussion take place at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Yugoslavian_issues_on_railway_articles.Shortfatlad (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per above - if you want to create a navbox template for "trams in Serbia" please do so, as it would be a valid object, however please do not re-purpose the template "urban transport in the former Yugoslavia" for this purpose. Please feel free to ask any questions at the above link.Shortfatlad (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scandinavian languages are based on different dialects, like SC, Bulgarian, and Slovenian. Croatian, Serbian, etc. are all based on the same dialect. Therefore, under the normal English meaning of "language", they are all the same language. But we do of course say that they are separate language standards, since that is what they are. kwami (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, not again. --Ex13 (talk) 20:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not what again? Is there a discussion and consensus somewhere you can refer me to? kwami (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some basic facts that you should know about Croatian, before you do some changes in the text. Croatian consists of three (3) major dialects (štokavski, kajkavski and čakavski). Standard Croatian language (that is the difference) is based on the štokavian dialect with the ijekavian reflex of yat (ije). When you put the definition "standardized form of the štokavian dialect", you apriori excludes other two dialects, and thats incorect. Thnks--Ex13 (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When a Serb or Muslim speaks Kajkavian or Chakavian as their mother tongue, are they speaking Croatian, or is it considered Serbian or Bosnian? Likewise, with the Croats in Serbia who speak "Serbian" dialects of SC, are they not considered to speak Croatian? Do all the Serbs and Croats of Sarajevo speak Bosnian? kwami (talk) 07:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's correct to say that many Croats speak Serbian rather than Croatian, and that many Serbs speak Croatian rather than Serbian? With, say, the Serbs of the Republic of Serbian Krajina, how does one determine whether the language they speak is Serbian or Croatian? kwami (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so if I understand correctly, if it's not Shtokavian, it's understood to be Croatian or Serbian depending on dialect. But if it is (East Herzegovinian) Shtokavian, and all from the same city and all sounds the same, then the difference between Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin is ethnicity rather than actual language, correct? kwami (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but whatever the details of which dialects are identified with which ethnicity, the diff between Serbian and Croatian are not or par with the differences between them and Slovenian. They're more like the differences within Slovenian. A little factual discussion, please, rather than mute reversion?

And I'm not calling your edits vandalism. You obviously know mine are not either. If you don't want to discuss this on the article page with me, please follow WP:dispute resolution. --kwami (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you've been shown you're wrong. You know you're wrong. You're just being obnoxious. Do we really need to waste everyone's time going to dispute resolution because of your petty political jealousies, when you know you're going to loose? kwami (talk) 09:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A možda ne bi bilo loše da prestaneš s svađanjem na nivou birtije? Razumiješ li da je to većini promatrača sasvim dovoljan razlog da te uopće ne shvati ozbiljno? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Je, i tvom argumentu će osim svađe odmoći jednostavna činjenica da u navedenom članku nemamo dokumentirano praktički ništa (u enciklopedijskom smislu) o konkretnom utjecaju kajkavskog i čakavskog na današnji hrvatski. Dopuni sadržaj činjenicama i onda nećemo imati problem s interpretacijom forme. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ja ti samo lijepo kažem kako ovo izgleda i kako može izgledati. Možeš se i nastaviti prepucavati, ali to jednostavno nije siguran put do uspješnog zagovaranja hrvatskog jezika niti kvalitetnijeg članka o njemu. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slučajnom čitatelju, kao i meni, je sasvim svejedno što se i on prepucava s tobom a ne samo ti s njim. Obojica ostavljate loš dojam. Bavite se sadržajem a ne talkom! --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted referenced material, especially against consensus, is considered vandalism. If you continue, you will be WP:blocked. kwami (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• [6] Bas je prelepo. (LAz17 (talk) 03:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]
• [7] Ano vodiju lijep li je? :) (LAz17 (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Moram da sam kreten, da neprimetim godinu. :( (LAz17 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

Evo ti onda ovo, [8] , neznam sta se desava, ali ovi volovi izgleda da planiraju da naprave vecu glupost nego igde na svetu... novi most 2011e, a puteva nema do njega do 2013te... (LAz17 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

...I think the ongoing discussions here [9][10][11] may be within your sphere of interest on Wiki. I'm sure your input would be appreciated by all involved users. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, now you're restoring a version of the Croatian language article with the 'citation needed' tags deleted. This is also reason for blocking you: if someone requests a citation, you need to provide one before deleting the tags. Please stop. — kwami (talk) 20:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on my page. Sorry for assuming bad faith; yes, I did add the 'citation needed' tags, and have only been reverting edits which delete them or restore versions of the article with them deleted. And yes, I have read the talk page, and have gotten no response to my concerns. — kwami (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You voted here on the first RM so I imagine you might be interested in the new requested move as well. [12] Best regards. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the constant edit warring there due to over a flag image, you and DIREKTOR have a 48 hour block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disappeared for a while. Gonna disappear again soon. Anyhows, some help is needed with this new page, pažalusta druzya, Croatian Inline Hockey League (LAz17 (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)).[reply]

... sa šlagom Roberta F. (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, your edit was completely correct. I just reformatted the citation to the same style used throughout the article, and replaced name of the Act in the body text with generalized "legislation", while maintaining name of the act in the citation note. Also, I redirected the url to Narodne Novine instead, being the official gazette. At any rate, thanks for the pointer, I completely missed that one, even though I was looking at the Act just today. Thanks again!--Tomobe03 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But if we're about to get out of pointless arguing in a circle, we have to go through motions per WP:DDE before going to ANI. --Tomobe03 (talk) 22:07, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, you can remove the whole thing now and post a reply about it on the talk page...--Tomobe03 (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated this article you wrote to go on the main page of the English Wikipedia under the Did you know? section, if possible on Turkey's Republic Day, when the palace opens. Thanks for contributing the article! —innotata 02:12, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridg page, your edit caused a URL error (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that here you requested the deletion of Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridg (which is what the article was called at the time) so it could be replaced by a new version which was then at Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge. However, that version of Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge was a copy/paste duplication of the one which had been at Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridg at the time, and so deleting it would have destroyed the revision history (which must be kept for copyright attribution purposes). So what I did was delete the new copied version at Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge, and then move Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridg to Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge. It's perhaps hard to understand now as the intermediate incorrect versions are gone, but what's left is...

• Yavuz Sultan Selim Bridge
• İzmit Bay Bridge
• Osman Gazi Bridge (a redirect to İzmit Bay Bridge).

I still see some confusion between İzmit Bay Bridge and Osman Gazi Bridge, however, as the article refers to it by both names. Do you know which is the correct name that we should use? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - can you please help me ? I would like photos of details (mainly signage) on Zagreb trams: do you have any, or know where I could find some ? A friend is making a model of a T4YU and has asked me to help decorate it. If possible, could you please contact me at tramgunzle@gmail.com

Thank you. Gunzle (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:SubTable has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]