Lothar Klaic

/WIP

Maslenica Bridge (D8)

Hi! I have noticed a new article on Maslenica Bridge (D8) that has been recently created. I was wondering if you are planning on expanding it to cover all other aspects of the bridge (construction, history, differences with the previous bridge and common misconceptions that the two are identical, traffic volume etc.). If so, and if that could be done within few days, the article may be nominated for DYK section of English wiki.

If you do not plan to do this, please let me know, as I can do that, but I do not wish to jump in ahead of you, since you started the article.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Slovenia invite

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Slovenia-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Slovenia? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's Slovenia-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. Please see our list of open tasks for ideas on where to get started. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page. We look forward to working with you in the future! Eleassar my talk 09:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Lapot

I have reverted your recent deletions. Please discuss on the talk page before making deletions based on your own subjective opinions. This is a collaborative project and you need to learn how to interact with other editors. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Red link

The deletion has been already contested, and the conclusion was to keep the page deleted. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 6. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have restored your comment/draft to User:Lothar Klaic/Red link. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 16:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Again, I am going to defer to the recent undeletion discussion. (I don't think it would be a appropriate for me to unprotect the page at this time, when a recent discussion with a similar request - asking for a redirect instead of a disambiguation page - wasn't successful.) See also the section of the protection policy on articles protected from creation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Fomitiporia ellipsoidea

Hi there. First of all, please be aware of the three revert rule- if you feel that the change still needs to be made, it would be worth discussing it on the talk page; edit warring over the issue is not helpful, and may result in blocks, page protections and other unpleasantness. As for the issue itself, I am inclined to agree with Sasata and Ucucha over the MoS interpretation. It's also worth pointing out that this article recently successfully passed FAC. This does not mean it is perfect, of course, but it did receive a rather thorough review from several people, and none of them considered this an issue. J Milburn (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is not an issue, and I decided not to pursue it without your threats. An issue is page ownership. I can list at least three reasons why the links were useful, but I don't see the reverters are willing even to discuss the arguments. I am dropping the issue, since it is trivial. By the way, why didn't you post the same 3RR threat for another party? I guess they have barnstars and hence are more equal than me. Lothar Klaic (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

:)

		The Original Barnstar
		For calling it like it is. Reyk YO! 22:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Historical revisionism

I don't think the bot can handle simultaneous requests on a talk page at the same time. At the moment it is showing the first request as a new request under you date stamp. Please could you comment out your request (Talk:Historical_revisionism_(negationism)#Requested move 2) and my reply, until after the first one has been closed by an uninvolved admin, because if you leave yours there the first will remain listed at the wrong date and not be closed until yours is closed. -- PBS (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Požarevac

Please do not revert my edits there. You cannot post an geographical article into historical category. It is simply wrong and chaotic approach. PANONIAN 08:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I was speaking about this diff: [1]. Požarevac is purely geographical article and has no place in historical categories or historical Wiki projects. PANONIAN 18:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 8

Hi. When you recently edited Valjevo mountains, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rajac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Basilissa (name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Basilissa

Vasilisa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Basilissa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Basilissa (name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Basilissa

Vasilisa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Basilissa

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)