Billiboom

:)

Hello, how are you? I support your edits on Croatia in Central Europe. Central Europe is fluid and generally most European countries are in western Europe geographically (midpoint in Lithuania), so when it comes to the cultural regions, the will of nations should be decisive--81.100.242.0 (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'm fine, thanks. You're right at all, especially for the will of nations. Central Europe must be perceived, firstly, from historical and cultural view and then from economic view. In all these aspects, you can see that Croatia belongs to Central Europe. Croatia has been almost 1000 years in state associations which belonged to Central Europe (Ugaria, Habsburg Monarchy, Austria-Hungary). Thank you for support!Billiboom (talk) 14:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Billiboom, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Billiboom! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

re: Support

Everything I had about the issue I added there on talk already but some of the admins will not change.--Rovoobo Talk 04:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Croatia Airlines, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages German and Bel Air (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) 08:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Balkans

Swapping one source for another as an excuse to remove one very basic claim of an article and replace it with a different claim, leaving no edit summary, and marking the edit as minor, is a textbook example of pushing a point of view. Please use the relevant talk page to explain why one source is so much better than the other that it has to replace it as opposed to be added to it.

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you continue with the behaviour on Geography of Croatia, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article/topic ban. Thank you.

--Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)