User talk:Jonny84

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Jonny84, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of You (Schiller song)

I have nominated You (Schiller song), an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You (Schiller song). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. VG ☎ 02:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC) VG ☎ 02:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You song

I did a quick search and I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple sources independent of the subject, so it might be best to go the route of a deletion review. Cirt (talk) 17:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Germans / Warsaw

An RfC has opened about this issue at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II#RfC: Nazi atrocities in Warsaw. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

The tone of this edit is quite uncivil. If you would like to retain editing privileges on this site I suggest you familiarize yourself with our behavior policies. Thanks. --Chris (talk) 23:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me who connected the discussion unnecessarily with "right wing organizations". And if he act the fool, he shouldn't be wondered about answers like this. Maybe you should send your request to the originator. Thanks. --Jonny84 (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Armorial of the Holy Roman Empire

About this edit. Sorry but they Upper Silesia had other dukes. See Duchy of Bytom or Duchy of Opole. You can also look at the gallery commons:Upper Silesian Eagle. JDavid (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revert in templete

Hi. In call of this edit. I've given an actual flags of Silesia, and your image is unVerifiable file, and mostly old symbol. So the answer is simple, we shoulde give actual flags. What's the problem? JDavid (talk) 10:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that's the point: You simply did not insert a flag of Silesia. - You inserted flags of the Lower Silesian Voivodeship, the Opole Voivodeship, the Silesian Voivodeship and the Moravian-Silesian Region. Please stop with these misleading changes. --Jonny84 (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the point, so why You have put flag of the Provinz Schliesen? If it really is. It's not a sole silesian flag. You don't have a monopoly for the region. Please remeber that Silesia Province and Silesia are completely different notion. JDavid (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silesia Province was identical with Silesia. Province was only the name of its administration. --Jonny84 (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? With Cieszyn and Opava (Cieszyn Silesia and Opava Silesia)? And what with County Glatz? Western part of the province was always Lusatia. Was taken to the Silesia Province as punishment on Saxony for supporting Napoleon. Read the history mate. Please find some source about binding force of white-yellow flag, and then we can talk. JDavid (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If that fact escaped you: Teschen and Troppau became part of Austrian Silesia in 18th century. Which had its own administration, capital and symbols, and was independent from Silesia. --12:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I made also a question for you on commons:User_talk:Jonny84#File:Wappen_Schlesiens_.28Modern.29.png. JDavid (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:NBC Europe 02.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:NBC Europe 02.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leben… I Feel You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SONO (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) 11:23, 9 September 2013 (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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jonny84. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Silesians

Hello Johny. At the moment, I've left the Silesians article per your edit. As it was only a part-revert, I am happy to keep it like that whilst we discuss the situation. Firstly, I see from your user page background that you yourself may be a very example of the type of person that my edit practically denied the existence of. That may be down to me not knowing very much beyond the Slavo-centric basics. You see, I originate from ex-Yugoslavia (Bosnia-Herz) and to those of us with some basic knowledge, "śląski" is primarily related to southern Poland though I know that people declaring themselves Silesian are also part of the local population of the Slovak and Czech Republics. But then the plot thickens. Within Poland, locals are split on whether they declare Silesian or Polish, and if Polish do they still believe in Silesian self-determination or other (this is a similar question to Montenegrins vs Montenegrin Serbs with which I am more familiar). Either way, whether Czech, Slovak or Polish, it seems the entire population embraces the local region. As such, I see this extends to non-Slavic people and as you rightly say, Silesian Germans are a prominent example. I've read in the past suggestions that "related" categories should be abolished and I actually support this due to the never-ending complications and disagreements over where to draw the line. The Silesians article is comprehensive and therefore examines the region, who lives there and so on. This gives the place a sense of regionalism akin to Switzerland with its various language zones. With this, we can do several things. This ranges from modifying the section to say "Slavic Silesians/Germanic Silesians, bla bla", or we could remove the section altogether (as well as various other things). Can I have your thoughts on this one? Thanks. --OJ (talk) 11:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hala Ludowa

Hi Johnny,

While the photo is not one I think fit for reference on Wikipedia, please take a look at this. I think it will help you see something more than a circle.

https://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/1080113/258240512/stock-photo-the-dome-of-hala-stulecia-centennial-hall-also-known-as-hala-ludowa-people-s-hall-in-wroclaw-258240512.jpg

Note that this history is rather well known in Poland. I am going to have a good friend of mine who is first language polish have a look to see if there is an appropriate polish reference as well. Even if not in english, a second source that could be google translated might help people with this particular piece of history.

Regards,

Maurice MQuinn (talk) 23:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provide sources, you know how it works on Wikipedia.. --Jonny84 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnny,

Unquestionably I should have provided a source immediately. Frankly I am glad you challenged me; it was a rushed edit and the discussion has improved the article.

I am, however, quite curious: Do you see the shape in the building now? I was impressed with the Architectural inclusion. That says something for a Structural Engineer, lol.

Take care, see you around the web,

Maurice — Preceding unsigned comment added by MQuinn (talk • contribs) 12:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Album Edyta Gorniakpolish cover.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Album Edyta Gorniakpolish cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cover Kiss Me Feel Me japanese cover.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cover Kiss Me Feel Me japanese cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 11:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Edyta Gorniak - Anything - Music video.jpg

The file File:Edyta Gorniak - Anything - Music video.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The screenshot of the music video doesn't enhance readers' understanding of the song, and the music video is already well understood. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. George Ho (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Album Edyta Gorniakpolish cover.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Album Edyta Gorniakpolish cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Album Edyta Gorniakpolish cover.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Album Edyta Gorniakpolish cover.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Jonny84. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jonny84. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Morgenstund (Schiller album) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Morgenstund (Schiller album), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 14:06, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Morgenstund (Schiller album) has been accepted

Morgenstund (Schiller album), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

— Stevey7788 (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Summer in Berlin (album)

Hello, Jonny84,

Thank you for creating Summer in Berlin (album).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for this article. It is interesting it is being released today. It needs several (independent) reviews to meet the requirements of WP:NMUSIC.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 06:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:NBC Europe 01.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NBC Europe 01.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --E-960 (talk) 16:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, there is no country called "Kresy", especially not in English. The country's names you were looking for are: Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic (!) --Jonny84 (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jedlice

Jonny84, I would ask that you refrain from additions that have a strong POV character, for one this location has more about it's history than the German period, after all the name Jedlitze is a Germanized version of the original Slavic place name... kind of like Leipzig or Berlin for that matter. Also, you wrote in the article "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" however as noted in the article itself this name is disputed: "Hermann Weisert has argued in a study on imperial titulature that, despite the claims of many textbooks, the name "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" never had an official status and points out that documents were thirty times as likely to omit the national suffix as include it." So, again you are driving a very particular POV on to this and other articles, and promoting disputed facts and controversial facts. Also, what makes you statements very questionable that even within the HRE, the region was part of the Kingdom of Bohemia and Hungry, again facts that shoot down the idea that these were some eternal German lands, and the population was still mixed until the end of the 18th century. --E-960 (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pls consider, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion WP:ONUS. --E-960 (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jedlitze was founded by Prussian King Frederick the Great in his lifetime, it's dubious it's a slavic foundation or Germanized version, as this village didn't existed before.. I#m sorry to upset you with historic facts and not supporting your gut feeling. --Jonny84 (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the information out as undue, and started a discussion on the talk page. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:32, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice you are free to delete

Jonny84 please just slow down and take a breath. Wikipedia is a cooperative editing environment, and that means discussing issues with people you may not agree with. But we all need to try and remain civil, especially when we are most angered. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editing privileges revoked

Special:Permalink/1082789570#Vandalism by E-960

Your editing privileges have been revoked, for the reasons given on the Noticeboard. You can ask people for them back on this page, but such requests are unlikely to succeed if you continue to show that you do not know the difference. Uncle G (talk) 03:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G Blocking me for an expiration time of indefinite is clearly an abuse of your admin rights, just mentioning.. Especially as I didn't edited any article in the last hours... --Jonny84 (talk) 04:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "time out". This is preventing future damage to the encyclopaedia by someone who does not recognize what is and is not vandalism in others and who does not recognize vandalism when xe does it xyrself. I add that requests for restoration of editing privileges along the lines of Special:Diff/1082788219 are unlikely to succeed, too. Uncle G (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G 1) Oh.. I'm a user here since 17 years (!), do you really want to claim, that you have to block me permament to prevent Wikipedia?! (Doesn't make much sense) This is just a personal abuse by you. Users usually get blocked only for a few hours, even for worse things. So Wikipedia have to be prevented from users who are expanding articles with verified informations? Seriously? 2) You blocked me after contributing to articles with sources (just to remind it: Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources), which were reverted with dubious arguments (there was nothing wrong or false in this edits).. That gives a very bad image, especially to Wikipedia.. I'm feeling very mistreatded here.. 3) This could be considered as a provocation and an offense (!) to me by you.. Instead of de-escalating.. This don't look like a good move by an admin.. I'm hoping you will show consideration to that by your own.. ;) --Jonny84 (talk) 06:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am an administrator and I endorse this block. Any editor who adds utter garbage like Mnichus [ˈmnixus] (German: Münchhausen) is just a tiny village without history and territorial belonging and without interest to this encyclopedia has voluntarily given up their right to edit this encyclopedia. That edit is shockingly bad and incomprehensible to me. Cullen328 (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G @Cullen328 But this [1] and all the others, isn't shocking you? Right? Another user was calling it personal bias.. This was an expanding of a stub article with good intention and it just got reverted, because I didn't mention 10th century Poland in an 18th century established village (!) callin it undue.. Nobody cares about this POV-pushing.. That is seriously nonsense.. --Jonny84 (talk) 10:50, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior and attempts to exact some kind of revenge for perceived slights are out of bounds. I endorse the indefinite block. You will not be unblocked without a clear repudiation on your part of your recent behavior. As long as you blame everybody else for your troubles, you will not be unblocked. Acroterion (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Acroterion This was 1 (One !) edit, which wasn't repeated by me another time, how could you claim, that my behaviour is out of bonds?

I'm asking another time relating to this edit by E-960.. How could a 18th century established village belong to Piast Poland and the Bohemian Crown, if it doesn't existed in that time? That is garbage. That's like saying, that Washington D.C. belonged to the Native Americans in 12th century.. I'm trying to describe the correct history in an article and now you are saying me, that I'm not interested in sensible and serious contributing to Wikipedia? That is out of bonds. --Jonny84 (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Address your own behavior, both the vandalism and the lengthy and time-wasting attempts to argue with everybody else and to blame them for your troubles. That ANI thread does you no credit at all. If you are just here to treat Wikipedia as a battleground, you will remain blocked. Acroterion (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you all @Uncle G @Cullen328 @Acroterion , how this bias, which started it all, seems to be not a problem or why this behaviour is ignored? I'm expecting a serious answer. --Jonny84 (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has been all explained to you already Jonny84. Please revisit [2] - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this arguments included a lot of false statements, so I think I haven't to agree on that, as I'm interested into a Wikipedia with reliable sourced informations. Even starting the history only with Poland smells a bit like pov-pushing of communist propaganda, which claimed Old Piast lands.. How about Moravia? --Jonny84 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit by me was reverted with the question, where the place is to find in the source, while it's clearly included in the source. And I'm the one who is making trouble? --Jonny84 (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revertings

@Uncle G @Cullen328 @Acroterion I'm starting it again from new.. As an user, who is interested in a good development of Wikipedia and articles with reliable sources (Wikipedia:Assume good faith), I'm asking clearly what was the problem in this edit and why it got deleted? Even the corrected German place name was revoked.. I'm seriously interested in solutions.

Also I'm suggesting to bring it into Wikipedia:WikiProject History, for a further audience.

If there will be no answer, I will have to assume, that the admins are not interested in any solutions or a future development of Wikipedia with reliable content or preventing it from harms like unsourced claimings. --Jonny84 (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits (with an S) Jonny84 --> here [3] and here [4] here [5], here [6], here [7], here [8] etc. You are inserting duplicate text into multiple articles about small Polish villages. The text is not only WP:UNDUE for such small places but also phrased the way that might suggest to readers that the area where these villages are located was always German, which is not true. Again, the issue was explained to you already --> [9] - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jonny84. Sorry I have to agree with GizzyCatBella, this issue has been explained to you multiple times by several different editors. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:38, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) How can a 18th century foundation can be related with Piast dynasty? I still don't see any logical explanation.. 2) All these villages were founded at the same time, even if the text was similar it was still correct.. Now I want to ask for justification of deleting correct and sourced information. This problem is just made up by you two.. Something that didn't existed before, simply can't have a more diverse history.. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, after your reverts two centuries of Prussian history are missing out in this articles and you are accusing me of one-sided edits? I brought balance in.. But now it's one-sided mentioning only Poland, like it's been there always.. If you don't see the contradiction in your arguments and edits, then I'm also sorry.. This is simply pov and nothing more.. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:35, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The solution, Jonny84, is for you to cease coming at this from the standpoint of "I'm right and everyone else is wrong, wrong, wrong." The nature of a consensus-based environment is that sometimes you are going to be on the wrong side of consensus, and that's when you lose gracefully and move on. No one can compel you to agree with everyone else. But if you are constitutionally incapable of accepting that the consensus view prevails all the same, then you are a poor fit for the encyclopedia, no matter how many years/edits you've put in. Ravenswing 15:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Before this, user E-960 was pointed out in a former discussion not to erase sentences and to expand articles.. By other users.. He ignored it all.. And moved on with erasing, and he even started to ask bots for help.. Making it escalating.. And now I'm the one who is incapable of accepting..? Looks like simple dissimilarity... Besides I'm the only on who was working with reliable sources instead of the others.. Nevermind, if Wikipedia don't want reputations.. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further you didn't answered the question, how it's satisfied to erase an expansion of information with reliable sources? I'm not the one here who ignores this.. --Jonny84 (talk) 17:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is obligated to personally satisfy you on this point or any other. JBL (talk) 18:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a revert of sourced edits, there should be an explanation of such actions.. But it's kinda interesting how there is no reaction from any of the admins on all the multiple times E-960 reverted my edits or others in the past.. --Jonny84 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What E-960 did or did not do, and how people did or did not deal with him, is not the issue here, and no longer any concern of yours. What is the issue here is your own refusal to take responsibility for your own actions; your edit warring, your vandalism, your lack of good faith. It was explained to you by several editors and admins, several times over, that E-960's edits did not constitute vandalism. You refused to listen. You were admonished for personal attacks. You refused to own up to making them. You were caught performing vandalism yourself. You could not bring yourself to admit fault, instead claiming that you were being "bullied" and repeating "what about the other guy?" over and over.

JBL was dead on: no one is obligated to personally satisfy you on this point or any other, and within a couple of days (if not sooner), everyone will tire of waiting for you to stop baying at the moon. It has been explained to you what you need to do to have your editing privileges restored. If it is more important to you to die on this hill, not back down, and have the last word, so be it. Ravenswing 04:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After all, this is the website of the Ozimek commune with the history of Jedlice.. [10] It states clearly that Jedlice was founded in the 18th century (!).. If I'm starting my edits with the period of foundation, how could I miss any period in this article? --Jonny84 (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something that source says an ironworks was built there in the 18th century, but doesn't specifically mention when the area was founded. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 19:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It says ″1784″ just on top, this is the year of first mentioning (But we can also have it even with more details from any Prussian document). Foundation of the iron works was also the foundation of the place, because there was no settlement before (It's easy to check with any historic map [11]). Jedlice was an settlement for workers of the iron works, which even consisted of a few houses only. So.. There is even a map of the projected settlement. Also we can find on the website of the commune: Creutzthal 1776, Münchhausen 1773, Antonia 1781, Königliche Hütte Malapane 1754, Hüttendorf Malapane 1762, all this places are no medieval villages and they have never been related with Bohemian Crown, Piast dynasty or whatever.. --Jonny84 (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be drifting into WP:OR here. We can't use multiple sources to make original ideas, unless a source states categorically what the foundation date was then we can't say it either. Historical maps suffer much the same issue, if someone publishes statements on the map we could use that but we can't use our own interpretation of it. Also historical maps are poor sources, especially the further you go back in time. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 00:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]