User talk:Jonny84

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



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)

AfD nomination of You (Schiller song)[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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)

You song[edit]

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)

Expulsion of Germans / Warsaw[edit]

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)


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)

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)

Armorial of the Holy Roman Empire[edit]

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)

Revert in templete[edit]

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)

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

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

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9[edit]

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)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg 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)


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)

Hala Ludowa[edit]

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.

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.


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

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

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 (talkcontribs) 12:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)