User talk:Kierzek/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Minor Edits/ Nazi Germany

Hey Kierzek, I wanted to thank you for your insight as to editing Nazi Germany pages and wanted to ask you more about what is considered a minor tweak. I have been following pages for some time now with my class and I wanted to know if a tweak meant something like adding a sentence or two or something more minuscule, like adding a punctuation mark. I bring it up because I am particularly interested in the representation of the Nazi regime on Wikipedia. Now knowing from what you said that these pages do not need a lot of work, it made me wonder if I did come across large edits to content, would that be coming from a place of objectivity if the pages are already in good standing. I guess though, I don't know what pages are in good standing, so is there a way to tell which ones are GA? Thanks for your help! Taylor6644 (talk) 23:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Taylor6644

For GA rated articles look for this icon in the top right corner of the article; the talk page will also tell you the rating status of a page. Minor tweaks can take the form of anything from punctuation to adjusting a sentence for flow to adding or changes a sentence or two, etc. Nothing is set in stone, but it is rare there would be a large addition to an article rated GA or above. Kierzek (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that information! One of the pages I have been following, Gleichschaltung, has me particularly interested in the objectivity of its editors. Some edits to me seem like they are more than just minor even when an editor claims they are, so that information really helps in identifying what a trustworthy edit appears to be. I don't think this certain page though is GA , so would you say that a non-GA article still has room for larger and more content-driven edits to be made without it being immediately suspect of bias? Thanks again, it's really helping me understand what I am looking at and I appreciate it. Taylor6644 (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Taylor6644

On this day, 8 years ago...

Hey, Kierzek. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Mz7 (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, seems like long ago now. Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Rejected draft

So given that you expressed opposition to something I'd been working on for a year without knowing about in the last few days on the JFK talk page, then I know if I'd created this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Early_life_of_John_F._Kennedy, then you would have been one of the chief architects trying to ensure its demise. Fortunately you don't have to worry about putting your war helmet on; it's already been rejected. I'd surmise why but I'm apparently too busy drafting another school paper according to that review there. - Informant16 May 25, 2017

If you're hella confused right now, this is in response to this thread. Might be best to reply there just to keep the conversation centralized. Primefac (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Primefac. In reply to you Informant - I have not expressed any "opposition" to any draft of yours and have not been involved in it being rejected. We did have a discussion recently on the JFK talk page about improving that article and edits for concision; branch articles and sub-articles in general were also discussed. Although I was not involved in your draft rejection, if asked I would agree that a "personal life" article is not needed, for the same reason the article on the "Personal Life of Marilyn Monroe" was deleted some time ago: content fork, included trivial information and not needed. Note: In addition, in reviewing your draft now, I must say that some of your cited sources would be considered non-WP:RS (such as the "dailycaller.com"). Kierzek (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm aware that you were not involved, but given what you've been against before this occurred, I don't feel its too far out to assume how you feel. Primefac should be thanked for a cool username and that's it. I wouldn't have come on your talk page if I wasn't seeking your opinion on the matter. The article focused on his early life, which given the various illnesses that he had, as well as overseas activity from a young age, I found appropriate. But since I had a feeling that you'd oppose such a sub article creation, then I figured your day would be brightened over its cancellation. - Informant16 May 25, 2017

Not "brightened" over something like that. What would be helpful is bringing the main JFK article up to GA; something I have been wanting to do for several years now, but have not had the time and could use help on the matter from other editors. Kierzek (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't like sub articles having to do with JFK. You've said that and I know it. I'd be guessing that you probably are throwing some party in celebration of the draft's decline. And realize that I'm not bothered by you having problems with certain things I write, but it's the fact that you've sworn off its creation and that I know that no matter what changes I make to it, you'll have a problem with it still for its existence. - Informant16 May 25, 2017

Informant16, I think it's time to put away the tin foil hat. You wrote a draft, it was declined, and you've been given a few ideas from a few different people on how to proceed. I agree with Kierzek that improving the existing JFK article to GA would be the best course of action. If you keep up the grandstanding and passive-aggressive attitude, you'll probably find that people's patience with you quickly dies out. Primefac (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Primefac, I'm not quite sure what passive-aggressiveness I displayed. Should I be happy that something I worked on is being advocated by you and him to not even exist? Like anything I do in regards to improving it will just be declined anyway. Then you're saying help improve the existing article, after I just got told that my essay edits are not good enough. Informant16 May 25, 2017

Informant16 You are misinformed. A rejection at AfC isn't always a "this can't exist on WP." Often it's a "This is not ready to be in mainspace because of this policy/guideline/rule" which is the case here. Work on the tone and removing some of the trivia and we can reassess. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Chrissymad, Kierzek and Primefac expressed opposition to the article for existing and want me to edit the main JFK just so I can have my edits reverted there. I'm aware of it having a place on Wikipedia, but what's the point of trying to improve it if they're saying they are going to have a problem with it no matter what I do? Informant16 May 25, 2017

I expressed no opposition to the draft, Informant16. Your original post made it sound like your draft was only declined for being written too much like an essay. I pointed out the main JFK article could still use improvement. I genuinely have no feelings about your draft or its existence, other than requesting that it be written in an encyclopaedic tone. The suggestion to edit the main article was purely to offer another option. However, it's becoming clear that your opinions are the only one that matter, so I think I'll bow out of this particular conversation unless my presence is requested. Primefac (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Please take any further discussion on this matter, if need be, to the draft talk page. Enough has been said herein. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

SS/German Police

Kierzek, I have a general question. I've noticed in certain articles (I can't recall which ones right now) a tendency to discuss the actions of the SS on one hand, and on the other the actions of the Gestapo, Kripo or (to lesser extent) Orpo as if they were separate from the SS. What's your take? Maybe I'm just splitting hairs, but I think the relationship of the SS to the German police was a defining trait of the Nazi state, and it's important to clarify (in an encyclopedic fashion) that relationship whenever possible. Thanks. Scaleshombre (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Well briefly, the Allgemeine SS (general SS) controlled the Gestapo, Kripo and Orpo. On 17 June 1936 all police forces throughout Germany were united, following Hitler's appointment of Himmler as Chef der Deutschen Polizei, who was also Reichsführer-SS. It is not clear how much of this power would technically reside in the office of the Reichsführer-SS and that of Chief of Police; were those duties to be split up. Reinhard Heydrich was chief of the Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service; SD) and in April 1934, the Gestapo (appointed same by Himmler). In 1936, Heydrich was made chief of the SiPo (Gestapo & Kripo) and later in September 1939, the RSHA. The Gestapo (secret police) and Kripo (criminal police) became departments of the RSHA and the SiPo was officially dissolved. So, the Gestapo was a sub-office of the SS. As was the Kripo. The Orpo was controlled and run by members of the SS, but not a direct department. Kierzek (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's all semantics, but would you say that after 1936, the SiPo was essentially the plainclothes detective arm of the SS? Scaleshombre (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not saying the interaction and relationships should not be explained where necessary; the above is only to give a brief overview of the relationships. Himmler had overall control over all "plainclothes detectives", through the Kripo; the Gestapo were not "detectives" as we think of them, in the classic sense, but they would operate in "plainclothes", mainly in the West and Germany proper. In the East they were known to wear SS uniforms. But, that was not a hard and fast rule. Kierzek (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

National Socialism

This has been taken to the talk page too many times now. And since you're not willing to compremise with us, i cant really find any solution here. National Socialism is even used by Britannica, mainstream determination has no play in ideological representation if history says otherwise. Magnus2108 (talk) 22:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

It has not. I have been editing the page for years and further it has been challenged per WP:BRD. You need to follow it accordingly and stop edit warring. BTW - Britannica is not an RS source for citing. Kierzek (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives

Point taken. The only reason I added Larson's cites is because I was afraid the book itself wouldn't be accepted as a serious-enough source, given that it's popular history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Concerning the Civil Rights Address/Report to the American People on Civil Rights

Hello Kierzek. I saw your message on my talk page and thought I better come over here to explain myself. I didn't mean to display any WP:OWNERSHIP or offend you with my unilateral edit. I had removed the information because I intended to overhaul that portion of the page today and I didn't see how it would help me or cover anything that wouldn't be discussed in sources I planned on using. Unfortunately, something else came up and I wasn't able to attend to that today. Noting the irony you've pointed out in having an article on a speech that hardly discusses the content of said speech and the fact that my overhaul will have to wait for now, I've restored the removed info. For reference, I was intending on discussing the speech in the article in a manner similar to how I did in On the Mindless Menace of Violence (this is the only speech article on Wikipedia that I know of to receive FA status which is why I'm now using it as a model, though I'm open to other suggestions). I hope this clears up any of your concerns. I also want to take this time to ask you if you would be interested in co-nominating the article for FA status should it be ready within the next month or two. I currently have one article already at FAC and, if its anything like my last FAC, will probably take that amount of time to pass through. You seem to be keeping close tabs on the article and are knowledgeable enough on the subject to participate in the process and respond to other editors concerns. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Addendum: If you think Dallek's book has enough detail to help fully explain the substance of the speech in the article and wish to integrate its information to the fullest, perhaps we can coordinate our edits? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the email and explanation. I just looked at the way you did the "Summary" of the speech section in the "On the Mindless Menace of Violence" article and that is a good way to present it. I will look at Dallek's book again and also want to look at Thurston Clarke's book on JFK to see if he has any thing which may be used; I have not had a chance yet. As far as FAC, I will be glad to help out, as I can. My problem is time. I have not been as productive on in-depth content writing, and mostly been doing copy edit work and adding small detail with cites, as I have not had the time to really invest in more. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Responsibility for the Holocaust

Greetings Kierzek - Took a look at that Responsibility for the Holocaust page. It's a real monster -- large and in need of work. Not sure I have the time to deal with this now. What I will say however is that the most recent work from Laurence Rees (The Holocaust: A New History) pretty much lays this argument to rest. He convincingly shows how the process developed over time and how the Nazi Endlösung radicalized according to opportunism, much of which was provided by the war. As you well know, scholars like Browning, Bessel, Cesarini, Friedlander, Hilberg, and Longerich (to name a few) have already proven the case that it was a combination of intentionalism and functionalism < more of the latter however. As much as I respect the scholarship and opinion of Lucy Dawidowicz on the Holocaust and some of the other intentionalists, their position is no longer very tenable. --Obenritter (talk) 17:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Kierzek (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Per the original assignment of my mission, I did at least make a dent for now since I had a few hours free time today. Feel free to jump in Sir.--Obenritter (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a look. My problem is time. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

For the most part, after pecking away for a few months, I've completed the assignment you gave me with this one. It is a much-improved article in IMHO and I hope it stays in orderly condition. Police it accordingly. I'll try to pop in like I've been doing for a mental break from the toils of academic research. Feel free to clean-up my Scheisse-Grammatik as usual.--Obenritter (talk) 02:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Excellent work, Obenritter, it is much improved. I know You put a lot of time and research effort into it and Wikipedia is better for it. I will keep it on my watch list and check your "grammar", as you say. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 13:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for tolerating and humoring me on Nebe, even when I was clearly wrong and you were clearly right. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 03:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Kierzek (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Dear Kierzek, thanks a lot for the tip and the kind words. I'll take your advice. Cheers!--A.S. Brown (talk) 21:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Propaganda

Hi! Remember Talk:Ideology_of_the_SS/Archive_1#Photo? The article German aid to Soviet civilians in World War II also has a picture from a Propagandakompanie (top right). Do you think the photo should be removed, or that we should mention that this is propaganda? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Mr. Potato. Yes, I have looked at the photo and the original description basically states: "Soviet Union.- Kradmelder (NCO) in medical care (first aid by putting on a bandage) of an injured Soviet woman (refugee), next to the woman a cold-protected toddler". Clearly the woman would not be a "Soviet" "refugee", it is propaganda description. It is clearly a Heer Propagandakompanie photo. I don't want to get involved in that article as I believe it would be a time sink and it is a can of worms. I will say that the photo should at least be noted to be a Propagandakompanie photo, and link to the article Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops on same. I have a problem with the whole article "German aid to Soviet civilians in World War II", and stand by my comments on its talk page. Good luck, Kierzek (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I have removed the propaganda picture. In its current form the best solution is to delete the article imho. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I agree the article is very problematic. Kierzek (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have redirected it. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I read the talk page comments and agree with the points made and the re-direct, as well. Kierzek (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings

...to you and yours, from Canada's Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope you have a good holiday up there, as well. Kierzek (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

David Powers Article Bibliography

Thank you for the edits to the Dave Powers material I added, and for creating the Bibliography section. However, the Dallek book I used for my citations was not An Unfinished Life, but rather his Camelot's Court: Inside the Kennedy White House. It was published by HarperCollins in 2013, and the page numbers I cited were pp. 109-110. As I am not an experienced editor, I am unsure how to properly fix the Bibliography and source, so I thought I would let you know. I was surprised at the severe paucity of information in the article regarding Powers's background and experiences and role with Kennedy, and felt that some cited additional information would be helpful for a general reader. Again, thank you for the edits! 70.145.229.162 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, I will fix it and add that book. Thanks for the note and keeping editing. Kierzek (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kierzek!

Happy New Year!

Kierzek,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Ceannlann gorm (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks, "let's hope its a good one", as John Lennon sang and Happy New Year to you. Kierzek (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing Hermann Göring

Hi Kierzek, I just tried to rewrite a small part of this article. Took the effort to research a source and put in the right inline citation format, which I hadn't done before. From reading Template:Harvard_citation_documentation#Shortened_footnote I saw I have to edit the sources section, too. I did this first and you reverted my addition after two minutes. If it is obligatory to edit an article (change and source for change) in one go please have it say so on the template page or somewhere else. Ah, frustrating. I'll leave it here. Happy new year. 92.201.31.150 (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, you only said it was for a "later addition", which means nothing and gave no time frame. Also, in looking at the source you "added", it would be a primary source, which is to be used with caution and considered inferior to good WP:RS secondary sources. WP:CS, provides citing info. Please read the links for guidance. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hello. About this edit, I was wondering since the previous sentence expresses the percentage in numerals (...82 percent), is it not better to be consistent in the following sentence that talks about the same thing? Or perhaps I am just missing something (I understand you marked it "grammar" as it is presumably incorrect to start a sentence with numerals). I tried to take a look again at MOS:NUMERAL but it doesn't really say much. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello: I understand your point, but with that said, the sentence should not start with a numeral; the sentence needs to be tweaked, otherwise. Kierzek (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!! Alex Shih (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Unconstructive and grammatically incorrect changes to Marilyn Monroe

This change you made to Marilyn Monroe, including this: "Her subsequent roles included a critically acclaimed performance in Bus Stop (1956) and acting in the first independent production of MMP, The Prince and the Showgirl (1957), she won a Golden Globe for Best Actress for Some Like It Hot (1959)." are unconstructive. This is not only a run-on sentence, but is also grammatically incorrect. Please double check your work before posting. Kim Leung (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Really, most of what you changed is what language was well vetted and passed FA rating for the article; you have added un-needed verbiage, especially in the WP:Lead, which is only to be a summary of the main body; I suggest YOU re-think your edits. Kierzek (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

David Powers Article

A few weeks ago I added some cited material to flesh out the article on David Powers, and you were very helpful in providing edits and assistance, for which I am thankful. Recently, an anonymous editor has started added more and more material to the article regarding Powers and the JFK assassination, specifically conspiracy theories. I believe that this is the same anonymous editor who was banned for adding a large amount of material with dubious sourcing to the David Powers article, all regarding JFK assassination theories. I deleted this editor's most recent addition with an explanation, but within a few hours they had posted it again. Would you look at the article and see what you think? I've seen too many otherwise good articles cluttered up with irrelevant trivia from editors (assassination conspiracy hobbyists), and I'm worried that this article will turn into something similar. Apparently, the same editor has been adding similar assassination conspiracy-related material to the Kenneth O'Donnell article as well. Thank you for your time. 70.145.229.162 (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I will have a look and keep up the good work. Kierzek (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello

And good to "see" you again. Do you think we need a talk page discussion of the Kennedy speech thing, or work it out in edits? And there is a new WP:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement started by editor Coffee, it's actually accomplishing quite a bit (join us, join us, as they say). Enjoy. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

My point was the speech was more than just a change in policy of the administration as your original change stated; it was a conveyance to the general public that this was a moral issue; it was not directed at "the movement" groups and what they thought at the time (already a moral movement to them); that is why your original change was too narrow in scope and impact. It is better now that you added some words, but next time, discuss first before reverting. Kierzek (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Martin Bormann

The DNA testing showed it was Martin Bormann's remains but not how the red clay got there. Watch episode 7, season 2 of 'hunting hitler' for sources from CIA / FBI an Paraguay government files that said he was still alive, adopted a daughter in Chile and was buried in Paraguay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.99.35.105 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but the WP:RS sources do not agree and I see your revert was already reverted by someone else. Also, although entertaining, the "History" Channel is not considered an RS source. Thanks for writing, however. I don't blame you, but the writers and producers who crank out this stuff. Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Nine years of editing

Hey, Kierzek. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! It's not always a easy process, but it is a worthwhile project, this thing of ours. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

March on Washington Photo:

Hi Kierzek, I noticed you removed a photo from the March on Washington page because it was in the planning section and was taken after the march. If you look closely, the date of that picture was June 22, 1963, before the march. It was taken after a pre-march meeting between the organizers and President Kennedy. President Kennedy is not in the picture because he left for trip to Europe. If I'm not missing anything, would you please undo your removal of the picture? Much thanks. Please let me know if I am mistaken or there is another basis for removal. Thanks, Laborhistorian108

That's right. I was originally thinking of the post march, White House photo. I corrected it. Kierzek (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of 1981 Das Boot movie references

I've deleted the references to the 1981 move on here. The comments made by the New York Times and others about the film are pertininent, and WP:NPOV requires that we present various sides of a story, if there are good sources. The New York Times is an excellent source, and I see no problems with the others cited in these few lines.

However, the points are not pertinent here because: 1. these sources have been copied word for word from the 1981 movie article page, and 2. These sources would fit only on the 1981 movie page. It makes no sense for it to be on the tv series page either. It's like putting reception of an original movie on a remake page. That's not even good logic.

I think this needs some discussion, as we now have three opinions on the material: two for inclusion, and one for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.214.227 (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted back to prior because it was well cited to RS source, was not POV pushing and is clearly relevant for background information and given the fact the TV series is a continuation of the movie events. And one can use wording and sentences from other articles, as long as they are not copied from the source itself, "word for word"; one only has to state attribution in the edit summary; otherwise your revert is of "pertinent" information for the reader. BTW - this discussion should be continued on the talk page for the article. Kierzek (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Re: The Rottenführer article

I just want to clarify that I do not disagree that he is a SS-Rottenfuher, I believe he never served as a concentration camp guard due the fact that he does not wear the SS-TV deaths head insignia as well as his rank tab. My disagreement was with the photo description see he would wear a uniform similar to this [1] (someone who actually served at Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp complex) rather than the tabs he is wearing.(Shadwash (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC))

That seems to have been your point based on your edit summary and that is why I addressed that point on your talk page. It is true he does not have the right sided collar tab of the SS-TV, but that does not mean he was not assigned to the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp complex. As you may know, at these camps, the Politische Abteilung (Political department) was one of the five departments and made up of Gestapo, Kripo and Sicherheitsdienst (SD) men. Although it would be considered WP:OR at this point, I would say he probably was assigned to that office. He also could have been on temporary assignment there; many SS men rotated in and out of the camps; "convalescing" Waffen-SS soldiers, included (which, shoots down the "separation of service" argument some former SS officers have tried to make over the years). Remember the photo used for the Rottenfuher article only states he "served" there at that camp, NOT that he was a member of the SS-TV (a camp guard); don't miss that important point. Therefore, the photo should remain up. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest the article talk page. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Wiki-cookie

Having a party tonight and sharing a cookie with you for your help over the years

.

I hit twenty four thousand edits tonight and became a senior editor on Wikipedia. Thank for your help and support on Wikipedia. -O.R.^Comms 04:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, well you know how this place is, some party guests you enjoy, and others you want to show the door. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Joseph Berchtold

Hello I added some award dates and the Blood Order badge number in your article using Mike Millers 2015 book, hope you don't mind Troy von Tempest (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I tweaked it to match existing style and information conveyed. Kierzek (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'm genuinely trying to do the right thing here on wiki. I admit to being confused by the trivial/menial award thing, if you look at my own talk page I have had some not-professional comments, well, in my opinion [but I'm not a lawyer :)]. I appreciate what you said on the Ernst Röhm page about not adding every single thing or award or whatever to a page, I get that! What I don't get is how do I know what is trivial/menial and what isn't so I don't get any more aggressive and threatening messages/rebukes? I'm not glorifying Nazi's, quite the opposite. I have 14 Facebook groups and on one we have over 1,000 blocked members who are neo-Nazis, deniers etc, I loathe and detest them. I'm just a stickler for factual content. I do understand that too much factual content maybe too much on wiki. What further confuses me is you have edited pages where these very same so-called trivial/menial awards are present, yet you haven't seemed to be as motivated to delete them and fire off aggressive warnings. I was always of the idea that if there is a stand-alone wiki article, it would be okay to link to that article if relevant, otherwise what's the point of the stand-alone page? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult or recalcitrant here, I am looking for guidance as I have a mountain of reference material that I'm happy to use to contribute to wiki (mainly, but by no means exclusively to Germany 1914-1945). Re your clean-up on the Fritz Bracht page, is it better to just put the year of the receiving of an award rather than the dd/mm/yyyy if that's available? I think that's what you did, if that's the case, I'll leave it at the year only rather than the whole date (if that's available). Sorry to bother you and I know you're probably pretty busy. Thanks again for any help you have and/or can offer meTroy von Tempest (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I really appreciate that

Kierzek, especially from such a long-standing and thoughtful colleague. Unfortunately, WP:SNOW would be the most optimistic outcome. I don't think my nerves could stand it, even by some wild chance such a thing came to pass. Hugely appreciate your confidence in me though. Simon Irondome (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank-you for you kind words, response from dcw2003=

Dcw2003 (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Thank-you so much for your kind words about my work on the PT-109 sinking in John F. Kennedy's wiki bio. I will be pleased to help in any way I can. Like you, I am interested in Naval history, and had an Uncle who served as an officer on a minesweeper, the USS Chandler (DD-206), in the invasion of the Philippines in January of 1945, where he was involved in the rescue of 250 sailors from the minesweepers USS Long and USS Hovey, sunk by kamikazee aircraft on January 6, 1945 in Lingayen Gulf. Like you, I have some legal background as well, but have worked as a technical writer most of my life. Like Kennedy, I was on the swim team at a college in Boston, and was fascinated with Kennedy's distance swimming on August 2-8, 1943 to save his crew. I also majored in International Relations and Political Theory as did Kennedy. The book I quoted from, PT-109 by William Doyle was written in 2015, and is likely the most contemporary and comprehensive telling of the PT-109 story available to the public in bookstores.

Thank-you again for your kind words and I will help to assist you in any way I can. David Wasserman

Thank-you for you kind words, response from dcw2003=

Dcw2003 (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC) I have moved the design document of PT-59 to the left and beneath the infobox on the right, where I think it looks better. I preferred not to make the file point to the directory from which I found it because online directorys have a way of disappearing, and then the photos on Wiki dissapear with them. If you can't see the design diagram now properly, let me know, but I'd prefer you leave it where it is for now. It took alot of work to find it and to upload it. Thanks for your help, but I'd prefer you give me some time to finish the article. I appreciate your help as always.

Streicher and sock puppets

Ah, very interesting. I don't pay regular attention to Wikipedia articles, but occasionally look at topics about which I know something. In this case, the sock puppet had added material from a most reliable source (my book on Streicher), so I had reasonable confidence in its accuracy. But given that it was material from my work that had been added, I probably should have left well enough alone, aside from the sock puppetry. Bytwerk (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Chi-Nu

Excuse me but, the sources from where the Chi-Nu Kai comes from is the same that I used for the Chi-Nu II. http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/09/23/type-3-chi-nu-upcoming-tier-4-medium-tank/ So why only the Chi-Nu Kai got added while the other didn't? + it does appear in the book by Tomczyk, Andrzej (2005). Japanese Armor Vol. 4 that is used as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nell Lucifer (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I fixed that with the Tomczyk book, which I checked and it only states, specifically, it was planned, from my review. You need to find a WP:RS cite for anything further; not using a blog or website, which does not have editorial oversight or has not been shown to have been recommended by or used for book citation by a historian, such as, Steven J. Zaloga. A gaming website site or page, is not considered RS, either. Kierzek (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

SS regiments

Hi, thanks for checking on that article [2]. I noticed that there are several other articles on similar topics, created by OR around the same time as this one and all with the same single reference (Yerger), e.g.:

• 4th SS Police Regiment
• Thirty Seventh SS-Abschnitt
• SS-Oberabschnitt Elbe

Since you have access to that book, could you have a quick look if the situation is similar there? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I used other RS sources to double check. I did not check Yerger, Mark C. "Allgemeine-SS: The Commands, Units, and Leaders of the General SS", as it had already been checked in Yeager's 1997 edition and clearly stated it was not mentioned in that edition of the book [3]. I used to own Yeager's book, but mine was also the 1997 edition and so it would have the same result of not being in said edition. I no longer own Yeager's book. I used it for basic information as to Allgemeine SS command and units, and the SS and police leader article and I still believe it can be useful for that, but I would use caution as to other information such as opinion. I no longer own or use Schiffer Publishing books for citing, to say the least. I rather not go into further opinion on that here. I would ask @Sturmvogel 66: if you have time can you check your 1997 edition of Yerger as to the units above? Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I've already rewritten 4th SS Police Regiment, both of the other two are in Yerger, but only with brief organizational histories and lists of commanders with their dates of tenure, for which I'd judge Yerger prefectly reliable. However, I'd AfD both of them as not being well covered enough to be notable. And most all of of the other Allegemeine SS articles should be evaluated using that same criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Sturmvogel 66, for checking and for the work done. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Axman

The only reason I cut him was that he was essentially a non-entity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, one could say that about others on the list, such as Hans Lammers and Cosima Wagner. Axman was the war-time leader of the Hitler Youth and was awarded the German Order, the highest decoration that the Nazi Party could bestow on an individual for his services to the Reich. I would rate him above Konstantin von Neurath, as well. Kierzek (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I only put in Wagner because of her influence on Hitler. I don't disagree about Lammers, purely a bureaucrat, but would probably put Neurath above Axman. No big deal either way, to be sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I am going to remove Lammers. Kierzek (talk) 23:23, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Boves massacre

I've done some work on the Boves massacre article now, as suggested by you. For the past 11 years the article stated the wrong date for the massacre, 8 September instead of 19 September! Got other things to do now but I will look into the massacre some more, and also in the second Boves one, in which 59 civilians were killed. Turismond (talk) 00:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Good; when you have time, please check Joachim Peiper's article for errors too, as to the above. Kierzek (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

The Peiper and Leibstandarte articles have the correct dates, I checked. I'm little surprised, given the divison's record, that there isn't a Category:War crimes of the 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler. Looking at another SS divison's track record in Italy, a Category:War crimes of the 16th SS Panzergrenadier Division Reichsführer-SS would, at this point, have at least four articles in it that I could think of. What would be your opinion on creating such categories? Turismond (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Check to see if done for any divisions/units. I personally don't see a problem doing it, but would like to know if any prior ones have been done. I don't know what opinion others may have. Kierzek (talk) 22:08, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Stein Observation

Looked at your recent edits on the Schutzstaffel page, and wanted to bring to your attention that the cited ISBN version that I have in my possession, contains the reference "it never became a serious rival to the Wehrmacht" on page 17 (which also accords the version available on Google books, https://books.google.com/books?id=-KEtPlNQJNgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+waffen+SS+stein&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD5NWhnt7dAhUH5YMKHeuuAwkQ6AEIKTAA#v=snippet&q=serious%20rival&f=false). --Obenritter (talk) 17:41, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt that, but the version I have has it on page 18 and he repeats it on page 287. When brought to my attention, I thought, heck, I must have made a typo error. But, after work I went home and checked my edition and it is stated on 287 and also page 18, as well. The one you link is not the edition I have, nor the one I cited. I will check the ISBN when I get home; I believe that is in order. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

BTW - I like that Thomas Childers book you recommended a while back. I obtained a copy and believe it is a good one volume work on the subject. Kierzek (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

No worries brother. Maybe you have the hardback version? Anyway -- that Childers book is very much focused on the seizure of power and the political developments thereof. I figured you'd enjoy it and find it useful. I also purchased the latest 2018 work edited by Gellately, The Oxford Illustrated History of the Third Reich. You'd find it a good resource in a number of ways as well. I was actually wondering if you purchased a copy of Stormtroopers: A New History of Hitler's Brownshirts by Daniel Siemens and whether or not it was worth buying. While I have passed it a few times at Barnes and Noble, I've been reluctant to pull the trigger. Back to the real world... --Obenritter (talk) 19:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I do have the hardback edition put out in 2002. I used to have an older used 1984 edition. I replaced it with a new 2002 edition. I have fixed the refs now. As to the other book you mentioned, by Daniel Siemens, I have not seen that one yet, so I cannot render a verdict on it. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Bavarian Political Police

Thanks for your work and clean up on Bavarian Political Police. I came across the subject when writing Max Troll (who, in turn, I came across when writing Karl Brunner (SS general)) and I was quite surprised to realise there wasn't an article on what was the first official stepping stone for Himmler and Heydrich in their quest to control the German police. I wonder if there is a source stating exactly that which could be used for a DYK? Turismond (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

You’re welcome, and I agree it was a good idea for an article and I’m glad you set the wheels in motion. Browder is the best authority on the subject and I will check his work about the point you bring up. Kierzek (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Reversals on Schutzstaffel

I was confused as to why you would keep reverting an agreed-on accessibility guideline, but now realize that you might have solely been referring to the italicization of "Waffen-SS." I read what you had to say about the subject on the article's talk page. You should have just said so in your edit summary, man. Also, an entire reversal because you don't agree with the italicization of a certain set of foreign words is a bit harsh, no?

You even linked WP:BRD in your second reversal, which states: "Revert an edit if it is not an improvement, and it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Consider reverting only when necessary. BRD does not encourage reverting, but recognizes that reversions happen. When reverting, be specific about your reasons in the edit summary and use links if needed."

Anyways, I'll refrain from giving my opinion on whether "Waffen-SS" requires italics or not. I was simply surprised and confused by the apparent lack of sound reason in both reversals. I'll meet you with italics=no. Take care. Jay D. Easy (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I explained the main reason why; not needed, no consensus and it already met MOS, per MOS:TEXT. Therefore, your changes to this GA rated article only un-necessarily added bytes and changes to the article, in the end. You did not heed my WP:BRD, nor @BMK: when he said you should discuss it on the talk page. You reverted again, leading to your 3 revert warning. In the future, please discuss first on a talk page and keep in mind the 3 revert rule; and remember MOS is a guideline and not a rule. The fact Waffen-SS was put in italics was a very minor point. Kierzek (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

SS-Begleitkommando des Führers

Hello: I've had a look at SS-Begleitkommando des Führers for you. I made only a few minor changes, but the article was in good shape. Good luck with the GAN.

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler

The page contains a number of errors. I'm unable to rewrite it. The main problem is a Holocaust definition. If it is extermination of Jews so Germanization doesn't belong there. If it is the whole Nazi genocide, so The Holocaust should be rewritten. But any definition includes Einsatzgruppen.Xx236 (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I am just now reading this, and I disagree the article/"page contains a number of errors". It could use a little tweaking. Also, I see Dianna has already addressed your points on the talk page and tweaked one point. I will have a look in more detail. Kierzek (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

You can't disagree with facts. What is the Holocaust?Xx236 (talk) 08:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I have been gone for a couple of days, but am now back. What "facts"? I am sure you have an answer to your rhetorical question posed. Best, you state what you mean on the article talk page. Kierzek (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 22:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Heinrich Müller (Gestapo)

Two things...

First—

	Happy Holidays
	Fröhliche Weihnachten und einen guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr! Another year is just around the corner. Thanks for all your vigilance. ~ Obenritter (talk)

Second—

The Heinrich Müller (Gestapo) article has been edited (pictures), whereby his image is now missing from the opening/Summary part of the article. Since I know nothing about including images or the relative legitimacy of what is being discussed (somebody claims an image of Otto Dietrich was posted in their editorial comment), I thought I would bring it to your attention.--Obenritter (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Danke und Frohe Weihnachten - back to you; as for the photo, I looked at it and it is in fact Otto Dietrich, not Müller; so, they were correct. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Thanks, and Happy holidays to you, as well. Hopefully, 2019 will be a good year for both of us. Kierzek (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Never to late; thanks, Kierzek (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit offer

Hello, first of all I apologise for being short with you last year, I saw the K in your screen name and thought it was another editor who has been giving me a lot of trouble, clearly not the case, so sorry again. Secondly, thanks again for the offer to edit two articles, at the time I was dealing with two deaths in the family and did not have the time to take up your offer. I wasn't ignoring you. Have not had a lot of time these past few months, will look into doing what I can Troy Troy von Tempest (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Kierzek (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

AH Lead

Hi Kierzek,

Sorry about changes to the AH page, I was responding to the poor grammar that was a result of the last edit and had no idea somebody had manipulated that much content to the lead. Your revert makes perfect sense in light of what was originally there. Not sure why I didn't look into it further, but there are enough people policing that page that I'll just leave it alone indefinitely.--Obenritter (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Obenritter: No, it was not your tweak that is the problem and I would encourage you to edit the page as you believe is appropriate. There were just too many changes that occurred by two other editors, without a full discussion and a consensus reached. So, please add your comments to the discussion on the talk page, if you wish and we will all go with the consensus reached on the matter. Kierzek (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

No worries brother. --Obenritter (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you, it is hard to believe it has been 10 years now. Kierzek (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Referring to women as "it"

Hello, given the recent events [4] [5], please would you reconsider your wording here. The following does not fit well with modern sensibilities: "the woman is not notable, in and of itself." Thank you for your consideration. MPS1992 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It girl. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

MPS, I have no idea how you bootstrapped a phrase used, which means: "by itself, without considering any other factors", into something unrelated to anything I said or inferred by use of said phrase; used in relationship to an event or consideration of other factors. Kierzek (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the change you made to your comment at the MfD. I have made no further comment there, as I was sure this could be resolved amicably. MPS1992 (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Himmler bio

March 14, 2019 by Elendil's Heir You today undid my edit to the Heinrich Himmler article, striking this paragraph: There have been recurring and unproven conspiracy theories that Himmer was murdered by the British to silence him as to his alleged wartime contacts with British leaders. Trueman, CN, "Death of Heinrich Himmler," History Learning Site https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/nazi-leaders/death-of-heinrich-himmler/. Irving, David, "British secret service did murder SS chief Heinrich Himmler," The International Campaign for Real History http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/death/PRO_docs_story.html.

I do not understand why. I think this informs readers as to the existence of the controversy without giving it undue credence.

You wrote it yourself: "There have been recurring and unproven conspiracy theories". That is "unproven" to any degree and none of the WP:RS historians agree with what amounts to WP:Fringe speculation, at best and surmise. It provides nothing of real substance to a reader; especially, not something to be put into a GA rated article. Also, your cited sources are not WP:RS rated sources; the "History Learning Site" is a blog and does not give any RS sources for its article and does not show what editorial oversight it might have. The second source you used is linked to disgraced historian David Irving. That is the reason for the revert. I know you added in good faith, nothing personal as to the revert. Also see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Kierzek (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi from Xinbenlv

Hi Kierzek, this is Xinbenlv from MLK discussion. I noticed you are a historian, just want to say hi. I love history too! Xinbenlv (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Himmler

I can see a number of things that would probably improve Himmler. It is obviously a good article but editors can often object to improvements, especially deletions if they wrote the material themselves. I'm also not remotely an expert on him and haven't even looked at the article history. The section on his peace negotiations looks a case of wp:Undue, of course it is likely all true but it is a lot of text for something that doesn't look that important. What do you think? Szzuk (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Besides tweaks, which any article could use, I don't see it as needs much work. It certainly is not akin to the shape of the Speer article; but with that said, certainly, I am always for improvement. As far as the "peace negotiations" section, it is pretty tight and does go into Bormann, Göring and Fegelein (who's fate was tied to Himmler's actions), which I believe is needed for context and timeline. But, I don't know what you have in mind, exactly. You might want to look at the Speer quotes in the article as you know about that better than most, at this point. I have to go handle some "real life" matters and will be gone for a while. Thanks for the courtesy shown. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I will leave it be, it was just a thought. Keep up the good work. Szzuk (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Wilhelm Keitel and Nazi Party

Maybe you can get through to the editor... I've tried, but it's not getting through - see his talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried to state the "undo's" in simple to follow text, hopefully that will do it. Kierzek (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Help!!!

OK So I get it just want to make sure, I put the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution then I put the Book source in sfn cite and add cited book with harv-ref?Jack90s15 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

ok I see what I did wrong foot not was in the source and not the bookJack90s15 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15: you got it closer to how it should be. I fixed the grammar and fixed added reference books to link properly with sfn cites used, along with placing them in their proper position (alphabetical order); see and follow in the future - [6] Kierzek (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting me on this I appreciate it!Jack90s15 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me what I did wrong

Now I know that is the right word to use for a picture like that thank you for explaining what I did wrongJack90s15 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, next time consider asking before reverting. I will also add that it can take years to master grammar and composition (which, they don't always teach well in school these days); and even then there can be some grey areas. So, keep working on these things and you will do alright. Kierzek (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee on Traveller

Hi! You recently thanked me for my edits on the Martin Luther King Jr. article. I see that you are interested in U.S. history. Would you be interested in reviewing my article Robert E. Lee on Traveller for GA?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Thanks for the thought. However, my time at present is very limited, so I will have to decline. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

lets work together

Hello @Kierzek: First thing I did not try to change the meaning of the page. I was trying to group them all together like how on the page section on the Wehrmacht it says , (The killings took place with the knowledge and support of the German Army in the east.[144] On 10 October 1941 Field Marshal Walther von Reichenau drafted an order to be read to the German Sixth Army on the Eastern Front. Now known as the Severity Order, it read in part:) (The most important objective of this campaign against the Jewish-Bolshevik system is the complete destruction of its sources of power and the extermination of the Asiatic influence in European civilization ... In this eastern theatre, the soldier is not only a man fighting in accordance with the rules of the art of war, but also the ruthless standard bearer of a national conception ... For this reason the soldier must learn fully to appreciate the necessity for the severe but just retribution that must be meted out to the subhuman species of Jewry.[145]) (Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt of Army Group South expressed his "complete agreement" with the order. He sent out a circular to the generals under his command urging them to release their own versions and to impress upon their troops the need to exterminate the Jews.[146] General Erich von Manstein, in an order to his troops on 20 November, stated that "the Jewish-Bolshevist system must be exterminated once and for all."[144] Manstein sent a letter to Einsatzgruppe D commanding officer Ohlendorf complaining that it was unfair that the SS was keeping all of the murdered Jews' wristwatches for themselves instead of sharing with the army.[147]) (The German historian Peter Longerich thinks it probable that the Wehrmacht, along with the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), incited the Lviv pogroms, during which 8,500 to 9,000 Jews were killed by the native population and Einsatzgruppe C in July 1941.[151] Moreover, most people on the home front in Germany had some idea of the massacres being committed by the Einsatzgruppen) So I wanted to Group them all together so the inexperienced reader doesn't think, all they did was help with transpiration if you think there is another way to world it I'd be more then happy to work with you to come to a Solution, Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss Jack90s15 (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15:

First: I have not been on as I had family matters in real life that required my attention this weekend. Second, I am already well aware of:

a) The role of the Wehrmacht on the East Front.

b) I am VERY aware of Wikipedia policy on editing. You are confused as to how it applies. Yes, Wikipedia states to be "bold", but that does not mean one is to go on an article, especially one which has been very well vetted and rated GA and make edits under the claim of being "bold", which changes the content of the cited edit and changes the truth of the matter asserted by adding vagueness. Now, when one does that, you must not be surprised objection is raised. Now, you state herein that was not your intent, I believe that. But, as you have shown in the recent past, this is not the first time, either, "to not look before you leap".

c) The way it is to work is, yes, you can be "bold" in an edit, but if that edit is reverted, YOU are then to follow WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss). You did not do that but instead reverted my edit (which had not added or changed any text, only reverted back to the wording that had been per prior consensus for the GA article). The burden is on you to change from prior consensus. So your allegation as to some type of "browbeat" intent on my part is unfounded. Will continue below in your second added section. Kierzek (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I was inferring that I may have came off has browbeating with my edit and I apologize for making it seem like I was saying you were.Jack90s15 (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Compromise to wording

what about if we reword it to, (The Wehrmacht cooperated with the Einsatzgruppen and provided logistical support for their operations and participated in the mass killings also) (The Einsatzgruppen and related agencies killed more than two million people, including 1.3 million of the 5.5 to 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust.) Jack90s15 (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC) (Tens of thousands of additional troops and their equipment were available for use by the Einsatzgruppen. They only needed to request this support. The Wehrmacht (regular German army) also cooperated closely with the Einsatzgruppen and, at times, regular Nazi soldiers participated in the executions. These Wehrmacht soldiers did not just guard the Jews and maintain order, as Bishop states. Rather, they actively committed the murders themselves) Peter Longerich, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 244-247.Jack90s15 (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC) for the times I have interacted with you you do seem like a good Editor to work with for a solution. that is why I am Following the BRD cycle so we could come to a agreement I am not trying to build enemiesJack90s15 (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The above is now moot, as the current wording at present in the article, which Diannaa reviewed in my absence is okay. My point was and you got it correct on your later edit of August 4, when you stated in your summary:"I just put they also participated it them but kept it separate and added a source for it. since the Einatzgruppen and the Order Police were the main groups that did the killings".

Yes, I agree with this later edit summary. It is clear and not vague. So, remember in the future, don't jump to revert after being "bold" and don't jump to conclusions as to another editor's motives. Carry on, sincerely, Kierzek (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I apologize for making it seem like I was saying you were browbeating, I am trying not be like the old me. I got a Wikipedia adopter who is helping me make articles, and I have been focusing a lot on removing vandalism and reverting edits of people that try to blank entire pages. I want to start the new decade off right on wikipedia.Jack90s15 (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries, this is a “collective” here, we’re all working towards the same thing (or at least most of us are, not counting certain others - vandals, paid editors and the self-serving point of view pushing ones), which will always be with us. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

lets discuss this

@Kierzek: my fault with my BRD attempt I apologize. Sine you did a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss I will listen to what you have to say about my edit, (The SS were the main group responsible for carrying out the institutional killing and democide of around 20 million people during the Holocaust, including approximately 5.2 million to 6 million Jews and about 10.5 million Slavs) I put (around) Since Rummels Chart in the book breaks down the estimate for Democide at 19.3m for Europe and about Since the estimate for Slavs varies. The edit did not seem that big of a drastic change, now I do want to work with you on this. Since you are a experienced editor who is trying to help me. I am ready to compromise with what you may want to put for the wording for my edit, with what I was trying to sayJack90s15 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

My point was of a teaching nature, I hoped. First, again when editing a GA rated article and especially one such as this one, discernment needs to be used when edits are made (given the potential for controversy and POV pushing of certain view-points).

So, don't just waive the "Bold" flag and expect the edit not to be scrutinized or even reverted. Second, remember it is BRD (bold, revert, discuss), not BRR (bold, revert, revert). That is and was my main point. You made a "Bold" edit change and it was reverted. At that point per BRD, you should go to the talk page for discussion; not revert the edit (in this case of Obenritter) and claim you had the right because your edit was "Bold". At that point, you should start a tread of discussion on the article talk page (especially in cases if more than one editor is involved) and ping the person(s) who reverted you. Or you can discuss it on their talk page if only one person. So, that was what I wanted to convey. Therefore, either start a thread on the article talk page on this matter or discuss it on @Obenritter: talk page. I reverted in this case as you did not follow proper procedure (the attorney in me). So, discuss this matter with him and if anyone else has anything to add, they will. Kierzek (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I appreciate the help and I will talk to him about it since he was the only one besides you who undid my edit.Jack90s15 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS-Begleitkommando des Führers

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SS-Begleitkommando des Führers you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS-Begleitkommando des Führers

The article SS-Begleitkommando des Führers you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SS-Begleitkommando des Führers for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Joachim Peiper

Hello:

I've now run through the article on Joachim Peiper for you.

You'll see I made very few changes, but let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Excellent and thanks. Kierzek (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman:, I think the article is thereby ready for GA review. Kierzek (talk) 23:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you. I appreciate the sentiment. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Nazi Germany

Excuse me, could you please clarify this revert? How was it not an improvement and what consistency are you referring to? Consistency would be putting first the English name and in parenthesis the original language name; how it's done for the Third Reich name. I also actually improved it by reducing the content of parenthesis such as those:

1. National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP; Nazi Party) to Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP)
2. Sturmabteilung (SA; Storm Detachment; Brownshirts) to Sturmabteilung (SA; Brownshirts)

I also fixed quite a fix links to the elections. Thanks.--Davide King (talk) 13:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Clearly, your edits were improvements in your opinion and both @Beyond My Ken: and myself disagree. The fact is your consistency argument is incorrect. Look at the article all the way through and you’ll see that the German is used first with the English translation second, in italics. This is a well vetted GA article. And like most of the articles of a similar nature, especially articles I have worked on to bring up to GA status, they are the same in presentation. Further, the common English term Nazi Party should not be removed, as most readers are not going to readily know what NSDAP means; not to mention the fact that is the actual name of the main article as to the party. If you still feel differently I would suggest you take it to the talk page for further discussion, per WP:BRD; I do appreciate you not reverting and asking for a clarification for my reasons. Kierzek (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You could have done like Beyond My Ken did and only revert the very first sentence and the one about the party, but kept the rest. Your consistency argument is incorrect as well, for the very first sentence is Nazi Germany, also known as the Third Reich (Drittes Reich) and officially the Deutsches Reich (German Reich) until 1943 and Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Reich) from 1943 to 1945 rather than Nazi Germany, also known as the Drittes Reich (Third Reich) and officially the Deutsches Reich (German Reich) until 1943 and Großdeutsches Reich (Greater German Reich) from 1943 to 1945. Same for the sentence about the party. The current version is The National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP; Nazi Party) was founded in 1920 rather than The Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP; Nazi Party) was founded in 1920.

You wrote that the common English term Nazi Party should not be removed, as most readers are not going to readily know what NSDAP means; not to mention the fact that is the actual name of the main article as to the party, then my version of Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP) was perfectly fine; or at least National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party, if there must be National Socialist German Workers' Party, so that this way the parenthesis isn't too full.

I'm perfectly fine with the main body using first the German name and then the English name in parenthesis, especially since in most cases the main article's name is in German anyway. I just thought it was inconsistent with all other articles that use first the English name (which is usually also the common name) and then in parenthesis use the name in the original language. Third Reich, German Reich and Greater German Reich are all more common in English.--Davide King (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

As I said above, "like most", the German word or name is listed first. So, there are a few exceptions based on common name use in English and/or change agreed to by consensus. Secondly, in the end in makes no difference as to personal opinion of either of us or if you are "perfectly fine" with whether the English name or German name is first, it is consensus obtained that matters. And what has been agreed to: National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP; Nazi Party), is not the same as what you proposed. I do not plan to re-address this further. Kierzek (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Vote on Pay scales for Sicherheitsdienst page

Please take a moment to express your opinion on whether the addition of pay scales (citing a Nazi publication) deserves entry on the Sicherheitsdienst page. Thanks.--Obenritter (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I have stated my viewpoint. A "vote" is not the correct way to phase it, but clearly consensus of the editors is what is being sought. Kierzek (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Where is the link

Where is this link in the article about Hitler's death that relates to 2017 analysis of his remains Octavius88 (talk) 17:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philippe_Charlier2/publication/325220862_The_remains_of_Adolf_Hitler_A_biomedical_analysis_and_definitive_identification/links/5b03cd5eaca2720ba099588b/The-remains-of-Adolf-Hitler-A-biomedical-analysis-and-definitive-identification.pdf?origin=publication_detail

This is covered in footnote 79 (w). Kierzek (talk) 21:28, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Responsibility for the Holocaust

See this. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, sir. The guy just does not seem to understand, for some reason; even after explanations given. Kierzek (talk) 19:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Magda Goebbels caption

I believe that the caption for this article should change from “1933” to “Goebbels in 1933” because simply saying “1933” sounds incomplete. Paleontologist99 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, but will post my reply on the talk page, as I see you posted a new section as to this on there. Kierzek (talk) 13:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Eight years!

on Beethoven's assumed birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Natalis soli invicto!

		Natalis soli invicto!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you and best wishes to you, as well. Kierzek (talk) 01:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Fröhliche Weihnachten und einen guten Rutsch ins neue Jahr!

May your holidays be peaceful, blessed, and the New Year filled with all good things. Thanks for all you do on Wikipedia!--Obenritter (talk) 17:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Danke und danke fur all deine Arbeit hier! Kierzek (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar (1st Croatian)

Hey old friend----do a sanity check for me on the Talk page referenced herein, specifically "Awards Section Removal" and see if I am off base. Feel free to express your full unadulterated opinion, even if it means shouting me down. Thanks (FYI -- sent the same message to K.e.coffman)--Obenritter (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I’ve been away attending to real life matters. I stated my opinion. Kierzek (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Reorganized the lede for Nazi Party

Hello, since you reverted my inclusion of a link to Nazi Germany I just reorganized the lede instead of readding again. I didn't add anything else, so let me know what you think. PyroFloe (talk) 12:40, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe it read better, the way the lede was laid out before. Kierzek (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you, 2009 seems like a long time ago now. Kierzek (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

NSDAP/AO

I've moved NSDAP/AO to Nazi Party/Foreign Organization for reasons that may be obvious to you, but which I've explained on the article talk page. I's appreciate it if you and Diannaa and k.e.coffman could keep an eye on it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

BMK - Thanks for the note. Yes, I agree. Kierzek (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Local concentration camp is forgotten.

You have removed information about the camp.Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC) "Im Jahr 1944 wurde gegen Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs um Landsberg und Kaufering mit elf Standorten der größte Konzentrationslagerkomplex im Deutschen Reich errichtet (sonstige große Lager waren in den besetzten Gebieten gebaut worden). Sämtliche dortigen KZs trugen den Namen „Kaufering“, auch wenn die Kommandantur in Landsberg war." de.wikipedia.org Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I know, as I when I did it, I planned to re-write it in better wording and grammar and expand on it, which I have now done. What you wrote also did not convey well what the town and area were also known for, both during the war and post-war. It has now been fixed with link and cite, accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Heads up

Our Italian IP has moved from Anton Drexler to German Workers Party, adding unsourced information to the infobox. I've asked for protection, but in the meantime... Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I see that the DAP article has been protected, which is good. I will keep an eye out for further disruptive editing. Thank you for the heads up. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

You might be interested in this

Talk:Leland B. Morris#Possibly apocryphal story - Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Any idea...

...who this might be? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

No. I know that "English Patriot Man", seems to come back every few months, but this guy, I cannot tell who it may be at this time. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Gestapo

It is short for Geheime Staatspolizei, though, so shouldn't it be italicized as a foreign language abbreviation? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

No, It’s not a foreign language loan word, it’s just an abbreviation. We don’t put Kripo or SiPo or RSHA in italics, for example. Kierzek (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

OK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Das Reich & Totenkopf divisions' elite status

I noticed that Wikipedia designates the Leibstandarte, Panzer Lehr, and Grossdeutschland armored divisions as elite formations (presumably due to their ability to acquire resources ahead of other armored divisions and their prestige in combat performance). I made changes to the Das Reich and Totenkopf divisions' articles (who were given their own organic Tiger II units like the Leibstandarte and Grossdeutschland divisions) to fall in line with this format trend since they would also clearly fall within such a categorization. I see that you reverted the changes I made and was wondering why this was done. Was this because I formatted the information wrong or is there disagreement as to whether or not these two divisions can properly be deemed elite a la the aforementioned other armored formations?

You added the language to the lead section of the articles. The lead is a summary of the WP:RS body text. First, if you read the article for 2nd SS Division (Das Reich), it does not say in the body text what you added to the lead. The same is true for the article 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf. Therefore, I removed your uncited additions to the lead in each (rv to prior). And frankly, the word "elite" was probably in one or both a long time ago, but removed per local consensus. That is what I recall without going way back to check. The word being debated for several reasons. One, the divisions, one could argue, were no longer "elite" later in the war, due to conscripts and all the transfers from and to concentration camp guard units/service and the great lowering of requirements to enter into the Waffen-SS. Second, one could argue, not wanting to glorify these Nazi divisions. Kierzek (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't say that I understand where you're coming from with these supposed justifications for rescinding my edits. The edits I made to the lead sections summarize information found in the body (namely the 2nd Waffen-SS division being formed from the original SS-VT regiments and the 3rd Waffen-SS division being formed around a nucleus of SS-TV Standarten units). You seem to imply that these edits contradict information in the bodies or don't function to summarize it effectively. I also don't understand why the units suffering from a lack of supplies in the war would diminish their status as elite. If this were the case, this would also apply to the Leibstandarte and Grossdeutschland divisions, which are still listed as elite in their article leads. This strikes me as a grossly inconsistent method of classification. Requirements were lowered for entering the Waffen-SS later in the war, such as the uptake of foreigners and conscripts, but this applies almost entirely to the later numbered non-panzer divisions of the Waffen-SS, which are not considered to be elite in the sense considered. SS Divisions 1-3 clearly maintained a superior ability to obtain resources and were considered first in seniority relative to other divisions. These are the criteria by which other divisions seem to be designated as elite in article headers for Wehrmacht divisions (The Heer Panzer-Lehr/Grossdeutschland divisions & Luftwaffe 1st Fallschirm-Panzer Division being prime examples). It strikes me as absurd to consider a Luftwaffe panzer division as elite, but not to do so for the 2nd and 3rd Waffen-SS divisions, which were, without doubt, superior in equipment, combat prestige, and seniority (again, they had their own organic Tiger tank units, unlike the vast majority of panzer divisions). As for concerns about "glorifying Nazi divisions", I don't understand how this then wouldn't apply to the Leibstandarte division (which is designated as elite in its article lead), the most senior Waffen-SS division that functioned as Hitler's personal honor guard.

I have explained my reasoning, if you don’t understand it, that’s not my fault. You need to read, WP:Lead and WP:RS and WP:OR. And for further discussion of this, it should take place on the talk page or not here. I’m leaving to go out of town for the weekend, so I will not be on here much. Kierzek (talk) 11:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You have stated your reasoning, but unfortunately said reasoning is predicated upon logically inconsistent presumptions and/or objectively false implications. So it's not actually my fault if said reasoning doesn't actually make sense. Concerning citations, I don't see how what I added to the leads warrants direct citation. I merely appended the designation of "elite" as is the case with other Wehrmacht division article leads and briefly mentioned that the 2nd SS Division was formed from the SS-VT and that the 3rd SS Division was formed from the SS-TV (information that both summarizes the information presented in more detail within the article bodies succinctly and information that does not warrant direct citation since the information is more than sufficiently broadly known and non-specific.

Don’t be ridiculous. There is nothing inconsistent about what I’ve stated. And as far as Wikipedia, you can’t add things to the lead that are not in the body text, which also need to be cited in the body text. I can’t be more clear than that. And just stay off my talk page if you’re going to be so obtuse. I don’t want to waste my time and page space. Kierzek (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Direct quote from my edit in the lead: "formed from the Standarten of the SS-TV"

Direct quote from the article body text: "The SS Division Totenkopf was formed in October 1939.[3] The division had close ties to the camp service and its members. When first formed a total of 6,500 men from the SS-Totenkopfverbände (Camp SS) were transferred into the Totenkopf Division.[4] The Totenkopf was initially formed from concentration camp guards of the 1st (Oberbayern), 2nd (Brandenburg) and 3rd (Thüringen) Standarten (regiments) of the SS-Totenkopfverbände, and men from the SS Heimwehr Danzig." BRUH

My point has and is only as to the use of the word "elite", added by you to the lead; uncited in the body text, the rest is not relevant. Kierzek (talk) 16:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Question about old artwork

Hello, I was wondering if this artwork (Anonymous painting from the 17th century about the Conquest of Mexico) can be used on Wikipedia. Because it's very old, but the page says 'Cordon Press'. There is a lower quality version on Wiki Commons. -Artanisen (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I don’t know. It would seem that the copyright of any said painting would have expired by now unless it is part of a collection owned by someone. What does the lower quality version on Wiki Commons state? You may be able to replace that one with a higher quality version. But you’ll have to read what is stated, it may be a “fair use” situation. That may be why the lower quality version was used. That should give you an indication of the status. Otherwise, I would suggest posting the question on Wiki Commons and see what the reply is to your query. Good luck, Kierzek (talk) 16:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This is the current version of the same artwork. I could start a discussion on the file's page, but a response could take many months. -Artanisen (talk) 22:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

You may be able to argue "public domain", but you would have to offer some proof as to same. I would recommend you start a discussion on this page as to the matter: Commons:Village pump. Kierzek (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Edit Question

What was the reason for you reverting that edit I made on the Reinhard Heidrich article? It looks weird without the revision. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

His name is at the top, above his photograph. There’s no reason to write his name again with the date of the photo. It’s redundant. It’s unnecessary. It doesn’t look weird. Kierzek (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 03:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

PT-109 thanks

Greetings, User:Kierzek. Thank you for your thanks for adding a {{for}} redirect at the PT 109 (film) page. Given how many times one runs into piped hyperlinks to some version of what displays as just "PT 109" or "PT-109" at any number of Wikipedia articles, it is helpful that even though eventually one will find a link to the boat page at the film article and vice-versa there is a quick way to get to the other page if one ends up at the wrong one.

Maybe one day we will get a "You're welcome" button to expedite recognizing another's thanks. Appreciate the nod. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

In appreciation

Kierzek, I appreciate the "thanks" messages you have sent my way on certain recent edits. Kudos from an experienced and respected editor are always welcomed. I frequently have noted your edits to a variety of articles that happily coincide with my areas of interest and I always find them thoughtful, informative and constructive. Your tireless efforts at combating senseless vandalism are also worthy of note. Please keep up the good work in improving Wikipedia, and thanks once again for your kind expressions of support. Best regards. Historybuff0105 (talk) 14:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

You’re welcome. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks

Thank you for thanking me. Thank you kindly for the thank you notification, for my small copy edit to the WWII tanks template on 20 September 2022. Jerryobject (talk) 13:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Battle in Berlin

Why 'd remove my edit? 2409:4055:2E19:1C2:0:0:A74B:BF13 (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Because it was not accurate for the losses in the battle in Berlin, defense zone. Kierzek (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Nicknames

So am I to understand that nicknames are no longer allowed? Like "Ike" Eisenhower or "Chesty" Puller. Just want clarification before I delete. thanks Unnecessarily (talk) 10:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Certainly some individuals have very well-known nicknames. But in this case, it’s trivia. It’s not even mentioned in the article, nor RS cited. And it is not commonly known nor written about. Kierzek (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

But I thought it was because "not part of given or family name" 🤔 Unnecessarily (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh ok Unnecessarily (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

”Not part of given or family name” is the first reason. Which speaks for itself. Secondly, later you wrote on here above about other people with well-known nicknames. I answered your query on that, giving you reasons that argument would not apply to Eicke. His nickname is not well known and trivial. In addition, it is not mentioned and cited to an WP:RS source in the article. You should understand that the lead of an article is only a summary of the main points of the body of the article. Kierzek (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No no, I understand 👍 Unnecessarily (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography of World War II

Guten Abend alter Freund. Not sure if you've noticed or not, but the Bibliography of World War II page has a new editor, who appears to be adding everything under the sun and who has entirely reorganized the page. It's become unwieldy and a bit ridiculous. What to do or say escapes me, but I thought we had plenty of high-quality academic works already there -- at least the important ones. Anyway, take a look. Wonder what Diannaa might also have to say about it. Mach's gut. Obenritter (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven’t had a chance to look at it, but I will soon. Certainly, some of the more general knowledge type books, non-RS and non-English books can be removed. Kierzek (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

After a brief review, it has become over-stuffed and in need of reduction. For one, non-English works can be removed, better suited for their respective native language Wikipedia page. Will look at it further, later, when I have time. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Always precious

Ten years ago, you were found precious. That's what you are, always. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Reversal Request

Hello Kierzek.

I would like to attempt to persuade you to reverse your removal of Hans Nieland from the List of Nazi Party leaders and officials. Nieland served as the first Leader of the NSDAP Foreign Organization (NSDAP/AO), a position that was equivalent to and later elevated to Gauleiter, of which there were only about 33 incumbents at the time. This post was later filled by Ernst Wilhelm Bohle. Nieland also served as Police President in Hamburg, the 2nd largest city in the Reich. He was a member of the Hamburg State executive from 1933 to 1938 as the Treasurer, one of the only six cabinet officials (Senators of Hamburg) under Nazi rule. Additionally, he was Oberbürgermeister of Dresden (the 8th largest German city) for five years. He also was a member of the Reichstag from 1930 to 1936 and a general officer (Brigadeführer) in the SS from 1939. I believe a strong case can be made that he was not a mere functionary but was involved in policy-making and high level political, administrative, fiscal and law enforcement/security decisions. The problem, as I see it, is an insufficient description of his career in the list. He certainly merits inclusion in this list more than Carl Clauberg who, I would argue, was more of a functionary, yet is still included. Respectfully.Historybuff0105 (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I did review the article before removal. Upon further reflection, I still believe he’s borderline, but will agree to re-instatement. I do agree Clauberg should be removed and have done so. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration of my rebuttal and your willingness to reverse the deletion. I have always found you open to a collegial resolution of differences - - a welcome change from the edit wars one often encounters. I see that another editor has already reinstated Nieland. I will endeavor to enhance the description in the article to better support inclusion. Gratefully yours.Historybuff0105 (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Kierzek!

Happy New Year!

Kierzek,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Abishe. I hope you have a good and prosperous new year, as well. Kierzek (talk) 04:32, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Thank you! Kierzek (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Hitler

Hi, in regards to this edit, if you feel additional citations aren't required that's fine; I just wanted to follow up on the source itself. The source is a videoed lecture by Thomas Childers — I can understand the ref type might make it appear like a less reliable documentary, but Childers himself is a reliable source with a history of peer-reviewed publications specialising in the World Wars. It's essentially a (rather dry) academic lecture. The source also has an attached document with supplementary sourcing. Cheers! — Czello 19:00, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Czello. I know Childers as I have one of his books (The Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany) and have cited to said book on here before. With that said, in general I do not think videos make for the best citations, as one can't easily verify that the source backs up the content stated, and there's also no way to check that the editor has not made verbatim quotations from the text, in violation of copyright policy (not saying you have done so). And I am not saying Wondrium (which, I see requires a subscription to read) is the same as Youtube (that has the added problem of no editorial oversight). I would respectfully suggest not using Wondrium videos for RS citing in a GA or FA rated article. Cheers, Kierzek (talk)

I'm not sure why a video of a lecture would be harder to verify than text - especially when a timestamp is included. Indeed, with a direct link it's fairly quick and simple to verify what's written here is accurate. It being behind a paywall shouldn't preclude it per WP:PAYWALL. I think if we agree Childers is a reliable source, it wouldn't matter if he says it out loud or writes it. — Czello 07:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Johannes Hentschel

Hentschel was SS as per link: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/rochus-misch Kingbird1 (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello: None of the reliable sources I have state that, and the website you cite is considered a non-reliable source. And even that article on Misch that you cite by link above does not say that for Hentschel. Kierzek (talk) 19:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

He was one of Hitler’s aides from the SS. The Guardian is a reliable source. https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/hitler-bodyguard-rochus-misch-dies Kingbird1 (talk) 21:52, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I am talking about Hentschel, not Misch. That is who you name above and who’s article you made the error on. You seem to be confusing the two men. User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] (talk) 00:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Even though Hentschel is mentioned as Misch's comrade in the article, that is not unequivocal evidence of his membership in the SS, even if "implied." You'll have to find a scholarly book or article for evidence in this case, as what you've thus far provided doesn't meet RS standards as proof.Kingbird1--Obenritter (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Hentschel doesn’t appear to be SS after all. Misch’s memoirs appear to confirm this. No confusion on my part thanks very much Kierzek, poor newspaper journalism led me astray Kingbird1 (talk) 01:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

That guy...

Probably needs reporting, but I can't fully make sense of his edits and if it's valid to report him at this stage. Do you want to have a look and see? Porterjoh (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I would put one more warning on his talk page 1st. That’s my recommendation. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:11, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Tanks reference errors

Hi, in this edit to Tanks in the Japanese Army and this edit to Japanese tanks of World War II you introduced {{sfn|Tomczyk|2007|pp=12, 13, 15}}, however no such work is defined in either article, causing a sfn no-target error. Both articles have a Tomczyk 2007a and a Tomczyk 2007b, and both have a Zaloga 2007, so I suspect you meant one of these. If you could fix them that would be great. DuncanHill (talk) 10:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, you’re right. That’s what I get for doing it when tired. I’ll fix it. Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Golden Party Badge Cited sources linked to Wikipedia

We appreciate your expertise on Wikipedia. Please let us know which links you are having issues with so that we can resolve this problem. We want to move forward with information that is substantiated with facts not fiction, or previous Russian disinformation, on what was A.H. party badge number. RMCINC (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If you read the edit summary before mine it has links to articles you should read and also read WP:RS, as well. Again, websites such as militariaclub and Wikipedia, itself are not considered RS. Kierzek (talk) 19:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

ww2gravestone.com

I've asked about this website, which you removed from the Hans Krebs (Wehrmacht general) article at WP:RSN (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#ww2gravestone.com).Nigel Ish (talk) 15:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I reviewed the website and commented on it, as well. Clearly, not an RS source. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)