User talk:Kierzek/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Flyer's Commemorative Badge

I enjoyed your article on this - I found it interesting. I'm not sure if this information is readily available, but if it is, you may consider including a comment (for contextual purposes) on the number of people who were awarded it and /or a link if there is anywhere this information is found. GLG GLG (talk) 04:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't have the information in my two books as to how many were awarded but both books state it is considered a rare qualification badge. Kierzek (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Leave me alone! I'm not going to fly anymore! You can't make me! I want to sit on my rock! Go away! :-) -O.R.^Comms 01:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I knew you would enjoy this article, OberRanks. All it needs is a photo for the article. Kierzek (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I have several. Checking on the licensing stuff, etc. Will post soon! -O.R.^Comms 14:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

One for "fair use" to illustrate the badge should do it. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

OR, did you find one for use? Kierzek (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@OberRanks: do you have a photo which can be used for the article? Kierzek (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I will try to upload it next week after I verify the license. Have to be very careful with the image police around here. -O.R.^Comms 19:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

"denying him the opportunity to become an officer"

Could Himmler even had become an officer - when he shortsighted? I thought that was a no-go for officers in the Wilhelm's Germany. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Well all I can tell you is: In 1915, he began training with the Landshut Cadet Corps. His father used his connections with the royal family to get Himmler accepted as an officer candidate, and he enlisted with the reserve battalion of the 11th Bavarian Regiment in December 1917. Kierzek (talk) 01:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Ah okay, thanks. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Awesome New release from the National Security Archive at GWU

Kierzek - not sure how broad your interests are, but here is a great new release worthy of some attention: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb525-The-Atomic-Bomb-and-the-End-of-World-War-II/ Enjoy! By the way - if you go to the home page and use their search feature, there's some awesome declassified documents about the Nazis. The report on Gehlen is in there for instance. Mach Spaß !--Obenritter (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks interesting, thanks, Kierzek (talk) 02:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Obenritter: speaking of works, I can highly recommend books published by R. James Bender Publishing, overall (some are listed in my user sub-page, "library"). Here is the link: [1] Kierzek (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Never saw this publisher's page before nor many of those particular books. Thanks for sharing. --Obenritter (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph Berchtold

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joseph Berchtold 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 Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I have no Internet service this weekend, they are supposed to come fix it tomorrow by 8 PM. I'll see if I can do any editing with the phone but it can be quite frustrating. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The Verizon repair guy just came out and fixed the line problem, so I am back up and running and will now finish making the changes you wanted. Kierzek (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joseph Berchtold

The article Joseph Berchtold you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Joseph Berchtold 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 Tomandjerry211 (alt) -- Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For brining Joseph Berchtold to GA-status, I award you the Editor's Barnstar! Excellent work mate. Peace, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Hanke

Karl Hanke is the only SS-Reichsführer on Wikipedia that is not of GA-status. I just got an idea! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

A good idea. Bringing articles up to GA status is always worthwhile. Kierzek (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll do some edits to the article tomorrow and while I'm at it also build a replica of St. Peter's Basilica, but 17 times bigger! :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Schutzstaffel#Time for a revamp!

Your opinion is requested. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Kierzek (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Fegelein

Hi, the article requires at least three reviewers supporting the A-class nomination, currently one two reviewers support this request. I pinged the other reviewer who had commented earlier to see if his concerns have been addressed. Some articles just take longer to attract enough reviewers. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Kierzek (talk) 11:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually the review can be closed now. I have already listed the review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#ACRs for closure. As an involved coordinator, I am not allowed to close the review myself. It will probably be promoted within the next few days MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; this is my first "Class-A" review to be involved in for an article. Kierzek (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

"Fegelein! Fegelein!! FEGELEIN!!!" Sorry...couldn't resist. -O.R.^Comms 17:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For helping me bring Maria Limanskaya to GA-status I award you 'dis cute kitty! Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I did so little, really, a very small kitten covers it well; it was your show, congrats on the GA. Kierzek (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Question

What's the name of that Australian family who paid a lot of money to the Nazi Party to be declared Aryans? You know? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia has an article about it, I just can't find it! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That, I don't know. Kierzek (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe it was an Australian couple who's children was living in Germany and got arrested by the Gestapo, but was then released after their parents paid for them to be declared "true Aryans" or something on those lines. Perhaps Obenritter heard of them? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a strange story. I'd certainly remember something about it, but honestly, I have never heard this one. If you figure it out, please link it or direct us to the source, as it is interesting at the very least. Sorry I could not help you there --Obenritter (talk) 01:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Ideology of the SS

GA-review finally began. Stay tuned! :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 10:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

SS article

I suggest curbing the "History" section altogether. I believe it was called "Overview" a few weeks ago and, to me, seems like a sort of second lede? Now that I've told you this, it's pretty hard to read and NOT consider it a second lede which seems rather pointless. What's your thoughts? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead. Kierzek (talk) 21:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Will copy edit the rest tonight. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Been very inactive recently, mainly because I'm the process of filming a short film. You know how it is. I plan to make a very large cut in copyediting process tonight, as in, actually doing it this time. Peace, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 16:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you feel about splitting ideology and culture into two sections? Seems like both subjects have enough historical coverage to have their own section. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:24, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Do what you think best. Kierzek (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I've refrained from splitting up the section in two. On another note, I'm done copyediting all that's in my SS sandbox (except for the lede; I assume we're gonna re-write that once we're "finished" with the whole article, no?) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 00:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The lede may need tweaking later but not right now. You can start on the other sections (not in your sand box) when you wish. Kierzek (talk) 14:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Jonas Vinther:, don't forget about this one. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll have time to continue this weekend and will probably have copyedited the entire article some time by November or perhaps in October. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Kierzek (talk) 12:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It has become apparent to me I will not have the time to work on more than one or two sections tonight, but I'll start nevertheless. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For copyediting the entire body text of Leni Riefenstahl and helping me bring the article to GA-status, I award you The Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Thanks a million! :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and congrats on that major undertaking. Kierzek (talk) 02:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Monroe

Thank you very much for the barnstar! :) As for the "Dyer 1979" reference, Dyer's short essay "Charisma" was published in 1979, but the anthology in which it was included, Stardom: Industry of Desire, was published in 1991. TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3

You're welcome, as you earned it. I have also fixed the cite from your info above. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Nazism sidebar edit warring

Hello. Last month there was a discussion concerning the size of the Nazi swastika in the Nazism sidebar which was peacefully resolved. However, recent edits from DasReichenz and Dannis243 are going against that consensus and are focusing on an old one from last year that chose the Nazi party emblem as the image. This consensus was made redundant by the consensus started by me and ended by you and I would appreciate your help in advising them to stop going against consensus. I considered speaking to them myself, but seeing their edit summaries leads me to believe that my words will fall on deaf ears. Your help is much appreciated. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Good evening Nick Mitchell 98 and Kierzek, I believe the "edit war" was never so, rather a few individuals breaking rank and attempting to modify the template(s) to their content, and project their own self-importance onto the matter. I am always open for dialogue and discussion about any edits I make. After my previous account was screwed over during a database change, I made this one and have so far reserved it to just defending against unwarranted edits to various pages. Of course, I explained all of my edits in the edit summaries of both pages, and they were justified - following talk page opinion so on and so forth. So, being fairly active here, I'm ready to talk about anything to do with the templates and where we should go from here. DasReichenz (talk) 22:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your comments. As far as the template; there has been some disagreement, but mainly, at this point between two editors. Consensus can change over time and I believe that silence can speak volumes when edits of change take place; no one yet has gone into a full edit-war. With that said, another RFC will be in order if one breaks out; but not yet. Frankly, as for myself, I prefer the Parteiadler over the Hakenkreuz or the Party badge. Kierzek (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem if someone wants to create another RfC to choose between the Nazi swastika to the Parteiadler, however, the RfC that resized the swastika makes the old RfC redundant, hence the Parteiadler cannot be re-added without gaining another new consensus. Nick Mitchell 98 (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@Nick Mitchell 98: I have opened up a discussion on the matter on the template talk page. Kierzek (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems the matter is now settled. Kierzek (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp

Hi, Kierzek. I don't know much about WWII history, so I am wondering if you might take a look at Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp#Weapons research. The article reiterates the claims (fringe theory?) of a filmmaker who states that nuclear weapons research was being done there, but those claims appear to have been rejected by a panel of experts.[2] See also this post from an academic. Thoughts? Thanks! - Location (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Location: it was not uncommon for German companies to built facilitates in and near camps; for example, I.G. Farben built a huge synthetic rubber plant very near the main camp of Auschwitz in Monowitz. There has been speculation over the years the facility was really a uranium enrichment plant. German armaments manufacturer Krupp, also built their own manufacturing facilities near Monowitz. But the I. G. Farben plant was not involved in atomic research, but that kind of thing makes good Indiana Jones type fiction. There was not a lot of practical progress in the Nazi German efforts towards a viable bomb. By 1943, there was enough radioactive material to design delivery systems. Drawings of new V-2 rockets were worked on. But it was designed more for carrying a "dirty bomb". But, also in later 1943, more sophisticated atomic bomb research was being carried out and the Luftwaffe was working on the design for the "Amerika bomber project". The reports you uncovered clearly point out that what that filmmaker has put forth is mere speculation and surmise. I recall according to what Speer was told in 1942, even with priority and vast amounts of money (akin to what the U.S. did in its Manhattan Project), the Germans were 3 or 4 years away from having a bomb. As your second source points out, "He claims that he has an American intelligence document from 1944 that lists it as a site of possible interest." "Possible interest" means nothing! "Karlsch’s only quoted comment is that he thinks the Germans got further along with their nuclear program than most people think." Another thing that tells us nothing! Also, Viktor Schauberger was working on vortex turbines, that is not atomic research. As David Porter states in one of his books, "The true history of German nuclear research may never be known...[it] quickly becomes clouded by eccentric conspiracy theories." That is what you have above; it is a WP:Fringe theory. Kierzek (talk) 01:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'm not certain what weight should be given to any of this, but I'll likely add a bit stating that a panel of experts rejects the claims. Thanks again! - Location (talk) 18:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the section and pinged you on the article's talk page. - Location (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I support your edit and left a comment as to same on that article's talk page accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 17:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I really don't see any good reason to build up the section with all the sources just to state what was found not to exist there, particularly since it was one person's theory over a 14 or 15 month period. The only reason to keep the material that is in the article now is to document what is there (i.e. old SS shooting range). Cheers! - Location (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

SS article

I've gone ahead and implemented those sections we've copyedited so far. I've also taken the liberty of removing information which now has been re-written in those sections we worked on. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Its looking better, thanks. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I've added some images to the sections we worked on to brighten them up a bit. I think the "Origin" and "Ideology and culture" sections are now GA-class. Ready to move on, stay tuned. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay, remember to change and have uniform the cites format of sfn. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Think converting everything into harv references should be done once we are "done" with the article or our improvement, but that's just me. I mean, in case we would have/want to remove or add any references, it would be nice having only to do it once for each cite rather then over and over again, no? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If you are working on a section, I find it easier, in the long run, to do it as you go. Kierzek (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Give me and hour and I'll see the refs in the previously said sections turn blue. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay; we will have to change the ref. books to harv. citing to match, so the links work properly. But that task can wait for now. Kierzek (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Funny you should say that because I, while converting the references to harv, also added the proper book and journal templates. I also fixed some publisher and isbn errors. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Good job. Kierzek (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment

As a frequent editor of SS related articles, could you please comment here? Thank you! -O.R.^Comms 14:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

@OberRanks: I left a comment and believe it should be kept for reasons stated. With that said, you should read Diannaa's comment on the photo as she is an expert on said matters. Kierzek (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Kierzek - thanks for the barnstar. I appreciate it! Tvoz/talk 07:57, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. You earned it; keep up the good work. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid JKO has many more of the same kind of problem as I've already noted - I'm really not sure how to proceed. Don't have the time to check every line - but I think it may be necessary. Tvoz/talk 05:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I see the additional problems, as addressed in your latest ce work. Well, the real problem is the editor in question; it might benefit him if he had a mentor or got involved with other editors in bringing an article to GA status. And I do understand about time; it is the enemy of us all on this project; keep up the good work; I have recently done quite a bit of ce work on RFK because of the same "problems". Kierzek (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

A mentor is a very good idea, but I'm not volunteering for the job! I expected RFK was going to also have similar problems based on all of the RFK-related oddball edits for JKO - I just couldn't bring myself to look at it yet. Glad you're on it. Will keep trying! Tvoz/talk 19:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Nebe

Hi, please see my comment on the Talk page [[3]]. I was mainly objecting to the use of Heer, Naumann, Gerlach as supporting the paragraph where it was included. Thanks! --K.e.coffman (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I commented on the article talk page. Kierzek (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding ANI

I am rather concerned about the implications of the ANI. A couple quotes:

• "I suggest compromised articles be identified and tagged, for starters. The POV edits have got to be reverted and removed, and NPOV firmly established or re-established, as I see it."

• "Jonas Vinther would not to stop, until somebody else stopped him. The reason why he was welcomed by others to keep on expanding the SS article without revealing any of his sources was twofold; first, because he is too smart to ever let the cheap crap slip in; and second, because he uses only the Nazi and Neo-Nazi publications written up to his standard. Please, let us not be taken for fools. His antics were accepted based on the assumption of good faith with ​your ​eyes ​shut. – The results were bound to bring us all here; and it will happen again... I just re-read the Ideology of the SS article which he helped bring to the "good article" status. – I am deeply troubled. I know how Wikipedia works. It takes up to ten years sometimes before things are straighten out. Under the pretext of quote-unquote "GA-improvement" he removed all references to the "ideological indoctrination" (-2,871) and replaced them with quote-unquote "purity, fitness, and exercises" (what a joke). After that, he created his own new section (+2,240) about the love of animals and support for animal rights by the SS. This is sickening... And, who's gonna fix that "good article" now, I ask."

I am indeed sickened and disturbed that all work he's done will have to be looked over for problems. I have difficulty seeing him as a devious mastermind systematically skewing these articles, and especially those that I've worked on. That's obviously just my ego, but I am alarmed at the consequences of this. GAB^Hello! 23:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I knew he would probably do himself in someday, given his tendency to make cavalier edits, fight with editors, not listen and burn his bridges accordingly. But it has gone way, way beyond that now. All of his articles will have to be reviewed for NPOV, copy-edited and RS sources checked; if they can be. I have to say, too much good faith was accepted/assumed; and I include myself in that assessment. Kierzek (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, well. I feel rather bad about this, especially since his shenanigans have probably led to some skewed content on Barbarossa, Kursk, Ideology of the SS that I didn't catch. I'll try to get to those after I wrap up Infinite Reach. This may be something to bring up at Milhist, even. GAB^Hello! 23:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I will work on it as well. I just don't have that much time right now. Kierzek (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just stopping by randomly here and hey, there's a discussion that I'm interested in... @GeneralizationsAreBad:

I'm not sure what 'ANI stands for, but as far as 'compromised articles' go, most of the articles linked from List of Waffen-SS divisions appear to be written in the Jonas-like style that I came to recognize after encountering his work on Waffen-SS in Schutzstaffel. Emotional language, poorly written, poorly sourced or sourced to the perpetrators themselves, misleading, non-NPOV - it's like entering a parallel universe. I've been doing some corrections there (see Hitlerjugend Division or Das Reich, but the task seems enormous. Are these the compromized articles? I assume the articles on various Waffen-SS commanders are 'compromised' as well (i.e. Kurt Meyer).

Sorry if this is off-topic, but I've been quite disturbed with what I'm seeing. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman: If you look at the history of Jonas Vinther's userpage, you can probably find a pretty comprehensive list of articles that are under scrutiny. GAB^Hello! 13:04, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know all the articles he worked on but one can see who has edited an article by the history shown. The fact is that many articles need ce and RS work whether they are ones that Jonas worked on or not. Time and "manpower" is a factor here; we all only have so much time and so many articles one can focus on at a point in time. Any new members and more sets of eyes are welcome in the improvement of articles on Wikipedia. Remember that not all poorly written articles are part of a "plot". Some people are just poor writers; others don't see the POV problems and others used "very dated" or "low-quality history books" or want to use, Youtube, blogs and History Channel programs as sources/cites. Kierzek (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Malmedy massacre trial

Just wondered if you would be interested in seeing some of the editing going on there -- some of it struck me as a bit off. Thanks, GAB^Hello! 20:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed a lot of unsourced content. As you may recall I did some research on this incident to improve our coverage at 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler#Malmedy massacre so I can say with some assurance that it did indeed happen, but I know nothing of the trial. The article still needs work. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to this, I appreciate it. GAB^Hello! 21:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks D. Kierzek (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I just found and removed some further recently added edits which were not NPOV and not cited. Kierzek (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RSHA

Pretty sure you meant "Heydrich's death" in your edit summary, since Himmler didn't die until just before the end of the war. BMK (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

It was not the best edit summary to say the least; that is why I wrote the follow-up edit summary to clarify. Kierzek (talk) 00:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I can live with what is there now. I think it was the "branch" that bothered me - it made to sound like a brank office in a shopping mall. BMK (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it is better without the word "branch". Actually, it would be even more correct to say it was a main office of the Allgemeine SS, but I did not add that in as I thought for general readers, it was enough to say..."a main office of the SS", for the info box. Kierzek (talk) 03:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Hermann Prieß

Do you have info on Prieß? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I will check. Kierzek (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not been able to find any additional information, other then what is already there in the article, from the books I have. Kierzek (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Sources

Wondering if you can help me with identifying suitable material for Sources, External links and Further reading, as I copyedit WWII articles. Here's a partial list:

Web sites:

• http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/
• http://www.axishistory.com
• Knight's Cross Holders Database (German language)
• Feldgrau – The History of the German Armed Forces in WWII
• http://en.ww2awards.com/ - this is a project of STIWOT, which has a forum with some similarities to Axis History Forum http://www.stiwotforum.nl/

I would say that http://www.axishistory.com should not be used as it is mainly a "forum" and it is "maintained" by one man so it has no editorial oversight. Note: upon further review, I will say that some of their pages have footnotes with books listed for sources but with minimum information and no inline cites used and many of their pages do not list any source. I still belief the site has RS problems for reasons stated and better sources can be found and used. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/
• Knight's Cross Holders Database (German language)

On these two, I would have to defer to @MisterBee1966:; as I recall he has used them. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I will answer your question in an indirect way. Content on Wikipedia is subject to evolution. What I mean by this, the content of yesterday may not be the content of today, and what we think is good today may be revised again tomorrow. About 9 years ago, when I started editing on Wikipedia, many articles on Wikipedia were (and many still are see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment#Statistics) considered stubs at best. At the time, I found many biographies stating no more than "Person X was a German officer in the Wehrmacht during World War II". At the time I believed that adding links to information external to Wikipedia was an easy and quick way to add a bit more context to the subject. Over time, some of these articles may have evolved for the better. In these instances, we can probably do without these external bits of information, in others they may still be more than nothing. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Further reading

• Lehmann, Rudolf (1987). The Leibstandarte. Winnipeg, Canada: J.J. Federowicz. ISBN 978-0-921991-01-4.

should probably not be used as "Further reading" in Fritz Witt article, given that the author is not a scholar.

Don't place too much weight on someone having a degree in order to determine whether they should be used. Take James P. O'Donnell for example, he was a Harvard grad and a journalist; but interviewed many witnesses and was the first and about the only one who has written in detail about the "break-out" from the Berlin bunker; so, he cannot be discounted; true, one must read him with his journalism nature in mind, but he cannot be dismissed out of hand. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Same probably applies to Mark Yerger, whose writing I've seen described in literature as "indispensable to romancers."

Well, everyone can be criticized. Yeager is seen as an authority on the Allgemeine SS and he is published by Schiffer Publishing; so he would be an RS source per Wikipedia guidelines.@OberRanks: is even more familiar with his works than I am. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Publishers

• I see J.J. Federowicz quite a bit while browsing content devoted to Waffen-SS units and commanders. Is it considered a "reliable" (i.e. mainstream) publisher? By looking at their website, they don't quite seem so.

As for J.J. Federowicz; I am not familiar with all their works and some are "primary source" books; such as the one you mention by Lehmann, which is a unit history by a former officer. A rule of thumb to remember - it is preferred to use "secondary sources" a/k/a "third party" RS sources in citing for NPOV reasons. I do have two of their books; the one by Tiemann (unit history, I used a few times after cross-checking the information written about with secondary RS sources) and one by Fischer (a secondary RS source) which I have used some, as well. Primary sources therefore can be used, but they are not as preferred and must be used with some caution.Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of the above examples (Yerger, Federowicz, Axis History, etc) can be found on Fritz Witt page, but I've seen some combination of those on many pages.

I assume none of the above qualifies as WP:RS source and should be removed when encountered if used as a reference. Is this assumption correct? External links and Further reading are more of a judgment call, and I would love to hear your opinion.

See my comments above and MisterBee1966's below and read WP:RS and Wikipedia:Verifiabilityguidelines. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources Some specific questions about using the below as a source:

• Fellgiebel, Walther-Peer (2000). Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939–1945 — Die Inhaber der höchsten Auszeichnung des Zweiten Weltkrieges aller Wehrmachtteile [The Bearers of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939–1945 — The Owners of the Highest Award of the Second World War of all Wehrmacht Branches] (in German). Friedberg, Germany: Podzun-Pallas. ISBN 978-3-7909-0284-6.

The author is a former officer and his wiki article states: "Fellgiebel himself indicated that the book is not official. The deteriorating situation of the Third Reich during the final days of World War II left a number of nominations incomplete and pending in various stages of the approval process; loss of evidence of the presentation was also an issue in the verification process. Author Veit Scherzer analyzed the German Federal Archives and found discrepancies in 193 instances of the original 7,322 listings by Fellgiebel (false acceptance rate of 2.6%)."

Are you familiar with this work? The fact of the commendations would not be in dispute, but I'm not sure what else the book provides. I wonder if it contains other material that may be taken at face value and result in some article written as if they were compiled from frontline commendation submissions, see Fritz Witt - Copyedits and inline citations.

It would seem that Scherzer probably supplants Fellgiebel in terms of what should be used in Wikipedia:

• Scherzer, Veit (2007). Die Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945 Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchives [The Knight's Cross Bearers 1939–1945 The Holders of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross 1939 by Army, Air Force, Navy, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm and Allied Forces with Germany According to the Documents of the Federal Archives] (in German). Jena, Germany: Scherzers Miltaer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2.

I would appreciate your thoughts on these materials and their proper use within Wikipedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to comment on the use of Fellgiebel and Scherzer. I made a very conscious and deliberate decision on Fellgiebel as source. The main reason for my decision is, Wikipedia is centered on Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Generally speaking, it is not up to us Wikipedia editors to rank one source over another, this should be done to historians. Also note, even Scherzer based his work on Fellgiebel (and others such as Von Seemen, Dörr, Thomas, Wegmann, Range). I believe that a good Wikipedia article should point out the differences in information. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thank you for the clarification on Fellgiebel. Your reasoning makes sense. While I'm at here, there's another example of what I'm talking about re sources: Albert Graf von der Goltz - References K.e.coffman (talk) 07:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks like these ones also need to be clarified:

• Feldgrau – The History of the German Armed Forces in WWII
• http://en.ww2awards.com/ - this is a project of STIWOT, which has a forum with some similarities to Axis History Forum http://www.stiwotforum.nl/ K.e.coffman (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Feldgrau was created and is maintained by one man, Jason Pipes. It has no editorial oversight and is from what I have seen, uncited. So, in my opinion, I would say no as to use.

I don't know anything about the site, ww2awards. It states it is a "Dutch organisation". It does list references at the bottom of the pages I checked, but no inline cites. I don't know what vetting process they use, nor what editorial oversight they have. If it was me I would use RS book sources instead; but without further research I cannot say; maybe you can do some internet research on this site or ask someone else on here about them. Kierzek (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

SS copies

If you set up a free Google account I will send the flies via Google Drive--Woogie10w (talk) 12:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will do it tonight. Kierzek (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

???--Woogie10w (talk) 09:42, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I came home last night and got involved (after dinner) in helping my kids with homework. I will do it tonight. Kierzek (talk) 12:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, done. Kierzek (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

JVL

Hi Kierzek: I don't think JVL is a reliable source for the Waffen-SS article; if you scroll to the bottom of the page, you'll see that it's sourced back to Wikipedia. In general, I believe JVL to be more of content farm and thus a tertiary source at best. Any good content they have is usually sourced from other websites, such as Yad Vashem. What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I read through the article and did not see anything objectionable (especially for the point I wanted), but missed the little note at the end. That is funny, sourced back, yes, I see, you are right. I will take care of it. BTW- Stein's book on the Waffen-SS is a classic RS source and I noted recently he "talks" quite a bit as to the HIAG and their campaign of rehab and revisionism as to their history; if you have access to the book, I would recommend it since you have been re-writing the HIAG article. Kierzek (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I've used Stein (via Google books), but I just got a print copy from the library, so I'll check it more in context. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Summary execution

is a bit concerning as an article, which may need attention. I noted that the 33rd that we have just finished working on links to it. it seems like a mini WP:COATRACK for the shooting of the 11 French SS, some kind of moral equivalence thing being attempted by some editor back in it's history. Note that the article Nazi Germany section mentions the 20th July plot (probably about 3,000 direct victims there) and 1 from the Wilhelm Gustloff. Err, there was that little Commissar Order affair, and in fact one could mention the whole Eastern Front from 41 to 44. And the Polish and Balkan summary massacres. 11 French collaborators shot by their own countrymen does not cut it with me by way of equivalence. Maybe we should check that out. Anyway finished the 33rd, now it needs sourcing better I think. I alerted Peacemaker 67 for an editorial second pair of eyes, just so we are satisfying consensus from experienced peers. Left a note on K.e.c.'s T/P too. Regards Irondome (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen the article linked above. BTW- I am glad you cleaned up the last part of the 33rd. I will give this other article a look tomorrow. Kierzek (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's a very strange article. The list of notable cases is bizarre and should probably go. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

DR Division

@Irondome: & Kierzek: I wonder if we should look at 2nd SS Panzer Division Das Reich next. Being one of the oldest divisions, it probably sees a decent amount of traffic. It's only partially sourced and stylistically sounds like much of the content comes from the Axis history forum. Any thoughts on this? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

That's fine; btw - just read up on Richard Landwehr; need to really watch how his cited text is used; if at all. Better to replace, if possible. Kierzek (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have Landwehr on my list. Here's the problem articles I identified so far:

SS Panzergrenadier Brigade 49; Henri Joseph Fenet; Norwegian Legion; SS Panzergrenadier Brigade 51 – Sourced largely to revisionist works by an "extreme admirer" of the Waffen SS Richard Landwehr, who writes from "the fringes of the far right" (quotes are from Mackenzie, Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach)

I did some copy edit work on Fenet and have asked MisterBee what, if any, information he has on the awarding of the Knight's Cross to Fenet. Hopefully, he will have some good RS information to add. Kierzek (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Re: Sicherheitsdienst

I put the English translation of the Sicherheitsdienst (Security Service) in bold. You reverted my edit saying only titles or article names were put in bold. I just saw at the WP article for the National Assembly of Venezuela, that the name "National Assembly" is written in English and the Spanish translation in parenthesis is also in bold. Here's the link to the page so you can see for yourself. National Assembly of Venezuela. I'm not asking for the title to be in English, just that the English translation be in bold. I understand that names are in bold. Couldn't the English translation of the name be considered part of that name? I appreciate you realizing that the edit was in good faith. I just thought I'd suggest that maybe the English translation, being a translation of the name, could be in bold as well as the original name. NapoleonX (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

The point is, that is not the name of the article; as you state yourself, you are talking about the "English translation". Kierzek (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, it's just that in the WP page I cited, both the English translation which is actually put as the name with the original Spanish in parenthesis, and the original Spanish are in in bold. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just thought since in that case both names are in bold, because both are equivalent words for the title. NapoleonX (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Henri Joseph Fenet

You may want to have a look at Trigg, Jonathan (2015). Hitler's Gauls: The History of the 33rd Waffen-SS Division Charlemagne. The History Press. ISBN 978-0-7509-6711-2. It has a section on Fenet. I can't say anything about its quality. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information above and your addition made to the article. Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hans-Ulrich Rudel

I have started revamping the article but I could use a co-author, especially to cover my rear end when it comes to his post war far-right political activities. Are you interested and/or willing to help? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I willing to help. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have overhauled the lead, it may be a bit long, but I tried to cover the most important elements. Please have a look. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to contribute as well, if you guys don't mind. I have some info on the post-war activities and an assessment of his memoirs from Slemser & Davies' The Myth of the Eastern Front. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I did an initial copy edit run through. The lede is still long; as you know, guidelines state an article lede should not be more than four paragraphs. I would like to see a little more as to his post-war activities; such as Nazi or right-wing related to balance things out some as to his character. For example, the article states, "in the book, he supported Nazi policies"; what for example, besides the 1941 invasion of Soviet Union. In 1976, Rudel was involved in a political scandal, which became known as the Rudel Scandal; add a sentence to explain that to readers. See what you think of the ce, so far. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 03:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

First, the more the merrier, so I have no objections against anyone contributing. To set some expectations, in my experience, it takes about 3 to 6 months to create a somewhat decent article on Wikipedia. Over this timeframe, I have to read, buy and order new books, re-read, structure, write and re-write until I feel comfortable with the topic. Regarding Rudel, I just ordered the book from Uki Goñi The Real Odessa: How Perón Brought the Nazi War Criminals to Argentina. I think this will help put his postwar activities into perspective. Also missing, Rudels actions in combat have to be put in context of the greater military objectives. Although successful as a pilot he was, he was also a leader in combat, and most sources I have seen so far do not adequately address his leadership skills and the losses infringed by the units he commanded. In essence, this article will be work in progress for some time. MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I am done editing for the day, feel free to correct any mischief I made. Cheers and happy holidays. MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have an opinion on the progress made so far? I am curious. Cheers?

It is very detailed and well cited. I do believe that some of the detailed general fact statements should be cut down or re-worked; such as: "Adolf Hitler had shifted VIII. Fliegerkorps northwards in support of Heeresgruppe Nord (Army Group Nord), under command of Feldmarschll Wilhelm Ritter von Leeb, in its attempt to capture Leningrad, present-day Saint Petersburg." It needs to focus on Rudel in the events and battle which ensued. How was he involved and how did it affect him. And edits for concision needs to be considered overall. But, I know it is a work in progress; keep up the good work. Kierzek (talk) 15:11, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hm, it is important because, if not for this decision by Hitler, he would not have fought at Kronstadt, he would not have attacked Marat, he might not have lost his air gunner MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Context in relation to the subject is the point. Not just a narrative in general. Kierzek (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, do you have access to John Toland's book Adolf Hitler? I found a reference that according to Toland, Rudel had visited Hitler in his bunker on 19 April 1945. Thanks for checking MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

(tps) I have a paperback copy here, Ballantine 1977 ISBN 0-345-25899-1. It says on page 1183 that Rudel met with Hitler on April 19. Rudel was ordered to take charge of all jet fighter planes. He refused, as he preferred flying to a desk job. By the time he left, it was after midnight (and Hitler's birthday). Toland's source is Rudel's book Stuka Pilot (1958) and personal interviews. -- Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa. I used to have the HB two-volume set of "Hitler" by Toland but don't any longer after obtaining Kershaw's work. I do find the claim by Rudel as suspect given it is not mentioned in Joachimsthaler, Kershaw, nor even author, O'Donnell's work. Kierzek (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, for checking MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Kierzek

And may your holidays be merry and bright . . . . Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, same to you; fellow esquire. Kierzek (talk) 20:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings

	🍁 Season's greetings from Canada 🎄
	Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for everything you do to maintain, improve, and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks and I hope you have a good relaxing holiday up there in the "Great White North" of Canada. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 01:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kierzek (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinion

I started a talk page edit regarding this revert [4]. Your opinion would be welcome. -O.R.^Comms 06:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Your edit was correct and I left a comment therein. I also did some needed ce and clean up as to the article. Kierzek (talk) 16:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Perfect timing on this as I'm just now finishing up the chapter on the SS and Police Leaders. I hope Hans-Adolf Prützmann is enjoying the hot fires of Hell. That guy was a real bastard. -O.R.^Comms 21:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Best of the Season to you

		Merry Christmas!
		Merry Christmas Kierzek and a Happy and Prosperous New Year! Dr. K. 20:40, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and same to you. Kierzek (talk) 20:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Rudel

Hi, thanks for all the copy editing work you did on the article. I have requested more formal feedback on the article in a peer review. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. A peer review sounds good; it should not take a lot for it to get through to GA in the end. Kierzek (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Lives of a Bengal Lancer

You might remember me bringing Bengal Lancers to GA-status back in July 2015; I believe I asked you or Diannaa for some copyedits? Anyhow, I recently added some nice screenshots of the film and did some further edits which nicely suited the article. My present goal is to see this baby reach FA-status. By all means, have another look and the new changes and make some edits if you please. I'll be writing Obenritter a similar message. Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember it that well, but did have a look just now. I have never seen the movie which would help anyone who was going to edit it to any real degree. My rule of thumb, with the more limited time I generally seem to have now, is to work on bringing lower tier articles up in class, with an end focus of GA class; although I did help bring one article up to Class A. So I must pass on any FA work. Kierzek (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Fegelein?

Hi, are the following images showing Fegelein next to Himmler? What do you think?

• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101III-Bueschel-010-11A, Himmler bei der SS-Kavallerie-Division.jpg
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101III-Bueschel-009-01, Heinrich Himmler bei SS-Kavallerie-Division.jpg
• File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101III-Bueschel-009-16, Russland, Himmler bei Parade.jpg on horse

Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes the first two definitely. The third one is harder to see the picture well on my smart phone, but I believe it is. Kierzek (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought so too. What confused me, all three images seem to be taken at the same location (or near the same location) and time. The first two images are dated 21 June 1941, the third states May 1942. MisterBee1966 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I have never seen Fegelein in a German helmet. Always just the standard Waffen SS officers cap or with no headgear at all. Kierzek (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@MisterBee1966: Now that I am back from vacation, looking at it again; one still cannot see the face well on the third photo even on a desk top screen; I still believe it is Fegelein; something else though - how can the photo dates be correct of "21 June 1941" for the first two? I know you said the third states "May 1942".

The rank collar tabs show him as a SS-Standartenführer, (which although it is true he obtained that rank in the Allgemeine-SS in 1937) when these photos were said to have been taken, he was serving in the Waffen-SS. He did not obtain that same rank in the Waffen-SS until 1 February 1942. So, the date on the third photo is probably correct. Kierzek (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Why not link to a primary source?

Hey, don't want to seem unfriendly, but what's up with removing the link to an article about Joseph Goebbels' speech against the Catholics that was published in the Chicago Tribune the following day? As a teacher, I know students like to be able to track down those sorts of things, and I was under the impression that once a person released something on Wikipedia, they had agreed to allow edits. Not sure why you'd call it "unnecessary" since it does link to something that wasn't there before and which is absolutely relevant to research. At classical schools, we always teach our students to go to the primary sources, and so it's a bit confusing to me as to why someone would delete that. EDGRC

Hello, thanks for the note. That information is already present and cited to a very good secondary WP:RS (Evans). Your good faith entry/addition is a cumulative citation which is not needed; only on matters which can be considered to have great weight or may be contentious are multiple RS cites needed. Also, I suggest you read this Wikipedia:Third-party sources and WP:WPNOTRS. What you could do is add it to the "Further reading" section near the bottom of the article. Kierzek (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for directing me to these guidelines. I do have a question, though. Wikipedia states, "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." Since my link was to a newspaper story about Goebbels' speech, would it not fit under the heading of a third-party reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Could you clarify this for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EDGRC (talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it would given it is the "Chicago Tribune" you cite (since it is not a tabloid, etc.). I would consider adding it to further reading section. Kierzek (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

History of cardistry

I appreciate they might not teach a lot about cardistry in law school, but would be nice with some copyedits -- that is, of course, if you feel like it/have the time. Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 18:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe Diannaa have time to look at it as well. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 17:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I know I do not have the time at the moment. Kierzek (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment on JFK

I would have no problem moving the entire "Iraq" section to Foreign policy of the John F. Kennedy administration if you prefer. Iraq was not a particularly important part of Kennedy's presidency, except inasmuch as a number of revisionists suddenly began blaming Kennedy for the rise of the radical pro-Soviet wing of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party (which seized power in 1968)—and thus Saddam Hussein's 1979 ascension to President of Iraq—after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, even though such claims are factually inaccurate. I found it difficult to condense the material regarding the various measures taken by Qasim's government that resulted in his pariah status to the U.S. and much of the Arab world, or to correct the grossly inaccurate description of the November coup without going into a certain amount of detail regarding the structure of the short-lived Ba'athist regime of 1963. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 07:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the email. I think the move you suggest is a good idea. Although something needs to survive in the main article on the matter, either a short mention or link to the long detail (moved) section. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Brandi

In search for my next article, I started looking into the biography of Albrecht Brandi, U-boat commander. What I didn't realize until now, his father was Ernst Brandi, a top manager in the coal and steel industry, who was involved in the Secret Meeting of 20 February 1933, and helped fund the Nazi election campaign of 1933, which pinnacled in the Enabling Act of 1933. Do you happen to have more context info? I find it very fascinating that Albrecht received such high awards during World War II for so-so success as a U-boat commander, at least in comparison to others. Thoughts? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, I will check to see if I have any info. on the father. Kierzek (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I checked and none of my books have anything on the father. Kierzek (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

SS Medical Corps

Just recently noticed that this article was in terrible shape so I began a little work on it. Feel free to jump in here. --Obenritter (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, and keep up the good work; many articles need it. You should be able to copy edit over some information and cites from the main SS sub-section on the SS Medical Corps. Kierzek (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Germany or Nazi Germany?

Do you have an opinion about this RFC? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have stated it, thanks. Kierzek (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For all the help you gave me with Marilyn Monroe and for being an amazing editor! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, very much. I am glad I could be of some help. You did an excellent job on reworking and improving the article. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Schutzstaffel

Take a look at the sub-section I added on SS counter-insurgency with a critical eye to see if citations need consolidated, verbiage needs adjusted, etc. It certainly seems like an aspect worth mentioning but I was not sure where to place it. It seems appropriate in my view where I inserted it but you may see it differently. Anyway -- thanks. --Obenritter (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

It is placed fine. Ce done. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Sir.--Obenritter (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Air Gunner Badge

I have to check, but I think I don't. Sorry MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Kurowski

Thanks for the heads up. I will probably not comment. As Dr. Who said "The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views." They are forfeiting one of the core strength of Wikipedia, the ability to look at history holistically. Dumb. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Karl Wolff

Noticed you cited a Miller book dated 2006, but see no Bibliographic entry. When you get a chance of course. By the way - isn't Chief of the Adutantur (Himmler's personal office) different than the appointment as liaison to Hitler? Didn't Fegelein end up supporting Himmler and Hitler just as Wolff did before? You called your change to Reitlinger's observation a correction. Does Lang specify that this observation about Wolff is incorrect? --Obenritter (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I cited it to Miller and Lang, both are there. The entry made it sound like Fegelein was appointed in April 1943, but he was not. The position of SS liaison office to Hitler was not filled until January 1944 by Fegelein. Wolff was already Chief adjutant and head of the Persönlicher Stab Reichsführer-SS before April, 1943. Fegelein on 20 April 1943 was appointed commander of the SS Cavalry Division. BTW - Reitlinger, I have found is not the best source; his work is dated. Kierzek (talk) 01:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes --- I know that Wolff had long held that post. That is not what was in question. So Fegelein could not have been given the post of Himmler's Adjutant and the SS Calvary Division at this time is what I am understanding you to say. If so... fair enough. BTW - Reitlinger's work is still considered respectable in general terms by academics. It's not perfect but it's not bunk either. Details like what we're discussing are usually better sourced by more focused studies akin to the one you referenced. Nonetheless, thanks for the clarification Sir.--Obenritter (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is the correct timeline for Fegelein. And I was not saying the book in question was junk only that it is dated and therefore not always correct. Kierzek (talk) 04:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Historical lucubration can be a funny thing sometimes. In this case, I am trusting sources on subjects for which there are specialist studies available - which can provide the opportunity for correction and indeed did so in this instance. Since I am not one given to detailed military biographies or nuanced battle studies, there will be occasions when others can salvage my unintended errors, lest I remind you that my area of actual expertise is Nazi ideology which has likely revealed itself (for good or bad) in my contributions. While I have a myriad of books on my shelves, the ones with the most highlighting and/or notes in the margins, are those where my research was most focused. Always charge my head and not my heart. From what I have seen -- we are seeking accuracy and quality content alike which is why I always appreciate your watchful eye -- @Diannaa: also falls into this category. My guess is you'll be applying the work Top Nazi (a book I do not actually own) to much of the other content in this article so as to clean it up a bit more.--Obenritter (talk) 05:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We are all in "this thing of ours" together and no one is keeping score. I wish I had more time to work on it but I don't. As for Lang's book and Wolff's article, that book is one I don't own. One can see much of the book through Google Books. I used Lang's other book, to a degree, when Diannaa and I were working to bring Martin Bormann up to GA class; the real problem is that not many books are written on people such as Bormann and even more so, Wolff. So, one has to hunt around and use what one can. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed a problem on this page...

...not enough kittens. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves, for: 16 Good Articles and one of which is now A-Class, in an area of where sensitivity, neutrality and careful research is so vital; for your willingness to lend a helpful hand. Well done and thank you. MisterBee1966 (talk) 09:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much; it is an honor. Kierzek (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations, Kierzek. A well-deserved honor. — Diannaa (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Congrats Kierzek! Great to see formal recognition of your contributions by Milhist. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:01, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideology of the SS

Hi Kierzek - You may want to peruse the latest week's worth of discussion on the Talk page for the Ideology of the SS article as a couple of editors are trying to paint the contents as being intentionally praiseworthy to the Nazis - likewise suggesting that the editors have misused sources and the like. It's pretty offensive stuff. Zwerg Nase has rang in a couple places and so have I since they are taking their edits, insinuations, and criticism too far in my opinion. I'd also be curious about the opinion of @Diannaa: on this subject and the manner in which these editors are insulting others by way of content and/or direct aspersions--Obenritter (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I have seen it and already opened a discussion for input from the military history section; see here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Hopefully the article, if kept, will be reworked according to WP:NPOV and WP:RS, as it should be done. It may have to wait until "the dust has settled". Patience is advised. Kierzek (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Obenritter. I saw your ping. I feel I am involved and cannot act as an admin regarding this issue, since I co-nominated GAB for adminship and this incident is fallout from that. I see you are the person with the most edits on the Ideology of the SS article so those remarks have gotta hurt, but as far as I can see there's been no personal attacks per se. Let me know if you view it differently. — Diannaa (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Next division

I'm wondering if you may have time to look at 3rd SS Panzer Division Totenkopf. It exibits familiar signs of the problematic W-SS content: no citations, poetic language, etc; in general, reads like a typical "war narrative". I think if could also stand some improvements in tone and condensing, based on what sources are available. Please let me know what you think. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It is a bit breathless in parts. It could certainly use citations and a more encyclopedic tone throughout. I might be able to help next weekend after I've gathered enough material. GAB^Hello! 02:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I will have a look, as well. Kierzek (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both! K.e.coffman (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I found this, which I can probably begin using in a couple days (might as well find more). The article hasn't got much in the way of battle history, but I will keep looking. GAB^Hello! 14:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Snyder is known as an authority on the 3rd SS division. You probably are aware of his original work, entitled, Soldiers of Destruction. The one you found looks interesting. Btw- please excuse the informal reply, I'm writing from my iPhone. Kierzek (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is already cited in the article, too. GAB^Hello! 14:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Book

Hi, I took a look at the book in question and it seems okay to me: http://www.amazon.com/The-Death-Adolf-Hitler-Bezymenski/dp/0718106342

'Illustrated with gruesome black and white photographs. Dust jacket design by Craig Dodd. Soviet autopsies and other reports of Hitler, Goebbels and others who died in the Bunker in Berlin at the end of World War II.' IQ125 (talk) 13:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I know this "work". The fact is that it was written back in 1968, and you cannot go by a source such as Amazon above, which frankly tells one nothing of substance. That is why I listed the historians I did in the edit summary. Contemporary historians have rejected Bezymenski's account of Hitler's death and the so-called autopsy; it was, to say the least, colored and bias Soviet propaganda. See Eberle and Uhl, The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin from the Interrogations of Hitler's Personal Aides, p. 288 and Kershaw Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis, p. 1037. I am not at home right now so I cannot go into further detail. With respect I must revert, but thank you for the comment. In the end, per WP:OR, it does not matter what we think but what the WP:RS sources state. Kierzek (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Not everything in a book has to be agreed upon to make the list. The list is called: "List of books by or about Adolf Hitler", so the book qualifies to be in the list. The best thing to do is write an article at Wikipedia about the book and wiki-link it to the name in the list. Good luck with that. I have copied this discussion to the article's talk page. IQ125 (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote on the article talk page, your reasoning is faulty; by your reasoning everything and anything written on a subject could be included. I cited works by leading historians and you have cited nothing. The only reason I don't revert again is because of the three revert rule. I did add a note with RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Reassessment

Hi, would you mind closing the reassessment of the ideology article? I would do it, but when I reassessed the Brauchitsch article, I may not have done it 100% correctly, as I see a note: {{error:not substituted|GAR/result}} {{error|It should only be used for closing community reassessments.}} on the Brauchitsch reassessment page. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Done, with help from Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 13:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

SS Education Office created

Per your request, I created the SS Education Office. Feel free to edit accordingly and add any images etc.--Obenritter (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it was needed. Kierzek (talk) 03:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hi Kierzek, I'd like to consult with you on the Rommel myth article. An editor did copyedits, noting that "article needs additional work, particularly around NPOV and citations". I left a note on their talk page asking for more details, but it appears that they edit infrequently so I've not had a response. Do you see anything in the article that can be construed as NPOV or problematic citations? Would appreciate your opinion to help me improve the article. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

No problem; just a matter of time. I just gave it a quick look and will revisit it this weekend, when I have more time.

One thing I noted, one of these sentences has the wrong date: "In the spring of 1941, Rommel's name began to appear in the British media. In the autumn and early winter of 1941, he was mentioned in the British press almost daily." Please fix it.

Now, for NPOV, I do believe the section "Uncritical accounts" needs work. It is written as a general accepted statement in Wikipedia's voice, it needs attribution and detail, if kept:

"Young and Liddell Hart laid the foundation for the Anglo-American myth, which consisted of three themes: Rommel's ambivalence towards Nazism; his military genius; and the emphasis of the chivalrous nature of the fighting in North Africa."< I assume this is Connelly's opinion but it is not stated that; and if a summary of what he already said in the article, why is this repeated here and needed? If not a summary, then attribution and detail needed.>

"Their works lent support to the image of the 'clean Wehrmacht' and were generally not questioned, since they came from British authors, rather than German revisionists."< again assume Caddick-Adams believes this is the case; must state same and again if this point is already stated in more detail in the article, why is this needed here? If not a summary, then attribution and detail needed.>

"The trend continued with other uncritical biographies, such as Rommel as Military Commander (1968) by the military historian Ronald Lewin and Knight's Cross: A Life of Field Marshal Erwin Rommel (1994) by the high-ranking British officer David Fraser."< who states this opinion? How and why is this true; examples being what?; is this only Searle's opinion?>

"The uncritical tradition also included works by Sir John Squire and General Sir John Hackett."< according to whom? How? This is opinion, so needs to be stated as such and in greater detail as to why, if it is kept in.>

Other sections: "Relationship with National Socialism" and "Operational level commander", need some more attribution work, as well. Kierzek (talk) 13:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look! Are the notes I am adding helpful? For much of the stuff, there appears to be a broad consensus, at least in the sources that are listed. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a "notes" section in an article such as this one is helpful. And the further work you have done on the article, since my writing above, has improved it and addressed my points above. Kierzek (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest you copy edit over some of your recent attribution work from this article over to the section "Foundational works" in the main Rommel article. Kierzek (talk) 03:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a good idea; I've been thinking along the same lines. But I'll probably wait since the section on the Rommel article needs to be a summary of the Myth article, and I'm still adding content and sources. I'm then supposed to summarize it to about 8−10,000 characters, which will be a project in itself. I might do that once the article goes through copyediting, which I submitted it for. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Witt and others

Hi, I am back. I will see what I have and start working my way through these articles. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I am trying to find out if Witt was involved in the Massacre in Zakroczym. Do you happen to know? Stockert indicates that Witt was involved in the fighting at Zakroczym, but does not directly link him or his unit to the massacre. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I checked and I don't have anything that links him to that. Kierzek (talk) 12:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Regarding Dörner, I will add him to the list of articles to look into. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I have added Wünsche. By the way, what do you have on Walther Dahl and his wife Regina? Both were active in right wing politics after World War II. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW I checked, as for Dahl, nothing post-war. Kierzek (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have started looking into the Bittrich article. According to the German Wiki, Bittrich was married to the actress Käte Sonntag-Blume, also known as Kitty Sonntag. I was wondering if you have a reference for this claim. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I will check. Kierzek (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

According to this image. Bittrich was indeed married to Kitty. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I checked but do not have anything to help as to citing Bittrich's marriage. Kierzek (talk) 01:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Wilhelm Bittrich, I added everything I found up to World War II. I am not too familiar with all the various and ever changing SS designations, sorry for that. Please check and make the best of it. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks MisterBee. Kierzek (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Million Award: Thanks for your work in this important article

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Schutzstaffel (estimated annual readership: 1,700,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! — Diannaa (talk) 19:33, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, and good job back at you, on this article which was more complicated then most have been getting it up to GA review standard. It would not have gotten there without you. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

There's a new page view tool, which is now properly taking into account views on mobile devices. Goebbels is over a million views a year, as are Death of Adolf Hitler, Mengele, Goring, etc. Goebbels was really close to a million using the old page view tool, which is why I placed a Million Award on my user page for that article. With the new page view tool, it's closer to two million views a year, nearly double what we were getting using desktop views alone. — Diannaa (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Diannaa - I did not know about that. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Nazi Germany paramilitary ranks

I noticed you did a bit of work recently on the Template:Nazi Germany paramilitary ranks and wondered if you knew why it is missing quite a few party offices like Kreisleiter, Ortsgruppenleiter, Zellenleiter and Blockleiter. According to The Nizkor Project source I used in the Reichsleiter article (thanks for the thanks by the way) these were all part of the party structure. What do you think, should these be added to the template or should a seperate template be created for these Nazi party hierarchy ranks? Calistemon (talk) 06:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure why it was set up that way; it was in existence, when I joined. It does show, mainly, the ranks of the various main branches of the NSDAP; but there are several Nazi Party ranks in there; so I don't know why the others are not included therein. I would include them under the non-combat ranks. I don't know if any other editors disagree or not. Comments are welcome. Kierzek (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Maybe a new row for party ranks within Nazi Gaue would be an option which includes the above mentioned plus Gauleiter and Reichsleiter. Calistemon (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding the "row" for the Nazi Party ranks in the template is the way to go. But you could add the "Nazi Germany Paramilitary Ranks" template at the botton of "Nazi Gaue". Kierzek (talk) 15:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Eberbach

I need your help. Eberbach fought in the following engagements during World War I:

• 28 August 1914: Combat near St. Die

The Germans in August 1914 took the Vosges mountains and by early September were near Epinal. Saint-Die-des-Vosges is in the Vosges Mountains. Kierzek (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• 29 August to 5 September 1914: Combat near Kemborg (not sure what is meant here, translation error?)

Kemberg is in Germany; but could not find anything as to WWI in 1914. Kierzek (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

• 6 September 1914: Combat near Mauvais
• 26 September to 5 October 1914: Combat near Thiepval
• 5 October to 25 May 1915: Trench war at Thiepval
• 30 May to 9 July 1915: Trench war west of Warneton
• 5 September to 19 September 1915: Trench war south Chateau-Salins
• 23 September 1915: Combat in the Champagne, south and southeast of Somme-Py
• 15 January to 15 April 1918: Trench war in Macedonia
• 15 May to 1 June 1918: Trench war in Ostjordanland (Emirate of Transjordan)
• 1 June to 19 September 1918: Trench war in Westjordanland (West Bank)
• 19 September 1918: Combat near Tulkerim
• 21 September 1918: Combat near Bet-Hassan-Besan

Can you assist in mapping these engagements/battles to articles in Wikipedia? Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You always give me tough nuts to crack. What information do you have on Heinz-Eugen Eberbach, the son of Heinrich Eberbach and later Kapitän zur See in the Bundesmarine? MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I will help out as I have time. And as for Heinz-Eugen Eberbach, I will have to check. Here is mention of Heinz-Eugen Eberbach at uboat.net and links therein to the U-boats under his command. Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Else Krüger

Kierzek - Great job on finding the information on Else Krüger. What source revealed her date of death?

Thanks, but I cannot take credit for that. Someone went and found the grave of she and her husband and wrote an article on it. Someone else linked it to her article. BTW, thanks for your recent work on the articles: European non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II (which definitely needs to be renamed) and Gestapo. Kierzek (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries. It's good to see a loop closed. On the article, I was thinking European non-Germans in the German armed forces during World War II needed renamed as well. No idea how that works. How about something like Non-German Nazi Volunteer and Auxiliary Forces.--Obenritter (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Runes

I really don't think two sets are needed. The SS article went from two to one, and is currently at GA. Thoughts? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I forgot about that on the SS article. Since this was an office and the seal was used on documents I have seen, I was thinking it should be kept; and it is not exactly the same as the flag. But, given your point, pick one and that is okay with me. Kierzek (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no preference on which one stays -- up to you. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Done then. Kierzek (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy

Hello: I have now finished the copy edit of John F. Kennedy. I tried to archive as many URLs as possible but the Internet Archive site can be temperamental so I was unable to finish this off. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thanks very much for the Barnstar - much appreciated. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I will continue to work on the article page as needed and it should pass GA without much trouble after some more RS work where needed. Thanks again, Kierzek (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Germanic peoples

Hey Kierzek -- I need you to look at something. On the page Germanic peoples, I cannot figure out why the citations no. (113) Kishlansky, Geary & O'Brien 2008, p. 166. and (188) Kishlansky, Geary & O'Brien 2008, p. 164. will not sync up with the harv ref book which corresponds to the citation. When one clicks on the citation, it does not reference the book like the rest of them. Take a peek and see what I have done wrong -- that is, if you can figure out the discrepancy. Thanks. --Obenritter (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind brother -- I figured it out. It had to do with the name O'Brien. The book reference had a different ' mark between the O and B. Weird.--Obenritter (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Good. Kierzek (talk) 13:32, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sepp Dietrich

Do you want my sources on Sepp Dietrich? I can send you copies if you like. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, anything to beef it up, especially cites is always welcome. Kierzek (talk) 18:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Will do! Could you checkup on Albrecht Brandi please. During the revamping of the article a source was removed which is still cited in the article. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Brandi clean up is done. Kierzek (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, actually I was thinking that Stockert book should have been re-added. But your call MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of any question pending on the books removed; I have not edited on the article before. Kierzek (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I can provide you with similar information on Paul Hausser. You may want to check the article, it is not complaint to MOS:ORDER. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

You have mail MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I got them. I don't have a lot of time right now for Wikipedia, but will look at them in the near future. Kierzek (talk) 17:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

See my email on the matter. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Walter Schellenberg

OK - I have done my damage...your turn.--Obenritter (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for "beefing up" the article and also adding RS citing, as well. I only did a little ce work to it. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy

Hello: The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Robert F. Kennedy has been completed. I archived as many URLs as I could and replaced any "dead links" with new citations. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and work on it. Kierzek (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Opinion

You might want to keep an eye on this situation [5][6]. There was also a similar thing from this page about adding notability tags to Knight's Cross recipients. Your opinion would be welcome. Thanks! -O.R.^Comms 17:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there has been much discussion and some disagreement as to awards, RS citing in relation to same and what should be included and as to the "notability" of the KC and how it should be treated. The current wind seems to be blowing in the direction of not including all awards for many articles, especially if not RS cited. And also that being awarded the KC in and of itself is not enough for a stand alone article or stub on a recipient. There have been numerous discussions on these matters over the last six months. I have argued that the articles of KC recipients' should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. And also that awards should be included for articles of the top level people. Anyway, that is how things have been going. Kierzek (talk) 13:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Gregor Strasser, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Assayer (talk) 17:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I commented on the talk page and did some copy edits with RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

justice
... you were recipient no. 336 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the thought and the effort you put into this place. Kierzek (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Clark's book on Barbarossa

So Clark's book is that bad eh. That explains why there's not a single citation on the Operation Barbarossa page. That struck me as kinda strange, but I guess it shows my age too. --Obenritter (talk) 21:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I remember reading the book myself years ago. And given your book entries and contributions, no one can question your knowledge and library for RS work. Clark's book was published in 1965 and it reflected the times. And frankly Clark is a writer/author but also a politician in England. His first book, for example, The Donkeys (1961), was a historical revisionism history of the British Expeditionary Force's campaigns at the beginning of World War I and had included up conversion with a German general. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Roger that - Yeah I remember he was part of Thatcher's cabinet, but I never took him to be a Nazi sympathizer from what I recall. Perhaps the book just reflects information that has since become obsolete, but I remember it being an enjoyable and oft cited reference years ago. I never read his work on the B.E.F, but no matter, I shall refrain from using his tome on Barbarossa in the future given the repugnance it seems to incite nowadays. Thanks for the erudition. --Obenritter (talk) 00:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, its more the book reflects the Cold War issues of the time written, with a bias and he did not have access to any of the Russian archives; I would say, its probably more akin to Paul Carrel's book "Hitler Moves East, 1941-1943" (1964). Kierzek (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

SS runes

Please stop referring to the SS runes as being Armanen designed, please take the time to research the matter correctly. As I stated in my edit the Nazis did NOT make use of the Armanen runes. it is a matter of record their use was banned during the Nazi regime. The SS initially made use of the 'Standard' Germanic or Elder runes, and later adopted the runes designed by Karl Maria Willgut. Please stop adding inaccurate information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.9.27.43 (talk) 16:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not the one mistaken, the runes used were based on völkisch mystic Guido von List's Armanen runes, which he loosely based on the historical runic alphabets. Wiligut's work was based on List. And they were not "banned". Kierzek (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and the same to you. Kierzek (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Kierzek: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, GAB^gab 16:18, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Thank you sir and I hope you have a good relaxing holiday, as well. Kierzek (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)