User talk:Kierzek/Archive 6

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

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)

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:NOTEVERYTHING. Kierzek (talk

) 18:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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

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

Seven years!

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

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

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!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the

Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)

05:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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 @

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

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)

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 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)

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)

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

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!
		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)

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)

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)

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!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the

Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)

20:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

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

I've moved

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

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)

Our Italian IP has moved from

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)

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

...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)

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)

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: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)

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)

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

Nine years!

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

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

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!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the

Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T)

01:51, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Hello Kierzek.

I would like to attempt to persuade you to reverse your removal of

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,
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! Hi Kierzek! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)