User talk:Kierzek: Difference between revisions
Congratulations |
|||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
<br style="clear: both;"/> |
<br style="clear: both;"/> |
||
:Thanks. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek#top|talk]]) 01:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC) |
:Thanks. [[User:Kierzek|Kierzek]] ([[User talk:Kierzek#top|talk]]) 01:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC) |
||
== WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves == |
|||
{| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[Image:WikiChevronsOakLeaves.png|80px]] |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#WikiChevrons_with_Oak_Leaves|WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves]] ''''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | 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. [[User:MisterBee1966|MisterBee1966]] ([[User talk:MisterBee1966|talk]]) 09:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 09:46, 3 March 2016
Template:Multicol1 - April 2009 – December 2011 |
Due to a increased work load and life commitments, I will be less active on Wikipedia but will reply to messages, et cetera when I can. Thank you.
The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
For some reason, though I can see the notification, I can't find the email itself; is there any way you could resend it? Thanks, GABHello! 11:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I will try. Kierzek (talk) 13:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- There seems to be a problem with my email, as I am getting the notifications but nothing shows up in my inbox. Instead, I have emailed you with what I gleaned from the snippet of text that the notification showed me. GABHello! 15:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- It happens, as you can see from my recent exchange with Tvoz, above; the email system just does not always work correctly, for one reason or another. My email was no big deal; your reply did not go through either. Kierzek (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I sent the email just now, sorry; it took a while to write. GABHello! 15:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Got this one. Kierzek (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Alright. I'll be out until later today, but I'll make sure to catch up on everything that transpires. GABHello! 16:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I sent the email just now, sorry; it took a while to write. GABHello! 15:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- It happens, as you can see from my recent exchange with Tvoz, above; the email system just does not always work correctly, for one reason or another. My email was no big deal; your reply did not go through either. Kierzek (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- There seems to be a problem with my email, as I am getting the notifications but nothing shows up in my inbox. Instead, I have emailed you with what I gleaned from the snippet of text that the notification showed me. GABHello! 15:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I noticed a problem on this page...
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Cute_grey_kitten.jpg/150px-Cute_grey_kitten.jpg)
...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) |