User talk:Kierzek

Due to real life commitments, I am less active on Wikipedia. I will reply to messages, et cetera when I can. Thank you.

Happy First Edit Day!

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

im sorry for posting m it was accident

	im sorry for posting m it was accident
	_ Pizzaboi12 (talk) 21:37, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

If you’d like to do test edits, then do it in your sandbox that is the best place. Kierzek (talk) 21:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

NSDAP/AO

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

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

Local concentration camp is forgotten.

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

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

Heads up

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

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

You might be interested in this

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

Any idea...

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

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

Gestapo

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

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

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

Das Reich & Totenkopf divisions' elite status

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question about old artwork

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

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

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

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

Edit Question

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

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

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you reside in the United States)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Nine years!

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

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

PT-109 thanks

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

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

Happy First Edit Day!

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

In appreciation

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

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

Thanks for the thanks

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

Battle in Berlin

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

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

Nicknames

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the 1991 Gulf War air campaign Op-ed: Meet some more of the coordinators

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) 10:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Bibliography of World War II

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

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

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

Nomination of List of Nazi monuments in Canada for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Nazi monuments in Canada is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nazi monuments in Canada until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 20:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)