User talk:Kierzek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Opinion[edit]

You might want to keep an eye on this situation [1][2]. 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)

Tanks Break Through![edit]

You're welcome! Schmausschmaus (talk)

GA reassessment[edit]

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[edit]

Four years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC[edit]

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13Talk 16:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry![edit]

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

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

Season's Greetings[edit]

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)

Nebe[edit]

Thanks for the help with the GA review!

When I first started editing at Wikipedia, I did not anticipate that I'd contribute to a "good article" on Nebe who I only vaguely knew of, because of his involvement in the gas vans. Oh well, even perpetrators need GA articles. :-) K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I was glad to help. I must say the article was in "need of surgery" back in October 2015. Kierzek (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled[edit]

Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi Kierzek, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Sam Walton (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 18:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me know how to apply. That would be a nice feature to have under my account as well. -O.R.Comms 22:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
@OberRanks: You can apply at WP:PERM/AP. Sam Walton (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
OberRanks, I did not "apply" but I thank Samwalton9 for the reply to your query and information provided. Kierzek (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I was just being nosey when I noticed that no one needed to be patrolling your articles :) Sam Walton (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
No problem; stop by anytime! Kierzek (talk) 23:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

86.90.43.5[edit]

You might want to join me in keeping an eye on this IP's edits, as they seem to attempt to skew things in a pro-Nazi direction. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the heads up. Kierzek (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
He's reverting, so take and look and correct his propaganda if you agree. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
I see he has been blocked for 48 hours; a slight reprieve; will keep a look out. Kierzek (talk) 13:39, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Minor Edits/ Nazi Germany[edit]

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

For GA rated articles look for this icon Good article in the top right corner of the article; the talk page will also tell you the rating status of a page. Minor tweaks can take the form of anything from punctuation to adjusting a sentence for flow to adding or changes a sentence or two, etc. Nothing is set in stone, but it is rare there would be a large addition to an article rated GA or above. Kierzek (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that information! One of the pages I have been following, Gleichschaltung, has me particularly interested in the objectivity of its editors. Some edits to me seem like they are more than just minor even when an editor claims they are, so that information really helps in identifying what a trustworthy edit appears to be. I don't think this certain page though is GA , so would you say that a non-GA article still has room for larger and more content-driven edits to be made without it being immediately suspect of bias? Thanks again, it's really helping me understand what I am looking at and I appreciate it. Taylor6644 (talk) 02:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)Taylor6644

GA Reassessment[edit]

Stefanie Rabatsch, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community 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. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey[edit]

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 8 years ago...[edit]

Balloons-aj.svg Hey, Kierzek. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day!
Mz7 (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg
Thanks, seems like long ago now. Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2017 (UTC)