Due to a increased work load and life commitments, I will be less active on Wikipedia. I will reply to messages, et cetera when I can. Thank you.
- 1 Propaganda
- 2 Seasons' Greetings
- 3 David Powers Article Bibliography
- 4 Happy New Year, Kierzek!
- 5 Editing Hermann Göring
- 6 Your opinion...
- 7 Question
- 8 Unconstructive and grammatically incorrect changes to Marilyn Monroe
- 9 David Powers Article
- 10 Hello
- 11 Martin Bormann
- 12 Nine years of editing
- 13 March on Washington Photo:
- 14 Deletion of 1981 Das Boot movie references
- 15 Re: The Rottenführer article
- 16 moe. (band) page move
- 17 Wiki-cookie
- 18 Joseph Berchtold
- 19 I really appreciate that
- 20 Thank-you for you kind words, response from dcw2003=
- 21 Thank-you for you kind words, response from dcw2003=
- 22 Streicher and sock puppets
- 23 Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
- 24 Chi-Nu
- 25 SS regiments
- 26 The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018
- 27 Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
- 28 Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
- 29 Axman
Hi! Remember Talk:Ideology_of_the_SS/Archive_1#Photo? The article German aid to Soviet civilians in World War II also has a picture from a Propagandakompanie (top right). Do you think the photo should be removed, or that we should mention that this is propaganda? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 10:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hey, Mr. Potato. Yes, I have looked at the photo and the original description basically states: "Soviet Union.- Kradmelder (NCO) in medical care (first aid by putting on a bandage) of an injured Soviet woman (refugee), next to the woman a cold-protected toddler". Clearly the woman would not be a "Soviet" "refugee", it is propaganda description. It is clearly a Heer Propagandakompanie photo. I don't want to get involved in that article as I believe it would be a time sink and it is a can of worms. I will say that the photo should at least be noted to be a Propagandakompanie photo, and link to the article Wehrmacht Propaganda Troops on same. I have a problem with the whole article "German aid to Soviet civilians in World War II", and stand by my comments on its talk page. Good luck, Kierzek (talk) 20:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have removed the propaganda picture. In its current form the best solution is to delete the article imho. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Ok. I agree the article is very problematic. Kierzek (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have removed the propaganda picture. In its current form the best solution is to delete the article imho. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 07:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks, I hope you have a good holiday up there, as well. Kierzek (talk) 02:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
David Powers Article Bibliography
Thank you for the edits to the Dave Powers material I added, and for creating the Bibliography section. However, the Dallek book I used for my citations was not An Unfinished Life, but rather his Camelot's Court: Inside the Kennedy White House. It was published by HarperCollins in 2013, and the page numbers I cited were pp. 109-110. As I am not an experienced editor, I am unsure how to properly fix the Bibliography and source, so I thought I would let you know. I was surprised at the severe paucity of information in the article regarding Powers's background and experiences and role with Kennedy, and felt that some cited additional information would be helpful for a general reader. Again, thank you for the edits! 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
- That's fine, I will fix it and add that book. Thanks for the note and keeping editing. Kierzek (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Kierzek!
- Thanks, "let's hope its a good one", as John Lennon sang and Happy New Year to you. Kierzek (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Editing Hermann Göring
Hi Kierzek, I just tried to rewrite a small part of this article. Took the effort to research a source and put in the right inline citation format, which I hadn't done before. From reading Template:Harvard_citation_documentation#Shortened_footnote I saw I have to edit the sources section, too. I did this first and you reverted my addition after two minutes. If it is obligatory to edit an article (change and source for change) in one go please have it say so on the template page or somewhere else. Ah, frustrating. I'll leave it here. Happy new year. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well, you only said it was for a "later addition", which means nothing and gave no time frame. Also, in looking at the source you "added", it would be a primary source, which is to be used with caution and considered inferior to good WP:RS secondary sources. WP:CS, provides citing info. Please read the links for guidance. Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello. About this edit, I was wondering since the previous sentence expresses the percentage in numerals (
...82 percent), is it not better to be consistent in the following sentence that talks about the same thing? Or perhaps I am just missing something (I understand you marked it "grammar" as it is presumably incorrect to start a sentence with numerals). I tried to take a look again at MOS:NUMERAL but it doesn't really say much. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hello: I understand your point, but with that said, the sentence should not start with a numeral; the sentence needs to be tweaked, otherwise. Kierzek (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Done. Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Unconstructive and grammatically incorrect changes to Marilyn Monroe
This change you made to Marilyn Monroe, including this: "Her subsequent roles included a critically acclaimed performance in Bus Stop (1956) and acting in the first independent production of MMP, The Prince and the Showgirl (1957), she won a Golden Globe for Best Actress for Some Like It Hot (1959)." are unconstructive. This is not only a run-on sentence, but is also grammatically incorrect. Please double check your work before posting. Kim Leung (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Really, most of what you changed is what language was well vetted and passed FA rating for the article; you have added un-needed verbiage, especially in the WP:Lead, which is only to be a summary of the main body; I suggest YOU re-think your edits. Kierzek (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
David Powers Article
A few weeks ago I added some cited material to flesh out the article on David Powers, and you were very helpful in providing edits and assistance, for which I am thankful. Recently, an anonymous editor has started added more and more material to the article regarding Powers and the JFK assassination, specifically conspiracy theories. I believe that this is the same anonymous editor who was banned for adding a large amount of material with dubious sourcing to the David Powers article, all regarding JFK assassination theories. I deleted this editor's most recent addition with an explanation, but within a few hours they had posted it again. Would you look at the article and see what you think? I've seen too many otherwise good articles cluttered up with irrelevant trivia from editors (assassination conspiracy hobbyists), and I'm worried that this article will turn into something similar. Apparently, the same editor has been adding similar assassination conspiracy-related material to the Kenneth O'Donnell article as well. Thank you for your time. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
And good to "see" you again. Do you think we need a talk page discussion of the Kennedy speech thing, or work it out in edits? And there is a new WP:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement started by editor Coffee, it's actually accomplishing quite a bit (join us, join us, as they say). Enjoy. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- My point was the speech was more than just a change in policy of the administration as your original change stated; it was a conveyance to the general public that this was a moral issue; it was not directed at "the movement" groups and what they thought at the time (already a moral movement to them); that is why your original change was too narrow in scope and impact. It is better now that you added some words, but next time, discuss first before reverting. Kierzek (talk) 18:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
The DNA testing showed it was Martin Bormann's remains but not how the red clay got there. Watch episode 7, season 2 of 'hunting hitler' for sources from CIA / FBI an Paraguay government files that said he was still alive, adopted a daughter in Chile and was buried in Paraguay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:45, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry but the WP:RS sources do not agree and I see your revert was already reverted by someone else. Also, although entertaining, the "History" Channel is not considered an RS source. Thanks for writing, however. I don't blame you, but the writers and producers who crank out this stuff. Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Nine years of editing
- Thanks! It's not always a easy process, but it is a worthwhile project, this thing of ours. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
March on Washington Photo:
I noticed you removed a photo from the March on Washington page because it was in the planning section and was taken after the march. If you look closely, the date of that picture was June 22, 1963, before the march. It was taken after a pre-march meeting between the organizers and President Kennedy. President Kennedy is not in the picture because he left for trip to Europe.
If I'm not missing anything, would you please undo your removal of the picture?
Much thanks. Please let me know if I am mistaken or there is another basis for removal.
- That's right. I was originally thinking of the post march, White House photo. I corrected it. Kierzek (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Deletion of 1981 Das Boot movie references
I've deleted the references to the 1981 move on here. The comments made by the New York Times and others about the film are pertininent, and WP:NPOV requires that we present various sides of a story, if there are good sources. The New York Times is an excellent source, and I see no problems with the others cited in these few lines.
However, the points are not pertinent here because: 1. these sources have been copied word for word from the 1981 movie article page, and 2. These sources would fit only on the 1981 movie page. It makes no sense for it to be on the tv series page either. It's like putting reception of an original movie on a remake page. That's not even good logic.
I think this needs some discussion, as we now have three opinions on the material: two for inclusion, and one for removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:15, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted back to prior because it was well cited to RS source, was not POV pushing and is clearly relevant for background information and given the fact the TV series is a continuation of the movie events. And one can use wording and sentences from other articles, as long as they are not copied from the source itself, "word for word"; one only has to state attribution in the edit summary; otherwise your revert is of "pertinent" information for the reader. BTW - this discussion should be continued on the talk page for the article. Kierzek (talk) 15:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Re: The Rottenführer article
I just want to clarify that I do not disagree that he is a SS-Rottenfuher, I believe he never served as a concentration camp guard due the fact that he does not wear the SS-TV deaths head insignia as well as his rank tab. My disagreement was with the photo description see he would wear a uniform similar to this  (someone who actually served at Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp complex) rather than the tabs he is wearing.(Shadwash (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC))
- That seems to have been your point based on your edit summary and that is why I addressed that point on your talk page. It is true he does not have the right sided collar tab of the SS-TV, but that does not mean he was not assigned to the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp complex. As you may know, at these camps, the Politische Abteilung (Political department) was one of the five departments and made up of Gestapo, Kripo and Sicherheitsdienst (SD) men. Although it would be considered WP:OR at this point, I would say he probably was assigned to that office. He also could have been on temporary assignment there; many SS men rotated in and out of the camps; "convalescing" Waffen-SS soldiers, included (which, shoots down the "separation of service" argument some former SS officers have tried to make over the years). Remember the photo used for the Rottenfuher article only states he "served" there at that camp, NOT that he was a member of the SS-TV (a camp guard); don't miss that important point. Therefore, the photo should remain up. If you wish to discuss this further, I suggest the article talk page. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
moe. (band) page move
Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that this page be moved, per Wikipedia's rules (here). The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd, and k.d. lang. Thank you. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I looked at it and there is a reason it has not been moved, as for some page names it is not possible because of limitations imposed by the MediaWiki software. So, I must decline to move the page. And I see there is a disclaimer as to the correct name of the band at the top of the page for readers. Kierzek (talk) 13:37, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, well you know how this place is, some party guests you enjoy, and others you want to show the door. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- I tweaked it to match existing style and information conveyed. Kierzek (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, I'm genuinely trying to do the right thing here on wiki. I admit to being confused by the trivial/menial award thing, if you look at my own talk page I have had some not-professional comments, well, in my opinion [but I'm not a lawyer :)]. I appreciate what you said on the Ernst Röhm page about not adding every single thing or award or whatever to a page, I get that! What I don't get is how do I know what is trivial/menial and what isn't so I don't get any more aggressive and threatening messages/rebukes? I'm not glorifying Nazi's, quite the opposite. I have 14 Facebook groups and on one we have over 1,000 blocked members who are neo-Nazis, deniers etc, I loathe and detest them. I'm just a stickler for factual content. I do understand that too much factual content maybe too much on wiki. What further confuses me is you have edited pages where these very same so-called trivial/menial awards are present, yet you haven't seemed to be as motivated to delete them and fire off aggressive warnings. I was always of the idea that if there is a stand-alone wiki article, it would be okay to link to that article if relevant, otherwise what's the point of the stand-alone page? Again, I'm not trying to be difficult or recalcitrant here, I am looking for guidance as I have a mountain of reference material that I'm happy to use to contribute to wiki (mainly, but by no means exclusively to Germany 1914-1945). Re your clean-up on the Fritz Bracht page, is it better to just put the year of the receiving of an award rather than the dd/mm/yyyy if that's available? I think that's what you did, if that's the case, I'll leave it at the year only rather than the whole date (if that's available). Sorry to bother you and I know you're probably pretty busy. Thanks again for any help you have and/or can offer meTroy von Tempest (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I really appreciate that
- Kierzek, especially from such a long-standing and thoughtful colleague. Unfortunately, WP:SNOW would be the most optimistic outcome. I don't think my nerves could stand it, even by some wild chance such a thing came to pass. Hugely appreciate your confidence in me though. Simon Irondome (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Dcw2003 (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Thank-you so much for your kind words about my work on the PT-109 sinking in John F. Kennedy's wiki bio. I will be pleased to help in any way I can. Like you, I am interested in Naval history, and had an Uncle who served as an officer on a minesweeper, the USS Chandler (DD-206), in the invasion of the Philippines in January of 1945, where he was involved in the rescue of 250 sailors from the minesweepers USS Long and USS Hovey, sunk by kamikazee aircraft on January 6, 1945 in Lingayen Gulf. Like you, I have some legal background as well, but have worked as a technical writer most of my life. Like Kennedy, I was on the swim team at a college in Boston, and was fascinated with Kennedy's distance swimming on August 2-8, 1943 to save his crew. I also majored in International Relations and Political Theory as did Kennedy. The book I quoted from, PT-109 by William Doyle was written in 2015, and is likely the most contemporary and comprehensive telling of the PT-109 story available to the public in bookstores.
Thank-you again for your kind words and I will help to assist you in any way I can. David Wasserman
Dcw2003 (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC) I have moved the design document of PT-59 to the left and beneath the infobox on the right, where I think it looks better. I preferred not to make the file point to the directory from which I found it because online directorys have a way of disappearing, and then the photos on Wiki dissapear with them. If you can't see the design diagram now properly, let me know, but I'd prefer you leave it where it is for now. It took alot of work to find it and to upload it. Thanks for your help, but I'd prefer you give me some time to finish the article. I appreciate your help as always.
Streicher and sock puppets
Ah, very interesting. I don't pay regular attention to Wikipedia articles, but occasionally look at topics about which I know something. In this case, the sock puppet had added material from a most reliable source (my book on Streicher), so I had reasonable confidence in its accuracy. But given that it was material from my work that had been added, I probably should have left well enough alone, aside from the sock puppetry. Bytwerk (talk) 02:08, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
Excuse me but, the sources from where the Chi-Nu Kai comes from is the same that I used for the Chi-Nu II. http://ftr.wot-news.com/2013/09/23/type-3-chi-nu-upcoming-tier-4-medium-tank/ So why only the Chi-Nu Kai got added while the other didn't? + it does appear in the book by Tomczyk, Andrzej (2005). Japanese Armor Vol. 4 that is used as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nell Lucifer (talk • contribs) 18:32, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- I fixed that with the Tomczyk book, which I checked and it only states, specifically, it was planned, from my review. You need to find a WP:RS cite for anything further; not using a blog or website, which does not have editorial oversight or has not been shown to have been recommended by or used for book citation by a historian, such as, Steven J. Zaloga. A gaming website site or page, is not considered RS, either. Kierzek (talk) 19:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for checking on that article . I noticed that there are several other articles on similar topics, created by OR around the same time as this one and all with the same single reference (Yerger), e.g.:
- I used other RS sources to double check. I did not check Yerger, Mark C. "Allgemeine-SS: The Commands, Units, and Leaders of the General SS", as it had already been checked in Yeager's 1997 edition and clearly stated it was not mentioned in that edition of the book . I used to own Yeager's book, but mine was also the 1997 edition and so it would have the same result of not being in said edition. I no longer own Yeager's book. I used it for basic information as to Allgemeine SS command and units, and the SS and police leader article and I still believe it can be useful for that, but I would use caution as to other information such as opinion. I no longer own or use Schiffer Publishing books for citing, to say the least. I rather not go into further opinion on that here. I would ask @Sturmvogel 66: if you have time can you check your 1997 edition of Yerger as to the units above? Thank you, Kierzek (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've already rewritten 4th SS Police Regiment, both of the other two are in Yerger, but only with brief organizational histories and lists of commanders with their dates of tenure, for which I'd judge Yerger prefectly reliable. However, I'd AfD both of them as not being well covered enough to be notable. And most all of of the other Allegemeine SS articles should be evaluated using that same criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018
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) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
- Well, one could say that about others on the list, such as Hans Lammers and Cosima Wagner. Axman was the war-time leader of the Hitler Youth and was awarded the German Order, the highest decoration that the Nazi Party could bestow on an individual for his services to the Reich. I would rate him above Konstantin von Neurath, as well. Kierzek (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- I only put in Wagner because of her influence on Hitler. I don't disagree about Lammers, purely a bureaucrat, but would probably put Neurath above Axman. No big deal either way, to be sure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)