User talk:Kierzek/Archive 1

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! User:MrRadioGuy ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 23:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.
• The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Kirill ^[talk] [pf] 18:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin

Please see WP:RETAIN, the English used for this article is Commonwealth English. "Hitler went into a rage", is stilted, "Hitler fell into a rage" is much better. Also it was not "(Zitadelle sector)" it was "sector Z (for Zentrum)" see Battle in Berlin for a citation for this, and details like this belong in the in Berlin article rather than this one. --PBS (talk) 21:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't agree that it is stilted. I will not argue about the whole American English vs. British English baloney I have witnessed by others on Wiki pages; the fact is the words are considered spelled wrong per standard American Dictionaries. So be it; not a big deal. There are problems with sentence structure that do need fixing such as run on sentences. This happens far too often on Wiki.

• As for the name of the sector, I read the one cite and that is not what other cites state or what General Mohnke himself calls it in a direct quote (as to the area in question). He told author Thomas Fischer his sector was known as "Zitadelle" and he also wrote in the divisional history: "When I reported to Hitler on 23 April 1945 as the commander of Zitadelle and as the local commander for the Reich Chancellery..." See Fischer's book: "Soldiers of the Leibstandarte", pp 42 and 43.

• Now author Ralf Tiemann refers to the government quarter as "Z-Citadel." Mohnke ,ofcourse, was appointed by Hitler as Combat Commandant; see page 335 of "The Leibstandarte IV/2" book. Tiemann goes on to quote Mohnke on page 336, "When I took up my post...as commander of the 'Citadel' and combat commander of the Reichskanzlei..." I could cite others but I don't think that should be needed. Furthermore, the article should have more detail as to the areas a commander covers. General Mohnke played a fairly important role in the battle and we are only talking about an extra line or two in the article; there is much more that could be said but I did not.Kierzek (talk) 23:57, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

There are two different editions of Beevor with different page numbers used in the Battle of Berlin article

• Beevor, Antony (2002). Berlin: The Downfall 1945. Viking, Penguin Books. ISBN 0670886955.
• Beevor, Antony (2003). Berlin: The Downfall 1945. Penguin Books. ISBN 067003041 (hc) 014 20.0280 (pbk).

So it is necessary to include in the citation which edition is being cited by including (year). BTW I suspect that as the centre was the area which as before inside the old city walls, the terms could be used interchangeably with most just using the letter Z without worrying about the origin of the letter. After all as most sector were A-H, Z could just as easily have a symbolic meaning of last. --PBS (talk) 10:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Good point, I will cite which edition as to Beevor's book.
• As to "the sector" question, part of the problem is we are not talking about the exact same area. Things have to be viewed in context. You are talking about the larger Central District which was generally known as "sector Z" (Beevor) or "Defense Sector Z" (Hamilton, p.174). The inner part of that zone (or quarter) was the key government sector. As you know, Mohnke was put in command of the area by Hitler and it included the "heart of the Reich" at that point: The Reich Chancellery and the Führerbunker (and the 4 blocks around them). And as I stated above in our discussion, Mohnke in direct quote referred to his command area as Z-"Zitadelle" (see reference pages above for both Fischer and Tiemann's books). In checking Beevor's book, he either only uses "sector Z (for Zentrum)" or just "sector Z" when discussing action and events in the entire central area sector. Therefore, I surmise that when referring to the overall area, Sector Z would be correct but when referring (as I am) to the smaller central government quarter/district of that larger sector Z, it was known as (the) "Zitadelle". Footnote: Since writing the above, I further checked another book, author Le Tissier's: "The Battle of Berlin". While not as good overall (as the others books cited above), he does state that Mohnke was appointed "...in command of the central government area...'Zitadelle' " (page 74). Kierzek (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Curiosity

In following User:Wik90 from the edits he or she made on the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article five days ago, I noticed this revert by you of an edit he or she made to the John F. Kennedy article. You consider The New York Times a questionable cite source? Or were you talking about the editor of that The New York Times article? Yes, I am asking out of curiosity. Flyer22 (talk) 05:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

As to your query, the problem is the process and dissemination of what is being said or claimed. In my "day job" I must question all claimed facts and truth of matters; separate out the lies, exaggeration, the opinion and see what "spin" or POV the person or expert is pushing. In the study and/or writing about history it can be similar; unless the writer was there then it is always information coming from a secondary source. And even eyewitnesses can see the same thing and not state the same facts as to events.

So one must first look at what is stated; then look at the source; then look at the context and CROSS CHECK things. Truth in history is generally a matter of consensus and if available, based on physical evidence. Here you had surmise put forth with a journalist who wrote an article as the cite source on a matter where the physical evidence is not totally clear (and even then can be interpreted differently). The fact is journalists are not known for the prudent handling of details. And one could argue that is the job of the professional author or academic. For example, James P. O'Donnell wrote the book, The Bunker. The author was in the US Army Signal Corps. After being discharged (in July 1945) he took a job with Newsweek. He was assigned to investigating Hitler's death and obtaining information as to Eva Braun. Later he was a reporter for Life Magazine and in 1969 started work on this book. To his credit, he interviewed many more people then previous authors, (such as H. R. Trevor-Roper) on the subject. O'Donnell admitted in the prologue that he was not a historian and has been criticized for the use of a reporter's subjective judgment, intuition and speculation when he scrutinized the truth of someone's statement or events in question.

Now, even well regarded historians are not always correct and also write with a certain amount of POV imbedded in their statements or writings. Again, it should be remembered that all these writers, whether its Beevor, Trevor-Roper, Freedman, etc., are all "secondary sources". Further, none are going to be perfect or all agree, even when quoting the people who were there. However, some are more objective then others. And it is better and generally more accurate to have a direct quote from the person stating it, such as Freedman, than a paraphrase or what is said to be a statement as put forth by a third party as was originally the case here. Kierzek (talk) 01:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

SS uniforms

Good edits, thank you. I never know how concise or expansive to be with these things. Solicitr (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have also been trying to add more cites to additions of late, as well, since many seem to prefer it. Kierzek (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Ta daa! Tracked down and got permission for a pic of SS fulldress uniform- check it out Cheers! Solicitr (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Solicitr-nice photo addition. One does not see the formal dress, very often. Keep up the good work. Kierzek (talk) 18:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Book List

Got the list of books you promised to send. Thanks. Dr. Dan (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope there are some books of interest therein. Kierzek (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Wilhelm Mohnke

Do you have a source for the "jazz saxophonist"? 80.221.43.22 (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The entry has been in the article for a long time, added by another. I do, however, recall reading the same information somewhere before. Afternote: I thought it may have been in the "Notes" section in "The Hitler Book" by Eberle and Uhl where it gives short bios, but it is not and so it must have been online on another website (which probably picked it up from Wikipedia). Kierzek (talk) 13:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The info was added by an individual who was vandalized other SS officer articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/85.189.142.251 . 80.221.43.22 (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

GOOD CATCH on that. I should have known. Kierzek (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Civil Rights Act of 1957

Replied on my talk page for continuity Fat&Happy (talk) 03:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Robert Kennedy in Palestine

Hi, Kierzek. Thanks for you comment at the deletion request. I responded there, but I am not sure you'd see it. Would you be so kind to point out POV you were talking about for me that I would be able to fix them. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Done, for now. I will look at it again when I have more time. Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the private message again. Thank you for the suggestion at the talk page of the article. I deleted the whole paragraph at all yesterday. I might implement what you suggested later on. Tiamut agreed to remove POV tag. Do you believe you could change your vote now? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 15:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

As to POV, yes. However, I am still not convinced it should be a seperate article for the reasons I stated before. Kierzek (talk) 00:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler

Hi, I removed the bit about Göring losing favor and power from the introduction in the Heinrich Himmler article. That piece of information doesn't belong in the introduction, but feel free to add it to the body of the article. The intro should just tell readers who he was and what positions he held that made him who was -- it shouldn't try to explain the why's or how's. And even though Göring was designated as "successor" by Hitler in 1941, the majority of people, including those in high rank within the NSDAP knew that Göring was in no position to take power in case Hitler died because Himmler held numerous high rank positions that made him second to Hitler in actual power (also, Himmler's SS and police apparatus was unstoppable -- Göring would've stood no chance). Many within the Reich never took Göring seriously (his drug addiction, his over-indulgence, etc), while Himmler was immensely feared and known for his cunning, expert organizational and leadership capabilities. Also, remember that originally, the 20 July plot was not only a plot to assassinate Hitler, but Himmler also because those within the Party knew in the event of Hitler's death, Himmler would've quickly seized power and continued Hitler's work. The Allies believed the same. When talking of actual power, Himmler was superior to Göring by at least 1942. Veronica (talk) 03:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello: What you have stated above was already known to me. I am very well versed on the subject matter. I only added the small part as to Göring because of the blanket statement of the sentence (without anything further) that Himmler was the second most powerful person in the Reich. This could lead to confusion to general readers as Himmler certainly, as you are aware, was not in that position until Göring lost favor and power with Himmler filling that vacuum. The sentence now changed, reads better.

As to when Himmler reached his zenith of power, the historians debate. I believe his national powerbase started in April 1934 when he and Heydrich took over the Gestapo (and was also named chief of all German police forces outside Prussia) from Göring but was not complete until after the failure of the "Battle of Britain". So I would say by the end of 1941, beginning of 1942. We agree on that. However, other historians look to August 1943 when Hitler removed Frick and made Himmler "Minister of the Interior". And certainly, right after the failed plot of 20 July 1944, Himmler's power of even greater. But with that said it was more the branches: the SS, Gestapo, RSHA, SS-TV, KZ camps and the Waffen-SS that were so greatly feared. Himmler, by himself, was not respected by the Waffen-SS commanders, nor by Bormann and Himmler could not control Sepp Dietrich, for example (who would not even let him in the LSSAH barracks). Himmler delegated much and did not have leadership capabilities of a serious nature. He did have drive, cunning and organization skills, I agree. As to editing articles I will do as I see fit and but do thank you for the comments as many don't take the time to do such things. Kierzek (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Service record of Reinhard Heydrich

It is not incorrect to say that Heydrich was only subordinate to Himmler -- it is a fact. Heydrich had many qualities which Himmler appreciated (ie. his intelligence, his bravery, his loyalty to him the Reichsführer and to Hitler the Führer), which is why Himmler kept him at his side despite the fact that he was quite arrogant and he had a tendency to overstep his boundaries as a subordinate to Himmler, especially in the beginning of his service to Himmler. However, he was always put back in his place by Himmler (or even Hitler at times). He was well aware of his subordinate position, and although he was given a lot of power and control, he was still working to fulfill the orders and wishes of Himmler and Hitler in the big scheme of things. The Final Solution was almost exclusively masterminded by Himmler and Hitler, and all within Nazi Germany, especially those working under Himmler worked to achieve the wishes of Hitler (and Himmler). So of course Himmler had to delegate a lot of work -- he was immensely powerful.

Another thing is that Himmler realised that Heydrich was a great asset, but also a great threat: the way the the Third Reich worked was upon demonstratable loyalty to Nazism and by results. There were (unfounded) rumours about some Jewish ancestry in Heydrich's family, and it is believed that Himmler had this investigated as a possible lever over Heydrich. However, after Heydrich's assassination, there were plenty who believed that Himmler may have been behind it: the Czech assassins were not given the chance to surrender, apart from one, who was shot instantly by a senior Gestapo official. Himmler's ruthless (and successful) steamrollering of Göring (to get the Gestapo off him and to secure his position as successor) and Ernst Rohm (Night of the Long Knives) showed that he was perfectly capable of such underhanded tactics.

On a side note, if Germany would've won the war and Heydrich had not been assassinated, I tend to believe that he eventually would have gone to lead Germany. Himmler would have succeeded Hitler, Heyrich would have succeeded Himmler as Reichsführer, and then he would've succeeded Himmler as leader. Veronica (talk) 23:12, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Your first sentence is incorrect, standing alone, as you wrote it. That is not just my opinion but that of many historians, as well (See: Max Williams, Peter Padfield, Heinz Hohne, E. Calic, G. Deschner, as examples). Their relationship in the 1930's has been described as a "partnership". All the major works of the last 20 years state that. They were known as the "black Diaskuren". A telling example of that "partnership" and the close connection of the two men as one force was shown in what Göring said in 1933, "Himmler and Heydrich will never get to Berlin." Of course, as you know, that was wishful thinking on Göring's part. Himmler "made it" there due to Heydrich's pushing, Hitler choosing his side and Frick being an ally (Frick backed H & H thinking he could handle them after Göring was diminished, but was wrong). As historian, Max Williams wrote, "He (Frick) had not reckoned on the powerful Himmler-Heydrich partnership which had allied itself with it's old foe Göring." The fact is, more often then not, H & H are spoken of together (as a "partnership") in the 1930's, then separately.

As for Himmler alone, indeed he had abilities and to dismiss he as merely a shield behind Heydrich would be incorrect. We agreed that Himmler could be cunning, a skilled organizer and had drive for power. However, to overestimate Himmler, as some early historians did, is also incorrect. The main reason that occurred is because Heydrich was not as well known as Himmler and not many writers for years knew the extent of his contributions, so to speak. As Kersten, Schellenberg and others observed first hand, Himmler was not in the same class as far as intelligence, influence over others and practical abilities. As for the so-called "Rohm Putsch", Heinz Hohne's classic work "Order of the Dead's Head" (that still holds up pretty well) stated it was Heydrich who long dreamed of the purge of Rohm and others. Heydrich and Himmler worked on bringing it about but Heydrich did the most to "engineer" the final event. By all accounts Heydrich was heavily involved in the "Rohm Putsch" A/K/A "The Night of the Long Knives". By all accounts, Heydrich was also heavily involved in the Final Solution, as well; but more on the application side of it.

As for Heydrich's assassination it is only wild speculation that Himmler was involved and none of the historian's I cite support that position; certainly I don't either. Charles Whiting, who is not that high on the list, mentioned it, but even he did not in a very serious way. Now there are quite a few who have put forth that Heydrich was on his way to being Führer and that even Hitler was considering him as a replacement. Some speculation therein but I think it is a reasonable theory to put forth. I agree with you there. The partnership I would best sum up in terms of a senior partner and a (somewhat) junior partner of a firm but one cannot say it was one of boss and "only subordinate". I will say, you know the subject pretty well and I appreciate your comments even though I don't always agree. Kierzek (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I made some minor edits to the article (Service record of Reinhard Heydrich). I explained my edits at the discussion of that article. Veronica (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will have to look at them later this week. Other duties call. Kierzek (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Footnote: I have now had a chance to review the most recent edits and I have to concur with OberRanks. As Secretary of State and leader of the police, Frank did pursue a policy of harsh suppression of the Czechs, however, these action's by Frank were countered by Neurath's "soft approach" to the Czechs thereby encouraging anti-German resistance by strikes and sabotage. This lead to a meetings with Hitler who was greatly impressed with Heydrich's knowledge of the problems and ideas to handle them. This led to Hitler's "de facto" dismissal of Neurath at that point and Heydrich was made the Acting Reich Protector. Frank had hoped to get the job but was passed over. Heydrich came in and ruled the area with assistance from Frank, only. Kierzek (talk) 02:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Have a look

You might want to take a look over the pieces I'm assembling on my Talk page for an article on Wehrmacht Heer ranks and insignia. Cheers! Solicitr (talk) 18:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Kierzek (talk) 23:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

A fellow attorney-and-counsellor-at-law?

Do you have a copy of Angolia vol 1? I need a page ref for the rank of Stabsgefreter (I remember what he has to say, but don't have the book). I do know that there is a lot of misinformation out there both in print and bytes, and I'm inclined to trust JA in preference to most anyone else. Solicitr (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, an Esq. I find Angolia's (R. James Bender Publishing) books to be excellent. However, that one I don't have. Ask OberRanks or try Googlebooks. Kierzek (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Added a new section on Litzen; piece by piece it's coming together.--Solicitr (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sir:

Please try to take what I say at face value. I will try very hard to be clear. I’m not trying to sell you anything, con you, or maneuver you into anything. You clearly know all of this. If you spent some time on this article it would be great. Maybe it’s time, maybe it’s taste, maybe it’s a political or professional reason, or maybe it’s just to minor an issue for you. I don’t know and don’t judge. If you want to fix this, you will. As the article is written, I feel that it is poorly sourced. I do not dispute “last nazi” fluff, but maybe it should come after something good? There are plenty of sources out there, I would guess that it is just a matter of taking the time to do it. I do not get the Trevor-Roper angle. I do not mean to insult him or his cult, but he has clear problems, and I sort of feel that he is obsolete as written. Plus this Hitler’s Diary stuff. I’m not really interested, and make no judgment, but isn’t that conflict that you don’t really need behind a source. Should Kershaw take his place as a starting point? I think that cyanide poising should be an option, not a fact. I have not gotten the Russians yet, clearly they matter, but the article as written doesn’t have them, either. More info needed. I believe that Dan has identified a system problem. My view is that someone has become possessive and defensive of work which needs improvement, and is letting a P.O.V. interfere with the article. My #1. was just fine detail on what you generally knew. Is that useful to you, and would you want other stuff like that, or should I go away? Thank you for your time.Wm5200 (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wm5200, I have spent some time both on the article and discussion page of "The Death of Adolf Hitler". I agree it still needs some work and it is true several editors have "locked horns" over the wording in the article, at times. Kershaw is a great source for Hitler's life overall, but he does not go into great detail as to Hitler's death; he gives more of a summary of the events. You state to have read Joachimsthaler's book, good; when you get the two Soviet/russian works I recommended (that you state you have ordered) then read and compare. Then think about additions or changes you think should be made. I don't have a lot of time right now to focus on that one article but will be around to check edits to it. Kierzek (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much.Wm5200 (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Wasting your time and thank you

I realize I am now wasting your time. There are only two of you, and neither of you need me to moderate a discussion. When I realized that I was reviewing books for you, well, that’s clearly backward. You don’t need to answer my questions, you have better things to do. Thank you for those you did answer. If some one else sees what I left and thinks, good, either way, thanks to you and Dan.Wm5200 (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't look at it as "wasting time" at all. Dig into the issues and see for yourself what is there. My interest is in the history of the matter. Wanting it presented in an objective and accurate way. Kierzek (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I got your link, wow, thank you. I’m proud of some of my amateur judgments. I read first, then maybe a best and worst review or two to see if I’m missing something big. I need to smooth out this procedure, reviews are a resource I don’t use right. I recognize parts of your stuff, both from here and there. I hope you get the mental thing, I can come back fast with a lot. Relax, take your time, whatever I get, whenever, I appreciate. Again, thanks. Now, sort of in order of importance:

The problem with the article is clearly not lack of knowledge or sources, you guys clearly have both covered. It appears to be simply lack of editor man hours, you don’t have a very large community on this article. Possibly politics. I also suspect that, like Kershaw, the actual death is a minor detail, hardly worth a footnote. Much of this Wiki stuff is incredibly complex, do you guys realize how smart many of you are? Of course you do, but some of us readers aren’t.

Goebbels is the path to Hitler’s remains, isn’t he? He’s so distasteful to me, I try to avoid him. Hitler is an assumed evil to most of us, but his “Little Joe” seemed so effectively evil to his last day, and dragged his family into his degeneracy. P.O.V., worst of the worst.

Scholarship is not my world, but I get neutral. Jesus Seminar is scholarship, correct? I lean towards TIGHAR.org. Daughter a teacher, son-in-law a youth librarian, I would be more pro-active, but I know that is P.O.V., and trouble. I would try to use O’Donnell as a source for fluff, then sell him as “3/4 good”. He has a very readable story that the general public can follow, and I try to promote the library. The source softness and P.O.V. doesn’t seem very controversial, if you are aware of it. I would read this as fiction, the “characters” come to life. Lance corporal? Hentschel’s job interview? How often do you laugh while reading a Hitler book? I like Speer, but the Fegelein stuff seemed a reach. But this is sort of a P.O.V. of a P.O.V. Is influencing sourcing the same as manipulating? Could be. Is O’Donnell References, or only Further reading? I haven’t read Lehmann yet, but I suspect he will be a junior version of the O’Donnell case. Can you push reading this way? Can the article somehow rate the sources at all? Probably not, I guess.

Is it proper to immediately refer someone to a source? Example: “Records kept by...1947” in the introduction (first paragraph in article). If you are not familiar with either the “Records” or Trevor-Roper, this is meaningless. Could be me, though.

Totally a personal question. Anything to Fegelein and the leak? No way I can figure out spies, just a little curious for a general idea.

I may post more on the discussion, pretending others may read. I would expect one of you to slap me down if I get too crazy. Again, thank you.Wm5200 (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Glad you liked the link. As for your query, I don't believe it was SS General Fegelein. He was a social climber and a womanizer. The book, "The Death of Hitler: The Full Story with New Evidence from Secret Russian Archives" (I reviewed this one on Amazon, as well) is based on the "Myth" investigation files, (but not complete). It has a chapter stating there was a Soviet spy posing as a German soldier that was a courier who was in fact "the leak" in the Führerbunker. But who knows if or who. I am sure it was not Fegelein. Kierzek (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This article now has a cast in concrete solid foundation. Thank you. Wm5200 (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

F.Y.I., I have posted some AH death myth stuff at my place, I think I will hang out there more. Should be less O.R. and P.O.V. problems, more control, right? I won’t push this stuff, if someone wants to, they can come and get it. Thank you. Wm5200 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

SA

Hello, why the reverts on the SA article?[1] my intention is to reduce the opinion being expressed. On the first point, National Socialism can be seen as Socialism, and so mentioning specific policies that specific persons championed would be informative here, while unnamed leaders wanting socialism is overly vague and potentially misleading.

On the second issue, homosexuality was an accusation thrown around quite a bit, and led to some of the killing on the night of the long knives. It is unfair to state point blank that these men were homosexuals, rather than citing specific accusations or evidences.

Proper citation would solve these sorts of issues neatly. However rather than inserting Wikipedia:Citation needed (which I think makes articles ugly) I tried to move things towards a Wikipedia:NPOV until citations can be provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.210.148 (talk) 16:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought for clarity, what was written before was better. The SA leadership clearly did not feel the socialist revolution was over with Hitler gaining power, but one would have to agree that the NAZI party coming to power was necessary for the continued "second revolution" to take place. As you probably know the SA leadership wing was not in lock step in their views with either the Hitler wing, nor the military leadership (nor the conservatives of the country, for that matter). As for being homosexuals, that is a clearly known fact, both then and now. It was used then as one of the main reasons to get rid of the SA leadership. So if you want to add that fact, that it was used as an excuse, I agree, that is a valid point; and it could use a minor re-write in that regard. Kierzek (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Footnote: I have now made edits to the SA article and added book cites for support. Kierzek (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.210.148 (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy and the Farmers

I was interested to see what the reaction would be to K's quote - my first edit of that type. I was inclined to do what you did - I think WP refers to it as "bowlderizing". I checked WP's policy on profanity before I did the edit and was surprised to see they specifically oppose the use of the asterisks etc., so I went with the unvarnished version. Anyway, I personally prefer your edit so I'm happy to leave it. If you can shed any further light on the policy I would appreciate it. I'm reading Reeves bio, so I will see more of this; it will be rare that I will feel the need to include the profanity in the article. I am now in the early part of 1962. Brother Robert was very much inclined to this as well. FYI, I am in the midst of a personal project to read a bio on every POTUS; K is #17. Did I see you are a lawyer too? I've seen you are doing alot of work on K and appreciate your effort. I'll try not to muck things up too badly - feel free to keep in touch. Cheers.Carmarg4 (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear from you. Yes, I am a lawyer and my approach to editing is objectivity and balance. I am aware of what you describe as "bowdlerizing". As to language, as you know, many people will use "salty" language at times; including presidents, such as: FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton, and many others. First, such language, as you know, like porn is not protected by free speech as some think. In editing, think, does putting it in really add or distract from points to be presented.

My thoughts on Wiki editing are: do those quotes/additions add to the overall summary of the article or does it present undue weight of what is really a minor point; or undue weight that over emphases perception of what is being conveyed. I try hard not to include POV writing and to keep it to a minimum in articles, as well. It is good on important additions or "claims" to use some discernment, cross-check things with at least two known historians/authors (and not ones steeped in a certain POV or ones that have "an axe to grind"). Anyway, thanks for writing and enjoy editing. Kierzek (talk) 13:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with objectivity as an overriding concern. I am confronting here my own conflicting concerns to 1) keep the text appropriate, especially for the younger readers and 2) convey, as part of a complete profile, the tendency of Kennedy (and others) for verbal abuse of his team members. Seems like I should try to satisfy both of these. My own experience in practice, dealing with power players, even the more abrasive people, did not include this verbal abuse, so I am struck by it for that reason. Glad to be in touch on K. Thanks for the reply.Carmarg4 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I also agree that text should be kept appropriate as many younger readers now read and use Wikipedia. As for language-I have been around people all my life that "curse like a sailor" so I guess the good thing about that is it does not effect me when people resort to it or use it. My father was in the US Navy in World War II (before becoming an atty.) and it seemed common for many guys from his generation (think John Wayne) to use such language. Not to mention, Judges, Attys., etc. at times when speaking in general, making a point or to describe a person, place or thing. Kierzek (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't get this out of my head so I moved the "F" word into the footnote. It takes me a while sometimes to figure out where I am on stuff like this; feel free to change as you wish Carmarg4 (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with the move. Kierzek (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy Lead & Early Life/Education Sections

I just finished a thorough edit of the first 2 sections I hope I was judicious. Feel free to restore, etc. as you see fit. Cheers.Carmarg4 (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Good Job. I only added back in one sentence from the lede and then moved it to the "Assassination" section. Kierzek (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I should ask you, what is your sense? Is the article is way too big, just a little over, just right? Also, can you educate me on the term "lede" (just WP lexicon, etc.)? I did a search on my dictionary and got lederhosen! I don't think that's it. And one more thing; how can I get that userbox of yours for the "JD" ? I couldn't find it and I would prefer that to the "atty." since I'm retired. Thanks, Pal.Carmarg4 (talk) 14:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The article could use a certain amount of tightening up, along the lines I stated on the discussion page of the article; in the end, I would say the article is: "just a little over". Further, adding and fixing the cites and references is something that certainly has been improved of late, but still needs some work.

Added "JD" degree badge to your User page; see what you think. As for "lede", it is in place of "lead". Noun: "lede" (plural ledes). The introductory paragraph(s) of a newspaper or other article. Usage mostly confined to the U.S. Originally only journalistic usage that is now so common in general US English that it is no longer labeled as jargon by major US dictionaries such as Merriam-Webster and American Heritage. Kierzek (talk) 17:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the JD; it's a keeper; and for the lesson on ledes. BTW, I am finished editing thru K's early political career.Carmarg4 (talk) 01:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I am down to Cuban missile crisis on my edit. Carmarg4 (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep going; I will continue to aid in the endeavor as time permits; and I will keep looking for missing cites that are needed, as well. Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Bigamy allegation

I think the source for this is unreliable. I see there is a consistent trend here. Your thoughts ? Carmarg4 (talk) 13:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The source is unreliable. The British so-called "newspaper" freely admits it is a "Sunday tabloid newspaper"; not to mention the so-called facts of the "discovery of the documents" seem far-fetched. The matter in the end has: WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Kierzek (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Outstanding!

You deserve a battlefield promotion. Whenever you two are done with it, I would like to erase my talk page, everything south of Gulliver. THANK YOU!Wm5200 (talk) 15:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome; it has been a joint effort. But the work is not finished yet and you should have further input, therein. Kierzek (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reeves citation in JFK & BoPI

Hi, saw your addition to these two articles. I'm very dubious about retaining it, particularly for BoPI. It reads like POV, perhaps from Reeves, otherwise from who? "The CIA" is surely not a sufficiently reliable source. I don't have immediate access to Reeves, perhaps you will reconsider the value of the cite. MTIA PeterWD (talk) 13:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Dulles, the CIA director himself, stated that later. He wrote: They (the CIA) thought that any action required for success would be authorized to prevent failure as Ike had done in Guatemala in 1954 after the invasion looked as if it was collapsing. I can tweak it on the article page but believe it should stay; it is not POV. Reeves is a well accepted source. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I just tweaked it and named Dulles who said it. Kierzek (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your action. I still believe it's a dodgy bit of nonsense.PeterWD (talk) 14:03, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, we all have an opinion on things. I believe the cite helps explain the CIA's thought process on the matter which was pure folly in the end. And it helps explain Kennedy's anger afterwards towards the CIA. Kierzek (talk) 14:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Civil Rights Movement

Hi, in my comment at Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968)#Proposed_Move I've informally suggested "Civil Rights Movement (United States, 1955–1968)" (etc.) as an alternative. What do you think of that? (replying there, if you choose to reply, would be preferable to me - thanks). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

BoPI anti-vandalism

Thanks for jumping in to revert the vandalism - I've put a level 2 warning on his talk page. I have been busy scanning and Photoshopping all day - utilities that hog my PC memory, so I haven't run a browser until I had uploaded images and webpages.PeterWD (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, Kierzek (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Leopold von Mildenstein

Thanks for your improvements. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help out; you did a nice job writing the article on a person who is not well known but had an impact on many others. Kierzek (talk) 02:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've done a bit more on him. It's not easy to work out what the neutral line to take on him is, he's a challenging subject. Moonraker2 (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Reverting

I'll try to curtail that since I guess it creates problems.Hoops gza (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Kierzek (talk) 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

(Since the last edit summary, which would be the one to show in a watch list, was merely a smiley, I wanted to let you know there was also a serious question in a prior posting.) Fat&Happy (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Kierzek (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Vorbunker

There is nothing wrong with the article apart from I think it is a content fork. Lets talk about it at talk:Vorbunker -- PBS (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

G-SS

I think the editor isn't going to take no for an answer. I would recommend watching for an non-consensus page move, just in case. -OberRanks (talk) 06:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I added my comments to Wikipedia talk:Article titles, as to the matter. Kierzek (talk) 01:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Page move vote now, as well. In addition, adding several non-pertinent links to give the appearance of a well sourced argument. Very frustrating. -OberRanks (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm gradually distancing myself from this. Don't like the direction its going with the new user, especially with some of the comments made. On that matter, should someone put the Welcome Template on the new users page? I don't think it should be you or me, but it might help the user understand some of the core policies better. Have a great day! -OberRanks (talk) 19:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't let that baloney bother you. The fact is almost all of the titles we have discussed have a hyphen in English writing but for Germanic-SS and Allgemeine-SS, at times. In German, the case for those two seem more equivocal, at this point; but, the process needs to be finished. We have stated our opinions and consensus will determine the point, in the end. Kierzek (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Aktion Reinhard Camps" website

Hi Mr. Kierzek! I have been looking at this site called "Aktion Reinhard Camps (ARC)" (deathcamps.org). It is a veritable bevy full of information, particularly in terms of organizing the perpetrators, however it is on Wikipedia's blacklist. Does that mean that the site is unreliable? I cannot link you directly to it, of course, since as I said it is blacklisted on Wikipedia.Hoops gza (talk) 04:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I will check it out. I don't know why it is "blacklisted". Maybe you should do a Google search for criticism of the site and see why Wikipedia "blacklisted" it. I assume it is put together by a private group and that may be one reason, I don't know. Thanks for the thought and keep editing. Kierzek (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Blacklisting is a minefield, almost always submitted by users with an agenda, and in my experience, it has been routinely abused in the past. — Lewinowicz (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Gestapo

Just a question. Why did you revert the small edit I made to the Gestapo article? I replaced the image with one I created that I believe was more accurate and did not require a disclaimer that the image was wrong. Is there something incorrect with the new image? Perhaps I can update it? Thank You. SGT141 (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It had to do with the info. you put in that it was the "Grey SS Gestapo uniform" which is not correct. There was no "Grey SS Gestapo uniform". They wore the grey Allgemeine-SS uniform, as did all under the RSHA umbrella. I reverted so the info. would be correct, overall; understanding it had a minor caveat as to the collar patch on the one side. As a compromise, I would agree to a reinstate of your photo with the correct info.: "Grey service uniform worn by RSHA personnel". And will, in fact, take care of it. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the correction and help. SGT141 (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Himmler smiling

I actually found a photo of Heinrich Himmler smiling. I'm not sure what article(s) it would be useful for but hopefully we can find one.

Hoops gza (talk) 03:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

That's like a cougar and a lion about to eat a canary. Where to put the photo, I can't say; maybe List of Nazi Party leaders and officials article? I can say, it has to be after the Anschluss of Austria into Nazi Germany in early March 1938, as Himmler is wearing the SS Service Grey uniform that was first worn by him in public at the time of the Anschluss. By the collar insignia of the SS officers behind Himmler, the photo is pre-April 1942. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 12:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Kierzek

I've noticed that there is a village in Poland called Kierzek. Are you from Poland?Hoops gza (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that. In my case, its actually a german, family name. Kierzek (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Rape during the Holocaust?

I have just read some content on the Holocaust claiming that Jewish women were occassionally raped in orgies prior to being gassed in gas chambers. Are you aware of anything of this nature?Hoops gza (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I have not read that, but would not doubt it. I know that there were some examples when some of the younger attractive women were used like prostitutes and that would continue till the guards or officers were tired of them and want a new "crop", so to speak. Kierzek (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I've found out more about it. Indeed, it happened, according to survivor testimonies, and a printed source or two. I was aware of rape occurring at Auschwitz among prisoners who were not to be gassed soon afterwards, as more of, say, daily operations. But I was not aware that women sometimes suffered rape when they were selected to be gassed (at Treblinka, at least). I will be adding this to the main article.Hoops gza (talk) 03:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

RFC-ANI

You may wish to comment here since you were involved in the recent page move discussion. -OberRanks (talk) 22:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You may also wish to start watching List of military decorations of the Third Reich; its being hit by the "image removal" patrols. I've tried to update the images as best I can to keep the article intact. -OberRanks (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

photo adjustments

I would appreciate your help with dealing with some of the edits of User:DIREKTOR. This editor has been adjusting the tone (and perhaps other photographic features) of some of the photographs on Wikipedia, such as the main photos for Hitler and Himmler. For some reason I am unable to revert these edits, perhaps because they are part of the Commons? I am not sure why the editor would make these edits, but as far as I'm concerned it is tampering with originals. The originals were just fine, and the changing of tone distorts the original prints that we have and is akin to revising history.Hoops gza (talk) 19:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I checked the main article pages of each and did not see where this editor you mention changed the photos. Can you give me some further information on this matter to consider? Kierzek (talk) 00:58, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

If you click on each of these photos, you will see in their respective file history that DIREKTOR has changed them.Hoops gza (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. Both photos (more noted on the Hitler photo) do have too much contrast now. I tried but don't know how to revert the last change made. I have not done it before. Kierzek (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

One way is to use the file history to view the original version, full size. Use a screen grab utility to save the version and then upload it as a new version of the current file. Good luck! Ning-ning (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your help with this. I have solved the problems by visiting the Commons.Hoops gza (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandal Alert

An ip account has taken to blanking sections of Military career of Adolf Hitler. I've reverted twice. Could use your help watching the article. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I just added it to my watchlist. Kierzek (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Gotta wonder about this too. I guess nothing wrong with enforcing policy, but I have always found it strange regarding users who spend hours on end doing nothing but deleting files and trying to remove articles from the encyclopedia. Who does that help, really? -OberRanks (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Berlin casualties

See here: Talk:Battle_of_Berlin. StoneProphet (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Kierzek (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, here we go!

I was surprised we didn't have an article about this yet. Well here it is: Descendants of Major Nazis. Would appreciate your help expanding it. I am quite sure someone somewhere will try and get it deleted. I myself can easily see how it could be used as a "hit list" so to speak to find and harass living descendants of Nazis. -OberRanks (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Labeled as an attack page within 5 minutes. Your comments would be welcome. -OberRanks (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

After review, I agree it should be deleted; the info. can be part of each article on the person, if not already. Kierzek (talk) 16:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

There was actually another article already on this, previously deleted. If I'd know that, I would have let it go pretty quickly. Sadly, there was added "drama" with some statements thrown around about my background as a historian, i.e. implications I was falsifying some of it. Pretty insulting, really. This weekend I am meeting an Auschwitz survivor who was also a Joseph Mengele experimentation subject. I've only met four people who were in that camp, and (counting the one this weekend) only two who would talk extensively about it. -OberRanks (talk) 16:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Just let the personal insults go. People who resort to such don't show any intellect, for they don't stick to arguing the facts (or their argument is weak). Have an interesting meeting. Kierzek (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback on the above issue. On a separate issue, please keep an eye on Emil Maurice. Hoops is busy at the article, removing references that this officer was an SS general. I explained on the talk page why Maurice is very much considered an SS flag officer. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Blood descendants are not public figures by that virtue alone, so yes, it really should not be in the public domain. I suppose you could make a similar list for ones with considerable notability, however. You don't need to worry about Maurice, that was my mistake.Hoops gza (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I checked and one book lists him as an Oberführer (like the photo of his article page) and another book as a SS-Brigadeführer. Kierzek (talk) 00:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

AFD on SS Ideology Article

Don't think we can save it... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideology of the SS -OberRanks (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I commented on it, therein. Kierzek (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The deletion discussion about the category also recently heated up a bit. -OberRanks (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see; running about 50/50 at this point. Kierzek (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Since the consensus was "to keep", I made some additions for improvement. It still needs work, so your further article input, OberRanks, would be helpful. Kierzek (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

I am most appreciative of your grant of the barnstar. You will be DELIGHTED to know I have just finished reading FDR. Eisenhower may be next up! Carmarg4 (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. As for Ike, I have done some edits on his article page, but not too much. Where FDR's affairs are pretty well known, I have pondered what to do about the "reported affair" between Ike and Kay Summersby. When you start Ike, give it some thought. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do; I'll be reading Ambrose. Carmarg4 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Don't know if you're aware that Orlady closed the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Philip Baird Shearer a few days after you left me a message about it. In my view, the whole thing was terribly childish. Thanks for your input. Moonraker (talk) 06:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of that. However, thanks for the note and I agree with your evaluation. Kierzek (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks a lot. Mostly wikignome stuff, but I guess every little bit helps. Unfortunately, no decent research libraries within a convenient distance... (...and laziness) Fat&Happy (talk) 17:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kierzek (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Photos

You should probably ask user Darwinek. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion Vote

SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz is up for deletion. You may wish to comment since you have worked extensively on SS and camp related articles. -OberRanks (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. OberRanks, it would be helpful to expand the article with info. as to the roles of the infamous groups listed in each section. The fact you have stated an intent to merge it with SS command of Auschwitz concentration camp is a good idea. It will be informative for general readers. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Well Done

Hi. Hope I'm following guidelines here. Kierzek, I was just reading your Rochus Misch page & you did a fab job clarifying previously subjective statements/facts that weren't there at all. I interviewed Herr Misch. Lawson Welles Phoenix Rising Films

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Kierzek & thanks for your vote of support on my recent attempts at copy editing the AH entry. Thanks also for your good work on the references! I'm hopeful that the entry will become a little more focused, concise, and properly sourced over time. All the best, Malljaja (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kierzek (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Image help

Can you please chime in at Royal Navy uniforms of the 18th and 19th centuries. The articles images are under attack. -OberRanks (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think, for once, I can be of much help; the image policies are a "rabbit hole" which I have not had any success with herein. Kierzek (talk) 01:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the policies very well myself either. I'm extremely thankful we've been as lucky as we have been with the SS articles. On that, I plan to start the Auschwitz merger soon. Thanks for your support! -OberRanks (talk) 01:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Amon Goth Image

Could use your help in figuring out the details of the recent deletion of Amon Göth in his SS uniform. That was an extremely rare photo and we were lucky to have had it. -OberRanks (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what happened to it. I never saw a posting that it was up for deletion. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I sent an e-mail with my theory. -OberRanks (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A little humor

To lighten the recent deletion of an irreplaceable image, here's a humorous story. Had a professor once who enjoyed WAY too much talking about how Robert Ley committed suicide "on the toilet". Whenever he would be talking about Ley, he would always find some way to add "on the toilet" to the narrative. It was hysterical. -OberRanks (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That's RICH! LOL. Although, I doubt Ley was sitting when he used the towel strip, tied to the toilet's plumbing pipe. Maybe it was an old, "box and pull chain type" setup. Probably not. Kierzek (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the barnstar! Mjroots (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kierzek (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, thanks. -- Necrothesp (talk) 20:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, as well. You guys earned them. Kierzek (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hi. Thanks for your message. I've reverted the change. There's a Talk page discussion of the issue now, and there have been others in the past. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I believe MLK, Sr. may be the best source as to the name situation. Kierzek (talk) 01:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Himmler

Why revert my edit about Himmler being the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany? Wolfgang Sauer is not the only historian who has claimed this, many others have plainly said that from AT LEAST 1941 and beyond, Himmler was the most powerful man in the Reich after only Hitler. Göring fell out of favor after the failure of the Battle of Britain and not to mention his morphine addiction (which Hitler detested). Looking at it objectively, you just have to admit that after Hitler, Himmler had the most power. In fact, both Hitler and Himmler were originally targeted in the 20 July 1944 assassination plot because they knew that if Hitler died, Himmler would've quickly seized power. It was obvious even back then. TheGoodSon 17:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

See the talk page of the article, where this was heavily discussed and all concerned agreed it violated WP:OR. No need to repeat the debate, there was CLEAR consensus on this issue. -OberRanks (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that it has been discussed, but why would you discount what many historians have already claimed, including Wolfgang Sauer. Most historians that make mention of the subject clearly distinguish Himmler as Hitler's second in power. It doesn't violate anything when you have clear and reliable sources/references. In fact, it makes the article more accurate. I'm German and this is even taught in school in Germany. Common knowledge is that Himmler was second in power to Hitler. TheGoodSon 02:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The fact is that "many" historians have weighted in on this matter and it just is not as clear cut as you might think. The fact a certain point may have been stated in your school does not add weight to the matter; that is akin to one stating, well I saw it stated on a History Channel show. Peter Padfield is a well respected historian/author on Himmler, and stated in relation to this query, "It is impossible to say whether he was in practice." Given the fact this discussion has continued (on my talk page), I am going to move it to the Himmler Talk Page. Kierzek (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

If additional comments are added, please do so on the Talk:Heinrich Himmler page. I moved the discussion there. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 03:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please keep on eye on Heinrich Himmler. A discussion has arisen about how we don't need a list of his ranks, awards, and decorations. It could lead to a blanking of sourced material and probably will, based on this edit [2]. -OberRanks (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please also review this recent change [3]. I reverted it as against consensus. -OberRanks (talk) 22:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the revert. I see where you said you were taking Himmler off your watch list; that may be a good idea for now but, the article could use more work and cites; so I hope it is only temporary. Kierzek (talk) 02:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Roger, I'll give this a few weeks to calm down. The last thing I saw on the Military Discussion Board was a comment from the original editor that "high Nazi officers and Camp Commanders don't "merit" award and rank lists" or words to that affect. That is the same original argument, back in a full circle to where this was when we started - unbelievable. I am just hoping this does not get launched to removal of material from articles, because I think that's the next thing which is going to happen. In any event, there is too much focus on me and the other editor in a conflict, so I'm stepping away from this now. On Monday comes my work on History of United States Navy ratings. It should be awesome! -OberRanks (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

And a new discussion has been started. -OberRanks (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Award

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For perseverance and scrutiny to the betterment of Third Reich related articles. I thank you! OberRanks (talk) 05:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Kierzek (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I saw you asked about the four barnstars on my talk page. The articles below were the ones for which the barnstars were presented. I don't have one yet for Ranks and insignia of the Nazi Party! Maybe someone will give me one... -OberRanks (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see; BTW-one I note was for both uniforms of the Sturmabteilung and Schutzstaffel. Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

fall of berlin redirect

Hello. the fall of berlin redirect prevents anyone serching for the movie to find abut it. I believ that there should be a link to the movie at the top the battle of berlin page. Please place it in an appropriate way as I see you are more experienced about the way things are set on wikipedia. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.28.50 (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I will look into it. Kierzek (talk) 01:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, originally I had thought to move it to Battle of Berlin (disambiguation); however, I decided instead to put it back where it was located by you. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Murder vs. execution

Readers note: I moved this discussion [4] to the Reinhard Heydrich talk page for better visibility. Please add any further replies there. Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

thanks, and a suggestion

Thanks for explaining in your edit summary[5] what you were doing - it looked like translation to another language, which I've been seeing lately[6] but I wasn't sure. You might want to consider using edit summaries more frequently, especially for non-minor edits. See WP:ES for more about edit summaries, and why to use them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

With due respect; I do use edit summaries for non-minor edits; this to me was a minor edit as it was a revert back to the majority used name for the same unit which is used throughout the article; I was reverting the change by the ip back to what was there to avoid confusion; as I stated; with that said, thanks for the note. Kierzek (talk) 17:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't mean to step on your toes, which I apparently did. My only point was that it would have avoided confusion had you used an edit summary the first time around - cheers, KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Kierzek (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply to you

Sebastian, Dietrich did reach a higher rank, of course; I was merely pointing out that Dietrich did not have more "real power". Kierzek (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Sepp didn't have real power over Heydrich because Heydrich derived his power from his closeness to the Reichsführer himself, Heinrich Himmler. Bastian (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I replied here because OberRanks deleted my reply on his talk page. Bastian (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, OberRanks, archived the original discussion is what happened. No problem with the adding of your last note here. Kierzek (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

German Youth Organization

Located an article on the National League of German Democratic Youth Clubs, one of the predecessor youth organizations. Seems to have been only edited by a single user (who is a bit protective of it), could use some expansion. -OberRanks (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Hi. Thank you for your message. I'm hardly the "main author of the article"; my name may come up high on the list of contributors to the article, but that's mostly because I revert a lot of vandalism. I'll take a look and leave a comment on the article's Talk page. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:37, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 15:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Decision Made!

Might not do much more work on the German articles for awhile. Had a choice between publishing a bunch of my material on Wikipedia or beginning the process of having it published professionally. I choose the later - a new book might be out by next year on SS service records! -OberRanks (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Good. I would be happy to assist you with your work; if I can be of any help, let me know by e-mail. Kierzek (talk) 16:10, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer of help both here and off Wikipedia. Schiffer Military History is the company which will most likely publish the book. It is looking like initial draft by next summer, possible publication next fall. Just the first outlines are done but already this looks like it will be a very comprehensive book - literally a "everything you ever wanted to know about the SS" type of book. I've been planning this for a long time and was mentored by the best - Mark Yerger, who taught me quite a bit. I'll stay in touch! -OberRanks (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Even after an NARA archivist e-mailed Wikipedia, the SS record scan of Eichmann was still deleted. I imagine this will mushroom into deletions of all the other SS record scans, probably accompanied by statements that e-mails from NARA cant be trusted or something like that. Good thing I'm writing my book now. I've lost patience for this place. -OberRanks (talk) 15:23, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I would focus full time on your book. Not to mention that whatever photos you gain permission to use in your book may help with posting them herein at a later date. Kierzek (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks very much for the barnstar, it's nice to feel appreciated. :) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Technical concerns

Hi, Kierzek. I see you are interested in improving Wikipedia, so I thought I would pass along a couple of tips. You may not have noticed that the {{sfn}} template adds a clickable link from the citation in the Citation section to the book or source in the Sources section. For the link to work, the author name and the publication year must match in the citation template and in the cited source. So when you change the information in the "year" field, the sfns must be changed to match, or the clickable links will be broken.

Another concern: If you remove the "thumb" parameter from an image, the caption will no longer display. calling for a picture to be "right" is not necessary, as this is the default position. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding these issues or any problems you may encounter with wiki mark-up. I do not have all the answers, but I most definitely can find out. Sincerely, --Dianna (talk) 05:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Diannaa, I know how sfn citing works. I guess I should have checked; I assumed the sfn page cite you put in would already have the re-print date, not both the original date and re-print date together: Le Tissier|1999–2010. As for the photo, thanks for the tip; that I was not aware. Keep up the good cite work on AH and LSSAH. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep an eye out

Please keep an eye on German Sports Badge. I just had to revert a removal of all material that this was a Nazi era decoration as well as a modern day one. I might not be on Wikipedia that much over the next few days. -OberRanks (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Kierzek (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be motiviation behind the removal. Your comments would be welcome. -OberRanks (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I made an addition with book cite to the GSB article; that coupled with your added cites earlier should be enough. As for using NA as a cite; I remember taking part in a discussion as to photo use with that tag which was confirmed as to free use and allowed. As for a record cite; one could say the info. is there for free public access and confirmation. Kierzek (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hoops

Back again, appears to have made over a dozen page moves without discussion, including quite a significant one at Joachim Peiper. I'm off on a trip now so don't have time to deal with this, but this kind of thing was specifically discouraged under the previous ANI thread. -OberRanks (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

New Green Rank Boxes

I just did a mass revert of all these recent changes to the SS/SA rank articles. It looks like this is someone with an foreign Wiki account, trying to change these articles to reflect that these were only SS ranks. In any event, not sure where this was ever discussed or why the individual de-linked the SA ranks and made the ranks boxes green (the color of Orpo). Bears watching if the user tries again. Hope everything else is well. -OberRanks (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Your point is well taken. I left the editor a note about it [7]. Kierzek (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Longerich, out of date, Himmler

I think it's a useless little tidbit of info for anyone coming to look at Himmler for the first time, in terms of what old stuff might best left to one side. Any acceptable way I can work Longerich's advice regarding out of date studies into the article? Iloveandrea (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how one can by making a blanket general statement without it having POV problems. With that said, what you can do is, if you find where this historian/author has found some contention to be false, rejected or seriously questioned, you could add: "Contemporary historian Longerich questions that or rejects that account, etc.

Or something like this example from the Reinhard Heydrich article: However, Kersten's recollection of this event and the actions described involving Himmler and Hitler are "somewhat suspect", having been challenged by historian Max Williams, who holds it should be "viewed with caution".

If you find that it is something Longerich and another well respected historian/author, such as, Ian Kershaw concurs with him on then, you could write: "Contemporary historians have rejected this account" put in the new info. with a cite for same. Good luck, Kierzek (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, cheers. And obviously I meant, "I think it's a useful little tidbit"! Iloveandrea (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Albert Bormann

Thanks for clearing that up, I've noticed that you frequently correct mistakes which I make. Out of curiosity, do you read all or some of the articles that I create? Also, do you have a source which states that Albert Bormann was a member of the Nazi Party? It would be nice to add him to the List of Nazis.Hoops gza (talk) 00:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. BTW-I wrote the Albert Bormann article so I know him pretty well. As for your new articles, I read many of them as I do of OberRanks when he writes them. Your articles are in the same area of interest as mine. As for Albert, I checked the two sources I used for his article and neither states he joined the NSDAP. However, in a photo in one of the books, he is wearing his NSKK uniform and on the tunic is the Golden Party Badge (Hamilton, Charles (1996). Leaders & Personalities of the Third Reich, Vol. 2. R. James Bender Publishing, p. 227), so he must have been a NSDAP member. Further, he was awarded the NSDAP Long Service Award. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Good job dude, that's good enough imo so I've added him.Hoops gza (talk) 19:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC) Similarly, do you have a source for Georg Betz? Hoops gza (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC) And Ewald Lindloff? Hoops gza (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Betz was one of those rare men who was a SS officer (SS number: 625,419), but was not a member of the NSDAP. As for Lindloff, I cannot find info. as to whether he was a member of the NSDAP or not; only that he was a SS officer in the LSSAH. Kierzek (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Peiper

Hi

I am a totally NPOV editor, used to people trying to take ownership of articles and POV pushing so hopefully that should not be an issue, BRD etc :¬) I will probably start later today or tomorrow, though initially I will just do a quick grammar and prose check, and make notes on the talk page about any issues I discover along the way. I can see that there is a fair amount of previous discussion about POV pushing and opinions on whether he is more notable for his career or as a war criminal, but to be honest I suspect that there has been confusion between Blowtorch, the division, and Peiper's own involvement in war crimes. For a start the term "murder" is a little POV; something that needs addressing to follow other articles with similar topics, and addressed by their correct title of "war crimes". Chaosdruid (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I wont be on Wikipedia much over the holiday. Kierzek (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)