Open main menu

2019Edit

 


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019

begin it with music and memories

Not too late, I hope ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Never to late; thanks, Kierzek (talk) 20:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit offerEdit

Hello, first of all I apologise for being short with you last year, I saw the K in your screen name and thought it was another editor who has been giving me a lot of trouble, clearly not the case, so sorry again. Secondly, thanks again for the offer to edit two articles, at the time I was dealing with two deaths in the family and did not have the time to take up your offer. I wasn't ignoring you. Have not had a lot of time these past few months, will look into doing what I can Troy Troy von Tempest (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. Kierzek (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

AH LeadEdit

Hi Kierzek,

Sorry about changes to the AH page, I was responding to the poor grammar that was a result of the last edit and had no idea somebody had manipulated that much content to the lead. Your revert makes perfect sense in light of what was originally there. Not sure why I didn't look into it further, but there are enough people policing that page that I'll just leave it alone indefinitely.--Obenritter (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Obenritter: No, it was not your tweak that is the problem and I would encourage you to edit the page as you believe is appropriate. There were just too many changes that occurred by two other editors, without a full discussion and a consensus reached. So, please add your comments to the discussion on the talk page, if you wish and we will all go with the consensus reached on the matter. Kierzek (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
No worries brother. --Obenritter (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!Edit

Thank you, it is hard to believe it has been 10 years now. Kierzek (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Referring to women as "it"Edit

Hello, given the recent events [1] [2], please would you reconsider your wording here. The following does not fit well with modern sensibilities: "the woman is not notable, in and of itself." Thank you for your consideration. MPS1992 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It girl. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
MPS, I have no idea how you bootstrapped a phrase used, which means: "by itself, without considering any other factors", into something unrelated to anything I said or inferred by use of said phrase; used in relationship to an event or consideration of other factors. Kierzek (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the change you made to your comment at the MfD. I have made no further comment there, as I was sure this could be resolved amicably. MPS1992 (talk) 03:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Himmler bioEdit

March 14, 2019 by Elendil's Heir

You today undid my edit to the Heinrich Himmler article, striking this paragraph:

There have been recurring and unproven conspiracy theories that Himmer was murdered by the British to silence him as to his alleged wartime contacts with British leaders. Trueman, CN, "Death of Heinrich Himmler," History Learning Site https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/nazi-leaders/death-of-heinrich-himmler/. Irving, David, "British secret service did murder SS chief Heinrich Himmler," The International Campaign for Real History http://www.fpp.co.uk/Himmler/death/PRO_docs_story.html.

I do not understand why. I think this informs readers as to the existence of the controversy without giving it undue credence.

You wrote it yourself: "There have been recurring and unproven conspiracy theories". That is "unproven" to any degree and none of the WP:RS historians agree with what amounts to WP:Fringe speculation, at best and surmise. It provides nothing of real substance to a reader; especially, not something to be put into a GA rated article. Also, your cited sources are not WP:RS rated sources; the "History Learning Site" is a blog and does not give any RS sources for its article and does not show what editorial oversight it might have. The second source you used is linked to disgraced historian David Irving. That is the reason for the revert. I know you added in good faith, nothing personal as to the revert. Also see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Kierzek (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi from XinbenlvEdit

Hi Kierzek, this is Xinbenlv from MLK discussion. I noticed you are a historian, just want to say hi. I love history too! Xinbenlv (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

HimmlerEdit

I can see a number of things that would probably improve Himmler. It is obviously a good article but editors can often object to improvements, especially deletions if they wrote the material themselves. I'm also not remotely an expert on him and haven't even looked at the article history. The section on his peace negotiations looks a case of wp:Undue, of course it is likely all true but it is a lot of text for something that doesn't look that important. What do you think? Szzuk (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Besides tweaks, which any article could use, I don't see it as needs much work. It certainly is not akin to the shape of the Speer article; but with that said, certainly, I am always for improvement. As far as the "peace negotiations" section, it is pretty tight and does go into Bormann, Göring and Fegelein (who's fate was tied to Himmler's actions), which I believe is needed for context and timeline. But, I don't know what you have in mind, exactly. You might want to look at the Speer quotes in the article as you know about that better than most, at this point. I have to go handle some "real life" matters and will be gone for a while. Thanks for the courtesy shown. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
I will leave it be, it was just a thought. Keep up the good work. Szzuk (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Wilhelm Keitel and Nazi PartyEdit

Maybe you can get through to the editor... I've tried, but it's not getting through - see his talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I tried to state the "undo's" in simple to follow text, hopefully that will do it. Kierzek (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Help!!!Edit

OK So I get it just want to make sure, I put the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia#Proper_attribution then I put the Book source in sfn cite and add cited book with harv-ref?Jack90s15 (talk) 17:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

ok I see what I did wrong foot not was in the source and not the bookJack90s15 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jack90s15: you got it closer to how it should be. I fixed the grammar and fixed added reference books to link properly with sfn cites used, along with placing them in their proper position (alphabetical order); see and follow in the future - [3] Kierzek (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting me on this I appreciate it!Jack90s15 (talk) 21:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me what I did wrongEdit

Now I know that is the right word to use for a picture like that thank you for explaining what I did wrongJack90s15 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, next time consider asking before reverting. I will also add that it can take years to master grammar and composition (which, they don't always teach well in school these days); and even then there can be some grey areas. So, keep working on these things and you will do alright. Kierzek (talk) 15:42, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Robert E. Lee on TravellerEdit

Hi! You recently thanked me for my edits on the Martin Luther King Jr. article. I see that you are interested in U.S. history. Would you be interested in reviewing my article Robert E. Lee on Traveller for GA?MagicatthemovieS (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Thanks for the thought. However, my time at present is very limited, so I will have to decline. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

lets work togetherEdit

Hello @Kierzek: First thing I did not try to change the meaning of the page. I was trying to group them all together like how on the page section on the Wehrmacht it says , (The killings took place with the knowledge and support of the German Army in the east.[144] On 10 October 1941 Field Marshal Walther von Reichenau drafted an order to be read to the German Sixth Army on the Eastern Front. Now known as the Severity Order, it read in part:) (The most important objective of this campaign against the Jewish-Bolshevik system is the complete destruction of its sources of power and the extermination of the Asiatic influence in European civilization ... In this eastern theatre, the soldier is not only a man fighting in accordance with the rules of the art of war, but also the ruthless standard bearer of a national conception ... For this reason the soldier must learn fully to appreciate the necessity for the severe but just retribution that must be meted out to the subhuman species of Jewry.[145]) (Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt of Army Group South expressed his "complete agreement" with the order. He sent out a circular to the generals under his command urging them to release their own versions and to impress upon their troops the need to exterminate the Jews.[146] General Erich von Manstein, in an order to his troops on 20 November, stated that "the Jewish-Bolshevist system must be exterminated once and for all."[144] Manstein sent a letter to Einsatzgruppe D commanding officer Ohlendorf complaining that it was unfair that the SS was keeping all of the murdered Jews' wristwatches for themselves instead of sharing with the army.[147]) (The German historian Peter Longerich thinks it probable that the Wehrmacht, along with the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), incited the Lviv pogroms, during which 8,500 to 9,000 Jews were killed by the native population and Einsatzgruppe C in July 1941.[151] Moreover, most people on the home front in Germany had some idea of the massacres being committed by the Einsatzgruppen) So I wanted to Group them all together so the inexperienced reader doesn't think, all they did was help with transpiration if you think there is another way to world it I'd be more then happy to work with you to come to a Solution, Be ready to compromise: If you browbeat someone into accepting your changes, you are not building consensus, you are making enemies. This cycle is designed to highlight strongly opposing positions, so if you want to get changes to stick both sides will have to bend, possibly even bow. You should be clear about when you are compromising and should expect others to compromise in return, but do not expect it to be exactly even. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss Jack90s15 (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Jack90s15:
First: I have not been on as I had family matters in real life that required my attention this weekend. Second, I am already well aware of:
a) The role of the Wehrmacht on the East Front.
b) I am VERY aware of Wikipedia policy on editing. You are confused as to how it applies. Yes, Wikipedia states to be "bold", but that does not mean one is to go on an article, especially one which has been very well vetted and rated GA and make edits under the claim of being "bold", which changes the content of the cited edit and changes the truth of the matter asserted by adding vagueness. Now, when one does that, you must not be surprised objection is raised. Now, you state herein that was not your intent, I believe that. But, as you have shown in the recent past, this is not the first time, either, "to not look before you leap".
c) The way it is to work is, yes, you can be "bold" in an edit, but if that edit is reverted, YOU are then to follow WP:BRD (bold, revert, discuss). You did not do that but instead reverted my edit (which had not added or changed any text, only reverted back to the wording that had been per prior consensus for the GA article). The burden is on you to change from prior consensus. So your allegation as to some type of "browbeat" intent on my part is unfounded. Will continue below in your second added section. Kierzek (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kierzek: I was inferring that I may have came off has browbeating with my edit and I apologize for making it seem like I was saying you were.Jack90s15 (talk) 03:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Compromise to wordingEdit

what about if we reword it to, (The Wehrmacht cooperated with the Einsatzgruppen and provided logistical support for their operations and participated in the mass killings also) (The Einsatzgruppen and related agencies killed more than two million people, including 1.3 million of the 5.5 to 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust.) Jack90s15 (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC) (Tens of thousands of additional troops and their equipment were available for use by the Einsatzgruppen. They only needed to request this support. The Wehrmacht (regular German army) also cooperated closely with the Einsatzgruppen and, at times, regular Nazi soldiers participated in the executions. These Wehrmacht soldiers did not just guard the Jews and maintain order, as Bishop states. Rather, they actively committed the murders themselves) Peter Longerich, Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 244-247.Jack90s15 (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC) for the times I have interacted with you you do seem like a good Editor to work with for a solution. that is why I am Following the BRD cycle so we could come to a agreement I am not trying to build enemiesJack90s15 (talk) 01:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The above is now moot, as the current wording at present in the article, which Diannaa reviewed in my absence is okay. My point was and you got it correct on your later edit of August 4, when you stated in your summary:"I just put they also participated it them but kept it separate and added a source for it. since the Einatzgruppen and the Order Police were the main groups that did the killings".
Yes, I agree with this later edit summary. It is clear and not vague. So, remember in the future, don't jump to revert after being "bold" and don't jump to conclusions as to another editor's motives. Carry on, sincerely, Kierzek (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Kierzek: I apologize for making it seem like I was saying you were browbeating, I am trying not be like the old me. I got a Wikipedia adopter who is helping me make articles, and I have been focusing a lot on removing vandalism and reverting edits of people that try to blank entire pages. I want to start the new decade off right on wikipedia.Jack90s15 (talk) 03:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries, this is a “collective” here, we’re all working towards the same thing (or at least most of us are, not counting certain others - vandals, paid editors and the self-serving point of view pushing ones), which will always be with us. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 04:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

lets discuss thisEdit

@Kierzek: my fault with my BRD attempt I apologize. Sine you did a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#Discuss I will listen to what you have to say about my edit, (The SS were the main group responsible for carrying out the institutional killing and democide of around 20 million people during the Holocaust, including approximately 5.2 million to 6 million Jews and about 10.5 million Slavs) I put (around) Since Rummels Chart in the book breaks down the estimate for Democide at 19.3m for Europe and about Since the estimate for Slavs varies. The edit did not seem that big of a drastic change, now I do want to work with you on this. Since you are a experienced editor who is trying to help me. I am ready to compromise with what you may want to put for the wording for my edit, with what I was trying to sayJack90s15 (talk) 01:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

My point was of a teaching nature, I hoped. First, again when editing a GA rated article and especially one such as this one, discernment needs to be used when edits are made (given the potential for controversy and POV pushing of certain view-points).
So, don't just waive the "Bold" flag and expect the edit not to be scrutinized or even reverted. Second, remember it is BRD (bold, revert, discuss), not BRR (bold, revert, revert). That is and was my main point. You made a "Bold" edit change and it was reverted. At that point per BRD, you should go to the talk page for discussion; not revert the edit (in this case of Obenritter) and claim you had the right because your edit was "Bold". At that point, you should start a tread of discussion on the article talk page (especially in cases if more than one editor is involved) and ping the person(s) who reverted you. Or you can discuss it on their talk page if only one person. So, that was what I wanted to convey. Therefore, either start a thread on the article talk page on this matter or discuss it on @Obenritter: talk page. I reverted in this case as you did not follow proper procedure (the attorney in me). So, discuss this matter with him and if anyone else has anything to add, they will. Kierzek (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kierzek: I appreciate the help and I will talk to him about it since he was the only one besides you who undid my edit.Jack90s15 (talk) 04:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog BanzaiEdit

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS-Begleitkommando des FührersEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SS-Begleitkommando des Führers you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SS-Begleitkommando des FührersEdit

The article SS-Begleitkommando des Führers you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:SS-Begleitkommando des Führers for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019Edit

 
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

CensorshipEdit

Why was my important edits on pages related to Le Monke, a victim on sexual abuse removed. I am trying to document history and my work is being tarnished. I spend 50 hours on research for nothing... I come from bangladesh, 7 kids, 2 wifes. I come to the US with nothing and this is what I get. I spend life research on abuse victims and this is what I get. This is censorship and i am enraged. Please restore my edits. Justice for Le Monke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.219.84.29 (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand how Wikipedia works. The revert had NOTHING to do with censorship. Your "addition" was uncited to any WP:RS source, ill placed in the article and not shown to be noteworthy. Further, see WP:MILPOP, which states something should not include unless the subject has had a well-cited and notable impact on popular culture; not the case here. Also, see WP:NOTEVERYTHING. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." And policy states, "Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources." Note: I see this IP address is currently blocked [4]; which speaks for itself. Kierzek (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Kierzek".