User talk:Kierzek/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Stumpfegger

Thanks Kierzek, he's already on the list.Hoops gza (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for letting me know. Kierzek (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The Blocked Anon IP

I suspect the recent de-capping of the SS rank articles is the work of the anon ip who was recently blocked. There is no debate at all that these ranks need to be capitalized - the very primary sources of the SS records indicate the ranks this way. I think this is simply disruption and if it continues should be brought up on one the noticeboards. I am not around enough to make that happen, but can chime in once a report is made. -OberRanks (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll see if it fully starts up again. I am sure it is the same ip editor. Kierzek (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

hi

how you doing!! that edit was correcting the spelling!! If i was wrong please tell me.. i really want to know.. tanks in advance.. --Neogeolegend (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The edit did not go through correctly for some reason, that is why I said, "edit attempt"; if you fix it then it should be okay as to that point. Kierzek (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

what about now!! did the edit goes okay ?--Neogeolegend (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although I am not sure "trialed" is the correct word there; it means as used in law: "Examination of evidence and applicable law by a competent tribunal to determine the issue of specified charges or claims". Kierzek (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Fegelein

I posted a proposal on Fegelein's talk page. Please have a look if you can. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kierzek (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow

This is unbelievable. And we both worked closely with this person! Hope all is well. -OberRanks (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

They "both" did show a great interest in Himmler and his "ranking" in the Nazi state. I remember her from the past but, did not know she was just socking. Kierzek (talk) 14:12, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Heinrich Mueller

You did remove my last edit about the homosexuality of Heinrich Mueller. The information has been confirmed by two independent historical studies. The first one is a study about the attitude of the Amsterdam police during the Second World War; the study by Meershoek was his PhD study at the University of Amsterdam. The study brought to dayligth that the commissioner of the Amsterdam police Broekhoff was homosexual (Broekhoff was between 1917 and 1940 the coordinator of the police intelligence services that were locally organized and the Dutch Central Intelligence Service). The information came from the family and friends of Broekhoff and also from inspector of police Kallenborn, a subordinate of Broekhoff. That subordinate informed at January 7th, 1946 the inspector-general of the Dutch police about the homosexuality of Broekhoff and handed over a love letter of Broekhoff to Mueller (at that time Broekhoff was seriously ill and died soon due to a failed brain surgery because of a brain tumor, although there were rumors that he was murdered by a Britsish Intelligence service by means of poisoned pipe tobacco). Broekhoff visited Berlin regularly, because he was a major member of the Internalioner Kriminalpolizeilicher Kommission. A second study by Harthoorn about the Dutch intelligence services (the only independent study about the Dutch intelligence services), recently published, confirmed the findings of Meershoek. Meershoek is nowadays lecturer at the University Twente. Harthoorn is not a historian, however he has two PhD's, so that his scientific integrity is sure. So, I will restore the information and I hope that you are convinced about the truth of that information. Regards.KeesKnoest (talk) 08:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello: Yes, I did remove it the first time but, not the second time. I can tell you that English Wikipedia prefers one use english language sources which you have not. Second, no other WP:RS source confirms what you have proposed. Not Kershaw, Longerich, Gerwarth, Miller, Williams, Hamilton, Lumsden, or Padfield. Therefore, I am against the addition for WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY reasons. The burden is on the one who wishes to make the addition to obtain WP:Consensus to add. If you do, then so be it. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A little odd to have such a new user with the first edits being a majorly disputed addition to an article about a controversial subject (Nazi/Gestapo/SS). WP:DBN applies, I guess, but i wonder if we're dealing with someone who's been here before. -OberRanks (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know but have been civil and my argument is NPOV based. And after reading the further details on the matter, which I thank KeesKnoest for writing on the talk page, it is clear the allegation does not pass WP:RS or WP:VERIFY as the original source of said claim is hearsay. Kierzek (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I think something like the Head of the Gestapo being homosexual would have come up over the last seventy years if indeed it was true. I never before heard, read, or seen anything about this. -OberRanks (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Heydrich

Just a note to let you know I have nominated for GA. I would be pleased if you have time to help with questions or sourcing concerns. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I will be glad to help out if needed, although I wont be around a lot this weekend. Kierzek (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I am going to Führerbunker next, and then will start JFK. --Dianna (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. All articles of long interest and editing for me. I will help out where I can. BTW-after those two, I would suggest you consider the articles: Joachim von Ribbentrop & Nazi Party as they both could use your fine and noted ce skills. Kierzek (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Krause

I will check my sources but I don't think that I will be able to add much. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked

• Patzwall, Klaus D. and Scherzer, Veit (2001). Das Deutsche Kreuz 1941–1945 Geschichte und Inhaber Band II (in German). Norderstedt, Germany: Verlag Klaus D. Patzwall (in German). ISBN 3-931533-45-X.

Krause is not listed as a recipient of the German Cross. He is not listed in the GC in Gold nor in the GC in Silver section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

650 pieces of artillery per one kilometre

"Preceding events: fixed - it was two different shellings" I wont revert the edit but I'm not sure of the significance of the second shelling as I don't think the Soviets stopped shelling Berlin from 20 April until they May 2. Now something I have always found mind blowing is:

[On 23rd April] Mikhail Katukov's 1st Guards Tank Army attacked across the Teltow Canal. At 06:20 a bombardment by 3,000 guns and heavy mortars began (a staggering 650 pieces of artillery per one kilometer of front).

-- PBS (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I will tell you then: per Beevor-page 255, the shelling on the 20th was by long range artillery of the 79 Rifle Corps; "few people in the city were aware of the fact", only "...the north-eastern suburbs were affected". On 21 April, an "intensive artillery bombardment of Berlin began at 09:30 am. page 262. That, per Beevor, is the centre bombardment which you first changed to the 20th. We were in fact writing about TWO different bombardments; the second one I had written about was the centre city one; but I did not want to change your edit to any large degree at the time until I cross-checked it today. So you were right that the first city one came on the 20th, Hitler's birthday; but I was writing as to the second one on the 21st that hit the centre of the city. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have now tweaked and tightened up the two sentences as to events of 20 and 21 April, with page cites from Beevor (2002). Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am a long way from my books at the moment, so I am not sure, and of course we must follow the sources. I am glad that you were able to look it up. My memory is that the shelling put a damper on the birthday celebrations, but it may well have been just a report of the shelling. -- PBS (talk) 08:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A problem with history of Berlin, April 1945 and the events surrounding the death of Hitler is that dates, times and actions are not always exact; it was a chaotic time and very fluid as far events and, at times, memories. Kierzek (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not that old! and if I where I would have been somewhere west of the Elbe! -- PBS (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I should have said, "memories of those present"; as for "west of the Elbe", hopefully, I would have been right there behind you. Kierzek (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Regards the post war bunker stuff, I cannot be of much help other than to say most of it corresponds with what I saw there in the 80s and 90s, so I don't doubt it is true but I do not have access to any sources (other than those publicly available on the net). I'll do some Googling and see what I come up with. -- PBS (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Death of Adolf Hitler

Hi. I see you're the primary editor of Death of Adolf Hitler. I improved this article about an hour ago by adding {{sfn}}, which you seem to like. Others who seem to have no involvement with the article (but have prior agressive behaviour towards me) have undone it all; taken it even further back. Up to you; I've been trolled-off that article. Alarbus (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep letting your opinion be known. While it is true I prefer the sfn style of cites, I care more about the content. First, it is very important to this article that the explanatory notes of cited text be retained. A group of us worked very hard in 2010/2011 (see archive) to write a good lede and have detailed cites with references for this article which has been contentious in the past. Second, in this article I believe the film portrayals should be retained (and I DON'T mean Youtube type videos, to be clear). Kierzek (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, Nev1 and Nikkimaria are there because I've been critical of the FAC process. Sandy's little helpers. If you opine in favor of the direction I'd taken things, I'll support it. If you revert the article I'll support it. But I'll not re-do the work. I've not looked at the film stuff at all. I'm sure it's been done much, so some coverage would be apt. Alarbus (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to revert it as I have cited many articles the majority way, which can be different per article. Diannaa, has an interest in all this, as well. A note should be left for her; which I have done. Kierzek (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Alarbus, are you suggesting that I am also one who has "prior aggressive behaviour" towards you? If so, then I hope that you can substantiate that. And the accusation of being "trolled". I am the person who raised the issue with you, after all ... and I did so in a polite manner. I have no opinion on the citation style that is or should be used. I may come to have one should a debate ensue and people be persuasive one way or another, but right now, no. - Sitush (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Nope; Nikkimaria and Nev1. You just butted in and they seized on it. Alarbus (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I thank each of you for your comments but would ask that you both add any additional comments (as to the article) on the article talk page. Kierzek (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Bernd Freytag von Loringhoven

I added what I could quickly find into the article. The fact that he had received the German Cross in Gold would imply that he had also received both classes of the Iron Cross (not the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, which is a higher grade of the award). MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

SS-Obersturmführer Stehr

Sorry but he is not listed in my books about the Knight's Cross nor as a German Cross reipient. MisterBee1966 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not surprised; they must have given him some added medals for the movie. Kierzek (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove Google page links

They are extremely useful for instant verification. Please restore the links you removed here. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 17:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I and others, such as Diannaa, agree they are no longer needed when checked and the book is properly cited per WP:RS standards. It has been done with no objection in other higher profile articles. There is nothing that states the page links must be used or kept. I am not going to revert and add them back; but wont edit war over the unnecessary addition. Kierzek (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not know who Diannaa is, but in my book, removal of helpful links is a form of vandalism. I strongly urge you not to carry out such controversial edits, unless you can cite a policy that specifically permits them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 21:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You should read [1] where this basically came up in discussion and it was agreed printed cites are best. BTW-Diannaa is an English Wikipedia admin. and a lead member of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. It is only your opinion that commercial Google links should be kept after confirmation of the book cite which states the printed WP:RS info. Kierzek (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Piotrus. The problem with adding Google links is that Google is constantly changing which books it allows access to. After a while people are not allowed to look at the cited page, but are only presented with a picture of the front cover, which does nothing to verify the contents in any way. I found when editing WWII-related articles that after allowing access to a text 20 or so times, my access would be cut off. Then I would have to go somewhere else with a different IP such as a library or a coffee shop to get further access to the text. My opinion is that once a trusted editor has actually looked at the content—whether by using a paper copy of the book or by using a Google preview—that a Google link to the book is not necessary. In many cases the content can be verified simply by going to your local library. Though I may have a conflict of interest; I work at a library. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

@Kierzek: the discussion you cite has ended with no consensus. Given there is no consensus on whether to do something or not, we tend to default to keep (like in AfDs).

@Dianaa: Hi. I am aware of the Google links transitory nature, but I don't believe this is a constant problem. It is something that happened to some links a while back, not all of then, and is pretty rare overall. I don't mind removing broken links, but good links tend to be valid for years. As the reader has no easy way of knowing whether an article has been spotchecked for cites, leaving the quotes so they can check them themselves is preferred. There is also the added benefit of being able to quickly read up more from the cited source. As much as I like having access to an entire book, Google Books is a very helpful tool, and I could only wish more articles had those links (particularly when I am have my reviewer hat on).

Bottom line, I understand there is no consensus on making people add them. I am however pretty sure that we should not be removing them unless they are broken. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 14:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

With due respect, Piotrus, you mis-read the discussion. There was no consensus to add the language, in part: "A suggested alternative wording:

The principle of verifiability implies that information is able to be verified, so consideration should be given to citing reliable sources which are the most accessible. Ideally a search should be done to see if there is a freely accessible online version of a text on a website such as Project Gutenberg, Google Books, Feedbooks, or Wikisource, and citing to the scanned page so that a reader is able to immediately verify the information in context."

That was shot down, which is the POV position you are arguing-to add and keep them. It was plain that printed sources (which most articles only have) are the best for citing and review. The fact is, again, in other articles where the commercial Goggle links have been changed to show the printed book cite no one has taken issue with it; so per Wikipedia:SILENT, one can argue consensus therein (although I agree that is it in its weakest form). Still, per the above, books in print are still the best form available for WP:RS review. Kierzek (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Piotrus, you are missing part of my point. A link that works for you might not work for me, and vice versa. A link that works at the library might no longer work at home, because Google has decided that I have used up all my free looks from my home IP, and now have to buy the book. So who determines whether or not a link is broken? Google now also routinely rotates out which books can be viewed, and links are no longer stable for years.--Dianna (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid it is you who miss my point, guys. I agree that those links have issues, but they can still be useful. And they do not hurt us at all. Why remove something that can be useful and is harmless? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I do indeed see your point. To each his own, I guess. It's not something I would edit-war over. -- Dianna (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Piotrus, the links become unviewable, redundant and take up more space; it is important to keep the size (bytes) of longer and larger articles down. With that said, clearly we will not agree on this matter. Nice to have a civil discussion on it. Kierzek (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Was asked to comment here. Our policy on the matter - WP:BOOKLINKS - A link to a specific page in a Google Books should only be added if the book is available for preview; such links will not work if the book is only available in snippet view. Like other variations on citation styles, there is no requirement either to add or remove such links. If a link is long or the target is wrong we have a Google book tool that coverts ling and bare url into {{cite book}} format. Moxy (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Moxy. It does not change the end result above, however, additional info. as to a matter is always welcome on my talk page. Kierzek (talk) 12:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me show an example of how the books help - Top rated article by Newsweek (A Canadian magazine) because of its easily viewed refs Military history of Canada. The news article and great review of the references lead us to make bibliographies for our young students so that book refs our used over web refs - We made Bibliography of Canada - Bibliography of Canadian history - Bibliography of Canadian military history for all to see and for Wikipedia:Canada Education Program . What this leads to is easy expansion of articles and gives great credibility to Wiki. We are here to inform as much as possible - that includes making the best possible references that are assessable if possible.Moxy (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Herbert Kappler's Iron Cross

Would appreciate your opinion at Talk:Herbert_Kappler#Iron_Cross. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kierzek (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs. Separate subject, but in my research, I'm seeing a lot of z.b.V after some German police and Einsatzgruppen commands. Insight into what that means? Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI: zbV is an abbreviation for "zur besonderen Verwendung" meaning "Special Purpose" or "For Special Employment". For example: "Feldersatzbataillon zur besonderen Verwendung" (Special purpose field reserve battalion) Kierzek (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That certainly explains things. A lot of the police commands I'm researching were specially formed units in Poland immediately after the capitulation. They were later folded into the more established Police Regiments and lost the z.b.V designation. Thank you! -OberRanks (talk) 13:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please take note of the following:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You can display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence. I have noted the sections above and the linked ones, as well. Kierzek (talk) 02:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Karl Wilhelm Krause

Hello. Is Karl Wilhelm Krause a Nazi as well?Hoops gza (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if he joined the Party. None of the sources gave a NSDAP number for him. I do know that after the war he worked with a neo-Nazi group in Germany, late 1940s, early 1950s I recall; the British broke up the group. You may wish to consider buying a copy of the: SS 1944 Dienstaltersliste: The SS Officer Rank List for 1944 put out by the Ulric of England Research Unit for your continued research/interest. The 1944 edition was the last one done before the war ended. Kierzek (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks as always.Hoops gza (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I notice that you frequently include middle names in article titles. Did these people go by their full names, or do you choose that because the "Franz Huber" and "Karl Krause" are already taken?Hoops gza (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think its better to include full names, if known, as to lesser known people. In cases of others like Himmler or Heydrich that would not be the case; as that is not needed. Further, in German, the last names of Krause and Huber are common surnames. Kierzek (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hoops, I now know why you wanted to know, for redirects and page moving you did not discuss. Besides my reasons above, yes, both were known and went by their full names. See: Ailsby, Christopher (1997). SS: Roll of Infamy. Motorbooks Intl. ISBN 0760304092. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Kierzek (talk) 01:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello, Kierzek. We seem to share a long-term interest in the Nazi era and all it meant for so many millions. One question, if you don't mind my asking: Where are you a historian? Just curious. Sca (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking, nor mean by "where", but I can tell you I don't edit and write other places anymore; don't have the time. Kierzek (talk) 00:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Sca (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

NSKK

I am considering starting a category for members of the NSKK. So far I have a handful of names for the category. Do you think this would be a good move?Hoops gza (talk) 00:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I would say yeah, but there is already one, see: Category:National Socialist Motor Corps members. Maybe you could add to it; its short. Kierzek (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Like clockwork, this issue comes up every two years or so when a new user comes across the General of the Armies article and starts to kick around the 7 star rank thing. Your thoughts would be appreciated here. -OberRanks (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think enough has been discussed about it in the archives for the page. Consensus was reached and it really, at this point, should be a WP:DEADHORSE. Kierzek (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Reich and Realm

Since I did end up posting a more precise poll, could you kindly vote again —just below the first poll. Sorry for not being sufficiently precise the first time. Bytwerk (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Done. Kierzek (talk) 18:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

How about Himmler?

I was thinking about going to Himmler next. I have Longerich available at my local library, plus Manvell and a couple other things. Just thought I would alert you, as it's one on which you are a primary contributor. It looks in good shape, so it might not take too much to get it up to GA. -- Dianna (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good to me. I read Longerich's book and used it for some additions therein and then sold it on Amazon. I still have Gerwarth's book on Heydrich which may be of some help for citing. Kierzek (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Good. I don't have access to that one, so it might come in handy. -- Dianna (talk) 16:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

First before putting it up for good article review (as to what needs to be done), we should try and put in cites for all the cn's in the article. Kierzek (talk) 01:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

For sure. I will get the books from the library probably on Tuesday and we can get everything sourced and clean up the whole article, same deal like the others. Lots of the citations are already nicely done with {sfn} templates so that's good news. -- Dianna (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, I was thinking that his personal life (marriage, children, etc.) should be moved to a separate section, what do you think. The "Early Life" section is still quite long and the personal life part is stuck in there; not in chronological order. Kierzek (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would work. Why don't you go ahead and reorganise it, and we can tweek it again just before we are ready to ask for a GA review? Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Check it out; feel free to tweak and change it. Kierzek (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I am gonna try to get another paragraph done on what happened after WWII started. Just hang on as I will be adding something within the hour. Thanks-- Dianna (talk) 02:19, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I will be stopping now. I think there needs to be one more paragraph in here but I will do it next session. -- Dianna (talk) 03:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks for the notes; I had already stopped for the night. Have to sleep sometime, right? The article is looking better and better. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. Some sections will go very quickly as they are pretty good already. -- Dianna (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

BTW-Diannaa, I think this sentence needs a little more explanation for the general reader: "Hitler announced that the methods used henceforth would be outside what was ethical or legal." Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, great ce work as always. As to Lidice and Ležáky those actions were Himmlers call; Hitler earlier had wanted to shoot 10,000 people but was talked out of it as the area was too important for arms production. I can list some cites for you tomorrow if you wish but must go to bed for now; too tired. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a problem; I was going by Longerich, which says Frank ordered it on Hitler's say-so. We can clear it up tomorrow. Regards, -- Dianna (talk) 04:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, after re-checking today, I see my memory of the events was not really correct. I should have just gone to bed!!

Per Dederichs: Two hours after Heydrich's death Hitler ordered reprisals in conversation with Karl Hermann Frank. 10,000 Czechs were to be shot. Himmler suggested instead that 10,000 Czechs be arrested and 100 top political prisoners be shot. Frank convinced Hitler that his order was too harsh. Dederichs, pp. 150-151. Per Max Williams: Himmler's order went out by telex after Hitler rescinded his original order (above). 10,000 Czechs were to be arrested and 100 of the most important political prisoners shot. Williams, pp. 160, 163.

Per Gerwarth and Dederichs: Prague SiPo chief, Horst-Alwin Böhme, phoned Himmler on 9 June to report that the "assassins" had been given support in the village of Lidice. Himmler reported to Hitler the info. Hitler agreed that Lidice should be liquidated and ordered it be done. Karl Hermann Frank was told and he phoned Böhme to carry out the order. Gerwarth, p. 280 and Dederichs, pp. 151-152. Gestapo agents later found a radio transmitter in Ležáky of an underground team who parachuted in with Kubiš and Gabčík and the murders/reprisals then occurred there. Gerwarth, p. 285 and Dederichs, p. 152.

BTW-I am not recounting all the other reprisals of murder by the Germans, where over 1,300 were shot, etc. So there is the facts as best I can reconstruct them from the book sources. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I see you have already incorporated this into the article, and over at Heydrich as well. That's awesome. -- Dianna (talk) 22:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

I got tonight, Longerich from my local library for cite work. I had to order it from the main branch. Anyway, the article is getting closer to being ready for ga review and is looking good, Diannaa. Keep going girl. Kierzek (talk) 03:08, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement! It is going very well, and will be ready for its nomination soon. -- Dianna (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

We are almost ready. I have to incorporate the remaining citations into the {sfn} system and do a final copy edit. Also, I want to hunt in Evans for some general historical perspectives. Then we can nominate! -- Dianna (talk) 01:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Good. I had already started to ce the "Historical views" section when you came in and wiped out the uncited stuff. I had planned to do the same. That section does need some more work. Don't worry about any possible edit conflict tonight as I have to go to bed. Keep on truckin' and I will read you tomorrow. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I had to wait quite a while for a reviewer for "Herr Meier" so I will go ahead and nominate. If we find any more useful historical perspectives in our primary books, we can add them while we are waiting. Shirer calls him a "gangster" but I haven't found anything substantial yet. -- Dianna (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Kershaw may state something of use for historical perspective. Kierzek (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, I did some re-working per GA but look it over for ce tweaking. Now off to bed for me. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 03:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The re-ordering went well, and I have tweeked it slightly. All concerns listed so far have now been addressed. See you later -- Dianna (talk) 05:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

The World War II section still needs some work but I don't want to do too much addition during the GA review; see what you think; as to other parts, the points you added that certain observations were taken from his diary was a great idea. Kierzek (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. How did he spend his time? Touring concentration camps, certainly, and desk-work; needs to be fleshed out; there's got to be more. But after the GA review, unless we are asked to add it now. -- Dianna (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Its shaping up, getting better and better. The background and relationship materials have given the article more depth. I had asked Malljaja to help with the ce work and I am glad to see he has been able to do so. Keep up the good work. I am off to bed. Kierzek (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think getting Nick-D's opinion was a good idea. See my latest tweaks and check for ce. I will read you tomorrow. "Carry on" as CSN once sang. Kierzek (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I am tired and my brain has turned to mush. See you soon. Keep truckin', as Jerry Garcia once said. -- Dianna (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nebe

Are you sure that he was not Gestapo as well? I do not read German but from what I could gather from Nebe's German article Goering recruited Nebe into the Gestapo.Hoops gza (talk) 03:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I am sure he was only in the Kripo and SS from all English sources I know. Now, the Kripo and Gestapo were together what made up the SiPo and later depts. of the RSHA. That one sentence in German Wikipedia, I just read; it is not correct (and uncited). He was a German policeman who joined the Nazi Party, then the SS and became chief of the Kripo, which was controled by the SS, as you know. Kierzek (talk) 03:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Re. Ernst Torgler, on the German Wikipedia he is in the category for Gestapo agents, which is why I added the cat on the English one.Hoops gza (talk) 03:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. As to Torgler, there is no connection to the Gestapo on the English page and it states he worked for Heydrich; which could be SD, SiPo, Gestapo, or SS. If you translate over some info. on him from German Wikipedia that ties that in then okay; re-add the cat. I don't claim to know his story like Nebe; it was just nothing in the English article connected him at all to the Gestapo. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Strange edits?

Hi, if you have time could you check out edits by 83.22.82.120? In my opinion they are overkill, but I'm not an expert and would welcome your advice. Regards Denisarona (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I found one edit by the ip and see someone reverted it already. I found several others, and fixed them myself. You're right in that there was un-needed verbiage. If there are any others, let me know. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 16:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for !voting

	at my successful RFA
	Thank you, Kierzek, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Kierzek (talk) 16:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Nazism page

Hello Kierzek, many thanks for your vote of confidence, and right back at you for your top-notch work on the various Nazism pages. I'm very glad to see you involved in (re)-working the above page. Kim Traynor had asked me for some assistance there, and I'll try to get involved meaningfully soon and time permitting. I'm currently away with only brief access to internet, so it may be a few days until I can devote more time to WP. Best, Malljaja (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and I know how it is to be busy wth real life. Get to the article when you can. Kierzek (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kierzek, apologies for my tardiness in responding to your recent message. I've perused the recent discussion on the article's talk page, and also the most-hotly debated sections of the entry. I don't think I can make very substantive contributions to this at this point, especially considering the emotional state of some of the chief contributors (and my past interactions with some of them) — it may have the effect of fuelling rather than cooling the flames. But what I notice right away is that the style and tone of most of the entry seems decidedly un-encyclopedic. I think it reflects the tendency of many of the current contributors to attempt to synthesise sources rather than presenting them. Some incisive action seems required to change that trajectory, but I do not know enough on the topic of Nazism and religion to feel bold enough to get to work on that. Your approach of identifying and presenting authoritative source has borne at least some fruits it seems. I'll keep following the entry, and will try to contribute as needed. Best, Malljaja (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice ce work there. Thanks, Malljaja. Kierzek (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Rank collar tabs

Thanks Kierzek. However, I am done with adding those to the pages in hopes that another editor(s) will follow suit and continue adding them to the pages where applicable. In fact, I shall stop editing on this topic altogether.Hoops gza (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, they look good, as I said; info boxes is something which some bio articles need; I have those on my list of things to do. Kierzek (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

You can find the complete list of tabs at Uniforms and insignia of the Schutzstaffel. Hoops gza (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen thanks

Thanks for your polishes to Einsatzgruppen. Wikipedia's articles on the Third Reich are an incredibly valuable resource, and they deserve to be as well-written as they are well-researched. Any further polishes that you make will be greatly appreciated. (talk to) Caroline Sanford 04:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Kierzek (talk) 19:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Einsatzgruppen is finished; at least, as finished as anything can be, which I suppose is not at all. If you think Wehrmacht and Nazi Party would benefit from a little attention, I'd be happy to look at them next :) (talk to) Caroline Sanford 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that would be great. Mainly it is about certain long sections. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

My God!

So, I screened this film last night...My GOD! Where to begin? Herbert Kappler is not even mentioned in the film, replaced by a fictitious SS Captain with a 1980s mustache, acting like a date rapist. Then we have Karl Wolff...depicted in the film as one of the most vicious rabid anti-Semitic Nazis bent on destroying the Jews of Rome (not that I'm saying he was a nice guy, but not that bad). Half the film is a love story about an Italian black market dealer and I'm just wondering where the plot is. James Cromwell as the Pope was the only good thing, he did a great job portraying Pius and the agony the Pope probably felt during World War II. That's my review! -OberRanks (talk) 00:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Not the first time "historical fiction" is more fiction than anything else. I think I will skip that film. Kierzek (talk) 01:22, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Fritz von Scholz & Hermann Prieß

Hi, okay I had a look in my sources and here is what I found out. I checked the following sources:

• Florian Berger (2000). Mit Eichenlaub und Schwertern. Die höchstdekorierten Soldaten des Zweiten Weltkrieges. 2., überarbeitete Auflage. Florian Berger, Wien. ISBN 3-9501307-0-5.
• Fellgiebel, Walther-Peer (2000). Die Träger des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939–1945 (in German). Friedburg, Germany: Podzun-Pallas. ISBN 3-7909-0284-5.
• Krätschmer, Ernst-Günther (1999). Die Ritterkreuzträger der Waffen-SS (in German). Coburg, Germany: Nation Europa Verlag GmbH. ISBN 3-920677-43-9.
• Scherzer, Veit (2007). Ritterkreuzträger 1939–1945 Die Inhaber des Ritterkreuzes des Eisernen Kreuzes 1939 von Heer, Luftwaffe, Kriegsmarine, Waffen-SS, Volkssturm sowie mit Deutschland verbündeter Streitkräfte nach den Unterlagen des Bundesarchives (in German). Jena, Germany: Scherzers Miltaer-Verlag. ISBN 978-3-938845-17-2.
• Thomas, Franz (1998). Die Eichenlaubträger 1939–1945 Band 2: L–Z (in German). Osnabrück, Germany: Biblio-Verlag. ISBN 3-7648-2300-3.

Regarding von Scholz

All sources state that he received the posthumous Swords to his Knight's Cross holding the rank of SS-Gruppenführer and Generalleutnant of the Waffen-SS. Neither Berger, Fellgiebel, Krätschmer nor Scherzer mention a promotion (not even posthumously) to SS-Obergruppenführer. However Thomas lists him as SS-Obergruppenführer and Generalleutnant of the Waffen-SS but also states that the rank at the time of the Swords presentation was SS-Gruppenführer and Generalleutnant of the Waffen-SS.

Regarding Prieß

All the sources indicate that he his final rank was SS-Gruppenführer and Generalleutnant of the Waffen-SS. I hope this helps a little. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess I will leave von Scholz listed as an Obergruppenführer. Kierzek (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Your call, I can't fully judge this given the sources I have. Have you seen this link? Here it states that Von Scholz was promoted to Obergruppenführer on 20 April 1944. Interestingly Berger and Krätschmer mention a promotion to Generalleutnant on this date, no statement about his SS-rank is made on this date. What puzzels me is that, at least when it pertains to Knight's Cross citations, the rank is normally "SS-Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Waffen-SS" and/or "SS-Obergruppenführer und General der Waffen-SS". I have never seen a combo of "SS-Obergruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Waffen-SS", which is what Thomas is listing him as. From my point of view, listing him as "SS-Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Waffen-SS", is a safer claim, potentially noting in a footnote that he may have attained the rank of Obergruppenführer based on sources ABC. Do you have access to other sources? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I also thought the info. on von Scholz was a strange combo; the only way it would make sense was if he held the two different ranks, as would happen at times, with one as to the Allgemeine SS and the other as to the Waffen-SS. However, I have not seen that stated anywhere in this case. I wish now I still had my book, "Their Honor Was Loyalty!: An Illustrated and Documentary History of the Knight's Cross Holders of the Waffen-SS and Police, 1940-1945" by Jost W. Schneider, R. James Bender Publishing, ISBN 978-0912138510. I sold it sometime ago and was relying on Axis History Forum but the info. was conflicting and that is why I wrote you as to the matter. I had not seen the link you note above. It adds to the conflicting info as to his rank. Upon reflection, I will change the entry for von Scholz to Gruppenführer und Generalleutnant der Waffen-SS with a footnote. But I need the page numbers for the books you cite; better yet, if you could add those in, that would be great. Kierzek (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

FYI, this website lists him as Gruppenführer. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Leopold von Mildenstein

Thanks for your note, Kierzek. As a date of death November 1968 is certainly plausible, but I don't know of any way to verify it. All I can say is that I could find no trace of him anywhere after 1964, but someone somewhere knows the truth. In the circumstances I suggest we let "November 1968" stand for now. I have added a after it which may lead to more revelations. Moonraker (talk) 22:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I say, congratulations for a job very well done! May the tea help calm your nerves and pick you up after passing a harrowing GA review with flying colours. Malljaja (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, pass the milk. Kierzek (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Now you get your just desserts!

	Fabulous ice cream!
	Congratulations, and thank you for your epic efforts getting Himmler promoted to GA! Dianna (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks, Kierzek (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at the page ratings for Himmler; it's the best :) -- Dianna (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Portal:Nazi Germany

Hey there Kierzek! Glad you are willing to give me a hand with the NG Portal. It appears as though you're active at WP:MILHIST, and I'm wondering if you can help me understand what "A-Class" articles are. A-Class articles can be said to be as good (if not better) than GAs, right? So they could easily be Selected. (I'm not sure how familiar you are with Portals, so if you have any questions, drop me a line). Achowat (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello: the Milhist A-Class standard is a high standard for a military related article, very close to featured article (FA) quality but not FA; it should state on the talk page if it is A-class which is above GA. Some A-class go on to FA status but you will have to check to see if they did reach that. A lot of work for you. I am about to go out of town for 6 days so I can't be much help right now. Good luck , Kierzek (talk) 14:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If there's still work to be done, I would have clearly bitten off more than I can chew. Hopefully when you come back next week, you'll be impressed by what's up there. Cheers! Achowat (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

BTW-if articles are included in the World War II portal or Military of Germany portal, then unless closely tied to NG, they should be removed, I believe. Kierzek (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I humbly disagree. Portals should be used as Enterance Ways for people with a certain interest. The Selected Articles and Bios will, of course, be triaged and those of the greatest interest should be done first, but any quality article that may be of interest to those looking for information concerning Nazi Germany should be included. Of course, a battle between Canadians and Italians or Americans and Japanese aren't going to be included, but there's too much Quality information about battles in which NG are beligerents that should be on both WW2 and NG Portals. Achowat (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As long as there is enough of a nexus to NG; I don't think we are far apart in our thought process here. Anyway, I am glad the portal is being done in a balanced way, this time around; you may ask Nick-D and Wehwalt to have a look at it, at some point. Kierzek (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the plan is to divide all the Quality Content into Selected Articles/Bios/(and it looks like we'll have enough for "Battles" as well) and then, post-Portalling, send it to MILHIST for their opinions on the matter. Achowat (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am back. I was wondering your thoughts as to the portal icon? Kierzek (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a Toughy. The obvious choice would be the flag (since we are talking about a historical country), but that seems...Well, I just don't want to do that. I guess I'd go with the 1933-35 flag of Nazi Germany () which is both an appropriate flag and not so swastika-y. If there is ever a Portal:German Empire, we'll need to revisit it, but for now I would imagine it works. Achowat (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

A rare flag; I doubt many general readers have ever seen that one; I agree, we should not consider the flag of the Party or the later one of state (1935–45); it can be a sensitive matter; do you think the Reichsadler of (1935-1945) would pass muster? Kierzek (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I assume you mean the 1935-45 variant. It does scream "Nazi", without being so overtly-swastika-y. The old portal used File:NSDAP-Logo.svg, which is entirely unacceptable. File:Reichsadler der Deutsches Reich (1933–1945).svg ends up in such a small resolution that I think it'll be fine. I've already made the change. Achowat (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I mean that one. As you know the Party eagle looks over its left shoulder and the state eagle, over its right shoulder. If there is any objection to using it, let me know. We want consensus on this. Kierzek (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I definitely would tell you if I objected. (And also, a secret between you and I, I have no real interest in that particular period of German history. I have some Portal skills and I'm active on MFD, so when this MFD ended up as "delete with no prejudice for recreation", I thought I might as well take the lead on it). Achowat (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for your work. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I appreciate that you took the time to comment and I hope I'll continue to see your name pop up around Wikipedia. Take care. =) Kurtis (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

re: ‎Note

Glad you like it, every now and then somebody will complain :) If you want, I can give you the script, it's very easy to add to one's book pages, and then it's as easy to use as WP:REFLINKS. (Just have to watch out for occasional points of failure, like on Arab Spring - sometimes formatting will mess it up and one needs to manually move the refs up, but it is still very easy, because the script will gather them at the end of the article, so no need to go through the entire article...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 19:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. If you have a chance, also take a look at Nazi Party. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. If you'd like to run the script yourself, just copy the "Δ script for ref sorting and moving" part from here. It adds a new option to the pull down menu (where the move is), and from there it's a two-click process. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:32, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 03:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary at Konrad Henlein

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hello, despite good faith assumption I am opening an WP:ANI because I do not have time to look in depth at the issue. Best regards Richiez (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

There was no reason to go to WP:ANI as has been pointed out to you therein [2]; and in fact the matter is now closed. Also, if you had taken a little more time, you would have seen that all I did was revert the ip edit back to prior cited text, which someone else did. Further, I checked the linked page of: President Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, as to the matter. I would agree that the talk page is the place for discussion of this prior cited point. Remember, good faith and "take the time" to take it to the talk page first and to get your facts straight. Otherwise, keep editing as Wikipedia needs all the help it can get. Kierzek (talk) 16:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In your edit summary you claim that you reverted to "correct cited text". If you claim that than if I am correct you claim that you have read the source and checked the claim against the source. The text is more or less nonsense in this context - this article is about Henlein and not Masaryk. The sentence does make some sense with Henleins name inserted although I am not sure I would formulate it so strongly. Henlein was known to be influenced by Spahn and before 1935 presumably anti-Nazi. Furthermore I would be very surprised if the source given ("Czechoslovak Office of Foreign Affairs, Two Years of German Oppression in Czechoslovakia (London, 1941) p. 25") would contain the claim made.

Now that may all be content discussion but the matter is, when editing Nazi-related articles we need to be very careful and misleading edit summaries make me very suspicious. Richiez (talk) 17:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am "careful" as my record speaks for itself. I suggest you "take the time" to check on the cited text further if you wish and then post the matter on the talk page, if need be. However, I can agree the text is not really needed as to the subject of the article and can be removed. Kierzek (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

How are you careful? How could you seriously claim that Masaryk was "a follower of the Austrofascist doctrine by Othmar Spann"??? Richiez (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What? Clearly, we are not having a meeting of the minds here. In this realm of only written word interaction, mis-communication unfortunately can be all too common, at times. I will try to be more plain and again state the facts; I reverted an edit over a month ago which had a brief edit summary that didn't clearly state the unexplained changes then made by an ip. I am not making any claims to the text therein; your assumptions are not correct above. And to cut to the chase, I have had time to look into the article history in detail; a change was put in and accepted many months before, in March. I have changed the article back accordingly. Kierzek (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Really glad that you had the time to find out when the change was "put in and accepted". Could you please give more details? Of course you would agree that claiming Masaryk was "a follower of the Austrofascist doctrine" is a pretty outrageous nonsense so I am very curious if you know details how it was accepted.

You have reverted a change that was an apparent hotfix of some outrageous nonsense with the summary "rev to correct cited text". I hope that you understand that I consider that as a misleading edit summary. I understand WP:BOLD but if you aren't 100% sure write it into the edit summary next time. Richiez (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The "change" happened in March 2012 with a lengthy claimed "copy edit" addition by another. It could be argued it was "accepted" per Wikipedia:Silence and consensus, rightly or not. "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." I was not watching the article in question back then and no one who was changed or modified that March 2012 edit. It was not altered for almost seven months to the day (I had not performed any edit on the article till September 2012 and that was only ce as to grammar and such). The rest of the "story" nor anything else for that matter needs restatement as it is all set out earlier, above. Kierzek (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Konrad_Henlein&diff=484154237&oldid=460592925 now, it says "In the first half of the 1930s, the "decent young man" (President Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk), a follower of the Austrofascist doctrine..." which was apparently a quote by Masaryk. Although the original edit could be clearer the intended meaning seems quite obvious as Masaryk was not a decent young man at that time, he was an elderly politician shortly before this death. So the original edit was most likely good faith and perhaps even correct, dunno if I would dare to attribute that quote and statement to Masaryk.

However it was utlimately your edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Konrad_Henlein&action=historysubmit&diff=513437267&oldid=513318864 which made the disfiguring change. Richiez (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The article in general needed clean up work and that is what I attempted in the Sept. edit you cite. There was more to it then what you draw attention to. As to the sentence in question, it was poorly written and ambiguous; I knew Masaryk was not the so-called "decent young man".

I believe it is better to leave it returned to the way it was prior to the March 2012 edit by the original ip. If you do find a newer RS source on the subject, that would be good for the article. As for myself, I don't plan to edit it further and never planned to keep it on my watch list. Since you have been active on the article, going back to June 2010, I "pass the baton" to you and the other watchers therein to follow it. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Really too much honour to me, I wish I could forget all those articles. Sometimes I think wikipedia needs an article freeze policy for WWII articles. Richiez (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent discussion at Adolf Hitler

Hello Kierzek, if you have time, could you have a look and possibly comment at the discussion here? Essentially the discussion revolves around the question whether it is appropriate to include this sentence in the lead: "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II, including 6 million Jews and 5 million "non-Aryans" who were systematically exterminated as part of the Holocaust." One recent editor has multiple issues with this statement, so it would be great if you could weigh in with your views. Cheers! Malljaja (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I will be glad to look at it in detail; hopefully, tonight. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 17:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I had planned to review this matter in detail when I got home tonight but that is not needed. I agree with the detailed replies you, Paul Siebert and Diannaa have stated on the talk page. As I wrote in cmt therein, Whether one believes the war in Europe was a continuation of World War I or the start of new hostiles on the continent, the fact remains that Hitler and Nazi Germany by their "policies and actions" led to the direct outbreak of the war in Europe. The overt act or culmination being, as you know, the German invasion of Poland in Sept. 1939. Kierzek (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kierzek, thanks a lot for weighing in with your valuable comments—judging from your thoughts and those of Paul and Diannaa, there appears to be good agreement among several editor that the statement should stay in the entry. I'll await further comments and, barring any new evidence that would argue for its continued removal, I'll restore the statement in question. Thanks again. Malljaja (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Precious

justice
Thank you for quality articles and contributions as a member of the German military history task force, such as Heinrich Himmler, and for doing justice to editors, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, it is an honor. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings!

Merry Christmas!
Moonraker (talk) 06:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you sir, and a Merry Christmas to you. Kierzek (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas
	Keep safe over the holidays, and merry Christmas for you and yours! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:26, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Many thanks for the good wishes and the good cheer, which I could enjoy before the non-free cheer was swiftly removed ;-). Have a very enjoyable and Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Malljaja (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. It was my mistake as to the image used for the "card"; I pulled it off the article, oh well. Do have a good holiday. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:33, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and back at you. -- PBS (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Merry Christmas - 2012

Thank you. To you too, and the best for 2013. Fat&Happy (talk) 22:17, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

RfA: thank you for your support

Kierzek, thank you for your support and expression of confidence. I will endeavor to earn it in my future editing. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Adolf Hitler".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Done; thank you Guy Macon for the notice. Kierzek (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC) BTW, given the fact that this keeps coming up again and again, I am thinking that after we finish the DRN case we might write up a conclusion that you can use to refer to if someone tries to rehash it again in the next year or so. Sort of like the way Talk:Muhammad handles the constant stream of new requests to remove all images of Mohammed. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Hi Kierzek, I like your suggested alternative wording as posted on the DRN, namely to break up the sentence into two. I'd suggest to retain "racially motivated" to describe these policies because this characterisation and wording is amply supported by the literature (for example, by Kershaw and possibly also by work from scholars on the Nuremberg Laws with which I'm less familiar). Given that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust is estimated to be six million (for example, here), this number of deaths could be expressed as a lower limit. In addition, two sentences could also more clearly convey the meaning of "directly" and "indirectly", with the first attributing the deaths directly to the Holocaust and the second deaths directly and indirectly to the war. So a (tweaked) wording could be "Hitler's racially motivated policies ultimately resulted directly in the death of more than six millions of Jews and non-Jews. His policies also contributed directly and indirectly to the estimated total of 50 million people who died during World War II." The word "non-Jews" could be replaced by something like "other people deemed racially inferior according to Nazi ideology," but this is probably of second-order importance at this point. I wanted to post mys suggestion here rather than on the DRN because there it'll probably have the same fate as a piece of beef jerky thrown to a pack of hungry dogs. Let me know of your thoughts. Malljaja (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the thoughts Malljaja, they are good ones; and certainly 6 million is a standard number used; others state 5 to 7 million. I would be open to the words "racially motivated" in the first sentence. I would say: Hitler's racially motivated policies ultimately resulted directly in the death of more than six millions Jews and non-Jews. His policies also contributed directly and indirectly to the estimated total of 50 million people who died during World War II. I only removed the word, "of". I hope others, like Diannaa, will voice their opinion. Kierzek (talk) 17:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Sounds great. I too hope that others can weigh in with their considered opinions. The recent brouhaha at the DRN page may require a bit of a cooling-off period before implementing any changes, and it may not please everyone entirely, but perhaps we're getting on the right track. Many thanks. Malljaja (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for helping out on the "Hitler Book" article. Good call on the Molotov/Ribbentrop pact, I forgot about that one! OGBranniff (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC) You're welcome. As you know the Soviet officers were very careful what they put in and how it was worded since it was prepared for Stalin. I was glad someone did an article on that interesting (yet bias) Soviet era book. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Adolph Hitler Hello. You recently reverted an edit I made to this article, which was intended to clarify the sequence of events leading up to the Luftwaffe bombing of major British cities. May I ask why? Rumiton (talk) 13:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, the other wording was in line with the cites and was already "combed over" by several editors at GA. I did not believe the change was better, but I am open to reconsider your point. Kierzek (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I have since reviewed the text, sources and tweaked it; incorporating a cross between what was there and your change; see what you think. If you wish to tweak it, go ahead. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC) SS-Brigadeführer or SS-Brigadeführer Hi Kierzek. Which is correct: SS-Brigadeführer or SS-Brigadeführer ?? Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC) The latter is the preferred way. BTW-Good work on the article Einsatzgruppen. Kierzek (talk) 12:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your help - I will make them all uniform. The article is almost ready to go to GA; if you have the time and interest you are welcome to assist with the promotion. Best wishes, -- Dianna (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC) I disagree: SS-Brigadeführer is a title (proper noun) and as such, normally does not need to be italicized in English unless the italicization is for emphasis or to offset the word—and certainly not more than on first mention in articles where it appears frequently. Overall, there is too much italicization in English Wikipedia in the first place! Jim_Lockhart (talk) 04:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I agree that "Overall, there is too much italicization in English Wikipedia". I have been going around cleaning it up. However, as to this German word/title/rank, I am following the standard style of cited WP:RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC) cf. Totenkopf I'm sure it's a good faith edit which you made, but -- like I explained in the article Totenkopf -- that translation -- although repeated again and again is simply wrong; just ask a German or somebody who really knows the German language. Don't you think it would be better to correct the error istead of repeating it? Sincerely, 79.230.181.111 (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC) I understand; however, in English, "Death's-Head Units" is the accepted common use translation for the term as to the units. That is what is cited and really should be used in English Wikipedia, per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME. Kierzek (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Do I get this right -- it's doesn't matter whether it's wrong? "Accepted common use" -- what's that? It's an error, as simple as that. When you look at the Totenkopf article and at the fact that the Death's Head Hawkmoth is called Totenkopfschwärmer (a name in its own right, NOT a translation of the English name of course), one can see where the error came from. Isn't truth more important than habit? 79.230.181.111 (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC) Well, you can take it to the talk page for the article and if others agree then so be it. Or it could be written, German: Skull, commonly known as Death's-Head Units. Kierzek (talk) 23:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC) A Totenkopf (whether the symbol indicating poison or mine fields, Hussar military regiments (see this picture: note the color patch and belt buckle), or whatever) is normally called a skull and crossbones in English, and thus that’s how it should be translated. Rendering it as death[’s] head is ignorant at best and prejudicial at worst; besides, when it’s a reference to SS units, it shouldn’t be “translated” at all (except to illustrate its meaning to non-German-speaking readers) because it’s a proper noun; proper nouns, even foreign ones, do not get italicized in English by dint of their foreignness alone (cf. CMoS 16th ed. 7.51). Jim_Lockhart (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC) The English WP:RS sources disagree and that is what is followed. See, for example: Miller, Michael. Leaders of the SS and German Police, Vol. 1, p. 511; McNab, Chris. The SS: 1923–1945, p. 23; Mollo, Andrew. Uniforms of the SS, Collected Edition (6 Volumes). Kierzek (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC) American Awards? Have you done any work on the U.S. award articles? Could use your advice at this discussion. Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2013 (UTC) I have not done much work on U.S. award articles. I don't know much about the history of the Chaplain's medal and nothing about the ribbon; I would check the US gov. military docs and post it on the appropriate discussion board herein for editor input. Good luck, Kierzek (talk) 17:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks I will take a test drive in the AM after some rest.--Woogie10w (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC) You're welcome; its easy once you get the hang of it. Kierzek (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Nazi Germany". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 06:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Enjoy the Photo Hope you enjoy the photo I found of Reinhard Heydrich. I almost had to sell my first born to get a look at it, much less a copy. Only one in existence, I was told! -OberRanks (talk) 21:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC) I saw that in his service record article, an interesting photo I have not seen before. I assume it will go into your book. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Book is coming along nicely, thanks. Side note: your comments would be welcome here. -OberRanks (talk) 22:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC) The account bringing this up again is also a bit worrisome. No edits since 2009...returns completely out of the blue and zeros in on this matter without a single edit anywhere else. I wonder if this is someone who has visited the article before with an ax is grind. I seem to recall some pretty vocal people got blocked/banned for edit warring. No proof, of course, at this stage, it just seems strange. -OberRanks (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC) It does make one wonder. BTW-here is a book which may interest you: MEINE EHRE HEIST TREUE: Inside the Allgemeine SS 1925 - 1945, ISBN 978-8496658332. Kierzek (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC) Also enjoy this new article! It is my prime directive to keep stuff from my book off of this website, but the temptation was just too great. After seeing "Massacre in Rome" dozens of time, I was actually a little sad to learn that the battalion in the film was Polizei, green uniforms and all, and not pure SS. A very good film, BTW, if you've never seen it. -OberRanks (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC) Interesting. Thanks for the note. Kierzek (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Good Article Barnstar For your contributions to bring the vital article Nazi Germany to Good Article status, despite the complexity of the topic and the controversies surrounding it. This article is viewed by an average of 7500 readers a day, and hundreds of thousands per month--I wish you could get credit for a dozen GAs for revising an article like this one! Thanks for all you do. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you very much for your time in reviewing it and helping the article get there. Kierzek (talk) 13:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC) My pleasure. I don't know if this is of any interest to you, btw, but I'm hoping to bring The Holocaust to GA status some time before the end of the year. If you're interested in collaborating on it, I'd be glad to have help and/or input. Thanks again, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Congratulations Kierzek on the promotion of this vital article to GA status! Thanks for all the work you do to improve our articles on Nazi topics. -- Dianna (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks, very much. Kierzek (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Italicization and Führerbunker You need to read style manuals more thoroughly: foreign words and phrases not yet accepted as English get italicized; proper nouns (like Führerbunker) do not—unless this is a new convention that only Wikipedia observes—see CMoS 7.51. Also, you claim that “German language nouns, even common nouns, are always capitalized.” Yes, in German; but not in English: again, CMoS, where German nouns are specifically mentioned because of common misperceptions over them. I know Wikipedia has its own style manual which may differ from Chicago in some details, but IRRC for the most part Wikipedia style conforms to CMoS. But I’m not going to get into an editing war with you over this, so do as you see fit with Führerbunker and other neat-looking Nazi-German terms. Viel Spaß beim Editieren, (talk) 03:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I have read WP:MOS and am following it, along with common accepted practices set forth through WP:Consensus and the article cited WP:RS sources. Further, if it is a "loanword" or phrase that has common use in English, that would be different; however, that is not the case with Führerbunker. Kierzek (talk) 12:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC) You may have read it, but you're not following it: Go to MOS:ITAL and jump to Foreign words: “Proper names (such as place names) in other languages, however, are not usually italicized.” See also MOS:FOREIGN. I see nothing at WP:RS that even mentions italicization, so I don’t understand your point in mentioning it. (The books you point to look really interesting, and I'd love to see them.... But that's beside the point.) Do you mean to imply that the styles employed in those publications should be followed, basically overriding WP:MOS in those instances? If not, I think (with all due respect—you’ve obviously done a lot of praiseworthy work here) you’re misunderstanding something about italicization conventions.... Best regards, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC) The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany Hello Kierzek- we have talked before and I have high regard for your work in the Nazi Germany Article. Today, an editor by the name, Binksternet "rolled back" the Article, The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, after weeks of collaborative effort by four editors making serious progress to resolve a number of issues. Please check the Talk page and offer input. Thank you.Integrtiyandhonesty (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC) I looked at the talk page and article. I do see where lengthy discussion has taken place on the talk page. I also see where the lede was too long, as it is to be a short summary of the article's main text. So it did need to be trimmed. I must decline involvement, but would suggest working with the regular editors to obtain WP:Consensus and if necessary you can open a "Request for Comment" on the Talk Page as to the matter; see Talk:Simon Wiesenthal [3] and [4] for an example of same. Lastly, keep in mind Wikipedia:Article size calls for articles to be no more than 10,000 words. Kierzek (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to pay a visit. Agreed- the Lede is still a touch wordy and the Sections have evolved into Articles in their own right, that, properly should be. The Lede has varied over time from woefully too brief/simplistic and plagued with a biased POV to overly complex while coming across as "combative". To a meaningful degree, this is the result of the horrid and dreaded combination of politics, religion, genocide and war. It's destined to be controversial and contested on varying points. Not a 'healthy" combination for those of us with a certain temperament, which requires all to be tolerant, but not compromise the facts, while allowing the reader to think for themselves. Good advice for moving forward. Until next time- Integrityandhonesty (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC) DYK-Good Article Request for Comment Million Award The Million Award For your contributions to bring Nazi Germany (estimated annual readership: 1,919,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Remember when I said I wished I could give you a dozen barnstars for Nazi Germany? Well, here's the next best thing. The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox: This editor won the Million Award for bringing Nazi Germany to Good Article status. If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you, very much. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC) No, thank you! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC) I think Kierzek deserves an award for Hitler too, not only for his work bringing it up to GA statndards but his assistance in keeping it there, something which has not always been an easy or stress-free task. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC) This editor won the Million Award for bringing Adolf Hitler to Good Article status. Cool--I'll add him to that line in the HoF, too. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC) I am humbled. Thanks, for the vote of confidence Diannaa; I must say you carried a greater share of the load in getting the Hitler article to GA and keeping it there. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC) Werner Grothmann Greetings again, Kierzek. I recently translated this page from Spanish Wikipedia: Werner Grothmann. I thought you might know a little about the topic and might like to read through it with a fine-toothed comb as you have done in the past.Hoops gza (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC) This reminds me that Heinz Macher also needs work. I might work on that next with help from the Spanish Wikipedia.Hoops gza (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Okay. I will try to look them over soon; I will be gone most of the holiday weekend. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC) I had a chance to do some correction, ce of detail with cites, to Werner Grothmann. As for Macher, I briefly looked at his article and did a small bit of ce with cite. I will take another look at that article later this week. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Superb details as usual. I will see if there is much to be gained from the Spanish page for Heinz Macher.Hoops gza (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks. You had most of the work already done. Kierzek (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC) Harv Errors I have recently been introduced to User:Ucucha/HarvErrors which has proved useful for maintenance of articles that include {{harv}} type templates. -- PBS (talk) 10:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the info. Kierzek (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2013 (UTC) Heinz Macher I have now translated all there is to be acquired from the Spanish page on Heinz Macher. Amazingly, there does not appear to be a German page on him.Hoops gza (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC) Okay, good job. Kierzek (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "né" vs. "née" Hi. I reverted your change to the Hitler family article, regarding the marking of Alois Hitler, Jr.'s birth surname. The form né (without a final e) is the correct form when the subject is male (the final e of née is a French feminine ending). We don't commonly see né in English because men in our culture rarely change their birth surnames, but this is the proper way to write it. I wikilinked the term (it's a redirect to Name at birth) for the benefit of readers who may be unfamiliar with it. If the consensus is that né is simply unacceptable (either because it's so rare as to be confusing, or because people are simply unwilling to accept it no matter what any sources might say), I would propose replacing it with the phrase "birth name" or "birth surname". — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Right you are. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Death of Adolf Hitler Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Death of Adolf Hitler 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 ColonelHenry -- ColonelHenry (talk) 16:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Death of Adolf Hitler The article Death of Adolf Hitler you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ColonelHenry -- ColonelHenry (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC) Your changing on the Hitler family article The problem with your inserted change of words to my edit is that its not correct. Hitler 'was' able to prove his ancestry since the legitimized JOhann Georg Hiedler was considered officially as his paternal grandfather by the Third Reich. The edit I did makes it more clear, Hitler was "Aryan" by his own laws but the confusion lies by historians whether or not his paternal grandfather was the Hiedler who was considered to be. The paragraph from Fest also gives readers a more understanding approach of the different views of who his paternal grandfather was from people making up lies for the sake of propaganda and also what the Nazis said on the matter.--Windows66 (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC) You must read it in proper context. Just because it was marked with state approval does not make it so but with that said, he is the man most consider to be the one; further, Kershaw is a much higher regarded source then Fest. Also Wikipedia discourages long quotes from works for two reasons- one, it unnecessarily causes an article to have more bytes per page and second for copyright reasons. Kierzek (talk) 13:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC) But according to the Third Reich laws he did pass the conditions to pass the ancestors passport (Ahnenpass). Who is there to say he did not? Both Kershaw and Fest are highly regarded as sources for Hitler and the Third Reich, its down to personal opinion who is better. Have you read Hitler by Fest? I'm aware it discourages long quotes but in this one its quite necessary as it shows the different angles that the paternal grandfather has been used for e.g, propaganda or truthful purposes. Furthermore, the sources do not say he could not prove his Aryan ancestry but rather the paternal grandfather is questionable and that is why I chose the Fest quote as it shows how the Nazis just skimmed over it compared to anti-Hitler and anti-Nazi people put forward the Jewish grandfather rumor and then historians now are quite happy that the presumed grandfather (and accepted by the Third Reich) was his paternal grandfather although some view his brother as a possibility too. I'm happy the way you have edited it from my last revert, are you happy and okay with how the article is now?--Windows66 (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC) Yes, I have read all the main offerings on Hitler. And in that group, I have read Fest's book on Hitler twice; first in 1983 and more recently in 2010. Fest, like Toland and Bullock, are dated sources. And it is not just "my opinion" that Kershaw is the most highly regarded at this juncture; but the point is that the text could use tightening up, in the end. The point I was making is that Hitler's origins are still open to some speculation, that makes true documentary proof of Aryan ancestry less than rock solid. Ironic to say the least; to be an SS man in the earlier years under Himmler, for example, it was required that officer candidates had to trace and prove their family had no Jewish ancestors (and I am not saying he had jewish blood, that old rumor has been put to rest) and were only of German "Aryan" ancestry back to 1750. But, with that said, I don't object to its present form, at this point, enough to tweak it further. Kierzek (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC) Precious again justice Thank you for quality articles and contributions as a member of the German military history task force, such as Heinrich Himmler, and for doing justice to editors, - you are an awesome Wikipedian! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC) A year ago, you were the 336th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC) I appreciate the award and the thought. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC) Diannaa (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. --Diannaa (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Thanks! I just saw your message (I was Internet free over the holidays)—I hope you had a nice Christmas too and wish you a happy and healthy new year! Malljaja (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC) Its good to be internet free at times. Christmas day was a good day with family, thanks. Kierzek (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Hey on SS ideology Look, I'm not a perfect stylist and rhetorician and prose master. However you phrase it, the things I stated were undoubtedly true about Himmler's religiosity of eccentric type. All of it, all. Otto Rahn existed; his commission as SS officer existed; his order to research Christian heresies of Iranian "dualist" type and his interrelated Holy Grail quest for Aryan purposes existed, etc. The heavily symbolic SS-castle (and other centers for the SS ideological "inner order") engulfed and bestrewn and bedecked artistically in heretical Manichee Arthurian-Grail motifs and ancient paleo-Indo-Iranian/paleo-Indo-European "sol nigredo" (BLACK SUN) sigils, etc., literally concretizing SS ideology existed, etc. You seem well-educated. Are you seriously disputing me?75.52.186.148 (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC) First, you added uncited text into the middle of prior cited text. You need to add cited text from WP:RS sources into proper placement. You have not stated any sources for your addition thus far. Second, the added text as to Historian Höhne, your "conclusions of this scholar..." is uncited opinion and has WP:OR problems, as well. Kierzek (talk) 21:12, 30 December 2013 (UTC)