Archives

Template:Multicol1 2 Template:Multicol-end

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Readers note: I moved this discussion [1] to the Reinhard Heydrich talk page for better visibility. Please add any further replies there. Thank you. Kierzek (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Kierzek (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining in your edit summary[2] what you were doing - it looked like translation to another language, which I've been seeing lately[3] but I wasn't sure. You might want to consider using edit summaries more frequently, especially for non-minor edits. See WP:ES for more about edit summaries, and why to use them. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your message.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4] the part I'm referring to is mostly at 7:25.Hoops gza (talk) 22:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I have not seen that in years. The show used to come on late at night. A "killer weapon", indeed. Kierzek (talk) 14:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

It really pisses me off when I spend time rewriting something to improve it, and then some twat comes along and simply reverts it. You did not have any good reason for this edit, and your edit summary shows that you didn't even bother to read what I had done. And then you pointlessly reverted again with this edit. I don't appreciate my work being pointless destroyed and I'll thank you not to do that again. 190.46.95.25 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]