User talk:OberRanks/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

More Speer

The main article states that Speer became a member of the Reichstag by virtue of his 1937 position overseeing the Reich capital. Should that not be in the sub article? It will probably take me some time to get into the article, I'm fairly busy with other things as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I would have to research Speer's position in the Reichstag. I know he was never a "sitting" member, i.e. actively voting on the rubber stamp laws, but got the title somehow along with his other various positions and it was somewhat honorary (Speer hated honorary titles and ranks, BTW). Don't know too much about the Reichstag aspect of his career, but can certainly do some checking. -OberRanks (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The quote from Sereny is: "Thirty-two years old, Speer now held the rank of a State Secretary, was entitled to a seat (next to Fritz Todt) on the government benches in the Reichstag, to a place at state dinners, and, automatically, to a decoration from foreign state visitors." That was after his appointment as GBI. I doubt he spent much time there, unless he was more or less forced to be there, say by a speech by Hitler, and then he would have left as soon as decently possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Karl Brandt

At Karl Brandt, could you please write into the article his rank within the SS, with your source? I do not see it written anywhere. We should try to have the rank of every SS man and woman on Wikipedia written on his/her article.Hoops gza (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

He was either a Brigadefuhrer or a Gruppenfuhrer. I'm checking into it. -OberRanks (talk) 23:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Gruppenfuehrer according to this: http://www.geocities.com/~orion47/ I'd link you to the exact page but every section on that site somehow has the same URL so I cannot.

1. Click on the Waffen-SS & Polizei tab on the very left side of the page
2. click on SS-Gruppenfuhrer from the list
3. click on A-G
4. Scroll down to BRANDT, KARL

You probably have a more reliable source.Hoops gza (talk) 23:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow...that's an incredible site. Might actually help with a book I'm writing. I'll have to take back some of the bad things I said about you behind your back :-) -OberRanks (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

According to three books I checked (just now), he was a Brigadefuhrer. Kierzek (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

And I just looked in a fourth book that states he was promoted to Gruppenfuhrer officially on April 20, 1944 (Hitler officially signed the promotion on 20 April, even if the de facto promotion was earlier); I think the problem discussed above is that he held Allgemeine SS and Waffen-SS rank. Kierzek (talk) 00:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Hoops that all articles as to SS personnel should have their rank listed if it can be found and cited. Kierzek (talk) 00:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Articles

You guys have a lot of guts to be working in this area. After Speer, I only did one more article in this field, Rudolf Wolters.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Been doing it since 1987! -OberRanks (talk) 02:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

OberRanks, the above sounds like a WP:OWN matter. Kierzek (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't follow you there. The OWN policy refers to interfering with others who are attempting to edit or expand articles to which an editor has contributed and does not want others "intruding" on their work. This usually transpires by the editor in question reverting any edits not their own. That is actually a pretty serious deal and can get one blocked or even banned. To my knowledge, I have never behaved in such a way or interfered with another editor making legitimate edits to an article which I've worked on. In fact, I'm happy for the help! -OberRanks (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I meant him. Kierzek (talk) 14:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah!! That was funny. Yes, good point. I must still remind myself about the OWN policy since I have written several Nazi/SS articles from the ground up. Your inputs and expansions of those would be welcome. Pictures and more citations in SS command of Auschwitz concentration camp would be a great bonus. -OberRanks (talk) 14:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Nazi leaders

Thank you for your input as to listings of people in cats; and especially the one noted above. I am trying to avoid an edit war but Hoops seems to want to have a go at it even after the long discussions this morning. I want things presented it in an objective and accurate way. And I will go with consensus; as we all must. Kierzek (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hoops is rapidly headed for a User RfC. His editing habits are problematic at best and the user is starting to cause some very serious problems. The user is heavily engaged with other fields that I don't frequent much, but which are themselves controversial like Holocaust survivors and Jewish Ghetto articles. I imagine hes upset more people than just us, and eventually will wind up getting into some serious trouble on this site. Best to just wait and see since any further prodding at ANI or trying to file an RfC ourselves would just look like (rightfully so) "picking" on the user. And, at the end of the day, he has done some good. -OberRanks (talk) 03:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your fine contributions as to articles related to the history of Nazi Germany (in particular, ranks, insignia, and uniforms of the Sturmabteilung and Schutzstaffel) and World War II, I award you this Barnstar. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!! -OberRanks (talk) 15:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Treblinka extermination camp

FYI, Hoops gza is in the process of starting another edit war on Treblinka extermination camp by going against consensus on the summary timeline table. Trying to engage him on the article talk page. Ajh1492 (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I advised appropriate admins. Hopefully something can be done. -OberRanks (talk) 15:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Second Nav boxes

Hoops has added several new Nav boxes. The query is, do we really need to be adding a second Holocaust Nav box to SS-Totenkopfverbände and Concentration Camps Inspectorate when there is already a Holocaust Nav box included at the bottom of each article? If they are not exactly the same (although a quick check appears to show that overall they seem to be so; with the prior Nav box placed at the bottom of the page a little more detailed) then why not change one of the Nav boxes to be all inclusive and just have one box? Do we really need two? Seems redundant. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems redundant to me as well. And AGAIN this was done without discussion and without consensus. Revert at will, I will back you up. -OberRanks (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I wrote Hoops about it but he did not reply. I will go ahead and revert them. The former Nav box at the bottom of the pages in question have a little more detail. Kierzek (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hackenholt's rank in the photo?

Hey, can you tell what rank Lorenz Hackenholt has in this photograph? -Hoops gza (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

He appears to be wearing an Army uniform with the rank of Gefreiter and also is wearing the Equestrian Riding Badge...I think. -OberRanks (talk) 23:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Archive box

Hey, if you don't mind, tell me in simple terms, how did you put up the archive box and transfer your talk pages into it? I am sure there is a tutorial but I hate reading directions. Kierzek (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I copied it from someone else's page. Feel free to copy it from mine. -OberRanks (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

AAF Pilot Badge

OberRanks, from a review of the edit history of the Obsolete badges of the United States military page, it suggests you have information on the obsolete nature of the U.S. Army Air Forces Pilot Badge. According to my research, --as well as the information written on the Aviator Badge page-- the AAF Pilot Badge was never retired (i.e. deemed obsolete) but continued as the U.S. Air Force Pilot Badge. The only change in the badge was the removal of the word "Army" from its official designation. What information do you have that would speak to the contrary? Thank you, in advance, for your help with this question. --McChizzle (talk) 00:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

There are slightly different criteria for its issuance, different schooling requirements, and of a different name and a different awarding authority under the Department of the Army. The modern day USAF badge is considered a "successor decoration" but military awards manuals make a clear distinction between the USAF pilot badge, the older USAAF badge, and the Air Corps Badge which existed before that. A primary source for this is the awards and decorations issuance instructions of Randolph Air Force Base and also the Awards Training Guide of the Military Personnel Records Center. -OberRanks (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help! -McChizzle (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Merger work...

OberRanks, I am sure you are busy with real life. Time being our enemy. Just a friendly query as to working on the mergering of: SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz with SS command of Auschwitz concentration camp; you had a good idea. I can help out, if need be. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

On deployment, probably wont get to it for awhile. -OberRanks (talk) 07:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Kierzek (talk) 16:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Good job on the merger. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I plan on expanding the article in the next few weeks, adding org charts, and more sources. The "nuts and bolts" of how that camp was run is pretty fascinating, given the terrible things that happened there. -OberRanks (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Enlisted Special Warfare Pin

OberRanks, I saw you "undid" the edit from 76.102.190.65 on the obsolete badges page. I was about to do the same, but I wanted to verify the existence of the enlisted version of the SEAL Trident first. I have not been able to find any official literature that confirms the existence of that version of the insignia. Do you have any official literature, or know where I can find such literature, that contains official historical information about U.S. Navy insignia? --McChizzle (talk) 21:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Too numerous to count actually. There's a lot out there about the older UDT program and the conversion of the gold and silver UDT pin over to the Seal badge. Every book I've every read about it clearly states there was initially a silver and gold pin SEAL pin with the silver pin discontinued in favor of the combined officer/training program. I would say one could use any text on the History of Naval Special Warfare as a source. When I get back from my own military duty, I'll come up with a few titles. As for the anon IP, I think that was just someone being smart and reverting based on their own view of what they saw one day on the Military Channel. It happens here unfortunately. -OberRanks (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

File:PellewPubPhoto.jpg

I have deleted File:PellewPubPhoto.jpg, shortcutting the usual waiting period per WP:IAR. This was done as a milder alternative to blocking you for disruption. If you were some newcomer, I would now patiently explain to you why an obviously replaceable item like this can't be used. But with an old user of your experience – a former admin, no less – this degree of willful ignorance of the policy is unexcusable. Your edit-warring over the image was pure disruption, so I've chosen to cut it short. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

What is the meaning of this? I was trying to follow the policy to the letter, responding on the talk page and even putting up a rationale dispute tag. How is that disruption? -OberRanks (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

It's disruption because it's a waste of time. Everybody with a reading knowledge of English can see that the rationale wouldn't hold water. You just need to read the rules. This is a ridiculously obvious case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I asked other admins to review the situation. While I am fine with the image deletion, you were clearly a party in the dispute and should not have deleted material yourself. And you certainly should not have threatened a block as a punishment. I am actually fine with the image deletion, but you could have handled this far differently. -OberRanks (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

While the fair use of the image may not be upheld; there is no reason for a heavy-hand approach. Asking for another to look at the matter after deletion of the photo or to help one understand better the convoluted policies as to images will only help OberRanks and others, in the future. It is hard to obtain photos that are free for articles such as this one; but, I know that doesn't matter. I have seen iconic photos be redacted, in the past. Kierzek (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Much larger problem

Kierzek, this is part of a much larger problem with administrator oversight on Wikipedia today. Six to seven years ago, when I first started here, admins were expected to be cool as a cucumbers, taking barrages of insults and abuse, yet always calming working with editors. Today, we see exactly the reverse - admins often become frustrated and angry with editors, particularly ones in which they are personally involved in a dispute, and frequently block editors for the slightest provocation. If you are seen as a "problem editor", accounts are often watched closely with multiple warnings, followed by blocks, followed by a ban. Not to say that there aren't really good admins and some very bad editors; a lot of this I think stems from your average admin's profile, personality, and who they are in the real world. A lot of them are college aged, a lot of them have this forum as their first experience of any kind of leadership, and a lot of them yes are just immature. Since we can't get behind the computer screen and see who's sitting on the other side, we just don't know if the admin is a 40+ lawyer with a family or a 20+ college kid who just broke up with his girlfriend. Case in point, in this situation here I was faced with a possible block after a handful of edits - yet you and I are both aware of the problem user we've been working with who has had dozen of talk page warnings and two ANI threads - yet little to no interest by administrators. How to fix this? One simply can't and the best thing to do is to simply avoid potential situations to begin with. I've also learned from this recent experience that reporting admins at ANI really does no good - and shame on me, I will not attempt it again. It's also a sad affair but I think Wikipeida is very close to having admins blocking people for content disputes, in which the admin is a party, and getting away with it (its actually happened several times already). So, enough of my soapbox. I might be taking a chance posting this on a talk page for others to see, but it's something people should be aware of. -OberRanks (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of what you have stated and been around long enough to see several good editors (and also some really poor, obtuse editors) get in pissing contests and then go down in flames. BTW-you can always send me an e-mail as to things. Remember, know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em. On photos, it is generally, cards down. Kierzek (talk) 14:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

My second attempt didn't do much better [1] -OberRanks (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:RnOriginal.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RnOriginal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Image was removed from the article and the matter addressed with other administrators. -OberRanks (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:ANI#OberRanks and dubious image uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

All the images can be deleted and I further stated I didn't plan to upload anything else. I consider the matter closed. -OberRanks (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

With the statement above to let the photo with the "problem" be withdrawn, I would think that should close the matter as to it.Kierzek (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:PWWIIRibbons.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:PWWIIRibbons.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler position, redux

OberRanks: a note that I have moved the discussion as to Himmler to the Talk:Heinrich Himmler page. Since this has come up again and you have shown an interest in the matter, you can further comment on it there; if you wish to do so. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Otto Günsche

Please, keep an eye on the aforesaid article. I am having a little trouble with a new user there; even after explaining Wikipedia policies to him; both on his talk page and mine. Thanks, Kierzek (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Verrat82 also appears to be a sockpuppet of that same account. I would say if either account makes any more disruption, they should be reported ASAP. -OberRanks (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Kierzek (talk) 14:44, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Drindl, has been blocked and was a sockpuppet for banned User:Wiki brah. His other two sockpuppet names, including User:Verrat82, have been blocked, as well. Kierzek (talk) 12:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

A shame to have to deal with that, but I'm glad it was resolved. -OberRanks (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of File talk:1stuniforms.jpg

File talk:1stuniforms.jpg, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File talk:1stuniforms.jpg and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of File talk:1stuniforms.jpg during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Himmler

Hello, I added a comment on Heinrich Himmler's talk page. Bastian (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I did that. When I typed in my last message and clicked "save page" - it said "edit conflict" or something of that nature, so I just reloaded it and pasted it. Sorry, didn't mean to erase anything. Beginners mistake. Bastian (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This remark of yours [2] was wholly unjustified and insulting. I raised it on the talk page precisely because I was seeking to gain views and advocating a change - that is not the same as "seeking blanking" and you do not need to warn other editors about my conduct. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

James, I will leave it up to OberRanks to respond as he wishes; but, first, he was writing on my talk page; second, you appeared ready to revert without consensus to do so on the Himmler article; third, you appear to be emotionally charged over this matter; let us keep this discussion to one based on the historical facts and context; and one following wiki policies, including consensus. Something we all must go with herein, in the end. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, James. KZ speaks wisely. And, sorry about the confusion here, but it appeared that you were about to perhaps start blanking things based on what you stated in your edit history about "removing trivia" [3]. I'm glad you choose not to embark on that course and sorry again for the upsetness. -OberRanks (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

KZ does not speak accurately - I have made no "revert" - I moved a line of content that was incorrectly contextualised whilst explaining in comment lines that there appears to be no sensible place to move it to, after declaring it would be moved in talk and receiving no specific response. I accept your apology though. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the context and a typo. Kierzek (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes. IMHO this should really be ended. There is clearly no argument here with no less than five other editors chiming up to keep those sections as is. -OberRanks (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We need to start adding in more cites to the article; if you can help, that would be good. I just added a couple but, now its off to work. Kierzek (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. I see an "ally" was gained over the evening as well. The article should be closely watched for removal of sourced material. -OberRanks (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, for the Barnstar. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Old Awards

In recognition of your diligent contributions towards the Authorized foreign decorations of the United States military, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal. EHDI5YS (October 2008)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work in the creation of the Service Number series of articles for the armed forces. Thank you! Cuprum17 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Olympic Games Decoration

Nice work on the new articles of late. What is your thought as to the title as it is now; I was thinking maybe it should be: "German Olympic Games Decoration" after Deutsches Olympiaehrenzeichen. What do you think. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks awesome. Hope you enjoyed also the graphics of Himmler's uniform. I amazed myself when I was done with it. Good potential there for other service record articles. -OberRanks (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

The Himmler service record article is good; I like the service bar photos. With that said, what about the title? Kierzek (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, tough call. I would say go with the name listed in sources. I'll check the Lumsden text, as that is recognized as the best source right now on German Nazi decorations. -OberRanks (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I like Lumsden (I have his books on the SS - ranks, insignia, and uniforms); but, I also believe John Angolia's works are just as good and are well regarded. Vol. 1 is on the military awards and Vol. 2 is: For Führer and Fatherland: Political & Civil Awards of the Third Reich, R. James Bender Publishing, Second Ed. (1989) ISBN 0912138165. He lists it as: "German Olympic Games Decoration" (Deutsches Olympiaehrenzeichen); he lists the medal as: "Olympic Games Commemorative Medal" (Olympia-Erinnerungsmedaille). Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would say make the move as you described. -OberRanks (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, I am going to leave the main title as it is and only add the word "German" to the first lede description sentence. I note that German Wikipedia lists it as Olympia-Ehrenzeichen and I don't feel that strong about it. They do have up some nice photos of the decoration (1st and 2nd class) and medal (3rd class). We should use their photos; they must have been cleared for use. Kierzek (talk) 02:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are very good photos. I'm planning a much larger project to start full color charts of Nazi medals and ribbons, since I now have a pretty good graphics creation program. -OberRanks (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

NSDAP Long Service Award

Check it out and feel free to add to it and change it. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks really good. I was surprised someone took this long to write an article about so significant a decoration. -OberRanks (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If you know of a free use photo, that would be great. Kierzek (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

File:EichmannSSdoc.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:EichmannSSdoc.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sreejith K (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I responded. That's from College Park (National Archives). Should be okay. -OberRanks (talk) 11:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Good. Kierzek (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

KZ, your inputs would be welcome on the deletion page. About every three years or so, the legitimacy of the National Archives PD claim to SS records seemingly gets called into question. It would be a relief to put this permanently to rest. For me, its somewhat comical as I have over 100 SS records in a cardboard box in my basement. What would the SS Personalhauptamt think, I wonder? -OberRanks (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I commented; as long as all is in order, there should be no problem in the end. You may have to address it again, in more detail; I don't know. Kierzek (talk) 14:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I offered to have someone at NARA e-mail Wikipedia. Its a shame that in the past, these discussions have eventually fallen into the "I just don't believe you" realm. This most recent situation has encouraged me to pursue publishing some of this professionally off Wikipedia. -OberRanks (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

OberRanks, the e-mail has finally been confirmed and the photo, restored. Kierzek (talk) 01:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

SS command of Auschwitz

Hi Ober, you did a fantastic job on this article. However, the article does not specify that it is not a list of personnel but rather just the command. It is far from a list of personnel who worked at the camp, for instance Hans Aumeier and Franz Hossler are not included. I think that it is important to make this as clear as possible in the lede paragraph. I thought that you would like to edit this on your own volition.Hoops gza (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Working on some real world items at present. The article may be expanded by anyone who wishes. -OberRanks (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hoops, comment added to lede, per your request. Kierzek (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz. Since you had some involvement with the SS personnel assigned to Auschwitz redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Hoops gza (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I've listed a similar SS deletion debate here, in case you or others wish to contribute. -OberRanks (talk) 02:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't want you to think I was canvassing ...

I've advertised the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Discussion_at_Talk:General_of_the_Armies. It seems essential to me, given that it is the wikiproject to which the page belongs. Shem (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Rank Capitalization Page Move

I'm leaving this message for you, Shem1805, and Jojalozzo to advise you to cease and desist the page move vandlaism - by which I mean the unauthorized moving of the page General of the Armies without filing for a move request. The point of move requests is to avoid this exact situation - a wheel war of page moving spawned by one editor's refusal to formal request a page move to allow others to contribute to a consensus to that move. While I appreciate the fact that your all trying to be technically correct its creating problems for the rest of us, therefore I've move protected the page until such time as a move request gets filed so we can determine conclusively which camp will walk away with the consensus of the editors. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. I'm supposed to be on a Wiki-break writing my book, but this page move business is almost as frustrating as the seven star general business we had to deal with on that same article. -OberRanks (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Ober I know that you've studied ranks over the course of your naval career. My question to you is can you prove that these are titles are well and not just ranks? Ranks, like the Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy I'm 100% possitive is also a title, but ranks like Fleet Admiral (United States), I am not so sure of. If you have web sources showing that they may be titles, I know love to see them. :-) Neovu79 (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the Congressional orders are the smoking gun. They clearly capitalize the rank. I'd be interested if this kind of thing has popped up at the Enlisted Super Ranks, like the MCPON article you mentioned, and how it was resolved there. -OberRanks (talk) 00:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

General of the Armies - relative ranking

I assume you watchlist but wanted to bring your attention to my revert of MrDolomite's edit on List of United States military leaders by rank. I added an explanation at Talk:List of United States military leaders by rank#Senior Rank plus added a question about something you had written. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Happy Veterans Day

Thought I would take this chance to wish you a happy Veterans Day one more time. Thank you for your service to the nation, I for one appreciate it very much. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Enjoy and reflect on the day. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU! -OberRanks (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Highest military ranks article

Here's another article you may want to look at, when you have the time. Capitalization issues. Kierzek (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"STAH an earlier group from 1923..."

Interesting. I would be interested in learning more as to the above fact. Kierzek (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I am having to REALLY bit my tongue (figuratively) to avoid putting on Wikipedia some of the things I am learning from writing my book. I've discovered a few things which have never before been mentioned or discussed in an SS history text, at least as far as I know. Exciting times! -OberRanks (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

IP edits & vandalism

"Undid revision 461866751 by 190.45.54.212 (talk)vandalism only ip account"

Exactly which of the edits from that IP did you consider vandalism, and why? 190.44.140.37 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

(incidentally I do realise you later reverted yourself and I appreciated that, but I still want to know why you originally came to your incorrect conclusion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.44.140.37 (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest registering with an established account before communicating further with the many users you've had disagreements with. Switching between various ip addresses makes it difficult to determine if one is even dealing with the same person, let alone get into conversations about articles and other such matters. -OberRanks (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let it go OberRanks. Its in the admins hands now and you have better things to do. As do I, for that matter. Kierzek (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I just posted pretty much the same. -OberRanks (talk) 04:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Block evading ip addresses

[6] Please point out the policy that authorizes you to revert edits by "block evading" users simply and solely because they are block-evading. And in any event, please stop reverting. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good one to find. I saw this done in practice, but would be interested in knowing the policy as well. It makes sense, but is it in writing? I don't know. I won't edit the Road any further, until that is resolved. -OberRanks (talk) 15:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:DENY or WP:RBI. Wee Curry Monster talk 15:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Both essays, and both refer to vandalism. The IP's edits may fall under other categories of disruptive editing, but it wasn't vandalism. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this guy needs any defending. Hes now referring to the ANI thread, full of diffs pointing to block evasion as "disgusting lies" [7] -OberRanks (talk) 16:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This ip guy was back to his regular routine faster than I thought he would be. One could argue that disruptive editing and personal attacks can and has reached a point where it is tantamount to vandalism. Kierzek (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I was the focus of his personal attacks, he was blocked for 2 weeks and back doing the same the next day. The only reason he eventually stopped the article was semi-protected. I expect him to be back next month when it expires. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As before, if he returns again violating blocks by using other ip addresses, especially if they involve personal attacks, let me know. The very fact that he derides your user name by referring to you in quotes all the time ("wee curry monster"), which in my opinion is an online way of making fun of you, shows constant WP:CIV problems. -OberRanks (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Amon Leopold Göth Images

I apologize in advance if I have posted this in the wrong place, I'm not sure where else to leave a message. You made a comment on the Amon Göth discussion page regarding an image you are going to use in your book and if your looking for anything archival pertaining to Göth, let me know, I'm more then willing to share. I have been researching and writing about Göth and the Płaszów camp for years and have a vast collection of images and such. I would love to be of help in anyway. :) ~ Folklore777 (talk) 04:23, 22 January, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! -OberRanks (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The reason that I deleted the comment is because I didn't hear from you and I don't wish to leave a bunch of comments on your user page. I know it can sometimes be annoying. I have the original copy of the 1943 Göth military photo in high resolution straight from the family. One in better quality then what was posted on his Wiki page. If your interested, you can email me: folklore777@gmail.com ~ Folklore777 (talk) 14:21, 11 February, 2012 (UTC)

Table of ranks and insignia of the Waffen-SS

A new table you may be interested in as you have written and edited many similar articles. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Sorry I haven't been answering e-mails. Book is in the works, my website as well. I also just had a history article picked up for publishing in a magazine. Very exciting! -OberRanks (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. Do let me know what you have on Karl Wilhelm Krause; I recall you have that old book, "SS: Roll of Infamy", I recall he is in there; I don't have the book but, read through it years ago. Kierzek (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I got what I needed and wrote the article on Karl Wilhelm Krause. Kierzek (talk) 02:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello OberRanks. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Richard Böch

Hi OberRanks, do you have a source which states that Richard Böch was a Nazi Party member? That would be much appreciated so that we can add him to the List of Nazis.Hoops gza (talk) 04:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you possibly provide a reliable source for Herbert Kappler as well? Thanks in advance.Hoops gza (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of those articles have references already listed. The Kappler article is actually quite well referenced, but could use more in-line cites. The Boch article is still pretty new and I listed all the ones that I know about. -OberRanks (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

BTW-I corrected the Kappler article. He was not in the SD, per se, but an SS member who joined the Sicherheitspolizei, SiPo and then served in the Gestapo and later was chief of the SiPo and SD in Rome. Kierzek (talk) 12:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not very clear just from reading the articles. I know that it states that they were Nazis, but it does not give the particular source for this. For instance, would Kappler's SS service record be a source which states that he was a party member?Hoops gza (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And how about for Hans Wilhelm König?Hoops gza (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

All the articles already have references and unless you were junior enlisted Waffen-SS, nearly all SS personnel were also Nazi Party members. Not sure what the issue is here. -OberRanks (talk) 03:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikimedia events in Missouri and Kansas!

You're invited to 3 exciting events Wikipedians are planning in your region this June—a tour and meetup at the National Archives in Kansas City, and Wiknics in Wichita and St. Louis:

Kansas City Saturday, June 16, starting at 9 a.m. — National Archives in Kansas City This full-day event will include a tour of the facility; presentations from National Archives Wikipedian-in-Residence, Dominic McDevitt-Parks, and Exhibit Specialist, Dee Harris; and time in the research room to work on projects. The focus of the projects will be scanning, writing articles, transcribing, or categorizing images on Commons. Wikipedians from St. Louis and elsewhere in the region are encouraged to make a day-trip of it and come to Kansas City for this special opportunity!
And two local editions of the Great American Wiknic, the "picnic anyone can edit." Come meet (and geek out with, if you want) your local Wikipedians in a laid-back atmosphere: Wichita Saturday, June 23, starting at 1 p.m. — Central Riverside Park Join the 1st annual Wichita Wiknic: The Sunflower State blooms Free Knowledge! St. Louis Saturday, June 23, starting at 11 a.m. — Forest Park Visitors' Center Join the 2nd annual St Louis Wiknic: The Gateway to the West is now The Gateway to the Wiki!

Message delivered by Dominic·t 20:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Berlin Police Dept.

On the talk page, as author of the stub, state that the original stub should or was deleted. Then write that a redirect to the main article page is your currect intent. You may have to wait until the page is officially deleted to do the redirect. Kierzek (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it already happened and the RD stood. Not sure why the nominator didn't just redirect in the first place. Oh well. -OberRanks (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see someone has now taken care of the matter. Kierzek (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:DalyJames.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:DalyJames.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You're invited to Wikipedia Takes St. Louis!

Dust off your Polaroid camera and pack your best lenses. The first-ever Wikipedia Takes St. Louis photo hunt kicks off Sat, Sept. 15, at 12:30pm in downtown St. Louis. Tour the streets of the Rome of the West with other Wikipedians and even learn a little St. Louis history. This event is a fun and collaborative way to enhance St. Louis articles with visual content. Novice photographers welcome!

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Unofficial decorations of the U.S. Military

Talk:Unofficial decorations of the United States military

Hello, please take a look at my comment on the talk page of an article you created. I see that you have much experience as an editor, but I have some problems with the article. Looking for constructive improvements if possible.--Nyctc7 (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Belated comment: I am doing some work on a few articles you created. Methinks you relied on http://www.foxfall.com/ a wee too much. It is a decent starting point, but the info there needs to be confirmed.--Nyctc7 (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UnofficialUSMedals

Template:UnofficialUSMedals has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Robofish (talk) 10:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)