User talk:Assayer

Welcome

 * }

Richard Weiner
Hi. I've nominated Richard Weiner, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Richard Weiner (Czech writer)
Hello! Your submission of Richard Weiner (Czech writer) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Weiner (Czech writer)
The DYK project (nominate) 16:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

John Coakley Lettsom move
You tagged John Coakley Lettsom for speedy deletion so that John Coakley Lettsome could be moved to it. Looking at Talk:John Coakley Lettsome I see one suggestion of such a move, 4 years ago, with no response or followup. I also see no listing at WP:RM. The sources cited in the article are not consistent on the spelling. I would like to see more discussion on this, or at elast a recent talk page post giving reasons for the move, if no one responds after a reasonable period, say a week or two, that can be taken to mean that no one objects. I am going to decline the request for now. DES (talk) 23:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought that this move would be uncontroversial, and since the only obstacle was the redirect I followed that procedure. The spelling in the ODNB, by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, in the Transactions & studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, and the Postgrad Med J is consistent, not to forget Lettsom's own publications, whereas I do not consider a Cruising Guide and a bio of Mary Wollstonecraft to be very reliable. --Assayer (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Articles_for_deletion/German_tank_aces
Hi, I just saw that you've listed this article for deletion, but without starting the deletion discussion. I have to say that I'm a bit surprised that you haven't discussed your concerns on the article's talk page first given that this is a long standing article in relatively good condition. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that the discussion has now been started. Nick-D (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've followed WP:AFDHOW which advised me to list the article first, then create the page for discussion. As you will see, my concerns are of a general nature and cannot be resolved on the article's talk page. Best regards, --Assayer (talk) 00:58, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

German publishers
Hi, I wonder if I could interest you in translating articles on German-language publishers? could be a good place to start, as about 90 articles use books published there as sources. I've been having somewhat fruitless discussions with another editors about the merits of the book published by Heinz Nickel here: Hans-Joachim Marseille, and having an English wiki article may help. Taghon from over at the Joachim Helbig GAR is also from this publisher. Thank you for your consideration. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I can do that, but would rather start from scratch. The German article on VDM Nickel is thin. It was nominated for deletion in 2012 and barely survived. Are there criteria for notability of publishers in the English Wikipedia? It's a really small publisher and mainly a special interest bookseller. There is not much information about it. There is much more information about Verlag Bublies. Bublies was with the NPD for some time and is a proponent of a sort of national revolutionary (nationalrevolutionär) politics. He also published Gaddafi's Green Book. In the German Wikipedia, the burden to demonstrate the reliability of a source lies explicitly with the editor who wants to use this source. Isn't there any such guideline in the English Wikipedia. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


 * On the last question, yes, that's how it's supposed to work, but in practice one often has to prove that the source is not reliable. See for example User:K.e.coffman where an editor absolutely refuses to accept Kurowski is not a suitable source for military biographies. If you have a cup of coffee and need a good read, you could peruse this discussion: WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles from MilHist archive. (That's why the Franz Kurowski article is so extensive).


 * A suggestion perhaps -- how about Right-wing publishers in Germany as an overview article? I.e. how this scene came about, what has been their evolution, what books they run, etc. Such an article could cover Munin Verlag, Bublies, VDM Nickel, etc. Pretty much all of those that appear in the lead of Kurowski's article. Individual blurbs would be per available sources. What do you think? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That would be a long article:) Also there would be discussion as to what exactly is "right-wing". So I'd rather stick with individual articles on Stocker/Ares, Herbert Fleissner (Herbig, Langen Müller) or Dietmar Munin (Arndt Verlag Kiel; Pour le Merite) and Paul Pietsch (Motorbuch). Would these meet notability guidelines?
 * Stunning to see how a fringe-author like Kurowski - I might be using the word "fringe" too often these days, but Kurowski has mostly written pulp, although admittedly a lot - could gather so much unwarranted attention these days that would eventually lead to a 30.000+ article. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: Kurowski :-). The reason I started there was because of the heated debate at Talk:Otto Kittel and me being stunned that some editors would consider him an RS. Back in March, the search "Kurowski, Franz" returned ~350 articles, plus about 50 for "Alman, Karl". Right now it's just over 100. Progress.
 * As far as the suggested list goes, I think Motorbuch would be a good place to start, as I frequently see works published there used as references. Would be good to know more. I'd be also interested in an article on Flechsig Verlag, if sources are available, as it seems to churn out cookie-cutter KC winner biographies, including from Kurowski. It also published the German language work on Der Panzergraf. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Zetterling
1) The OKW does not make any intelligence works, that is entirely done by the Abteilung Fremde Heere.

2) The 42% mentioned by Zetterling, is only related to assess the "Cost of the Battle" in 1943, not to make an overall assessment for each year.(p.126)

3) Zaloga on the other hand, has reviewed each year.

Capter 5, p.134: "One reason for the German complacency about the need to match Soviet tank strength was a tendency in the early years of the war to exaggerate Soviet tank losses and underestimate Soviet productive capacity. The Wehrmacht tended to overestimate the number of tanks it had destroyed or captured in combat. To their credit, the army’s Russian Front intelligence agency, the Fremde Heere Ost (FHO), usually made allowances for the exaggeration in their assessments. This resulted in reasonably accurate tallies of actual Soviet tank losses."[32]

Note 32, p.309: "For example, in 1942 various Wehrmacht troop reports claimed Soviet tank losses as 21,367, which FHO downgraded to 16,200. The actual Soviet losses were 15,000, of which more than half were due to mechanical breakdowns and accidents. Wehrmacht claims in 1943 were 34,659, which FHO downgraded to 17,330; actual losses were 22,400. FHO report, 26 January 1944, “Feindliche Panzer Verluste 1941–43,” NARA II, RG 242, T-78, R552."

Capter 7, p.197: "As mentioned earlier, the German FHO intelligence organization regularly discounted claims due to the problems of double-counting, especially in long-range engagements. Furthermore, German claims of Soviet tank kills covered any Soviet tank knocked out in combat, whether it was a total loss or later recovered and put back into action, while German Tiger losses included only total losses and no temporary losses."[23]

Note 23, p.311: "In a 26 January 1944 report on Soviet tank losses, Fremde Heere Ost discounted German tactical claims by 50 percent due to double-counting and Soviet recovery and repair of temporary battlefield losses. For example, German tank claims in July 1943 of 7,300 Soviet tanks destroyed was reduced to 3,650 in the FHO assessment. “Feindliche Panzer Verluste 1941–1943,” NARA RG 242, T-78, R-552."

Capter 8, p.227:

Table: German Kill Claims Against Soviet Tanks and AFVS, 1944 [17]

Note 17, p.312: "The German Eastern Front intelligence agency, Fremde Heere Ost, adjusted the claims to account for double counting and recovered tanks. They reduced army claims by 30 percent, except for 50 percent in July–August. They reduced all Luftwaffe claims by 50 percent due to the prevalence of overcounting. Panzer und Sturmgeschütz-Verluste 1944, Fremde Heere Ost (IIc), NARA RG 242, T-78, R552."

Kindleberger (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Kindleberger, nice to have you here as a visitor, but I think that your argument should be put on the talk page of the article in question. I will do so and deal with the details there. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 03:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Gregor Strasser/GA2
Assayer, you opened this individual Good Article Reassessment a month and a half ago, noting some significant issues with it that meant it did not meet the GA criteria. A couple of other editors commented in the next day or so, and edits were made to the article in that period. Nothing has happened since.

If the article still does not meet the GA criteria, it's probably time to close the reassessment and delist the article. If there's a compelling reason to keep the reassessment open longer you certainly can, and if you wanted to bring it back to GA status yourself that's also a potential reason to wait, but we're well beyond the seven days one would usually allow for work to get started.

Thanks for participating at GAR. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your message. When I opened the reassessment process, the article had multiple issues. I worked on it to fix the major ones, namely factual errors and dubious sources. Could it be further improved? Most certainly yes. Is it on GA level right now? Frankly, I don't know. I have no clear idea about what it takes to bring any article to GA status and although I might put some additional effort into that particular article in the future, because I am also working on the German article, I don't have the ambition to bring it back to GA status myself. I simply felt that the version of July 31, 2015 should not be listed as a GA. User:Kierzek mentioned that the article might be re-viewed, and I thought that the reassessment process would be closed that way. Best regards, --Assayer (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It certainly is better now and Assayer was correct it did have some issues which were addressed; maybe it should be looked at again once you finish tweaking it, Assayer, since you say you probably will be working on it as you work on the German article. Its your call. Kierzek (talk) 00:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Assayer, the only way this can close, since you opened it as an individual reassessment, is for you to close it, either as "keep" or "delist". The article has not been edited since early on December 4, shortly after the most recent comments on the reassessment page. The changes on that day do not appear to be significant beyond the removal of three questionable sources and a few statements based on them. Perhaps you could check with the other person arguing for a delisting to see whether they feel the article falls short of any particular GA criteria? BlueMoonset (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Assayer, how is the work on the German bio going and will you be working further on the English bio? I leave it up to you at this point as to how to proceed and decide the above query as to the English article. Kierzek (talk) 18:45, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Kierzek, I have postponed Strasser for more urgent work like on de:August Meyszner. I have already put Peacemaker67 on hold for too long and want to get the review of the English article done. I also plan on closing the reassessment, but since it will be my first time in closing a debate I try to do it carefully. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 1681 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for some help transcribing German
Hey, as we've already established my German is garbage. Would you be willing to look at a draft of a resistance member I'm moving over from the German wiki? It's super rough and I have a lot more content to add and refs to put in, I more need to make sure I didn't butcher anything already there too badly. The only thing that caught my eye so far was him being identified as the Chief of Staff for the XI. Panzer Corps, when I think it's supposed to be the XI. Army Corps. Feel free to make changes relating to translation if you want, you don't have to ask. If you're not available could you recommend another native speaker? Thanks! LargelyRecyclable (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I notice that you finished your draft within hours on 29 Sept., 7:40. By now it features much more content than a simple translation. I will take a closer look. Otherwise User:Prüm has an interest in German military history and is highly proficient in the English language. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The article is live but I always value a second set of eyes on the German sources and their respective translation. I will definitely contact Prüm. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Panzer Ace article mediation
Hi Assayer, thanks for all your input with the article so far. As we are going nowhere, I have put in a request for an outside mediator to look at it. If you would like to have your say in the mediation, go to the bottom and select agree to the mediation (I don't know if the system notified you automotically of this, so letting people know). The request for mediation is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Panzer_Ace#Issues_to_be_mediated. Cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
Hi, Assayer. I thought I'd just put a link here to a recently filed request for arbitration of the "German war effort of 1939–45", at Arbitration/Requests/Case, in case you're interested. The case has been advertised on WikiProject MILHIST's talkpage, with pings to the coordinators etc, but I guess you wouldn't see that as you haven't edited en.wiki since 11 April. And presumably you'll only see this note if you're watching this page, so I'll leave it to fate. Regards, Bishonen &#124; talk 22:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC).

German war effort arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Rudolf Berthold
Hello, I read your commentary on the talk page with much interest, and left some observations I hope will prove helpful. It seems you could substantially improve the article with a rewrite, especially in the postwar section. If you have qualms because you are not a native speaker of English, I will lightly edit you to make your effort look better. I do trust that you will supply cites. (I can also help you with the form of those, if you need that.)Georgejdorner (talk) 21:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind response. I appreciate your offer and will return to the article. At present, however, I am busy with some work due on May, 30th. We may discuss things further on the talk page then. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Translation request
Hi, nice to see you around. I wonder if you could translate Note 30 from this book for me: & the sentence that the note is attached to, starting with "Die Zeitschrift..." I'm trying to confirm Patrick Agte's affiliation with HIAG, but I'm having a challenge. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome:

During the interviews H.R. frequently referred to the magazine Der Freiwillige and its authors. It is some sort of members's journal of the HIAG, the veteran's organization of the Waffen-SS, which disbanded in 1992 except for a few Truppenkameradschaften and local HIAG-associations. Note 30: The publications (books) of the Munin publishing house and the Kriegsgräberstiftung - Wenn alle Brüder schweigen ["War Grave Foundation – When all brothers remain silent"] are coupled with the journal ''Der Freiwillige. Für Einigkeit und Recht und Freiheit. Kameradschaftsblatt der HIAG'' ["The Volunteer. For Unity and Right and Freedom. Magazine for the comradeship of the HIAG"], whose circulation is being estimated at several thousand copies. In early 2000 the Munin publishing house and the editorship of Der Freiwillige were passed over to the managing director of the "Truppenkameradschaft 1. SS-Panzerkorps" Patrick Agte. Accodring to the farewell issue of Der Freiwillige from 12/2000 about half of the contributors belonged to the war generation.

--Assayer (talk) 00:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Gas vans
Regarding this your post. Can you please check these sources? It seems Solzhenitsyn, Albats, and Kommersant are based on a single source, the Komsomolskaya pravda article (Е. Жирнов. «Процедура казни носила омерзительный характер» // Комсомольская правда, 1990, 28 октября, с. 2.). Can you please take a look what source Merridale, Colton and Gellately use?--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * PS. I checked Colton: he does use the KP article as a source (see p. 841).--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot look up Merridale right now. Gellately uses KP, Oct. 28, 1992, 2. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 19:10, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed
An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee,
 * 1) For engaging in harassment of other users, is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
 * 2) is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
 * 3) is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
 * 4) Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
 * 5) While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.
 * -Cameron11598(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Source query
Hi, hope all is well. There's a discussion that I wonder you may be able to help out with. It's in part about a passage from Estonia 1940−1945:

Footnote [163] cites, among others, Christian Gerlach: Kalkulierte Morde: Die deutche Wirtschafts und Vernichtungspolitik in Wießrußland 1941 bis 1944, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 701-702. I, unfortunately, don’t have access to his work, and all that comes up in Google books is a short snippet:. I wonder if you may be able to look up the two relevant pages, 701 & 702. If not, it's not a big deal.

For background, the relevant Talk page discussion is here:


 * Talk:36th_Estonian_Police_Battalion

Hope to see you around. Speaking of which, I'm planning to work on Jochen Peiper sometime in the future, and am procuring Parker's Hitler's Warrior and Westemeier's Himmlers Krieger. I saw you using Westermeier and I assume you have ready access to it. If you'd be interested in collaborating on this article, please let me know. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Gerlach summarily talks about several massacres in the region of Nowogrodek between April and early June 1942. He continues: Anfang August fand eine Mordwelle mit weiteren mindestens 9000 Opfern ihr Ende. Zum Teil führte die Gendarmerie des Gebiets, unterstützt von einer litauischen Einheit und der örtlichen Schutzmannschaft, die Morde ohne Hilfe der Sicherheitspolizei aus. (p. 701) In English: "At the beginning of August a wave of murders with at least 9,000 more victims was concluded. Partially the gendarmerie of the region, supported by a Lithuanian unit and the local Schutzmannschaft carried out the murders without help by the Sicherheitspolizei." Thus Gerlach does not accuse these units of these specific action (i.e. the massacres on 6 and 7 August), but he accuses these units to be responsible for some of the massacres during that wave of murders. That is because Gerlach argues that the German civil administration, of which the Gendarmerie was a part, actively participated in the selection and killing of the Jews and that not only the Sipo was to blame. Hope that helps. --Assayer (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

"Eagle of Sovereignty Pin"?
I was told there is some type of vague mention of this "award" of Hitler's in Speer's autobiography. I have never heard of it and do not have Speer's book. I asked two other people, but they have obtained no firm answer. I believe it should be removed, but wanted to ask you first. Kierzek (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, you can find the information on Inside the Third Reich (1970), p. 31. Speer is recounting that he had accompanied Hitler inspecting the building site of the new chancellery for some twenty times when Hitler suddenly invited him for dinner. Speer's jacket was stained, so the story goes, so Hitler lend him one of his own jackets. At the dinner party Goebbels noted: "Why, you're wearing the Fuehrer's badge." Then there is an asterisk noting: Hitler was the only party member to wear a gold "badge of sovereignty" - an eagle with a swastika in its talons. Everyone else wore the round party badge. But Hitler's jacket did not dffer from ordinary civilian jackets. You can finde more details with Henry Picker: Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier. According to a note in a recent 2014 ebook edition Hitler used a "Goldenes Hoheitsabzeichen" (sic) (more correct would be "Hoheitszeichen"). An appropriate translation would be "national emblem". He had designed that himself and it showed the Reichsadler on an oak wreath with a swastika in it. Hitler had his friend Otto Gahr make 10 of it from real gold. Three of these were to be worn on the lapel, the other seven were tie pins. As head of the state Hitler was the only person who was allowed to wear these. He gave one tie pin to Mussolini as a gift in 1937. Hope that helps. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It should be noted then, but I would like to add the better cite of your German work noted above. If you provide me the reference information I can add it or would you mind adding it to Political decorations of the Nazi Party article where this is mentioned. I would appreciate it, Kierzek (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What we are talking about is actually not a political decoration of the Nazi Party. Not only did the emblem of the Nazi Party become the national emblem of the Reich on 5 November 1935, intended to demonstrate "the unity between party and state". That particular badge/pin that Hitler wore is not listed as a political decoration by the Nazi party itself. See e.g. the Organisationsbuch der NSDAP. 3rd ed., Munich 1937, p. 42. The Hoheitszeichen (emblem) was a badge like the party badge, the SS Zivilabzeichen, the HJ badge the NSKK-badge and so forth. Just that Party officials wore an emblem made of silver, while Hitler wore a golden one. And that makes sense, because this particular item was designed by Hitler exclusively for himself and it was not a simple decoration. The whole article on Political Decorations of the Nazi Party is incoherent. The Stahlhelm was not part of the Nazi party. --Assayer (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I know that article needs work and RS citing. I noticed that; it is just a matter of time to do what is needed. As for me, my time is very limited just now. Kierzek (talk) 13:30, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There is an English edition of Hitler's Table Talk. The talk I am referring to was of 23 June 1942, p. 535 of the 2000 edition. The information cannot be found there. Rather it can be found at Henry Picker: Hitlers Tischgespräche im Führerhauptquartier. Mit bisher unbekannten Selbstzeugnissen Adolf Hitlers, Abbildungen, Augenzeugenberichten und Erläuterungen des Autors: Hitler, wie er wirklich war. Stuttgart: Seewald, 1976, p. 384. So that's one of Picker's explanations and it is printed in italics. Articles dealing with awards and decorations are not my cup of coffee. Sourcing is often difficult which, imho, speaks to the limited importance of these items. --Assayer (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then, the "pin" is not a political badge/award of the Nazi Party. It is moot now, as I see another editor has already removed it. Kierzek (talk) 17:52, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Werner Molders FARC
Hi Assayer, thanks for your comments on Werner Molders FAR and everything else you do on the wiki. I just wanted to let you know that the FAR has moved to the FARC stage and users are invited to register their opinion on whether the article should be delisted from FA status. Catrìona (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Europe DS
My very best wishes (talk) 23:29, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Soviet gas vans
So, did you complete the series of edits you wanted? Is that version of the page you wanted to create? If so, I will make one additional comment on the article talk page and proceed further, depending on your response. My very best wishes (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I completed the first series of edits that I plan on. There is more to come on the history of gas vans from 1941 onwards, but the literature is extensive and I needs some time to work through it. As for the paragraph on the Soviet Union: That's how I would devise that paragraph based upon the discussions we already had.--Assayer (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, so that was your desired version for the Soviet gas vans. I wanted to do the following: to start a new thread on the talk page, which would explain how exactly your version violates WP:NPOV (this is pretty much straightforward: you excluded well sourced claims by academic books, by a Nobel prize winner and other RS) and wait for your response. If you still would continue to insist on such version, I would ask for an additional input at WP:NPOVNB or elsewhere. However, given current input from other users, I would rather wait. My very best wishes (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This is bad idea because you invite a contributor to participate in discussion covered by his topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOVN is very explicit, that I had to notify any editor who is subject of a discussion and that I had to use . I complied to that rule. --Assayer (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


 * - I can redact any comment at talk as long as no one responded to it. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * + Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes., for the simple reason that other editors already may have conducted some research to answer your initial questions, like I did, before the edit conflict popped up.--Assayer (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * No, anyone is free to correct his comment if no one else replied (that is what I did; you replied only later). But I am fine with your edit. That's OK. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Be careful when you are making statement about that user.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not comment on that user, but on that user's activities and on sources unrelated to that user. I consider that comment more in line with WP:AGF than what this user has to say about us "guys", including made-up quotes.--Assayer (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply
I am a little surprised why your AE request was closed as malformed because the banner at the top of WP:AE clearly tells that the page can be used to "request other administrative measures, such as revert restrictions, with respect to pages that are being disrupted in topic areas subject to discretionary sanctions"... It does not mean I agree with you (I do not ), but I would think your request had to be discussed at WP:AE. My very best wishes (talk) 02:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, maybe I was wrong about there needing to be an individual editor mentioned, but the request was still malformed (no sections for editors to comment or for admins to evaluate). El_C 03:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Update: I have re-opened the request. El_C 03:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Assayer. Re to. Actually, something being peer-reviewed means very little - in terms of reliability, significance or whatever. For example, as someone who actually read this book by Petro Grigorenko, I would give it a significance score of a 10,000 compare to a typical scientific publication in a journal, which I I would give a score of 1. This reflects the actual significance of his book in terms of its fame, readership and impact on society. My very best wishes (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not about significance, because this is neither about an article on Grigorenko nor about an article on his memoir. This is about the reliability of a certain claim, some hearsay related in his book, which apparently did not have any impact on historical scholarship. Thus it should have the same impact on Wikipedia's article on gas vans: None.--Assayer (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS, scholarship is only one of many allowable types of sources. Others are news and even biased sources . But you know this already, do not you? None of sources removed here belong to Questionable_and_self-published_sources . My very best wishes (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Assayer, take a look at this source (which seems to be not cited in the Gas van article). It is a good illustration of why our policy applies a rigorous restriction on usage of primary sources.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Your help desk question
You did not get a response to this question. Did you find the help you needed? I would suggest WP:AIV but I don't know enough about how that works and that could be the wrong place.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:54, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I saw WP:ANI in a similar situation. You seem to know this site better than I do.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  23:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Joachim Peiper
This remarkable piece of news ("American Army unit marks Battle of the Bulge with picture of Nazi war criminal") reminded me of my (unrealised) plans to bring it to GA. I wonder if you may be interested in doing it together. I have Westemeyer's bio of Peiper in the English translation, and you appear to have access to the original German version. I previously edited the page, so we won't be starting from scratch. Please let me know if you may be interested. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Complicated bio, complicated topic, much work to do. I don't see that I will have the time to invest considerable effort into that matter sometime soon. Please note that, to my knowledge, only Westemeier's earlier bio Joachim Peiper (1915-1976). Zwischen Totenkopf und Ritterkreuz. Lebensweg eines SS-Führers, 2. Aufl., Bissendorf 2006, has been translated into English. His more recent bio Himmlers Krieger of 2014 is considerably expanded and fundamentally revised. I remember to have read Westemeier himself commenting on his work in some forum. He was quite critical of his older work. Regards, --Assayer (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The book that Westemeier is embarrassed about is the 1996 Joachim Peiper (1915-1976) : SS-Standartenführer : eine Biographie. He mentions this in the preface to the 2007 English translation of Zwischen Totenkopf und Ritterkreuz. The 2014 Himmlers Krieger must be his third book on Peiper.
 * In 2016 or so, I used Denny Parker's 2014 book Hitler's Warrior, also about Peiper. I got it to work on HIAG, which was substantially covered there, and also revised some passages in the Peiper article. If anything, Parker's narrative is more damning because he provides more details of Peiper's 1941 career with Himmler and Peiper's crimes on the Eastern front, or how he attended Georg Elser's torture sessions with Himmler. In any case, I'm getting Parker's book so that I can use both. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Kurowski's Panzer Aces
Hi Assayer, I wonder if you may have encountered any German-language sources on this book. Please see Good article reassessment/Panzer Aces/1 for background. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Smelser/Davies have published an essay Die Romantisierung der Wehrmacht und Waffen-SS in "So war der deutsche Landser", edited by Jens Westemeier (2019). Here they discuss Kurowski's Aces on pp. 72-4.(googlebooks) In his account Der Schriftsteller und „Historiker“ Franz Kurowski Roman Töppel briefly discusses Panzer Aces to demonstrate its unreliability. (see fn 35 and following) Given Kurowski's obscurity among historians that's actually a lot. Please note, that Kurwoski's "Aces"-books are compilations of other texts by him published in German earlier and elsewhere, often even under another pen name. Kurowski also does not speak of "Aces" in German. Thus German literature on that particular topic is scarce. Best regards, --Assayer (talk) 13:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Mark C. Yerger
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)