User talk:Ukjt

Welcome!
Hello, Ukjt, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to August Meyszner. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Cipher Department of the High Command of the Wehrmacht
Hi Ukjt, thanks for the copy editing, some of these articles I created were badly needing it done. However, you have made a mistake on the short name of OKW/CHI, by changing the chi test in to chi-squared. It had has nothing to with the chi-squared, statistical test, but the chi tested, which is a cryptographic test, invented by Kollback. Can you change it back please, otherwise I'll need to do it myself. Thanks Scope creep (talk) 18:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Cipher Department of the High Command of the Wehrmacht
Hi Ukjt, Sorry for leaving your foundering. At the end of every work session I go around if a bunch of stuff that easy to do, but still needs done. Hence the quick fix. When I originally created the article I linked the chi-test, as I thought that was what it, i.e. chi-squared, which it's not, and as time passes, you forget the link is still in there, even though I meant to change it donkeys ago. I had a plan to write an article about it, but couldn't find a single scrap of information about the test, apart from the name, and who invented it. Chi test is used,i.e. as part of the process, in one of the machines entries mentioned in the article, so as soon as soon as the Chi article is written, it will be going in. scope_creep (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You seems to find documents very quickly? Is that a google books doc, or off the NSA site, or possibly somewhere else? What do you do in real life? I'll take a look at it, but my to-do list is pretty full at the moment. Why don't you go ahead with it, create an article on it. The Chi test is ideal, as WP has little on vintage cryptography, part of the reason I started doing this, also because there was a strong Western bias on WP. Something hard, that you can get your teeth into. scope_creep (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Scope creep, I found some hints mainly by searching the internet for Kullback and test. By the way, later I found some information on this topic on the following German Wikipedia pages: Solomon Kullback and Chi-Test. As I am no specialist on this topic, a new article has to wait. Ukjt (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy
Hi Ukjt, you need to be a wee bit more accurate. On Karl Schröter, you changed ordinary to full. Ordinary in this context means lack of ego, or conceit. They are referred to as ordinary members by the Academy. As regards the change to Tranow, changing it to experienced instead of he had an old drive which is a direct quotation, incorrect. Old Drive was quoted by Bonatz, and is accurate, and was reported firstly Kahn in 1978, which was almost 40 years before your reference. The problem with reporting facts like this, the older it gets, the further away the event was, and less accurate it is. It's a generalism I suppose and putting in a modern quote and expecting it to be accurate is not doing the research. It is not right.


 * Hi scope_creep, thank you for your remarks.

''On Karl Schröter, you changed ordinary to full. Ordinary in this context means lack of ego, or conceit. They are referred to as ordinary members by the Academy.''


 * Why is ordinary (lack of ego, or conceit) in this context the appropriate notion? In my opinion full member or regular member  is here the correct translation of Ordentliches Mitglied.

As regards the change to Tranow, changing it to experienced instead of he had an old drive which is a direct quotation, incorrect.


 * The citation given previously referred to


 * This must be from the German 3rd edition (2000, p. 449): der unter der Leitung des alterfahrenen und energischen Tranow stand.


 * In the English edition (2002, p. 426) this passage reads under the regime of the experienced and energetic Tranow.


 * A reference to he had an old drive was not given. Can you give one?

Thanks Ukjt (talk) 17:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Ukjt, the reference I was planning to use regarding Tranow, was 'David Kahn, Hitlers Spies, 1978'. Why the Freidrich Bauer ref is in there, I don't know. It's possibly a mistake, or I was knackered and accidentally copied in, I don't know but it's wrong. I'm using English 4th Edition, Springer 2006, Revised and Extended and the third edition, Springer 2000 of Bauer. In the 4th edition, English version, Section 22.1.1 it details Tranow, and uses Kahn as the reference. Hence, Kahn will be used for reference, since it is the earliest to the source and will be going in. The rest of the your work is pretty decent all in. scope_creep (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I-22
Hi Ukjt, As regards above, regarding Tirpitzufer. Yes it is a street, but has always been referred to a section in most documentation I've read, as that was where most of imperial staff was occupied, including Pers Z S, B-Diesnt, OKW/Chi, and others, all in different floors of the massive Benderblock, all in that one corner. If you want to clarify that, fine, but look deeper. As regards the quote, you are changing a direct quotation, which TICOM interrogators took the time to focus on and record, as they thought it was important. If you change a quotation, it directly changes the context of an article, and put's a inaccurate spin on it. Also I suspect members of the diplomatic corps wouldn't have refereed to the OKW/Chi secondees as gentlemen, more likely as men and highly likely the referred to by their designation. But in the end up you can't guess. Rohrbach was brilliant, and could have waxed lyrical about it for 40 minutes, but the TICOM decided to take quote only, because it reflected the general feeling of what he said, so putting Gentlemen on it, I think is inaccurate. Additions to quotes are put in single square brackets, to indicate they are not part of it, e.g. [the men were] definitely lower grade personnel and had come here to be trained. Keep it the good work. scope_creep (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Ukjt. Dont' let that stop you. I thought you did an excellent copyedit on the Heinz Bonatz article. scope_creep (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Take a look at this:Karl Stein (mathematician), which was on my todo list. There is a big section in de WP, as well as significant detail in one of the TICOM docs. scope_creep (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

English Language Priority
Hi Ukjt, Excellent work, but I notice your putting German language first in your translations. The language of this Wikipedia is English, as as such it takes priority at all time.I've already got into trouble for it once already!. scope_creep (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi scope creep, You're absolutely right. But as certain of Rohrbach's publications originally were in German, in these cases I think it is even mandatory to give as an exact quotation the German title (together – if possible – with an English translation).

Ukjt (talk) 17:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Tranow Quote
Hi Ukjt, I had a doc and a reference for the original quote a few days ago, but I can't locate it now. I've got that many documents, and reference, etc, etc, it slipped my fingers and mind again, but it will turn up as it was double quoted in two sources. In the meantime, if you want to put your quote back in, do so... As regards English translations, if you can translate into English from German, do so. Otherwise if you predominately source publications in their native German, then a more experienced copy editor will come along and change it, or the article will be tagged, which I don't want. Good work on the linking to the German Arxiv equiv. for Rohrbach publications. user:os can translate German to English, which is handy if you do need them. I tend to use both Bing, Google and Babylon translation, and try and divine the best translation from the three, but sometime it doesn't work. Even though Bing is ahead in AI/Machine learning and has been for the last 10 years, with an efficacy of around 95%+ supposedly, it doesn't always work. So for those I've not added, please make considerable effort to create an English version, as I have already scope_creep (talk) 10:54, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi scope_creep, Thank you for the background information. Concerning the Tranow reference, I think we should – at least in the meantime – use one of the other references. Concerning Rohrbach (English<>German) I was only providing the original titles of his publications (as listed for example in ), this list of publications was already present in this article. If this were not possible in Wikipedia, we would have to delete most of his publications from this article as he wrote them in German... Thanks Ukjt (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They are present in the article, because I wrote the article from scratch a couple of months ago, and transcribed the publications from the de wikipedia, as well as pulling some missing ones from the mactut archive, and I was planning, and still planing to provide an English translation. It would NOT be a case they would be deleted, they would merely sit until a translator with sufficient German language experience came along and completed them. If you can't provide the translations do what you can and I'll ask OS to translate them when I get around to it. scope_creep (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

B-Dienst
Ukjt, I reverted your edits on B-Dienst. Don't use that system of references you use, if the document has already has a reference style already in place, use that style. It completely broke the reference system on a article which has already been copy-edited twice in the last 6 months. scope_creep (talk) 02:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi scope_creep, sorry that I created extra work for you: I was not aware of WP:CITEVAR. I checked my new references before saving, the different referencing style of the new sources did not seem to (technically) break anything, just working side by side. Please excuse.


 * Concerning the content of the changes I had submitted (spelling of Friedman, citing Erskine's publication as an article in Journal of Intelligence History with references esp. to pages 3, 4–5, 4) what do you propose doing? Ukjt (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Continue what your doing. Your doing is good work. I think for the fixing of the above reference, it should be kept inline, as that is how the article is constructed. Even though there is spelling mistakes in the article, the article itself has taken about a 1.5 years work so far. The stuff I put in the last two days, took three weeks worth of research work.  Each of the references has been checked to make sure they point to a correct source, not something that is duplicated from content on the web or from a source that is written by some dodgy author.  So a bit of care is needed. scope_creep (talk) 20:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Johannes Benzing
I noticed the above was needing a picture. I found a picture of him at [Johannes Benzing]. Do you want to try and add it in to a diplomat, or linguist Infobox? I'll give you a hand. scope_creep (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi scope_creep, thank you for your hint. However, that page states: Lizenz für Text- und Forschungsdaten: CC-BY 4.0. Diese Lizenz gilt nicht für die verwendeten Bilder. Sofern nicht anders angegeben sind die verwendeten Bilder urheberrechtlich geschützt. (License for text data and research data: CC-BY 4.0. This license does not apply to the pictures used. Unless otherwise indicated they are protected by copyright.) So, the use of this picture might not be permitted. Ukjt (talk) 08:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * What you do in this instance is send an email to the university copyright office and ask them what your license is for the image. They will supply the details as they are in the business of disseminating knowledge. Even if they have a restrictive licence, there is a mechanism in US copyright to still use the image with restrictive rights, which is called Fair Use. So you can still get hold of the images, as it's a unique historical photograph. If they send you an email back with copyright licensing details, that can be sent to Wikipedia on a specific email tht tells WP what the copyright details are, for the image. Then you upload it, and fill in the details. scope_creep (talk) 11:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi scope_creep, thank for your encouraging tip. Ukjt (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I sent an email to their copyright office about 5 days ago, but not heard anything, so I'm going to use it anyway under fair use. scope_creep (talk) 00:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Two new articles created
Hi Ukjt, I've created two new bio articles as well as a couple of other ongoing articles. Can you come in and find new references for the bio articles and anything else you can lay your hands on, work your magic on them. scope_creep (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2017 (UTC)