User talk:JALockhart/Archive04 200707–

Hi, JALockhart!

Ich bin Ersteller des Artikels de:Integralexponentialfunktion und bin bei meinen Versuchen, jemanden wie dich zu finden, der Japanisch und Deutsch, auf dich gestoßen; Könntest du mir eine − nicht unbedingt gute, es reicht eine ungefähre − Übersetzung des Artikels, oder zumindest des Abschnittes

と近似でき、$$|x|>17$$の$$x$$に対しては
 * $$Ei(x)=\frac{e^x}{x}\left(1+\frac{1!}{x}+\frac{2!}{x^2}+\frac{3!}{x^3}+\frac{4!}{x^4}+\frac{5!}{x^5}+\frac{6!}{x^6}+\cdots\right)$$

と近似できる.

geben? Danke, de:User:Ttbya

PS: Es wäre nett, wenn du auf meiner deutschen Benutzerdiskussionsseite antworten könntest (musst du aber nicht)--ttbya 19:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion
If you are not too busy, I want to hear your opinion. Please take a look at the Misinformation section on the talk page of Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thank you. Oda Mari 10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Tale of Genji
I was trying to edit this page but everytime I tried to save my edit, I got a Spam Blacklisted notification. So I removed this link and I was able to edit. I'd never seen that error before. I cannot edit the page now that you've put the ref back. I don't have anything to add, so I'm OK, but I'm wondering. How you are able to insert that link given it's blacklisted? Cheers, Vincent 01:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I ran into that exact same problem recently when making some edits, so I immediately understood why you removed it. I sidestepped the issue by editing only a specific section instead of the full article. Either the link needs to removed from the blacklist or removed from the article. Bendono 11:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I also edited specific sections, but I really needed to edit something at the top of the article. But I still wonder how JALockart added it in. Vincent 13:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * All I did was an undo, if I recall. I couldn't understand why it had been removed--I don't get any error message. Go figure! :O (Sorry for the late reply--I've been traveling.) Jim_Lockhart 15:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gaijin again!
God is punishing me again for not wasting my summer on the research and writing of the gaijin article. Have a look at the latest brouhaha. I was hoping to put it off until September or October, but I knew some of the newbie editors couldn't wait that long. Too bad they can't offer real sources this time either, I would *love* to put this issue to rest. Let me know what you think. J Readings 03:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, the cycle begins again. And it looks like you’ve got a real live wire to deal with this time. My sympathies. I’m in the US right now, till the first week of September, so wasn’t planning any further till October or so myself. But frankly, the question begs: Is it really worth the trouble? Jim_Lockhart 16:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bendono filed a complaint against the user. He's been blocked for 31 hours for edit warring. Meanwhile, the contentious edit ends up staying on the page somehow. I'm tempted to revert it. Hmmm....J Readings 14:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I, too, am tempted... But I don’t want to get accused of edit-warring. It looks like Expatlecturer has a thing for Asian ethnic slurs, though—that’s all he’s edited so far. And he’s not paying attention to your explanations about verifiability or to the points raised in previous discussion about the racial-slur issue. I guess we’ll just have to give him time. Jim_Lockhart 15:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hikikomori Chōmei
I got a pretty good laugh out of this edit of yours:. Thanks! Honestly, though, not a bad subject matter if written about appropriately. His own book Hōjōki could be used as a resource. I wonder if there are any better resources out there. Bendono 06:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I might be a newbie
But I think you are a Holocaust denier. For example, you placed a dubious tag on the idea that the Nazis put Jehovah's Witnesses in the camps. Take a look at Purple triangle, it has plenty of citations. I invite you to remove that tag, before I waste a lot of time figuring out how to recruit allies to hunt down every denier edit you have made. Fee Fi Foe Fum 08:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your passion, but please slow down for a moment. If you’re a newbee (though the comments in your edit history are more those of a veteran—but I’ll take your word for it), then Welcome! But please bear in mind that there’s plenty to learn about contributing to Wikipedia—I’ve been at it for 2½ years now, and I still learn new things all the time; further, many policies are still evolving. But I digress: specifically for now, you may need to better understand the rationale for tagging. Allow me to explain. You are correct about my putting a “dubious” tag on Jehovah’s Witnesses being sent to extermination camps; note that I have not done this for concentration camps. My immediate reason is that, despite reading widely about extermination camps, I have yet to come across a reliable source that claims that Jehovah’s Witnesses were systematically sent to the extermination camps (that they were sent to concentration camps is beyond question). The claim that they were sent to extermination camps looks dubious, but I do not flatly deny (and therefore did not outright remove) it because I don't know. By tagging it, I’m asking that the person who wrote it, or any other editor with the necessary knowledge, to verify it. The best way for him or her to do that is to cite a source.  This is the rationale for such tagging: it is not to deny, but to seek verification for information that might be inaccurate. Inaccurate information needs to be removed from Wikipedia because it damages the integrity of the encyclopedia; meanwhile, accurate information needs to be tightly sourced so it cannot be challenged or removed gratuitously. You see, once information has been substantiated with citation of sources, no one—and in this case, especially no deniers—will have justification for removing it.  It should be obvious from my exchange on the Karl Plagge talk page with Mr. Schwartzenberg that I am not Holocaust denier; on the contrary, I have authored or worked on several articles that amount to a clear condemnation of the Nazis and what they did. My aim, however, is to help compose encyclopedic articles. That means the articles must be objective (i.e., avoid use of loaded language) and of verifiable content. If you have a look at my contributions, you can check the edits I’ve made. If you believe that they amount to Holocaust denials, then I think you are seriously misunderstanding them. I would also be interested in knowing what of the content I have contributed you think is denial so I can review it and, if necessary, change it.  Finally, on Wikipedia please try to keep a cool head in dealing with contributors you disagree with. It’s not a good idea to jump to conclusions about their intentions or to make threats about reporting people (much less finding allies to hunt down and change their edits). I think you’ll find some helpful guidance here, and lots of people will be willing to help you along the way as well.  Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 08:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So why not just say that on the extermination camp page? As for keeping a cool head, I did, by asking you first. Fee Fi Foe Fum 12:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh and I don't think the word "gratuitous" is correct in that context. Fee Fi Foe Fum 12:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I’m not quite sure what you mean by “[s]o why not just say that on the extermination camp page?” but if you mean explain my rationale for tagging inclusion of JWs and homosexuals among the groups systematically sent to extermination camps, I did—here, on the talk page, where such comments belong. As for your “asking me first”, I’m puzzled as to what you mean. You asked me what first? And was this before your snide comment (“Lunatic Fringe, we all know you're out there. We can hear you coming. No, you're not going to win this time. We can hear the footsteps. But we're on guard this time, against your final solution”), before you wrote “There are nine references at the bottom of the article. Deal with it”, or before you accused me of being a Holocaust denier and threatened to gather allies and track down and all my “denier edit”s? Those are the things that prompted my cool-down recommendation.  My use of gratuitous is as per definition 2 here. G’day and best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Leave typographical quotation marks and apostrophes alone!
Yes Sir Commander Pissy Pants! I forgot you OWN this place! Cyberia23 23:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I prefer “Jawohl, Herr Typographenkommandant!!” accompanied by coming to attention with a click of the heels, but I guess this is good enough.  But seriously: getting all those quotation marks and apostrophes right (and, I assume, changing them back) is a lot of work. Given that typographical ones look so much better, and are easier on the eyes, why go to all the trouble of changing them back like that? It's not as if they didn't render properly or were frowned upon. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 01:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I despise them. Cyberia23 01:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Which, typographical or typewriter? Either way, I only change to typographical in the course of larger editing sessions—i.e., I don’t go out of my way to make the changes; but once made, I (obviously) prefer to see them left alone. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 01:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems everyone calls them something different – direct quotes, angled quotes, typographical quotes, angled tick marks – I call them curved quotes and I dislike them mainly because they look like crap on certain computers (like mine) which don't render them correctly in Firefox (my prefered browser because I equally hate IE) and they can screw things up when used in links. Short of supposedly reinstalling Windows (which I'm not about to do) I prefer changing all to the default "straight quotes" that you get if you just typed your page in the browser window. This has been a raging debate on here since 2003 when Wikipedia first started – what quotes you should use? At first, the straight quotes were picked, but others complained it was a ludicrous decison as curved quotes were "more professional looking" and so the official ruling is now Wikipedia "Doesn't Care" there is no prefered style - yet another failure cop out decision by Wikipedia's finest admins in my opinion, but the Manual of Style no longer gives a ruling of which quotes to use so it doesn't matter. What I did is legit, but certain pages are guarded by quote mark nazis and if I encounter one I prefer not to argue about it and move on. I protest, but let them have their way because it's not worth an edit war over. Cyberia23 18:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow, fair enough. I didn't realize that they (the typographical quotation marks) didn't render properly on certain systems because they are part of the (pretty much universal) ANSI character set. Fwiw, I use Firefox, too (dislike IE too). I doubt that reinstalling Windows would help the situation, anyhow (personally, I don't see why people resort to reinstalling so often)—it sounds more like a font-choice issue; but I guess that's neither here nor there if you don't like the things period. About the typographic quotes screwing things up in links: as far as internal links are concerned, that's been fixed. Of course, I'm of the opinion that editors should check the any links they insert to ensure that they're working--regardless of what marks they use in them. In any case, thanks for your input. I'll take that into consideration before making any changes in future. Meanwhile, maybe quotation mark rendering should be a preference choice that users can set--i.e., that the Wiki software renders curly quotes (etc) as straight ones if the users sets his account that way. And apologies for having appeared as an anal curly-quote nazi to you—just for the record, you appear as my "straight-quotes" opposite number to me, hence the frustration in my edit comment!  Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 02:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to change this, attribute [ your ] it.
What does it mean by "attribute your it"? English is my second language so mine is very poor, however I've never seen "attribute your it". I believe you mistyped the sentence. Btw, I care less about Japanese stuff unless seeing some vandal activities on Korean-related articles by JPOV users. I was following anonymous user 220.212.97.114's disruptive activities like, and others. Besides, in the first subcategory "Arrival along the Silk Road" clearly says the influence of Chinese and Korean Buddhism to Japan. East Asia has very broad meanings and Buddhism in Japan wasn't directly handed down from the region. I simply reverted the edit by the vandal's intention to the prior revision. Besides, I don't appreciated your admonish attitude.Wiki is not your class room. --Appletrees 20:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that was a typo: it should have been “attribute it,” as explained here. Changing East Asian to Korean looks like KPOV pushing from my seat (please note that I’m not saying you are pushing KPOV—I’m just pointing out how the same action can look different depending on perspectives); further, in my knowledge, Buddhism may have come to Japan via China and Korea, but it brought all kinds of East Asian influences with it, especially in the arts. But I digress: Regardless, what matters is not what you or I think, but what is in the referenced citations. Since Wikipedia has policies in place about attribution, you shouldn’t make changes unless you can attribute them to a source as per those policies. And don’t chide me about having an “admonish[ing] attitude” when you yourself write in an admonishing tone—things like “Don't alter the specific infomation” (which also contains a typo)! ; or is it that you think Wiki is your classroom? Further, I see no evidence that Podzemnik is a KPOV vandal. Perhaps you need to read up on what POV is all about on Wikipedia before you make such accusations. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 00:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I've seen some people in disguise, so initially though you're someone due to the wrong grammar and your inclination toward JPOV. I said my English is poor honestly, but you're using it to attack me. Didn't I mention I followed the anonymous user, 220.212.97.114 not Podzemnik as you imagine. I never accused Podzemnik of being a vandal. I recommend you should look through the above comment before preaching me again with such the false accusation. You're still acting like a teacher. "If you're going to change this, attribute your it" Don't you think this sentence is rude? I think you should think about what is POV first before making the same mistake to others. I reverted 220.212.97.114's edit not Podzemnik. Besides, in the light of your assertion, the change done by 220.212.97.114 has to be reverted, because the user failed to provide any reference regarding transmission of Buddhism in Japan from East Asia. If you also don't provide any proof on that, I will revert it to the prior version.  --Appletrees 01:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was (and am) not attacking you anywhere. And it was Podzemnik’s edit that you reverted. I did follow your battle with 220.212.97.114, and it’s obvious to me that the two of you are feuding. The two of you both seem to be pushing your respective POVs, which also both look nationalistic. The article on Buddhism in Japan is already referenced, so it is immaterial which of the two of you started fiddling with it first—the original, relatively stable version gets precedence unless a change can be justified with citation of a reliable source. I recommend that you refrain from edit warring over this, and that you avoid 220.212.97.114 and his/her edits for a while to avert unnecessary conflict. Wikipedia is not a forum for people to carry on their nationalistic arguments, it is an encyclopedia.  I do not think my request for attribution is rude, especially not in light of your precipitating comment (“Don't alter the specific infomation”), but also because I was merely asking for you to adhere to conventions. If it appears curt, perhaps it’s short because of the limited space available for such comments! Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 01:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Extermination camps
Fair enough on the fact tags. Looking at the edit history of the editor who originally placed them, I think you'll understand why I was a bit quick on the revert button. - Eron Talk 01:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I saw the tags more or less as a sop to the guy, hoping he's be satisfied with the tags and lay off for a while. Now the issue is to find a few reliable citations to substantiate the tagged claims. That, in itself, is a good thing—people are less likely (and less able) to challenge well-sourced statements. A photo of a gas chamber as Auschwitz or another camp would be nice too, and—that editor’s comments not withstanding—I have seen some in books and such, so they do exist. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 06:47, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am looking for a better picture - the trouble seems to be finding one that we can use under GFDL. There are some pictures of smaller gas chambers from other camps on the Commons, but I'd really like a good-quality Auschwitz one. (In other news, apparently I am a Zionist troll. I do love working on Holocaust-related articles; one meets such lovely people.) - Eron Talk 12:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly, I’ve seen photos of the gas chambers at Treblinka; but I’m not sure about those at any of the other camps. But photographic evidence should not be the clincher: Plenty of witnesses saw and wrote about them, including people who operated them. Citing such sources is enough to substantiate statements. The best way to deal with people who want to make accusations about your motivations (see some of the preceding comments here on my talk page—apparently I’m go direct opposite, a Holocaust denier) is to ignore their snide comments, provide reliable sources as per Wikipedia’s attribution policy for anything they challenge, and encourage them to add opposing perspectives and to likewise source them according to the attribution policy. That way, they can contribute positively to Wikipedia by helping to make the articles balanced. Of course, if they refuse to do that, any material that’s not properly sourced can be deleted without prejudice.  Lovely people indeed . Good luck and have fun! Jim_Lockhart 12:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Franco-Prussian or Franco–Prussian?
On WP:DASH, it seems to suggest "Franco-Prussian" because the en dash is used for substituting "and", "to", or "versus", and one cannot really say "Franco versus Prussian War". "France–Prussia" might work, though? Kelvinc 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Good point. I never thought of it that way. To me, French–Prussian War and France–Prussia War would sound pretty much synonymous, and also sound like solecisms for Franco–Prussian War. I’m not sure that the two both being adjectives instead of nouns makes much difference—if I were doing the layout, I’d want to use as en-dash to indicate that the two were on opposing sides (i.e., fighting versus one another) regardless; but I can see that this is gray area, so I suppose the hyphen is defensible as well. More important than which is used, I supposed, is that one of the two is used consistently throughout the article. If you think it’s worth changing, I won’t revert. Thanks for your comment, and best regards, Jim_Lockhart 13:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To some extent, I usually go with what the article is titled: for such a well-known event it seems unlikely someone would've left it wrong for long (we seem to be pretty good with using en dashes for dates, anyways). Usually I'm sufficiently aware of my lack of knowledge in the area to Google it every time I need to use an em dash, en dash, or hyphen.  I don't feel strongly enough about this edit to change it back for its own sake, but if I edit the article again I might change it back just through the general editing process, I suppose.  Cheers.  Kelvinc 21:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Heinrich Himmler article
According to the German article on the Nazi Party, Himmler was the second most powerful man in Nazi Germany. Why is this disputed in the English article? TheGoodSon 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Himmler was for a certain time certainly the second-most powerful man in the Third Reich, but he was not so throughout the 12-year Nazi period, and he was not at the very end when Kaltenbrunner had largely usurped much of his power and others had undermined his authority. It this respect, stating flatly that he was is an over-generalization which, further (and most importantly), was unsourced. The German article not withstanding, if you're going to insert such statements, give them context AND cite a reliable source for them.
 * Note, however, that you also insert this statement into the introduction without checking whether it is substantiated in the body of the article. If you were to write, e.g., "Himmler was at one time the second-most powerful man in the Third Reich" or "Himmler was at for a time the second-most powerful man in the Third Reich", AND there were material in the article body to this effect that was substantiated with citation of one or more reliable sources, there would be not problem.
 * It would be great if you could do these things (provide context and sources), as it would help add credibility specifically to this article and generally to Wikipedia. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)