User talk:JALockhart/Archive02 200601–

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Japanese company law articles[edit]

Jim: Thanks for your kind notes on my talk page. The reason I use those English translations is because they are the terms generally used in the context of American-style LLCs: what would be "articles of incorporation" in a corporation become an "operating agreement" in an LLC. Same goes for shareholders as "members" and officers as "managers." The drafters of the new Company Law have just tried to avoid the confusion caused by this additional terminology in English, I suppose, but a GDK's 定款 and a KK's 定款 are two very different beasts, even though they both serve as establishing documents. And anyway, this is the terminology I've seen when the foreign legal community in Tokyo explains the new laws to American investors; even the abbreviation "GDK" isn't officially used yet, but it has gained currency in writings about the new law so it's likely we'll see some companies start using it later this year (if they choose to actually set themselves up as GDKs). Anyway, I'm going to down the last of this "chardonnay" chu-hi and go to bed, but please let me know if you have any other ideas regarding these articles. - Sekicho 13:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sekicho: No, the above is great! Thanks for the explanations. If anything, I think a word or two about this (new) terminology, and perhaps links to articles like "Operating agreement (LLC)" and "member (LLC)," would be great: Others (especially other translators, and especially especially cranky ones like me) are likely to cock their heads at these new English terms. The only problem is, you'd probably wind up having to write the articles on the English terms too! Enjoy your bottle, and I look forward to learning more from you! Jim_Lockhart 13:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Sino-Japanese compounds[edit]

I notice you have created an article on this. However, the content basically overlaps with that of Sino-Japanese. I wonder if the two article could be merged.

In fact, the previous article on Sino-Japanese was exceedingly poorly written -- somebody seemed to have mixed 'on'yomi' up with 'kango', leading to a very confused article. I've rewritten it extensively. I've also redirected on'yomi to Kanji rather than Sino-Japanese. Your article makes a few points that should have been made in the Sino-Japanese article itself, and now are.

Please let me know what you think.

User:Bathrobe

Hi Bathrobe. Thanks you for the heads-up. :) Yes, I noticed the Sino-Japanese article shortly after I created Sino-Japanese compounds, but I didn't try to harmonize them at the time for several reasons, including being too tired at the time, some shortcomings of the Sino-Japanese (those that you cite as well as a couple that remain), and because the Sino-Japanese article seemed to cover a greater scope than what I was trying to explain.
For example, the Sino-Japanese article says that these words are the "portion of the Japanese vocabulary that originated in the Chinese language[,] or has been created from elements borrowed from Chinese"; but "originated" is not the right word, nor does it refer to the "portion ... created from elements." Hence my reason for writing "derived" in my article. The Sino-Japanese article also says "Some grammatical or sentence patterns can also be identified with Sino-Japanese"; I have no idea what this means. It also identifies Sino-Japanese as kango; this is no incorrect, but the more commonly used term (in everyday conversation) is jukugo (熟語). Further, in my article, I was thinking in terms of compounds, i.e., words formed from two or more others—sometimes two or more kanji (kango), sometimes a kango and a yamatokotoba (also the more common name for wago).
If you can find a way to bring out these distinctions as well as remove the inaccuracies in the Sino-Japanese article, I have no problems with the notion of merging the two.
A couple of other notes: When I wrote the article, I created it more-or-less as a footnote to the Ninja article to provide details of something I wrote there (about the etymology of ninja and related vocabulary, because the material appearing repeatedly there was ill-informed). And I created it because I was unable at the time to find the Sino-Japanese article.
Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 11:59, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't notice that you had replied here. We've already discussed some of these things at other places, but I'll reply to a couple of points you make here.
The comment 'some grammatical or sentence patterns can also be identified with Sino-Japanese' was meant to refer to kanbun-ish collocutions, like ところの, or における. Since it's not illustrated, is probably not easy to source, and refers more to kanbun than to kango, it can probably be deleted.
Your mention of 'compounds' formed of combinations of kango and yamatokotoba (yuto-yomi, etc.) could probably be mentioned in Sino-Japanese, although more as an exception as they are not really kango. These kinds of compound are mentioned in the sprawling article on kanji.
I do realise that you created Sino-Japanese compound as a footnote to ninja. I recognised it instantly as a perfect addition to the list of words that crossed from kun'yomi to on'yomi!
I am looking forward to reading your revamped article. (Please note that I've made a few extra changes to the article in the meantime that I feel make it clearer).
Bathrobe 02:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I probably will not totally revamp the article--at least, not for some time: I'm totally swamped with work right now. But in doing some fact checking, I noticed that most Japanese dictionaries and other books that explain kango, follow a specific sequence of presentation that is quite logical and therefore conducive to understanding. What I intend to do is create and outline that follows that pattern and then rework the article text according to that framework, filling in any gaps I might notice along the way. I'd really appreciate your feedback and editing at that time. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 05:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

culture shock[edit]

Just want you to know our debate and my deletions are nothing personal. As for making the text NPOV instead of deleting them...I did not see any way to do that with that specific text. Maybe if you re-write it I'll help re-edit it. But I think how the page is now (I deleted the un-needed commentary) meets all Wiki standards. I cannot read german, so the german page will have to stay how it is or be debated by german users...as it should be. Thanks! Madangry 22:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll have to sleep on the culture shock article—it's not one that I consider particularly pressing. I might revert some of the material you deleted and rewrite it a bit in line with your input; I'll let you know when I do so you can provide more. A couple of minor points: First, could I recommend that you change your handle? Reading your comments on the culture shock talk page, I got the impression that your tone reflected your mad and angry handle, which may have affected my own tone somewhat (I'm not looking for an apology or anything, my point is that this shows that the handle has the potential to affect other readers similarly). Second, as is probably the case with me as well, your personal experience of culture shock probably informed to some degree your perceptions of the article. I don't think of culture shock as something that affects vacationers, although such travelers may experience "light" versions of it; I think of it more as something that affects long-term visitors or emigrants. Best regards, Jim_Lockhart 04:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Virus article[edit]

Could you please use the information on this Japanese-language page to update the English Virus article? It would be much appreciated! --AlanH 01:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a look, but virology is not one of my strong areas, and schedule constraints might also hinder me from doing anything real soon. Regards, Jim_Lockhart 03:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguating Enlightentment[edit]

This is in reply to your request to stop disambiguating a link: There are a number of things I would like to say, so please forgive this list in the sake of clarity.

  1. I was unaware that I had done anything repeatedly--If you had said anything to me before I would certainly have tried to avoid dabbing your item. In any case, I apologize for changing something you didn't want changed.
  2. However, you say that you have made "repeated protests that I want the link to take readers to that page and not the enlightenment (concept) page." I'm afraid I don't see anything like that in your comment on Talk:Soka_Gakkai_International.
  3. Regarding the text itself, it's not at all clear why you would want to link to the disambiguation page. Your comment on Talk:Soka_Gakkai_International seems obviously to be referring to the concept of enlightenment. If you had been talking about Wikipedia organization regarding the disambiguation page, I naturally would have left that in place.
  4. I will of course try to avoid touching your item in the future. (If I do it it's purely because in a list of hundreds of items that need dabbing, it's hard to remember one specific one that has an anomalous condition.) However, please don't be dismayed when it's changed by the next dabber that comes along, for the reasons outlined above.

--Iggle 21:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Iggle. In response to the above:
  • On items 1. and 2., if you had checked the page history or read the edit summaries for the previous edits before you making your second and third revisions, you would have seen my protests.
    Reading edit summaries of preceding edits or checking a page's history is a good way to get a picture of the overall context in which you will be editing and will help you avoid inadvertently stepping on somebody's toes.
  • On item 3., I have read the enlightenment (concept) page and feel that its focus is more on the secular enlightenment of 18th–20th European philosophy, whereas my focus is the enlightenment that practitioners of Buddhism seek to attain. What is explained at enlightenment (concept) arguably constitutes an aspect or aspects of Buddhist enlightenment, but Buddhist enlightenment is far-more encompassing. Some of its facets are better understood from other articles accessible via the disambiguation page, such as those on Nirvana and Bodhi—though even these, if read in isolation, do not cover everything. To most accurately understand the enlightenment I am referring to, readers are best advised to take all of the articles together; hence my rationale for linking to the disambiguation page.
Disambiguating is perhaps somewhat like indexing (as of a book or academic paper): it should be performed not mechanically, but on an understanding of the full context and comprehension of the intent of the material.

I'd also like to recommend that you check whether your links function properly before you save a page: I've corrected two or three already today because they were broken (due to your inputting them improperly or inaccurately).

Enjoy your Wiki editing, and best regards, Jim_Lockhart 22:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome?[edit]

Jim: I'm writing in response to the "welcome" message (below) which you left on my talk page. I do not think the tone of your message is very courteous or appropriate. As you know, I am new to Wikipedia - but I have read Wkipedia's guidelines and do not think that my edits warrant your harsh criticism. I would suggest that you re-read Wikipeidia's policy on etiquette. I have responded below to your "grievances" with my edits.

Meanwhile, please stop introducing mis-information or redundant information and "correcting" the spelling of words that are not misspelled:

- This is an obscure word and it is perfectly understandable that someone might think it was a mispelling of evidenced, which frankly makes more sense in the sentence. Your "take" on the nature of Shakubuku is also biased and inconsistent with American practice, although I did not edit what I see as misinformation.

  • readers who want to learn about the details of morning and evening gongyo can visit the gongyo article, for which a link is provided

- Excuse me, but there is nothing "wrong" with my contribution. I was simply establishing a distinction between morning & evening chanting, which the previous version failed to address. Perhaps people do not want to read a whole article on Gongyo? That's really a matter of opinion, not a Wikipedia rule or policy.

  • Gohonzons are not burned and the ashes returned to the head temple on the death of a believer, though they are returned to temple if a deceased believer has no direct descendants to take over his or her Gohonzon

- I'm sorry but you are incorrect on this. The burning of the Gohonzon is very common practice in American Budhism, as this insures safe passage of the soul. It is always preferable for the Gohonzon to be returned to the temple, rather than being "taken over" by a descendant. This is among the promises made at Kaiganshiki in American Budhism.

  • Nichiren Shōshū is a correct English rendering (spelling) of the name, and has the additional advantage of being in line with existing Wikipedia conventions

There are several other problems with your contributions to the Nichiren Shoshu and Nichiren Buddhism articles, which I will correct at a later date.

- I was trying to help out here. There was a series of question marks after the word, signaling to me that there was some question about the spelling. What I inserted IS the correct spelling. Please, see NST's website, if you are in doubt. [1]

Jim, I understand that you have apparently done alot of work on this article and you are somewhat personally invested in it. I would point out, however, that you do not OWN this article. Wikipedia is open for all to contribute. Perhaps, you should adopt an attitude more consistent with the practice of Nichiren Shoshu when working on this article. Anything less may be bad karma.

As I see it, I made four very minor edits to the article, which were clearly meant to be positive, productive contributions from a newcomer. I really don't think I should be welcomed with a nasty note from you. Perhaps, you should consider chanting before trying to communicate with others on this subject. Cleo123 06:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much[edit]

I'm really sorry about my freak out. I should never have gone there. The article is very well written. I'm just feeling a little overwhelmed with my own projects and got up very early this morning. I think I have anxiety about an upcoming meeting. I love my fellow members, but it's like any family. In truth, it's like Thanksgiving - a lot of people you love, and a couple of people you try to get a long with. Again, sorry to be so...whatever. I'm grateful for your measured and compassionate response.

Sincerely, Nina