User talk:Jim101: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
::几天后有时间我来看一下这个问题。[[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101#top|talk]]) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC) |
::几天后有时间我来看一下这个问题。[[User:Jim101|Jim101]] ([[User talk:Jim101#top|talk]]) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:好,原本也没打算这样,有这些时间。--[[Special:Contributions/113.114.195.7|113.114.195.7]] ([[User talk:113.114.195.7|talk]]) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
:::好,原本也没打算这样,有这些时间。--[[Special:Contributions/113.114.195.7|113.114.195.7]] ([[User talk:113.114.195.7|talk]]) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
==细菌== |
==细菌== |
Revision as of 01:37, 25 February 2010
|
♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
翻译
对不起,刚才没看见你的请求。如果是广告的话,在英文维基里是一点都不符合知名度条件。列表必须符合知名度条件才能保留,不过最好的办法还是把列表转成句子,然后在看转换完的东西有没有意义。Jim101 (talk) 21:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- 没关系。可问题是这些商业广告代言的列表是在艺人的条目里面的内容,中文的关注度里只限制条目的建立没限制内容。--113.112.150.173 (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- 在英文维基里知名度限制条目和内容,因为不合理的比重是关注度指引的一个部分。Jim101 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- [1]英文wiki有这个吗?--113.112.184.63 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- 有,不过在一般情况下都没有人用,因为不合理的比重和合知名度是一回事,那就是内容和条目都必须靠可供查证方针给证明才能放在维基上。广告在条目里,即使没有被知名度盖住,你也必须用可靠来源来证明这些广告符合不合理的比重条件。Jim101 (talk) 22:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
- 在[2]和[3]中有无相关语句支持?--113.112.202.238 (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- 2说不违反不合理比重的东西才能放在列表上。3说列表必须"有意义"。 Jim101 (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- 不过3不是一个好的标准,因为关键字是"有没有意义"。条件太松。Jim101 (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- 在[2]和[3]中有无相关语句支持?--113.112.202.238 (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
不过最后还是得是做列表的人来证明自己的列表"有意义"。Jim101 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
- 我在客栈发帖会后跟你说一声,英文维基的材料你可以准备一下,我知道那些艺人粉丝肯定会投反对票,他们有“死忠团”的优势,机会似乎只有一次,我们只能以理服人。麻烦了。--113.114.204.237 (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.114.204.237 (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- 几天后有时间我来看一下这个问题。Jim101 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- 好,原本也没打算这样,有这些时间。--113.114.195.7 (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
细菌
新年好,[4]英文有这方面的吗?我准备很快推荐至中文首页“你知道吗?”,就快完工,不知有其他方面的说法?欢迎你编辑一下。--113.112.208.105 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- 拜年了。官方面来说,美国从来没有使用过细菌战。联合国军历史从来没有提起这个事。很多历史学家说这是共产党在撒谎。Jim101 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
- 在朝鲜战争细菌战的条目已经弄好了,还是谢谢!
- 关于试行[5],邀请投票,无论你的意见是什么。--113.112.177.215 (talk) 22:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- 在[6]的条目已经弄好了,还是谢谢!过年小红包[7],祝早生小维基人。--113.113.137.165 (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I have copy-edited this article, and now I have nominated it for Good Article status and can help with the process. I haven't started working on Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River and it could be awhile before I get to that one. I would recommend you try to find someone else to edit it more thoroughly in the meantime. —Ed!(talk) 20:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)