User talk:Jim101: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:35, 3 October 2010

Hello, Jim101! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! ~Kylu (u|t) 07:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 02:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

Archive1(Beginning - Feb. 8, 2010)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

[1]英文ｗｉｋｉ有这个吗？--113.112.184.63 (talk) 22:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

在[2]和[3]中有无相关语句支持？--113.112.202.238 (talk) 19:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

几天后有时间我来看一下这个问题。Jim101 (talk) 16:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Battle of Unsan

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)[reply]

巴祖卡

感谢您修正这个翻译错误。哎，我现在只有高中英语水平，把翻译想得太简单了，我差点误导了好多人。还是感谢您帮助我们纠正错误，祝您天天快乐。--思源如宁 (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Zhang's book

You mentioned Zhang's Red Wings over Yalu at Zh-Wikipedia. His book is a good source with some flaws, just like other books in any fields. For example, the number of total Tu-2 lost in his book does not match the open sources from China. On the other hand, Russian authors also present their own source and research.

I am not saying Zhang's book is not good or should not be referenced to, just express my 2 cents that under current atmosphere, the best we can do to write articles regarding China is to provide reference from different sources with little judgment. Just my 2 cents. You can either reply here or to Zh's page. -Cobrachen (talk) 14:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I brought up the book, I meant use Zhang's book to provide the basic description/judgment on PLAAF in Korea, then use other sources to fill the number void. The reason why I proposed this is because Zhang's book is the only book that is accepted by western scholars in PLAAF research. It's not just as a matter of providing information, it is also a matter of assigning weight to each sources.

Anyway, on that article, my basic advice is just use US sources just to write US information, use Russian sources just to write Russian story, use Chinese source just to write Chinese story. Just rely on Chinese sources to write US/Russian story and vice versa is a huge bias that should be avoided. Jim101 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Zhang's book is the only one source in English so far with pretty good reference from various sources and he has some channels to get records from PLAAF. There are no other printed or on line sources are as solid as this book for now and it's a sad truth.

However, if some editing is going to remove sources like you mentioned (US source for US events, etc) and replaced something only from China, than hard to continue without dispute. Let's all hope we do not see tis happen ofter.-Cobrachen (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Korean War battles

Hi. I just thought I'd let you know that I've been working extensively on the Korean War battles beginning at the UN intervention phase. My goal is to move chronologically from the beginning of UN participation through the entire war, improving each battle article as much as I can. Right now Battle of Taejon is up for Featured Article review while Battle of Pyongtaek is up for A-class review. If there's anything you can do to help with these, it would be much appreciated. I will continue to try and help you as much as possible with your pages, and if there is anything you need with them, also let me know. Thanks! —Ed!^(talk) 16:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

第三次汉城战役

[8]"第三次汉城战役"等同于"抗美援朝战争第三次战役"吗?--121.33.247.74 (talk) 09:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

第三次汉城战役不等于抗美援朝战争第三次战役，因为朝鲜人民军在原州市的战斗也算抗美援朝战争第三次战役的一部分。第三次汉城战役是抗美援朝战争第三次战役西线。Jim101 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

谢谢，之前你对于列表的翻译我也看到了。第三次汉城战役没跨语言链接？时间有错吗？－－113.113.204.0 (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

没有跨语言链接是因为没有人在英文维基写这个条目，中文维基没有错误。Jim101 (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

我的资料中的抗美援朝战争包括朝鲜人民军的参与。－－113.112.161.248 (talk) 19:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

《抗美援朝战争史（第二卷）》，第181页，第二段。朝鲜人民军第一军团在西线，朝鲜人民军第二军团在东线。Jim101 (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

加条目里。我不能担保我的书中没有排版笔误没加上去。另你有空修正一下那些错误的跨语言链接。--113.113.162.241 (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human element

First of all, kudos for improving information on the Chinese side in the Korean War articles. I try to do the same thing with the Pacific War articles for Japan. Anyway, regarding the human element, if you look at the FA articles listed on my userpage, you'll see that in most of them I'll include a quote or two from one of the participants in the event. A quote or two is all that is necessary, because the article is supposed to be encyclopedic. The quote is just to give the reader a taste of what the event was like for the participants.

I notice that the Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River, which is looking good, by the way, has a lot of quotes in it. In my opinion, the quotes you have separated in the article should be in quoteboxes, like this. I think quoteboxes should be used to break up walls of text when not enough images are available. You appear to have enough images for that article, however, so one or two quoteboxes are probably all that you'll be able to find room for. Then, somewhere in the text, you might include one "I was there" quote in paragraph form from either a UN or Chinese soldier, or both, like I did here. That should do it. Cla68 (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

邀请投票

你好，在下第一次参选奖项，正在进行拓荒专家奖候选[9]，由于一些莫名其妙的票目前支持票可能还差一些且完结期已近，现邀请您投票，但无论您投的是什么票，如有不明欢迎给我留言，谢谢。－－113.113.134.221 (talk) 10:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For You

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For proposing a compromise at the Battle of Taejon FAC. Without it, the article may not have become a Featured Article. Keep up the good work! —Ed!^(talk) 00:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Jim101 (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urumchi riots

Would you care to comment on my suggestion at Talk:July 2009 Ürümqi riots#OhConfucius' edit? Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found a copy of the book you were mentioning online here. I'll try to take a look at it to sometime soon. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Letter at Talk:Battle of Osan to Reagan

Dear Jim, Thanks for the citation clean up. Sorry I took so long to get back, but I just could not find that magazine in the mess I call my files. There is a Volume and Issue number -- which I added -- but no ISBN for the magazine issue. Sorry. Also, sadly the official of the veterans of Task Force Smith, Bill McCarthy, has passed away. They sent that letter to anyone and everyone in the defense publication field. And only EAGLE printed it. Would it make it more professional if I were to scan the cover of that issue of EAGLE and the page with the letter? Also, I will check back in about five days. I have a long drive to Maryland my wife is dragging me to a wedding <GRIN>. Jack--Jackehammond (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River

Hi, I passed Battle of the Ch'ongch'on River as GA with pleasure. It enlightened me on many issues, beyond the topic of the article, that for me it is a seminal work. Thank you so much for writing it the way you did. Best wishes, Xtzou (Talk) 17:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SAIC source for PLAAF aircraft

I've got no issues with your edits and I'll endorse them if it's any help. Vedant (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One thing though, for the Su-30MKK/MK2, the SAIC source states that the 127 is an amalgamation of PLAAF and PLANAF figures. Since these organizations are separate, I would appreciate if you could make that distinction. Vedant (talk) 03:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, I've no issues with the source provided at J-10 and unless a more up-to-date source exists for fleet size, will use the Janes estimate as the primary reference for any future PLAAF/PLANAF/ROCAF edits. Vedant (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for this, I was looking at my watchlist and accidentally hit the rollback option for this article. I have since corrected the error. Vedant (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 03:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Third Battle of Seoul

On July 12, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Third Battle of Seoul, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank youThank you for taking up the fight I started a year or so ago with Marine Corps Zelots. You have truely done a wonderful job rewriting this article. I still side with the men of 3Bn 7IN in that their forgotten task force (Dog) was part of the fight by freeing 1/1 Marines up to attack hill 1081 because My dad was there. I am a former Marine and Soldier but I believe in telling the history correctly and without bias. Thanks again. Meyerj (talk) 01:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]DYK for Zhang Jihui

On July 23, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zhang Jihui, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-Class and Peer reviews Jan-Jun 2010 Military history reviewers' award By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your good work helping with the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period Jan-Jun 2010, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject Reviewers' award. Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user spaceNK Division commandersHi, Jim. As you know, I've been working on the Battle of Pusan Perimeter project, and I have hit a problem finding the names of most of the ROK and NK division commanders for the battle. As I am adding them to their respective lists on the Battle of Pusan Perimeter order of battle page. I have the names of the NK 3rd, 4th, and 6th Divisions, but I can't find the names for the commanders of the NK 1st, 2nd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 13th and 15th divisions during the battle. Likewise for the ROK Capital, 6th and 8th divisions. Do you have any resources that could help me out? Thanks. —Ed!^(talk) 19:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Imjin River, etcLook Jim, I need another argument like I need a hole in the head, but what you are proposing seems nonsense on stilts to me. You seem to be saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that you are unhappy with the BotIR page because the American forces aren’t mentioned enough, so to remedy this you want to (a) move what is there now to a new page (BoGH) and (b) re-write BotIR to give the Americans a bigger role. Is that actually what you want to do? Or have I misread it? Xyl 54 (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]about "中国第五次战役"HI. You moved the title of this article to "中国第五次战役", according to the material of US Army. Could you provide a reliable source to me？ THX —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coekon (talk • contribs) 22:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Frozen Chosin MemorialJim, posting this note on your talk page as you seem to be the main contributor to the Korean War Chosin battle. Would it make sense to add a section at the bottom of the article about rememberence/memorials of this battle in the "forgotten war"? A new memorial in Forest Park, St Louis, MO for the battle was dedicated today. I have a great picture of living members of the "The Chosin Few" gathered around the memorial if that is of interest. Apparently I don't have privlidges to upload to wikipeida - but I'd be happy to e-mail to you if you are interested.

@@ Line 231: / Line 231: @@
 HI. You moved the title of this article to "中国第五次战役", according to the material of US Army. Could you provide a reliable source to me？ THX  <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Coekon|Coekon]] ([[User talk:Coekon|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Coekon|contribs]]) 22:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+==Frozen Chosin Memorial==
+Jim, posting this note on your talk page as you seem to be the main contributor to the Korean War Chosin battle. Would it make sense to add a section at the bottom of the article about rememberence/memorials of this battle in the "forgotten war"? A new memorial in Forest Park, St Louis, MO for the battle was dedicated today. I have a great picture of living members of the "The Chosin Few" gathered around the memorial if that is of interest. Apparently I don't have privlidges to upload to wikipeida - but I'd be happy to e-mail to you if you are interested.