Jump to content

User talk:Jim101

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 113.113.134.221 (talk) at 10:42, 2 April 2010 (→‎Human element). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

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

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jim101&oldid=353525441"