User talk:Jack332

Military Balance

As a new user, you should learn by looking around. See South Korea for example, for an article that has references and citations. Wikipedia articles are not essays by editors; they are to represent facts that are documented in secondary sources. Otherwise any part of, or the entire, article can deleted from WP. This happens on a regular basis. You should read, understand, and follow the WP rules if you expect to contribute to it. Hmains (talk) 02:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome...

Hello, Jack332, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

I hope that this helps you to improve the Military Balance article

Again, welcome! SpinningSpark 12:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two accounts?

Hi, your edits to Military Balance make me believe that you are the same person as User talk:Jack330. If you have opened two accounts in error, please indicate this on the account that is now unused. Also, please provide a redirect from the unsused account to the live one to assist editors to find you. If you have a valid reason for using two different accounts, you should still make it clear on your userpage that this is so. Otherwise you are leaving yourself open to accusations of sockpuppetry which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Thankyou. SpinningSpark 12:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Military Balance

I have nominated Military Balance, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Military Balance. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. SpinningSpark 13:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry your article got deleted, I am feeling a bit guilty about that now. You were a little too quick to start removing large swathes of the article. Not everyone was agreeing with me that it should be deleted, but once all the prose had gone, there was nothing more than in existing articles and people coming to the debate later could not see that. If you want, I would be willing to work with you to create a better article (or improve an existing one). Just let me know if you want to do this. You might also like to know that it is possible to recover the article into your userspace where you can work on it without fear of it being deleted. When it is an acceptable standard it can be moved back to the encyclopedia. If you want to do this, you should ask an admin to move it ("userfy" is the technical term). Preferably, ask the deleting admin who is User talk:Cirt. SpinningSpark 15:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taepodong-2

Please, do not enter automatically translated text in the article. It creates a mess, which creates unneeded work for other users. The text for the First stage section you entereted is very poorly written, and half of the information simply does not fit there. - Tourbillon ^A ? 08:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have NOT entered automatically translated text in the article. But thanks for your help,anyway. But please do not breach the article with the souce"Japan's defence Ministry's analyst's back ground explanation about Taepodong Loanch test" interviewed by Nikkei. By the way, simple question.You writing the article about DPRK but you live in Sophia how you are getting the detailed information? And I can understand Iran's Nuke is more important for you,but analyst commented that the back ground of "ICBM loanch test" is desire of Unification. And its very important for asian peoples Please do not delite it--Jack332 (talk) 11:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missile pics

Just a head's up...best to upload an image to Wikipedia (fair use, of course), then edit the article to display such a pic, rather than post a link directly to an image in a personal blog. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 10:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Regarding Picture& Design Drawings please aprove to use private HP's one TENTATIVELY. Now i'm mailing Photo owner's HP and asking his approval....--Jack332 (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Musudan (missile). When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. tedder (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Missile issues in East Asia

This article which you have created appears to be an opinion discussion rather than a factual encyclopedia article.

It does not cite any missile proliferation or geopolitical sources (see our policy on reliable sources). It appears to be a synthesis document and opinion piece, which Wikipedia is not here for (see our policies WP:NOT#OR and WP:OR and WP:SYN).

We simply are not here to host this type of opinion article.

I am going to re-redirect the article again, as other administrators have done twice already. Please do not change the redirect again without discussing here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I'm not sure you understood my point...

This is not a right wing or left wing issue. I'm very aware of the issues of missile proliferation and threats and defenses.

What you're writing, as a topic, is not an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia.

What you're writing is an opinion piece. Those are fine - as blog entries, articles in nonproliferation or geopolitical or politics magazines, etc. Those are the right places for them to go.

But it's not an encyclopedia article.

Wikipedia isn't here for people to publish opinions or to publish original research or synthesis. That's what your article topic is. So it doesn't belong here.

I think it would be fine for you to write it up and publish it elsewhere - I don't disagree that you're talking about an important point. But Wikipedia is not the magazine Nonproliferation Review, or Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, etc. We're an encyclopedia.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've got your point And I'm sorry that I add on INF part in the Article But I think there are some mis-understanding between us Basically I wrote the article based on "Internarional Crisis Group's" this Report [1]"The Asian Balance of Weapons of Mass Desruction"

So basically the article is NOT my private opinion That is ICG's opinion, and also wide spred people's concern

And if someone Write the article about Grobal warming,based on the Stern Review it is not against Wikipedia's Rule.

"If your truth is NOT original reserch, then it should be easy to find Famous person's/Organization's report/article about it"

So,My second proposal is" I delite INF part and rewrite the article's Main Part based on ICG report" I hope you kindly accept my second proposal

BTW please suggest your opinion abt "which is the better title? " "List of East Asia countries by size of Theater Missile force " "The Asian Balance of Weapons of Mass Desruction" --Jack332 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack - again... It's an opinion piece. Wikipedia is not the place for opinion articles. We're an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias don't contain opinion articles.

Please understand that this is not what Wikipedia is for and respect what our goals and purpose are.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi　Pal

I think any　Organization's Report contain some opinion
If somebody breach the article Globalwarming or Stern Report and say "This is opinion article so I delite it" then pls imagine how do you feel

Wikipedia prohibit "Original reserch" but I based on Pentagon report and ICG report.
Again the new article will NOT be my private opinion,it is ICG's opinion and Pentagon's Data.

At least I write CRS' Chinese Analyst's report(Which concern Japanese Rocket and Taiwan's Tactical Missile Development) for NPOV I love democracy and Pluralism , so I respect defferent opinion

Please make clear the difference between "Grobalwarming Article based on IPCC/Stern review" and "The Asian Balance of Weapons of Mass Desruction Article based on ICG/Pentagon report"
And please make clear which wikipedia rule are you based on."Original Reserch?""NPOV?"which one?

Obcourse I also want to save time, so your compromise proposal will be wellcomed

--Jack332 (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by military expenditures

Please stop changing the military expenditure of China without first using the talk page. We all need to discuss your proposed changes as I cannot see how you come to the various numbers you have been using.
China, (like almost all countries in the world), do not declare their full military budget, but I seriously doubt the US has a better insight on the Chinese budget than anybody else. Again, please use the talk page so we can discuss your proposed changes before making any more. FFMG (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to you on my talk page but I think it is better to keep to the article talk page so others can join in. FFMG (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your overall contributions

Several editors have complained from your contributions, mostly because they are poorly written (in bad english). Encyclopedic content must be added in fine english. If you experience any problems with english language, I suggest you fill your user page with Babel language templates (so that we can know what languages you speak) and create your own sandbox (example: User:Jack332/Sandbox). You can divide the sandbox page in several sections and enter your information there, after which other users will edit the text so that it can be entered freely in the article it is intended for. - Tourbillon ^A ? 11:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, please discuss these edits on the North Korea talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources truly aren't reliable, although much of the information is correct. The section should be a bit shorter in my opinion, though. -

Tourbillon ^A ? 19:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think if cited informations are correct "Truly aren't reliable"is just your biased private opinion,isn't it? Please do not breach articles just based on your private opinion. --Jack332 (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the contributions by Jack332 are not clear enough for an encyclopedia. The English language skill demonstrated by Jack332 is not high enough for articles such as Koreans in Japan where I just now removed all of Jack332's additions and changes. Binksternet (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments over your plans to revert the information on the North Korea and Weapons of Mass Destruction page

I left a comment for you there.

Please note that the comment below isnotcopied and pasted from the North Korean WMD talk page.

The information you added was poorly written, and was not well sourced. And the sources you added werent reliable, as they are likely to be biased in favor of or against the topic. If you can find completely neutral sources, you may take your claims back to the talk page. Until that time, I do not believe we can allow you to revert the article back. Thanks, Ono (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

As　Forbes mentioned GlobalSecurity.org is famous as one of the"Best of the web" directory."of Military. And "Gensuikin" is one of the world biggest anti Nuke NPO. Much more reliable than Newspaper because it is written by the experts.
And It is Big defference "1Nuke warhed/per year" or" 50Nuke Warheads/per year." Because even Iran/NK loanch several Nuke Missiles to German/Japan, German/Japan will not over by first strike. But if Iran/NK loanch 320 Nuke missiles to German/Japan then she will over by first strike. (I think Iran is not aiming 320 missiles to German but North Korea is aiming 320 Rodong-1 to Japan and it is increasing 120/5years)
- "North Korea’s tested and apparently reliable Nodong missile can already carry a nuclear warhead as far as Tokyo. "[2][International Crisis Group]
- "On 15 June 2005 Kyodo News reported that North Korea had informed a visiting American scholar in late May 2005 that it had resumed the construction of the two nuclear reactors that was halted under the 1994 Agreed Framework. --- The two reactors (50/200MW Big reactors)could produce about 275 kilograms of plutonium annually, enough for about 50 atomic bombs."[3]=300 Nuke missile within several years
- User:Onopearls you can try your compromise plan of the new article until end of this month otherwise I will revert(ofcourse check spel mistake again)--Jack332 (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without a consensus, you are not to revert your poorly written, grammatically incorrect version of the article. If you do change it without a consensus, it will be reverted back to its original form. Wikipedia is not somewhere for you to push your POV and add information to articles that doesnt help to explain the topic better. Your information (which is incredibly hard to read, and bordering on illegible) makes it a more tedious task to read this article. Thanks, Ono (talk) 17:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

If you have good English skill then please cooperate to propose your compromise plan, I do not believe current" very poor knowledged,Left biased, un-Cited, Facility-History Mixtured Messy article" is the best for wikipedia

And if you breach the Cited article just on your One side of View ---isn't it against NPOV? And If you say "DO NOT revert until I agree" then only your leftside biased Artecle remain & it is not fair to rightside people----So dialogue & complomaise Plan please! if you prefer democracy than dictatorship.

So I think if you cooperate by your HighLevel English,then we get much better quality article than current one. Hope your cooperation--Jack332 (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi And if you think My article is Biased then please suggest which part you want to change. If you are busy please inform I will write Complomised article for NPOV.--Jack332 (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not copy and paste your comments from one page to another, as you did from the North Korea WMD page to my talk page. If you want to leave a comment, I would appreciate it if you would write a new one, instead of pasting something I have already read. Thanks, Ono (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Please do not copy and paste your comments from one page to another, as you did from the North Korea WMD page to my talk page. "
?????? Hi Pal I'm doing just like you are doing to me!? You copy&Paste my page, so just I thought It is your favour way. funny--Jack332 (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I copied and pasted my comment because you did it to me(Citation required). It was a point (that obviously went over your head) to prove that it is annoying to read something you have already read several times on SEVERAL different pages. Thanks, Ono (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Question---Is it my Mis-Recognition?
My First on your page
- Hi
- As　Forbes mentioned GlobalSecurity.org is famous as one of ------- you can try your compromise plan of the new article until end of this month otherwise I will revert(ofcourse check spel mistake again)--Jack332 (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- [4]

Your First on my page
- can allow you to revert the article back. Thanks, Ono (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Jack332 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say. Thanks, Ono (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again jack, I believe you misunderstood what I said. First off, I didnt write "DO NOT WRITE ON MY PAGE". I merely asked that you write something that I have NOT already ready several times on other pages. I have no qualms with you writing new information or messages to me on my talk page. I also think you misunderstood what copy and paste means. It is where you take a copy of the text you wrote on one page (ie the NK WMD page), and the put it on another page. I asked you to write new messages, as I have already read what you wrote. Thanks, Ono (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unsourced edits

I recommend you to read the five pillars of Wikipedia. You edited without any source and your writing is also poor. So I reverted your edits, which also seem like POV pushing from one side. Besides, the first half of your alteration does not stick to the existent source. Since here is to write and edit articles with reliable sources, you have to abide by the rule. Otherwise you will get in troubles. Regards.--Caspian blue 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]