User talk:Marmy mappy

Welcome!

Hello, Marmy mappy, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! El_C 20:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Ye Zhiping[edit]

I think I see now what you were trying to do, though it was a bit misplaced. I will, however, try to write about him and his efforts soon. Regards, El_C 23:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. See Ye Zhiping. El_C 11:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is becoming apparent you are a single purpose account whose aim is to defend the PRC govt. It isn't intellectually honest to delete a source whose title is "quake shakes faith in school construction" then maintain no basis behind my wording of "erosion in confidence" — it's the same thing(!). Just like earlier with [parents] "believe" versus "claim" [the figure is twice that cited officially]. You really expect me to repeat word-for-word every single thing? If you're going to continue with these tactics, we're gonna have a problem. Thanks. El_C 12:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"quake shakes faith in school construction" not "school construction scandal", your words is obviously misleading. Marmy mappy (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what you said. You drew a distinction between "faith being shaken" and "erosion in confidence." Now you're claiming that you have problem with the word scandal. Which does not inspire confidence. Something here is suspect. El_C 12:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm new here. I mean as a wikipedian. Second, I don't want to start an editing war. Third, this account is not a single purpose account, and I'm defending the truth & the spirit of wikipedia, [not the government of PR of China. And The Final: I think The government of China sucks, in so many ways, it's the murder of hundreds of innocent students back in 1989 amongst other things, but I can only say that, and express my discontent in talk pages and discussion pages not the main article, because these articles supposed to be as objective as possible. no partial coverage, no controversial claims. non-biased or tiled to one side. thanks. Marmy mappy (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"These articles"? You've only edited this one. And with a pronounced pro-PRC pov. That's a problem. El_C 12:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

"these articles" means all articles in wikipedia. Marmy mappy (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me, can we talk the matters here, my first submit to this talk page was unsuccessful so I thought it's the wiki's limitation, so I posted it in your talk page. somehow, the next attempt is successful, so we're talk about this here from now on okay? Marmy mappy (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I, too, prefer to keep conversations unfragmented. But I've been using the article talk page. El_C 13:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you've changed "7,000 school rooms" to "7,000 school buildings" that's a huge difference. And if the truth turned out to be "7,000 buildings", and the article says "rooms", I will have no hesitation to change it back to "buildings". I'm trying to be as accurate as possible. please trying to understand & be reasonable. Marmy mappy (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's untrue. I did not change that. In fact, it's the only thing from those series of edits that I kept. El_C 13:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you've IMHO intentionally interpreted the title "quake shakes faith in school construction" into "government seen an erosion in confidence over the school construction scandal" while most people will understand at their first glaze that the title is about constructions not scandel. the entire news from CNN says nothing about government's erosion in scandal, not even close, I'm not playing word game, your obvious misleading & subjective interpretation clearly shows your anti-PRC orientation out of your subconsciousness.Marmy mappy (talk) 13:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's try to refrain from speculations about subconsciousnesses; the CNN, and now TS, source/s point to an erosion of confidence in the govt., which is behind the construction. The loss of faith/confidence isn't just about the "construction," by itself, unconnected to those behind it [becoming allegedly disproportionately shoddy]. It is subjective to rigidly interpret it so literally. El_C 13:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, I will stop calling you anti-PRC, please do the same thing to me. we're just two different people with different opinions on the same topic. let's focus on this article, forget about the "rooms" since it's already been corrected, and let's talk about "claim" is not "believe", please look up those two words in the dictionary, once you've done, you'll know why you have to change this word back to "believe", or you will have to give me a reasonable reason not to change it back. Marmy mappy (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not refer me to the dictionary, that is condescending. Writing that 'the parents believe the figures are twice as high' and 'the parents claim the figures are twice as high' is obviously interchangeable, in the context of that passage. El_C 14:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about context. I could have said the parents "feel," and it would have meant the same thing. Obviously "feel," "believe," "claim" ("maintain," "challenge," et cetera, etc.) are different words by themselves, but they can become synonymous in context. Is it a language barrier? No offense, but it's incredibly sophomoric, on your part, to make such an argument. Don't take my word for it, ask anyone else. El_C 14:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"claim" is for something you know for sure, probably you've done it, or you know it because you're part of it, and to "claim" is to let people know; and "believe" is for something you think it is true. and to "believe" is not necessarily to let people know. Cath told Jill that John is dead, and Jill is your best friend, she told you John is dead, so you "believe" it, but you will not "claim" it. why? because you're not John's doctor or coroner. you saw nothing, you have no right to claim nothing except "Jill told me that John is dead." am I right?Marmy mappy (talk) 14:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no, you are wrong. There's nothing more inherently authoritative to the word "claim," in that context. El_C 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The parents [feel / claim / maintain / believe / argue / challenge / contend / etc.] that the figures are likely twice as high. In the context of that passage, they're all interchangeable. And I don't really care if you switch the word "claim" with any of these, including "believe." My problem was that you made other, somewhat more convoluted & editorializing changes on the basis of your assertion that believe is 'softer' than claim. El_C 14:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, 2 of my co-workers and my sister found that in this particular case, "claim" is inappropriate, "believe" is more accurate, I swear I've manipulated no one in answering this question. so, if in your opinion "believe" and "claim" is interchangeable why not use "believe" instead if "claim" to minimize the chances of misunderstanding? and you've added "likely" in the above example, which is very great. and look, I know an edit war is not welcome here, so I will stop editing, and let you decide how to make this article more accurate and less biased. I'll thank you for your co-operation. Marmy mappy (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant ask anyone else, here, on the English Wikipedia. That said, if all you want with regards to that sentence is for me to switch "claim" with "believe," I have no problem with that and will do so momentarily. But, I reiterate that you are mistaken to think it makes a difference to the meaning of that sentence. Also, you don't need to stop editing this or any other articles, but in light of some of the issues we've had with this one, maybe place a comment on the talk page before making an edit that you think I or others might object to. Thanks. El_C 15:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've noticed the change, what you've done here is a selfless act and I am appreciate your efforts. to be honest, I didn't expect this wiki community to be so active and full of life, I thought a few people would notice the change I've made to this article, now, I know I was wrong. next time, I'll post my suggestion in the discussion page first. I've learned my lesson here. However, I still think "seen an erosion in confidence over the school construction scandal" is a misinterpretation. Marmy mappy (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't view it as an anything-act; I don't think it makes a difference. As for being active, I wrote the article from scratch two days ago, so obviously I notice changes to it. And yours I found problematic. So far, you're the only editor to take issue with any of its contents. El_C 19:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help me, if I missed something. Marmy mappy (talk) 16:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you missed other articles; why not try the main earthquake one? Then you could benefit from more experienced users' feedback. Because, I'm finding this a bit taxing, dealing with it all on my own. There's more than just this one article that I authored two days ago. You seem to have been drawn to the subject and somewhat be operating according to personal experiences you've had (parents seeking vengeance, etc.), which could be a hindrance as much as the benefit. I need a bit of a break from this. El_C 19:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never doubt, even for a second, about my ability of understanding modern English. I came across this article because it was linked from the front page and I happened to be in dujiangyan during that time. I can tell you those parents will do whatever needed to revenge the death of their children. It's possible that the official figure might have been manipulated, but there's no way they could've known that. so the "doubled figure" thing IMHO is simply out of their anger and demands for attention. back to the topic "it has seen an erosion in confidence over the school construction scandal." I have no problem with the word "scandal", and those who responsible should be punished, but those two citations shows nothing about "erosion over scandal", so I strongly suggest that you consider an alternative like "Although the central government was initially praised for its response to the quake, it has becoming increasingly nervous about accusations of shoddy construction." or you can rephrase it with your own words. what do you think? Marmy mappy (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should have some doubts. I'll reconsider if another editor takes issue with it, but otherwise, I am not at all inclined to change it. El_C 19:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No hard feelings, I hope. Here, enjoy this photograph that I took earlier today. It's not quite a marmot (groundhog), but there is sniffing involved! El_C 20:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]