User talk:Benwing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Benwing,

thanks for getting involved in editing Germanic philology. Your material is good, and I'm glad to have it, but it would be good if you would check what has been done already before starting something new. For example, after a long debate we had agreed to use the word "umlaut" for i-mutation and merely note in passing that some linguists also use it for other kinds of vowel harmony. Your material on a-mutation is fine, but it belongs in an article under that title - which is where I have moved it. The point is, there are lots of kinds of vowel harmony, and lots of words that can be used for them. So the more precise usage which makes distinctions is preferable to one which says "umlaut" and other related terms are all vague words for any kind of vowel harmony. Very few linguists talk about "a-umlaut", the word umlaut was invented to describe vowel FRONTING, and there seems nothing to be gained about broadening the word to mean anything we like. Of course, variant use needs to be noted, which is why the umlaut article already contained a reference to "a-umlaut" as another possible terminology. But let's leave it at that. Besides, a-mutation can be more fully discussed in an article of it's own. Perhaps you can work that up in detail.

In a similar vein, your new article on i-mutation looks great, but it is unclear how it relates to the existing article on umlaut. Again, it looks a bit like you set to work without finding out what had already been done. We do need to think about related articles work together. --Doric Loon 20:35, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

I'd like to thank you for your improvements of the Old English language article. An anonymous user (203.164.184.111) deleted all of your additional information on the pronunciations of <c> and <g>, and when I asked him why, his reply was that "I deleted that information because it was confusing and I did not agree with what it said." I have no idea what he's talking about, but I did ask for clarification on his talk page, despite the fact that he's an anonymous user.

Take care. --Whimemsz 21:27, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Just so you know: Talk:Old_English_language#Revert_wars...(the anon user, although using a slightly different IP, reverted the changes again, but they did give reasons on the talk page). --Whimemsz 21:14, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Good to see more linguists around. - Mustafaa 23:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Sabra and Shatila massacre 2 UT 3 Wikipedia:Standardize article title spellings 4 Changing terminology 5 Your Greek edits 6 Template:Book Reference 7 "Confusing terminology: perfective vs. perfect" 8 Proto-Germanic 9 Pronunciation 10 TfD nomination of Template:Chapter reference 11 TfD nomination of Template:Chapter reference link 12 Ancient Greek phonology 13 Iran naming dispute 14 Old French 15 Old English weak verbs 16 South Arabian 17 West Australian Lakes 18 Romanization, etc. 19 Vulgar Latin 20 Strong pass 21 South Arabian -> South Arabic 22 Bene Gesserit OR removal 23 Lancet surveys of mortality... 24 Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq 25 Survey concerning Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam lead sentence. 26 ArabDIN characters 27 Timeshifter again 28 Style guidelines for sound pages 29 Hey Ben, 30 Seigfried4220 (74.73.39.219) deleted your material from template.

[edit] Sabra and Shatila massacre

You might be interested in this edit: [1] I've requested further explanation on the Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UT

Hey, thanks for your good work on linguistics articles! I didn't realize you were studying linguistics at UT! I was a linguistics major there when I was an undergrad, 1986-90. How do you like Austin? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Austin is a good place. It's getting a little too hot here but that's to be expected :) But I like cities and there's lots of activity here. What did you study for your Ph.D.? Benwing 06:18, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

My Ph.D. is in linguistics, but it's from Cornell, not U.T. By the way, if you want to change the title of a page (like changing Anglo-Frisian nasal spirant law to Ingvaeonic nasal spirant law) the best way to do it is to click on the "move" tab. Cutting and pasting isn't so good because it doesn't preserve the history. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 05:21, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't even realize it existed. BTW what I meant was, what was your focus within linguistics? Benwing 05:40, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, for my Master's at Yale and then my first two years at Cornell my focus was on Indo-European linguistics; then I switched to phonology. My dissertation is on the prosodic phonology of the Goidelic languages. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Standardize article title spellings

re: Wikipedia:Standardize article title spellings: As the vote at Wikipedia:Standardize spellings clearly shows, there is pretty strong sentiment against any form of standardization of spelling on the Wikipedia, especially if it involves using the American English version of English spelling. Once your proposal is publicized, I have no doubt that it will not get anything close to a consensus vote, although it might not go down in flames in the same way that the Wikipedia:Standardize spellings proposal did. My personal opinion is that it would be much better to turn your proposal into a project for identifying missing redirects and duplicate articles, rather than rehash the issue. There are some nice tools that are already in use for some of the various maintenance projects that should make that task fairly easy to do. BlankVerse ∅ 08:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can see now that the tone of that proposal turned out the knee-jerk "I wil deefend my rite to spel inkoncistently too the deth" lobby, so I´ve removed any reference to adopting any particular spelling, since that is not the main point of my proposal. Benwing 04:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Changing terminology

Benwig, I've just answered your notes on my talk page and on Talk:West Germanic strong verb. Now I see you have also moved Anglo-Frisian nasal spirant law. This is beginning to look like a re-naming frenzy, and while I don't object to these per se, I would suggest you slow down a bit. As far as the Nasal-spirant law is concerned, I have the strong impression that the term Ingvaeonic is badly out of fashion; we don't have a Wiki article on Ingvaeonic languages, for example, and every other possible variant of Germanic languages is in there. Can you point me to a RECENT authoritative source (last 30 years) which calls the law this? If so, fine. But if you DO make such a change, be sure to give credit to the previous terminology as an alternative (i.e. you should add "also called Anglo-Frisian..." to the opening sentence).--Doric Loon 07:52, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

One other thing: if you are going to change the title of an article, it is your job to fix all the links (including interwikis to other language articles). All the links to Anglo-Frisian nasal spirant law are still in place, so that's a job half-done. But most important: if you are going to move an article, you have to declare a reason on the talk page, and it is etiquette to do so first and wait for discussion before you make the move. --Doric Loon 18:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

"renaming frenzy" is probably a bit out of hand, since we're talking about only two or three articles. i'll add comments on the appropriate page; but does wikipedia policy really require that i change all links going in? can you point me to where it says this? Benwing 21:00, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, "frenzy" was meant jokingly. It just had the feel of an awful lot at once: it was actually four articles you wanted to relocate all at once, which is quite a disruption in a relatively small field. The main thing is, when you want to make a significant change to an article that other people are working on, seek consensus first. As far as changing links are concerned, yes, I think that is the policy; at any rate I've seen enough people being flamed for not doing it. Obviously, it has to be done, and if you take it on yourself to move the page, who else is going to tidy up afterwards? --Doric Loon 10:05, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

But having said all that, I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm. You did seek consensus on Wandel, for example, and I agree with you, and as no-one else has worked on this so far, that means you have a green light there. Same goes (with reservations) for West Germanic strong verb - but don't underestimate how much work you will have to do if you start on that one! It's a giant. Can you write about Gothic and Norse? --Doric Loon 10:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I can write about Gothic and Norse, if you need. i also have various of the classic books on old english with me, which have historical info on where the various conjugations (probably) came from. Benwing 01:28, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your Greek edits

Please explain these to me: in your Proto-Greek language edits, why did you include sound changes in "most or all later dialects"? Surely changes that involve most but not all later dialects do not belong in a Proto-Greek article, do they? For example, you state: "loss of /n/ before /s/, with compensatory lengthening of the preceding vowel". This is not true in Aeolic: παντ-ς > παν-ς (every) > Attic πας (long α), Aeolic παις (diphthong). You have also done some edits in Greek language which, while not wrong per se, are less than 100% right: for example you have stated that the Dative is lost. This is true in Demotic, but not in Standard Modern Greek (a subtle but important distinction). Your participation in the respective talk pages will be most welcome. There is an ongoing project to rewrite and integrate all Greek-language related articles, and I'm sure your contributions will be most appreciated. Cheers. Chronographos 06:32, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll contribute to the talk pages as soon as I have time, probably tomorrow; right now I'm right at my bed time. I was under the impression that Katharevousa added some complex noun forms and such, but didn't realize it still had the dative. Presumably "Standard Modern Greek" is some artificial language that tries to keep some of the older forms of Greek? How often is it used? I thought the government decision from the 1970's or so was to use dhimotiki, and that katharevousa is pretty much dead now.

So maybe we should just have this whole article on dhimotiki greek, with a separate section describing katharevousa and "standard modern greek" and other such forms rather than interleaving this data. but i don't know for sure; i'm sure you are more familiar with the greek language situation. Benwing 07:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. I hope I didn't wake you up! :-) It's a little bit complicated really: what students are now being taught in compulsory schooling (ages 6-15) is modified (or standardized) Demotic (with some atrocious "standardizations" IMO!). Students do not have to learn anything else. In the Lyceum however, where most students actually go to so that they qualify for college, they are taught some Ancient Greek (or more, if they intend to sit for certain University admission exams), and the assumption is that a student who has graduated from the Lyceum (age 18) is free and sufficiently knowledgeable to incorporate elements of Katharevousa in their speech if they so wish. It's not an artificial construct, rather it is a flexible attempt to familiarize students with the whole spectrum of Greek language and literature, and let the language evolve according to its users' actual choices, and without artificial barriers. The attempt is far from perfect, but IMO it's altogether in the right direction. Indeed it is quite obvious that once Katharevousa was "abolished", the linguistic trend has been towards it rather than away from it. Feel free to participate in the talk pages whenever and to whatever extent you feel like. There is no rush and deadlines: we intend to be reforming the relevant articles gradually, and I'm sure your contributions will be valuable and most welcome. Oftentimes non-native speakers can offer better perspectives than native ones, as they may see the forest instead of the trees. Chronographos 08:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Book Reference

Hi, i've reverted the changes you make to the abovementioned template because

1. You failed to consult anyone regarding the change. Please note that changes made to template have wide impacts. Consultation is almost always necessary.

2. i presume you failed even to test out the template after you changed it. As a result, it is not displaying as you'd like it to be.

3. Even if it works as you want it to, i'm personally against making the year of publication a link. It serves no purpose and overloads the page with links. Linking the ISBN would suffice.

If you believe your changes are necessary, however, please discuss it at the template discussion page or some other appropriate venues (such as the Village Pump). Thanks. --Plastictv 08:15, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I certainly thought I tested the changes. I'd definitely never on purpose not do so. What may have happened is that I tested on the new things i created, Chapter Reference and such, and they have identical coding for the 'year' section, and so maybe I just assumed that it would work the same for the basic Book Reference. I looked at the old stuff I did and I still can't see what didn't go right and what I should have done -- can you explain it?

BTW I realize that you were within your rights to get angry, but you didn't, so major kudos to you. I greatly appreciate this. Benwing 08:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm still confused about your point in #2 about it not working right. In fact, I just did a little test; I took the version that you rejected and put it back as the Book Reference template, and the year link works exactly like I wanted it to work -- the year was highlighted and clicking the link brings you to a page about the year. So what's the deal with point 2? If there's something else I messed up on, I'd really like to know, because my familiarity with these Templates is not great. Benwing 09:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Instead of appearing as a link to the year, say 2001, it would appear as a link to Year. Funny though, when i just tested it worked as you'd have it to. Anyway personally i'm still against linking to the year of publication (or to the author and publisher, if you haven't conceived that idea yet). It might make everything look messy. If you do believe in it, do discuss beforehand. You can also test templates using the template sandboxes X1, X2 or X3 to save you the trouble of reverting your changes. :) --Plastictv 14:40, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Confusing terminology: perfective vs. perfect"

Hi, while I didn't (and don't) oppose your addition of the "Confusing terminology: perfective vs. perfect" section to Grammatical aspect, I don't much like how you've gone everywhere and added text about it to various other articles and linked back to Grammatical aspect#Confusing terminology: perfective vs. perfect. For example, I really dislike paragraph you added about it to Perfect aspect:

The aspectual nature of the English simple past is often called the aorist aspect or the perfective aspect. Note that, in this usage, "perfective aspect" is completely different from perfect aspect; unfortunately, there are usages where the two are the same. In general, there is a great deal of confusion over the term "perfective aspect"; see Grammatical aspect#Confusing terminology: perfective vs. perfect.

There are a few reasons I dislike it:

• It's not relevant. The article is about the perfect aspect, and doesn't once mention the perfective aspect; why does it need to discuss the confusion surrounding the term "perfective aspect"?
• It's confusing. This is partly because of its irrelevance: the reader asks himself "How does this fit in?" and does not find an apparent answer.
• It seems non-NPOV. Why is it unfortunate that "perfective" is sometimes used as a synonym for "perfect"? Maybe the unfortunate thing is that some people try to draw a distinction between the two synonyms. (I'm actually inclined to agree with your presentation, but it violates Wikipedia style.)
• It seems strained. Why is "completely different" in bold text? You sound like you're trying to convince the reader as much as inform him; and besides, bold text has a special meaning in Wikipedia, in that it's used to mark an article's names when they first appear in the text.
• This is a minor thing, but "perfect aspect" shouldn't be linked in that paragraph, because it makes it bold rather than a link (since it's the current article), which looks confusing.

I plan to modify the text at perfect aspect, but I've noticed that you've added similar text elsewhere, and would ask that you modify it yourself. One suggestion: perhaps rather than regarding the complication as being the confusion between "perfect" and "perfective," you should regard the complication as being the multiple meanings of "perfective"? I think that that could be explained much more easily.

Thanks for reading,
- Ruakh 16:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-Germanic

Thanks for clarifying your point of view. I think the text is acceptable now.--Wiglaf 08:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Hi Benwing. Seeing as you are a linguistics scholar, and a significant contributor to matters Greek, I was hoping that you could help me out. My user name, Xiphon, is very close to an Ancient Greek word, as I understand it. But how does one pronounce it? Bearing in mind that I am unskilled in the phonetic alphabet that is. Would it be akin to the "z" in english, followed by the pronoun "I"? As in zIfon? Thanks--Xiphon 07:02, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Chapter reference

Template:Chapter reference has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Chapter reference. Thank you. Phil | Talk 10:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Chapter reference link

Template:Chapter reference link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Chapter reference link. Thank you. Phil | Talk 10:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient Greek phonology

Hello, I see that you are interested in Ancient Greek and that you are a professional linguist. Do you think you could give us a hand in improving the article Ancient Greek phonology? One editor, Thrax, poromotes the idea that Ancient Greek (5th century BC) was pronounced the same like modern Greek, and that beta was pronounced [v] even in Homeric Greek. Although all other editors disagree with Thrax, none of us has enough expertise to do a thorough job in editing the article. Thanks, Andreas 15:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iran naming dispute

Please explain why you added in the dispute tags in the article's talk page. Aucaman^Talk 20:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old French

Just a note of thanks for your helpful additions to that article. Smerdis of Tlön 15:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old English weak verbs

Hi Benwing, you're a bit of an expert on Old English, aren't you? Any chance you could look at the article Germanic weak verb and do some work on the section "historical conjugations"? I would think Old English can stand here as exemplary for all the early Germanic languages, so we wouldn't need a full description of Old High German and all the others, but at least one medieval language does need to be described properly. --Doric Loon 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Arabian

Are you sure regarding their phonology? Consonant-wise, perhaps to a degree (wrt to lateral fricatives, yes, at least), but I've generally seen very divergent phonologies from MSA as compared to the rest of Semitic. Note that South Semitic (both Ge'ez and the various dialects of Old SA) preserved lateral fricatives, too, yet were generally more conservative on vowels (and to a degree consonants, though interdentals & ghayin were lost in Ge'ez). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 07:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

that was fast! no, i suspect you are right. it's been awhile since i looked at any references on MSA and i don't have any handy. i remembered a quote about this ("The World's Major Languages", p. 665), but i just looked it up and it refers to Epigraphic South Arabian, not the modern dialects. however, i've certainly read in various places that the modern South Arabian dialects are *overall* considered more conservative than the old ones. i suggest you rewrite this and add some more info, since it sounds like you have more experience here than i do.

Benwing 07:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

btw the quote reads "Arabic preserves Proto-Semitic phonology almost perfectly (Epigraphic South Arabian is even more conservative), except for Proto-Semitic *p > f and Proto-Semitic *ś > s."

Benwing 07:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

actually ... please see these links:

[2] [3]

it is claimed here that MSA has identical phonology to Proto-Semitic except for p > f.

Benwing 08:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

note that the above quote about "Proto-Semitic *ś > s" is wrong, so i wouldn't trust the quote in its entirety.

Benwing 08:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] West Australian Lakes

If you assume anything, you're lost! Check the wars on the subject of the word Java as a disambigatuation issue on wiki, and either weep at the xenophobia and "-centrism" of some of your fellow country persons (and limited geographic knowledge) or maybe smile instead  :)  ??? Lake Carnegie like many of the "mapped" lakes shows up on some maps of Western Australia, despite its ephemeral nature. The issue of whether one place or item in the us is better known than one in another country can bring out some particularly virulent responses so take care!  :) SatuSuro 12:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

And looking at your linguistic prowess, "insha allah" you dont offend local knowledge in other cultures or times as well ! :) SatuSuro 12:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

i don't think i was being xenophobic or ethnocentric; my judgment was based on the length of the respective articles, on the # of people in the vicinity of these two places, and on the ephemeral nature of the australian lake.

also, be careful heaping blame on americans for lack of foreign knowledge; this is a common stereotype but in my experience, people from other countries are just as bad. Benwing 02:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

(A) I wasnt accusing you specifically of being either xenophobic or ethnocentric - I was pointing to the way the Java debate was conducted by some who didnt even know where it was - the island that is. - you clearly were weighing experience of being a citizen of the us comparing a location in another country - that could be a problematic distinction - not necessarily connected to anything to do with being xeno or ethno (mind you Austin and Dallas have issues don't they?)

(B) Hey meant in good humour :)  ? wikipedia seems to be full of a very large number of xenophobes from all countries on the planet :) - some with more of a sense of the ridiculous :)

As for following up on Java - the disamgig war was conducted very much on individuals own limitations of experience and knowledge, and determining relevance/notoriety/popularity against the subjective limitations to me reminds me how we cannot really claim any one section of local knowledge against another... I have happened to live in Tasmania and Java - and the issues from having lived in those places became more acute Australian regional rivalries - Best Wishes SatuSuro 04:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

no worries. Benwing 04:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC) thanks and sorry for being so verbose, some poor friends have to archive quickly :) SatuSuro 04:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanization, etc.

The piece on romanization in Standard Mandarin is now revised (anything that was in the "Romanization" section that was not incorrect, has been included in the revision). Also, on the basis of the ease of reading and the simplicity of writing it was better to deal with the "non-Chinese" before the "Chinese" in the two parts. Best to you. Lindsay658 07:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vulgar Latin

Hi, this is FA Review, on the verge of going into FARC. We wonder whether you're able to help reference the text. Tony 08:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strong pass

Thanks for the Strong pass article! I tweaked it a bit, but it was a great start. I assume you discovered Wikiproject Contract Bridge so if you wish to join, you're warmly welcome. Regards, Duja 08:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I didn't actually know about the project. It's been a long time since I played bridge, but I definitely have a weak spot for forcing pass systems :) ... they make life much more interesting. Benwing 02:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South Arabian -> South Arabic

You left a response on the Old South Arabian talk page 2 months ago in which you said that all sources you have seen say South Arabian, not South Arabic. But you didn't list any sources, which I would like for you to do. You also said you cannot view the Encarta entry. I have Encarta and searched for both terms and South Arabic has a lot more hits, while most of the hits for South Arabian do not refer to the language.

The following is from the Encarta article on Semitic languages "The South Peripheral group consists of the South Arabic dialects, now spoken in parts of the southern Arabian Peninsula (and in ancient times by peoples such as the Minaeans and Sabaeans)"...

Here are other sources [4][5] [6][7][8][9]--Inahet 00:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

African Languages: An Introduction (Heine and Nurse) p. 79 "South Semitic comprises South Arabian and Ethio-Semitic"

A Guide to the World's Languages (Ruhlen) p. 90 "the Southern group has two (South Arabian, Ethiopic)"

An Introduction to the Languages of the World (Lyovin) p. 188 "In addition, the so-called South Arabian languages (not the same as Arabic!) also belong to this subbranch"

The World's Major Languages (Comrie) p. 655 "(i) Epigraphic South Arabian ... is known only from short inscriptions written in a consonantal script. ... (ii) Modern South Arabian, a group of non-Arabic languages ..."

The Arabic Language (Versteegh) p. 10 "Epigraphic South Arabian was the language of the Sabaean, Minaean and Qatabanian inscriptions ... The modern South Arabian dialects, such as Mehri, probably go back to spoken varieties of these languages ..."

Every one of these is a modern book written by a linguist (rather than encyclopedia articles and non-technical articles, as you've quoted). Benwing 05:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bene Gesserit OR removal

I'm glad someone finally had the gumption needed to take care of that!

I had a look at some of your other pages; noticed & removed some vandalism to Injunctive mood.

Cheers! --SandChigger 15:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lancet surveys of mortality...

I've noticed your concern in the talkpage for this article; somehow, the user Timeshifter has been able to keep his, possibly, biased or flawed information; one user has even been blocked, while trying to correct his edits. Perhaps it's none of my business, but if biased, POV info is on the article, it should be promptly removed. I will try to help, if all possible, and I beseech you so you could, perhaps, do the same, if you wish. BishopTutu 16:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. he shows a strong tendency towards edit warring and "wikilawyering" (using the established rules to intimidate others into accepting his POV). he seems not to understand or be willing to accept the NPOV rules or established principles concerning encyclopedic style. unfortunately he also has more willingness to invest energy in POV'ing than i do in correcting his POV. i'm going to see if i can find another editor who is more willing to fight him. Benwing 00:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lancet surveys of mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq

I don't understand why this is an encyclopedia article at all; an article about two Lancet surveys? Jayjg ^(talk) 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, these surveys are quoted very often in the media. the media focuses quite intensively (maybe even obsessively) on the number of us casualties, and the estimates of iraqi casualties often go alongside. usually either these surveys or the reports of the Iraq Body Count group, or both, are given. the difficulty here is that these two sources differ by more than a factor of ten in their claims. that said, i do think the entries are far too long; but i found it impossible to shorten them. Benwing 03:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

btw i don't know the proper protocol for these discussions; whose page does it take place on, or does it ping-pong back and forth? Benwing 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

They can ping-pong back and forth. I don't really know what to do about it either, I just think a lengthy article about two surveys is ridiculous. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey concerning Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam lead sentence.

Talk:Cat_Stevens#Survey: Ordering_of_names_within_lead_sentence

As an active editor at Cat Stevens, your input is requested for the purpose of establishing consensus. Italiavivi 00:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArabDIN characters

I noticed that you have added a number of ArabDIN characters to the Arabic grammar page. My browser refuses to display either the alif or the 'ain characters (as transliterated into Latin letters). It's MS Internet Explorer 6.0. Any ideas? I'd like to fix it, if possible, and write an appropriate box or template or whatever so that others with this problem can fix their browsers. Thanks. Cbdorsett 12:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I'm using MS IE 6 as well and it looks OK to me. what do you see instead? do you see square boxes? does it occur *everywhere* on the page or only in the places that i added something? i did add some fonts at one point, which made some unusual characters (e.g. Ethiopic) display better, but it should work without these. Try using the IPA or Unicode templates. Benwing 00:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Timeshifter again

Hi Benwing, I note your discussion above with BishopTutu. I have tried editing these pages and have run afoul of Timeshifter before. He does pretty much what you describe, selectively conscripting (and imv distorting) wiki guidelines to intimidate me and muddy the waters for anyone else readign the talk pages. In the past I have not had an account, and my IP changes from time to time by itself. He's now begun using this to describe me as a "vandal" for not going along with his control and censorship of these pages, using the IP as his excuse. So I've created an account here so he can't do that. It's a shame that editors should be pressured into these things because of fraudulent accusations of "vandalism" but that's another story.

The latest 'edit war' initiated by Timeshifter began here: (cur) (last) 23:13, 16 January 2007 74.73.39.219 (Talk) (lancet letters about graph)

That was me adding new information from letters published in the Lancet journal which indicate that the main graph that has been sitting atop the Lancet page for many months is inaccurate and misleading. I've added this information, along with links to the articles in the Lancet. Timeshifter then suddenly deletes the whole graph (which has been there for months), along with my new sourced information about its errors. I put it back. He deletes. Etc. Etc. His reasoning has shifted several times. First he says he deleted it because the graph is now known to be erroneous, and because the Lancet authors have conceded these errors it has to be removed. But it's only know because of MY edit! How will anyone know of these errors if he keeps censoring it? But that's the point isn't it? He doesn't want people to know. Next he claimed he had to remove it because it violated WP:RS, on the grounds that the Lancet website requires an account to access the articles. That was bogus. Then he just keeps shifting the excuses and keeps deleting it.

Now he's accusing me of "vandalism" and threatening to have me blocked for 3RR violations, for the crime of putting back sourced material he keeps censoring. From the comments above I can see that you seem to know exactly what's going on here with this Timeshifter, so I'm wondering if you can step in here.Seigfried4220 14:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Style guidelines for sound pages

Hello, Benwing. Recently CyborgTosser and I discussed and came up with proposed style guidelines for all the individual consonant and vowel pages wherein the Occurrence section would have a table rather than a bulleted list. You can see the discussion here. So far nobody else has commented on the proposed guidelines and I believe it's safer to get a solid consensus before undergoing the work to change so many pages. If you could comment on what has been proposed, even if it's a simple yay or nay, this would help us out quite a bit. Thank you very much. Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 06:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Ben,

I'm not chasing you outside of that talk or anything, but I really felt insulted by your coments (three times now) there. Look, let's start on the right foot, if possible: You ask many questions, I'll try to respond to the basic: Time (as you know better) is not always proportional to abstand. Greek, Koine Greek, Ancient Greek (and most probably XMK too), are mutually intelligible to the extent that Britannica says: no other language has been documented to have such continuity, and that Pericles' Greek to mine, are "recognizably one and the same". Now, according to the three theories for XMK, it was rather close to Greek. Furthermore, it was later absorbed within the language I now speak (the one the Bible was written in for the first time).

Now there are numerous examples I can give you, where Macedonian (S) irredentists/pseudoscientists etc claim that their language descends from XMK (also cited by Danforth in the article), which is absolutely malakies per all linguists. Feel free to give a browse to Macedonia (terminology), which includes the same 2 sentences with the same sources, and has become WP:FA. I'm the main contributor there, but that part, wasn't written by me, or by any other Greek; plus it passed a storm of hundreds of objections in the WP:FAC (here. So, this all, is scrutinized to the last detail, and if not relevant for the "dispute" article, then I really don't know where it would be more relevant. That's why I removed your tag. NikoSilver 01:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In case you were wondering which comments of yours enraged me, I copy them below:

• someone ignorant of linguistics (but probably having a pov to push) put this claim in without understanding the reality
• unlike you, i have no axe to grind or pov to push
• btw it seems you really have an axe to grind.

I'm really sorry you feel that way, but even if I did, that's definitely WP:NPA, so let's be WP:CIVIL. OK? NikoSilver 01:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seigfried4220 (74.73.39.219) deleted your material from template.

Hi Benwing. You added some good info to this template: Template:Summary of casualties of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. See this revision difference.

Seigfried4220 (74.73.39.219) just deleted some of it with this edit summary: "deleted opinionated assertion about what the differences reflect". Here is the revision difference.

The sentence he deleted was this one: "The differences reflect differing methodologies as well as differing definitions of the types of death counted."

I like that sentence which is why I left it in when you first put it in. It is a good, simple, NPOV, and necessary introduction to complex casualty stats. I have deleted other info of yours, so I am not kissing your butt. Just pointing out how Seigfried4220 operates. --Timeshifter 06:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this sentence because it is an opinion that that is all the differences reflect. They could reflect quite a few other things, and could even have very little to do with differing methodologies or different definitions or types of deaths. For example, if you look at the criticisms section of the Lancet study page, many believe most of the difference between the Lancet study and all others is that the Lancet study is wrong. I think opinions about what the differences reflect should be left up to readers. If you want a statement saying these studies use differing methodologies and include different types of deaths, that would be fine. But implying that this explains the *difference* in the figures is an opinion.Seigfried4220 06:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So we get to the root of the problem. Seigfried4220 wrote: "many believe most of the difference between the Lancet study and all others is that the Lancet study is wrong." And? So what does that have to do with Benwing's sentence? It is a big stretch to read as much as you read into Benwing's sentence. You screwed up, because you thought I wrote the sentence. LOL. Then you write: "If you want a statement saying these studies use differing methodologies and include different types of deaths, that would be fine." That is exactly what Benwing's sentence said. --Timeshifter 06:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning above stands regardless of who wrote the sentence. There is debate about what the difference reflects. Saying the studies use different methods is not the same as saying that is what the difference in their figures reflects. I doubt Benwing wants you and me taking up space on his talk page with more bickering so I'll not respond to you here anymore.Seigfried4220 07:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to embarrass you further, but Benwing's sentence is still innocuous. --Timeshifter 07:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys. Seigfried, i see your point. my intention was that "differing methodologies" could include the possibility that the way the lancet authors collected their data was flawed. but i see now that this isn't quite the right word here; maybe "different methods of collecting the data" or something more general would be better. i think it might be useful to mention that the methodologies are different -- the fact that one is based on counting and the other on extrapolation could be useful for someone to form their opinion about the validity of one or the other study. but i'm not attached to this particular sentence. Timeshifter, if you want the sentence in then maybe you should reword it so it addresses Seigfried's concerns. (however, looking at the current template i see that it's already stated that the methodologies and types of deaths counted are different.) Benwing 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

"highly disputed" could be added. It is a common phrase on wikipedia pages. The sentence being discussed is not essential since some of the differing methodologies and types of deaths counted are mentioned in the template already. --Timeshifter 01:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)