User talk:Mahagaja/Archive 31

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WAAKE-UP!

Hmmm... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] ... Disputing the fair use of every image in an article? Are you trying to make a WP:POINT? -- Craigtalbert 19:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Were you, uploading them in the first place despite the fact that they violate Wikipedia policy? —An gr 19:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't believe they were did when I uploaded them, and many of them still don't. I uploaded them because I was being bold, and they contributed to the quality of the article -- when I started it over a year ago. At any rate, if you're not making a WP:POINT, this is all very impolite of you. Instead of templating me why not leave me a message on my talk page explaining your POV on the use images? Did I give you some reason to think I wouldn't cooperate? Do you not believe in compromise? Do you hate people? Do you hate me? -- Craigtalbert 19:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I templated you because that's the standard procedure when tagging images that violate policy for any reason. Do you hate kittens? —An gr 19:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You're being a jerk about this. And, FYI, I do make it a point not to date girls with cats. -- Craigtalbert 20:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

While Craigtalbert may be over-reacting, he does a point. Why would you pollute his talk page with 11 identical templates when one friendly message that the 11 images have been contested would do the same job? DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Disregarding OR and Synthesis, wouldn't be Australia more tolerant then Europe in regards to LGBT people. Europe has countries like Poland that don't have a warm attitude to LGBT people.--Molobo 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Roberto Aguilar (porn star)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Roberto Aguilar (porn star), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Roberto Aguilar (porn star) is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Roberto Aguilar (porn star), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 06:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ext-Current.jpg

I took the picture...where do I enter the info you requested? Deadwildcat 23:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

squiggles

I was wondering how anyone can read the squiggles you put on the Akko page, supposedly to help people pronounce the word. If it is spelled Akko, how many pronunciation problems could there be?--Gilabrand 16:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't understand phonetic characters, just ignore them. Other people do know what they mean. —An gr 18:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah? Who? I happen to have a couple of degrees in English lit & language, and I think they are totally useless on Wikipedia, not to mention messing up the lead sentence.--Gilabrand 18:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The spelling "Akko" alone is misleading, since Hebrew words can't begin with a vowel. The "squiggle" shows us that it actually starts with ‘ayin. It is therefore not useless at all. —An gr 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Who says that Hebrew words can't begin with a vowel??? Of course they can.--Gilabrand 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, everyone who knows anything about Hebrew phonology. Words in Hebrew can begin with a glottal stop, which in Modern Hebrew can be spelled with an aleph or an ‘ayin, but not directly with a vowel. —An gr 18:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In standard Hebrew (not the gutteral Yemenite pronunciation that has almost disappeared from the world) there is absolutely no difference in the way you say "aleph" and the way you say "ayin." I wonder where you are getting your information from? Academic theories about Hebrew phonology are nice, but I speak Hebrew and live in Israel.--Gilabrand 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said. Both aleph and ‘ayin are pronounced with glottal stop. —An gr 18:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So when I see the word "Akko" - why would I not know how to pronounce it?

You would, you live in Israel and speak Hebrew. But other people don't. Besides, a transliteration tells us more than just how to pronounce it, it tells us which letters are used. The "squiggle" shows that word starts orthographically with an ‘ayin, because it's distinct from the "squiggle" used to represent aleph (which faces the other way). —An gr 18:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think your time would be better spent offering phonetic spelling for psychology, doubt and Lincoln...LOL--Gilabrand 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

Dear Angr, what is your opinion about this page? Do you think it meets FA status now that Karanacs comments have been addressed? Do you still think I should remove the logos and eliminate the supplemental .com references that are not used as primary refs? NancyHeise 21:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I do still think you should remove the logos. Logos serve to identify companies and so are appropriate in the articles about those companies, but they aren't appropriate in an article about an archdiocese. (Look at it this way: when the article on Michael Jackson discusses his sponsorship of Pepsi, it doesn't show the Pepsi logo!) EWTN isn't even part of the diocese per se, and I wonder about calling it "the official Catholic television station". In what sense is it "official"? Is it funded by, does it belong to, the Roman Catholic Church? As for the links, I wonder if they're really necessary. You're using the links from switchboard.com to reference the number of Catholic churches in the archdiocese and about.com to reference the number of schools and to reference Mercy Hospital, right? Although some reviewers at FAC have warned about using non-independent links, I think for straightforward statistics like the number of churches schools, it should be acceptable to use an archdiocese site. And doesn't Mercy Hospital have its own webpage? —An gr 18:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Angr, I have removed the .com references and the logos in this article per your comments. I added an image of the Mariel boatlift in the History section and an image of St. Vincent de Paul who is the founder of one of the ministries listed in the ministries section. Please come and renew your vote on this page if it meets your requirements for FA status. NancyHeise 19:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know that I have addressed your new comments on the Leave Comments section of Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami, thanks for the copyedit - very good comments! NancyHeise 02:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Gaeilge

Hey there! Pretty sure it's an Gaeltacht and/or sa Ghaeltacht. No mix and matching allowed, haha ;) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 19:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. I just double-checked in Ó Dónaill. Gaeltacht is feminine (like all abstract nouns in -acht), so it's an Ghaeltacht, just like an Ghaeilge. —An gr 19:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it appears you're right. I just checked Údarás na Gaeltachta, and they have your spelling. Must be regional differences. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

RoHS

Hi Angr,

You deleted a fair use image on the RoHS page. I explained on the image page that a replacement was not available, as required, can you explain? This image made a valuable contribution to the article. Prosecreator 16:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me the name of the image? —An gr 16:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it was: Image:pht-solder-joint.jpg|thumb|right|300px|An illustration of solder joint reliability, demonstrating AlphaSTAR's reliability versus traditional joints. AlphaSTAR is a RoHS immersion silver PWB assembly process from Cookson Electronics.Prosecreator 23:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You explained on the talk page that you hadn't found a free replacement, but you didn't show that no free image could ever be made. That's the standard required of non-free images: that they by their very nature could not be replaced with free images, not that no free replacement happens to exist at this time. —An gr 05:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

So the burden of proof is on me? That makes it tough. :) Unfortunately, we lowered the quality of the article in the process. Shouldn't this be more important? Prosecreator 17:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you. And no, the quality of the article is not more important than avoiding the use of replaceable non-free images. —An gr 04:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Angr -- I have done my research and there is *not* a free image available as a replacement. This image depicts a propreitary formulation that can only be retrieved from the manufacturer. May I add the image back now? --- Prosecreator (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's really the case that only the manufacturer can make and release photographs of the process, yes. Be sure to say so clearly in the "replaceability" parameter of the rationale. —An gr 19:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Done - thanks. -Prosecreator (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Marseille

What do you mean by fair use? Is this your personal point of view? This image exists legally on WP, created indepedently of the article on Marseille, so kindly refrain from removing it from the article. If you believe the image itself is illegal, please take this up with an administrator. Otherwise I will ask User:Quadell to intervene. You should contest the image rather than the articles to which it is linked. Please stop wasting people's time. Mathsci 20:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The image has no fair-use rationale for its use in the article Marseille, nor would any such rationale be valid, because it does not contribute significantly to readers' understanding of that article. It was being used there purely decoratively. I don't object to the image itself, because its use in the article The French Connection (film) is within policy. Just because a non-free image is allowed in one article at Wikipedia doesn't mean you're free to put it in any article you like. And I know Quadell well enough to know he'll agree with me there. —An gr 05:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI all images are decorative. Your comments seem extremely small-minded. You are pushing your personal point of view. It is completely appropriate to illustrate a section on films made in Marseille with one of the most famous of those films, in fact one which won an academy award. Your objection to the autographed photo of Regine Crispine taken from a blog seems to show a similar misunderstanding of wikipedia policy. This is not a copyrighted image. If you continue with your objections, I will report you at AN/I. Please try to be a little more intelligent. You do not "know" Quadell in any real sense. Mathsci 18:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's your use of these images that shows a profound misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. If you believe Regine Crispine's photo is uncopyrighted, you have to be able to prove it. —An gr 04:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Facebook about to be deleted

Hi, as one of the people with a picture on Wikipedia:Facebook, figured you might be interested in knowing that it is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Images of Wikipedians (2nd nomination). - Ta bu shi da yu 02:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate image licensing issue

Hi Angr. If you have time, would you please give this matter [11] a full review. Thanks .-- Jreferee t/c 15:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

th in Irish

Hi Angr,

I've had a disagreement about Cruithne. According to your Irish orthography page, the th should be silent. However, Evertype insists that it's /h/ in this word. Am I missing something, is he wrong, or is this a dialect issue?

Thanks, -- kwami (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a dialect issue. Some dialects pronounce the /h/ in it, others don't. At User:Angr/Irish orthography, I'm slowly working on a version of Irish orthography that reflects all dialects. —An gr 21:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Austin - atx

People within austin commonly refer to austin as the atx. im putting it back on —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.211.96 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I grew up in Austin and never heard anyone call it "The ATX". Please provide a source for the claim that that is its nickname. —An gr 22:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I live in Austin currently. The term ATX is a play on the ATL, which didn't really come into being until recently, thus, ATX did not come into being until recently. Sources: http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/atx_austin_nickname/ http://www.rapdict.org/ATX http://www.google.com/search?q=austin+atx&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a look at the many stores that have the term ATX in their names.

better yet, just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_city_nicknames_in_the_United_States#Texas its listed first

Fair Use Dispute Tags

I don't know if that was your intent, but you spammed my talk page with three of your warnings, when one is enough. Please don't do that again. Thank you. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

One isn't enough, because there were three different problems with the image you spammed onto Wikipedia. —An gr 17:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Lower Sorbian language

Do you have any sources for [12]? "v" has been changed to "w" on German Wikipedia, which is the primary source for information in this article. Apart from this, as a native speaker of closely related Polish language I can tell you that "ł" letter corresponds to a sound similar to "w" in English word "wood" - at least in Polish.

I can't tell for sure that "w" is the correct sign, but I can prove that "v" cannot be appropriate here. Go to http://www.rbb-online.de/_/luzyca/beitrag_jsp/key=6686913.html click "video" and scroll the scrollbar to about 1/5 of total length. On the screen with subtitle "Chruszcz will uns in der Lausitz unterstutzen", the speaker, Lower Sorb, says "Łużyca" in Lower Sorbian. There is no "v" like in English "vet" whatsoever. --Derbeth ^talk 18:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

In Lower Sorbian, unlike Polish, the letters "ł" and "w" stand for the same phoneme; there's no phonemic distinction between /w/ and /v/. Phonetically, the sound in question is realized as [w], [v], or [β], depending on circumstances I've never seen fully explained; probably there's some amount of regional variation and some amount of variation between speakers. I know some people pronounce Łužyca with [w], as in that video, but other people pronounce it with [v], as in the CD that accompanies my Lower Sorbian textbook (which is my main source for the Lower Sorbian article). Thus it comes down to an abstract phonological question: do we want to consider the sound in question phonemically /v/ or phonemically /w/, given that it has both fricative and non-fricative surface allophones? I think for a variety of reasons, /v/ makes more sense: it allows parallelism with both /f/ and /v^j/, and when it gets devoiced, it becomes [f] (for example, archiw ends in [f]). —An gr 19:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, understand. What textbook is it? --Derbeth ^talk 00:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Niedersorbisch praktisch und verständlich by Erwin Hannusch (Bautzen: Domowina, 1998), ISBN 3-7420-1667-9. —An gr 06:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:State Street Logo.jpg

I saw you deleted the State Street Bank logo. I didn't upload it, but was wondering if you could restore it to see if I can write a fair use rationale. Thanks Mbisanz (talk) 23:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It needed source information (including copyright holder) as well as a rationale. But it was also tagged as {{BadJPEG}}, so maybe it would be better if you could find a .png version (or find a .gif version and convert it to .png) and upload that instead of undeleting the .jpg. —An gr 06:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Understood, I was hoping it was just missing an article tag or something. Thanks. Mbisanz (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested Locator Map for New York City

Hi Angr: With all the fancy locator and pushpin templates floating around, could you create a locator map for New York City? (along with the appropriate coordinate template to make it work). I could probably georefernce the map that's on the New York City page now but it's not in the soft wiki colors and includes red for the Bronx thus making it unusable for putting the red dot. The map could be similar to the one that's there now with boundaries for the boroughs. Thanks. Americasroof (talk) 16:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I'm kinda busy at the moment though. —An gr 18:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't even know you're the right person to ask. I saw your user name associated with the new york state blank map and that's why I asked. If I should follow a different process feel free to let me know. Thanks again. Americasroof (talk) 18:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Moreschi/If

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Moreschi/If. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ➪HiDrNick! 02:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

More User:Moreschi/If

The deletion review has concluded your speedy deletion per G11 of the Speedy Deletion policy was incorrect and that consensus did favour the retention of the article, as such, the article has been undeleted. If you wish to propose the article for deletion, I would respectfully ask that you nominate the article for deletion rather than wheel war with another administrator (not me, I hasten to add). Nick (talk) 15:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's become sadly apparent that a large number of Wikipedians are committed to allowing Moreschi to spam talk pages with advertisements for a website that has a potential for causing tremendous damage to Wikipedia. It's truly disappointing to see how many Wikipedians are uninterested in Wikipedia's integrity, but fighting it is clearly an uphill battle I don't have the strength for. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a perfectly valid opinion, and one that you are entitled to, though I would ask that you refrain from calling Veropedia by any other name than Veropedia, and that you refrain from trying to impose your opinion on other users by misuse of the deletion tools. I'm firmly of the opinion that we have far more pressing problems affecting the neutrality and accuracy of our own articles here than we ever will do on Veropedia, but that's not an opinion I intend to force upon other users through the use of my administrative tools. Nick (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I have never misused my admin tools. Wikipedia policy calls for blatant advertising to be deleted on sight, and that's all I did. The fact that V*ropedia is a serious threat to Wikipedia is not why I deleted the page. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 15:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Angr/If

Question for you, where do you get the idea that Veropedians will be POV because of our advertising? Personally, I take offense to that, as I have always tried to be NPOV. Our advertisers do not dictate what we write, nor would we compromise encylopedic standards for them. Please be correct in your accusations or take the page offline. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 15:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I get the idea from the simple fact that is impossible for any source of information to remain neutral while needing to retain its advertising sponsors. (Don't take it personally - I don't trust the neutrality of newspapers or TV stations that are funded by advertising either.) If the sponsors haven't yet pressured you to alter your content to suit them better, it's only because Viropedia is still new. Given time, they will. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

My alarms are ringing on this one, too. Promoting within Wikipedia that Wikipedians spend their labor/time on things outside of Wikipedia will hurt Wikipedia. Also, I am concerned Veropedians are participating in Wikipedia discussions about Viropedia without disclosing their conflict of interest. What's worse, it is not just the nutty SPAs failing to disclose their conflict of interest. This situation is not good. -- Jreferee t/c 17:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veropedia looks much the same as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Moreschi/If: lots of people arguing WP:ILIKEIT, totally overwhelming the few voices of reason pointing out that it violates policy. In the case of the AFD, no one ever really showed that Viropedia is notable enough to meet the requirements of WP:WEB, but it got kept because so many people (mostly Viropedians perhaps? only a handful acknowledged a COI) came out to vote keep. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be enough reliable source info for Veropedia. The Wikipedia related projects and forks (Citizendium · Enciclopedia Libre · Interpedia · Veropedia · WikiZnanie · Wikinfo · Wikiweise · Wikia · WikiWikiWeb) seem to be at Wikipedia to draw off editor labor that should be dedicated to the Wikipedia encyclopedia. They already piggy back off Wikipedia's fame by being included in Template:Wikipediahistory. I guess if the problem grows too big, Wikipedia will correct itself as it usually does. -- Jreferee t/c 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've spent more time editing material on Wikipedia than I have uploading that same work to Veropedia. Everything I've written for Veropedia has been written on Wikipedia, all the images I've found for the articles I've written have been uploaded to Commons, not only does Veropedia benefit, but Wikipedia, and ultimately, our readers, wherever they may choose to read free, open content. Nick (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

subsection

Hello Angr. I observed the proceedings at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Moreschi/If and the fallout. I found the MfD by accident (well, that is, through advertising—from the user's signature from which that page is linked). Since then the "Veropedia" topic has become a significant concern for me, and I see also for a few other editors. My recent contribution history shows the posts I've made on the subject, if you're interested. The primary issue here is one of ethics and principle, not to be swept under the carpet by "buts" and "exceptions" and "I run Veropedia in my underwear" and so forth; and, in fact, as you recognized in the MfD, it is not to be swept under the carpet by "consensus" either. You know what?—I'd pay a nice little sum of money for an Amazonified website that is nicely integrated with Wikipedia and whose informal presence therein will only, undoubtedly, grow. I am looking for ideas on how to get a reasonably "official" opinion on whether this activity is permitted on Wikipedia. If it's permitted, my belief in this project will be irrevocably changed. If you'd like to write back, you know where I am. I hope those who don't understand my concern won't assume that I'm assuming the worst of the Veropedia people—this is a matter of principle. Free content is free content, but Wikipedia's brand, image, and association (the "halo effect") are NOT free. –Outriggr § 03:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Northern Irish flag issue

Hi. I saw your post on this page[13]. I created a new image location here [14] on the commons for the image, but can you please tell me how to do one thing? How do I set up the corresponding page here on wikipedia([15]) to show all of the commons information like the old one does? Any help you could give me would be great, thanks. Fennessy (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my bad. Do you know if there is any easy & quick way to convert the .png file into a .svg file? If you can't tell already I have practically zero experience dealing with images. Fennessy (talk) 21:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is no quick and easy way to convert a .png into a .svg (the other direction is easy if you have Inkscape, though). But can't you just download Image:Flag of Northern Ireland.svg to your hard drive and then upload it again under the correct name (being sure to retain all the source and licensing information)? If not, why not just let it slide? It's not really the end of the world if the image's name isn't strictly correct. Images' names don't appear in articles anyway, except in edit mode. We have lots of images with typos in the name and they just get kept (e.g. Image:Menonite Children.JPG where Mennonite is misspelled). It's not really that big a deal. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah done it. I guess I should have paid closer attention to what type of file I could download it as. But thanks, your advice was very helpful. Fennessy (talk) 23:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

I don't know if you're aware of this, but your userpage may be against a policy called WP:SOAP because it propounds your views on a current affairs subject. It also doesn't assume good faith -WP:AGF- of your fellow editors. I assume you didn't know this, but it's not really appropriate for wikipedia. Please consider changing it.Merkinsmum 22:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Classification of admins

Hi Angr. Please consider adding your admin username to the growing list at Classification of admins. Best! -- Jreferee t/c 23:01, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

IPA

Why did you change IPA chart for English to take out the fact that our "p" is aspirated? Our pronunciation of the letter "p", for instance, is properly transcribed as pʰiː, not piː. For instance, in this image that somebody made to illustrate the IPA page:

I wrote an explanation for why it should be written this way on the chart on the talk page, could you respond to that and explain to me why you have to revert it? What's fun about Wikipedia is the wealth of knowledge it possesses, the way it's practically bursting at the seams with knowledge: check out the IPA chart for English, learn about the phenomenon of aspiration. Please explain why you reverted it.

I propose this solution: let the IPA chart for English page indicate this distinction, but also indicate that typically this distinction is left out because it is subphonemic in Eglish. (I don't know exactly what this means, but I think it means that we are not like the Ancient Greeks and we don't have a distinction between aspiration that alters the sense of our words as in the distinction between pi and phi, tau and theta. Is this what the term subphonemic means?

I wish you wouldn't revert me. I wasn't being a vandal, really.

David G Brault (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say you were being a vandal; vandalism isn't the only reason for reverting. As I said in the edit summary, aspiration is subphonemic in English, so it's not indicated in broad transcriptions. The image above shows a narrow transcription, but IPA chart for English is a guide for broad transcriptions. If you look at the page, you'll see that only phonemes are listed there. —An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the thing on reverting? It says:

Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.

Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Why are you not following this approach? Even if you are putting the proper thing in the article, and I am putting the improper thing, you still are not supposed to just revert me. Heck, I say it should be my way, and you say it should be your way. So we are to discuss it until we see eye to eye. For you to merely revert me is not helpful and it directly goes against the actual policy. Please respond to this. David G Brault (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Alien 3 gamebox.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Alien 3 gamebox.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)