Hello, this is the twelvth of my archive pages (see also my other archives). Please leave responses even to this page, on the main talk page where I and others will see them! Thanks! zoney ♣ talk 15:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you were active in the first vote for naming conventions of television program(mes). Well it has raised it's ugly head again and I would appreciate any comments you have to make about my new proposal for naming television shows. Please leave comments here. Thanks! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. I was wondering if in maps Image:EU_map_names_isles.png and Image:EU_blank_no_rivers_territories256.png you could perhaps update/fix them, so that the Republic of Macedonia is colored (and its name written) like an official candidate state. Thank you very much!

If you are not so involved with Wikipedia anymore, or otherwise don't have the time for this, then may I please ask that you email me the original Photoshop/Paintshop/whatever-program-you-used files so that I can perhaps more easily do the change myself? Thanks again and in advance! Aris Katsaris 08:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to know which map you based Image:EU_blank_no_rivers_territories256.png on; I'd like to use it as a basis for a map for List of European Union member states, but the aliased borders make it impossible for me to colour states differently, so I'd like to have the original file if possible. Thanks for your help! —Nightstallion (?) 10:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Zoney. I know that you're not that active any more, but I noticed that you'd edited just a few days ago so I thought I'd let you know that there's yet another Lost-related move discussion underway at Talk:Lost. This one is about whether Lost should be a disambiguation page (as it is currently) or a redirect to Lost (TV series), with the disambiguation content moved to Lost (disambiguation). Since you'd voted in earlier Lost-related move discussions, I thought you might be interested in this one. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An WP:RFAR is being opened against Lapsed Pacifist over his POV editwarring. Please add your experiences with him to it. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 18:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)} [reply]

Hi, I noticed that you placed Bank of Ireland in the UK banks template, but last time I checked that bank was based in the Republic of Ireland. ABN Amro for example, is a bank that is active in the USA. Does that make it an American Bank? Billtheking 19:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help us track down verifiable sources to bring The Game back! Go to SaveTheGame.org! Bkkbrad 20:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am investigating the origins of The Game. You were amongst the first people to edit The Game (game) article. Could you tell me who first told you about The Game and when? Thanks, Kernow 12:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zoney, we're looking for editorial input on the appropriateness of the section "Passover in the Christian tradition," which was summarily excised by an editor and placed in a new article, called Passover in the Christian tradition. Knowing that you have contributed your thoughts on this matter in the past, I am inviting you to do so again. Fishhead64 06:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for updating the Irish name today, I was delighted to see that. One thing I've learned about WP is that if you create a stub for re-links, even if you don't know very much on the subject, it makes it more likely that others will add what they know. And NTMK is perfect evidence of that.--Rye1967 05:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well done and thanks for restoring this useful article, as per the majority wish in the AfD discussion :-) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 10:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all applaud Zoney's wheel-warring. You could have waited until the deletion review finished. You'd have gotten the same result without slapping me in the face. Mackensen (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No insult to Mackensen intended from my point of view, and I'm sorry if my support of Zoney's action has offended you. I'm sure your deletion was thoroughly well-intentioned, despite happening to disagree with it. Thanks to you too, for your work. I must say though, I was horrified to learn that an article deletion also deletes the article's history. Perhaps administrators get to look back, but there's no obvious way for mere mortals to consult the history of deleted articles. I had no clear idea of the time and date you intended to delete the article, and so was unable to save a local copy of the ultimate version. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not undelete the city names article just to spite you or something. I saw it referred to from an article (in a valid context), and having previously viewed the article, I was curious as to why it was red-linked.

I checked the page, and was rather shocked to see a page of 2000+ edits deleted. Nevertheless, I assumed there was a deletion debate I had missed, so I checked out the deleted history (for some reason the talk page was left without a deleted notice pointing to the debate).

Having seen that the deletion was applied under erroneous circumstances (there was no consensus to delete. Consensus may be a subjective thing, but it's certainly >50%), I undeleted. I would have posted to votes for undeletion if it had been validly deleted, but as its deletion had not been accepted on the Afd page, I didn't see that as necessary.

Apologies for not posting you a notice.

zoney ♣ talk 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think undeleting this may have been premature and out of process. It may have been better to wait for the Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2006_June_28#Names_of_cities_in_different_languages DRV to run its course. Making an independent judgement that the deletion was wrong and acting unilaterally rather than taking it to DRV, (and then learning there is a DRV ongoing) may not be the best approach, it does smack of wheel warring a bit. But then I'm a bit of a process wonk so... ++Lar: t/c 14:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered the deletion "out of process", and as such, I considered it merely an operational matter to restore the page. Rest assured that in no circumstances would I have unilaterally restored a page that had indeed been voted for deletion on AFD. I had no knowledge that the deletion was the issue of some debate. In fact, the actual deletion debate itself was not posted to the deleted talk page, and I had to rely on the deleted history to find out what had happened. Having viewed the AfD page, the matter seemed straightforward. zoney ♣ talk 14:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refactored the above comment from my talk, let's keep the thread together... (I do use watchlists and am watching this page) A few points. There is a process for contesting a deletion, it's called Deletion Review. Restoring something while that process is ongoing is probably not appropriate. Acting unilaterally sometimes is good but not when it overturns and wheelwars with another admin ths way. Second, AfD is not a vote. The nosecount is not the only measure of consensus. I happen to think Mackenson erred in deleting this, but my recourse (I am an admin as well) was not to undelete unilaterally, but rather to comment on the ongoing DrV that the close should be overturned and the articles undeleted. Your undeletion actually weakens the case for a proper undeletion, in my view, at least marginally. ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My actions were wholly in process. The five days were past. I gave my reasons, closed the debate, and deleted the pages with links to the debate in the edit summaries. Whether you agree with the result does not affect whether the action was in process or not. The proper route to appeal was the one taken: Deletion Review. I wholly support David's listing there, and wonder why you thought this was insufficient. Mackensen (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My reason for action was that I considered the "result" to be absolutely in opposition to the closure action (patently absurd in fact - even if nosecount is not the main measure for AfD, one cannot possibly stretch "consensus" to mean "less than half those involved in the debate"). If I had merely disagreed with the result I would have indeed attempted to bring the article before Deletion Review (in this case, have contributed to the existing debate). zoney ♣ talk 14:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies, having reviewed Wikipedia:Undeletion policy, it seems Wikipedia: Deletion Review should have indeed been my first port of call, even had I considered the deletion "out of process". zoney ♣ talk 14:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at British Isles. A group of users have been pushing the claim that the term is exclusively geographic and have posted abusive edit summaries attacking any Irish person who edits the page to point out the complexity of the Ireland's relationship with the British Isles, accusing them of "Irish nationalist POV-pushing". Even when the sources they demanded are added it they still revert all the time. (One of them recently tried to delete any mention of the fact that Lough Neagh is on the island of Ireland. He only wanted it stated that it was in the British Isles!!! That is the nature of some of the editors' agendas.) The same users seem to be editing a set of pages to delete or downplay mention of Ireland. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 13:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)} [reply]

Comments at Talk:British Isles. zoney ♣ talk 15:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyways, if the contents remaining at freeway are to be moved, we will be using the move page function, not cut-and-paste."

I know that - but I'd then have to cut and paste everything that relates to more than the US back into freeway. --SPUI (T - C) 18:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]