User talk:Henrymrx/Archive2010

BEEP
mmmmmm. no —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorywhite (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Future Ideas for APO articles.
Future Ideas list at Talk:Alpha Phi Omega. Please comment.Naraht (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Zoosk
I thought I'd leave you a note to say that I've just declined the speedy deletion tag that you placed on this article. In my experience, the particular tag you used -- db-repost -- is only applicable to topics that have been the subject of an articles for deletion (AfD) process and not those that have been speedy-deleted. I could find no evidence that Zoosk had ever been through an AfD process; if I have misunderstood, or was not made aware that this topic had been through an AfD under another title/name, please let me know. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm absolutely positive that the article previously existed and was deleted. It was around for quite some time.  Could it have been speedy deleted after hanging around for several months? Henrymrx (t&middot;c) 22:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. You're correct that it was speedy-deleted, that's in the edit history.  However, db-repost isn't applicable to speedied articles, only AfD'd ones.  I can't say that I personally would agree with tagging the current article for speedy deletion for non-notability (and neither would user User:Discospinster, who recently declined a similar tag) since it appears on first glance to have reasonable references.  I think if you seriously want this article gone, an articles for deletion process is the way to go.  If you require assistance with that process, let me know.  Accounting4Taste: talk 22:23, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I thought you were clear. I wouldn't have used the tag if I had thought that it been speedy deleted.  OF course, I can't see that and you can.  =)  Henrymrx (t&middot;c) 22:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Your Note
Hi Henrymrx. Thanks for your note. To answer a couple of your points about my edit summaries. First, the space to leave a summary is limited and I may have not used the best phrasing for what I was trying to say. Next, Disney did not come into Miyazaki's life until Princess Mononoke so to say that they had anything to do with his films before that would be incorrect. You are correct in what you say about the English language versions of his films since then (and in the DVD releases of his past films) but they still don't have any input in what stories or animation styles that he chooses. All of this aside the way that it has been explained to me is that one of wikipedia's guidelines about the nav boxes is that they need to have the page that they are on as an item in them and they are supposed lead to relevant and associated items. To me the Disney navbox listing the companies other films don't meet this criteria. Of course, things operate by consensus around here. If you would like to start a wider conversation about this I think that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films would be a good place to start. Thanks for your time and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 16:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Regarding this comment... while I note the good humor with which it was given, I think that sort of banter only encourages the misguided who believe that any disagreement simply must be based in ideology (instead of actually discussing the policy). Not meant as a reprimand or rebuke, just a noting potential unintended consequences of such. ;) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There's nothing in my comment that referred to ideology. I don't generally concern myself with what other people MIGHT think if they decide to make an inference based on something that isn't there. Henrymrx (t&middot;c) 15:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood. I'm just saying that sort of banter doesn't have any productive value, and can have unintended consequences.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Homophobia
Hi Henrymrx, Regarding the article Homophobia since you were involved in the discussion, I would appreciate it if you would review the conversation on the article's talk page (and Daenumen's Talk page) and weigh in on whether my synopsis of the problems we all have are correct, and properly stated on everyone's behalf. Thanks, RobertMfromLI | User Talk 14:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)