User talk:Lynbarn/archive/010

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Lynbarn. 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.

Lynbarn, what are you up to?

I DID NOT vandalise the page La, la, la! WHAT DID I DO WRONG?! I ONLY ADDED NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH! WHAT DID I DO WRONG?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.95.164 (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, in the Wikipedia spirit of "good faith", that perhaps wasn't necessarily deliberate vandalism, although so far as I can see, it did nothing to add to the encyclopedic standards of the article (and besides, why would anybody be confused?). The others are, I feel, more dubious though. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Karmann Ghia

Having a hard time with the hatnote at the front of Karmann Ghia, ostensibly to disambiguate the car from a Mel Brooks character, esp. given that the Carmen Ghia article is of poor quality (missing citations) and doesn't meet criteria for notability to begin with — and the likelihood of the two being confused is slim to none. WP:hatnote advises against disambuguating trivial information (5.1), and information that isn't ambiguous (5.4). I have removed the hatnote and ask that we continue this discussion on the Karmann Ghia discussion page. 842U (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

• discussion continued on the article talk page, I think we concur! Lynbarn (talk)

Oh how I love it when that happens! Thanks! 842U (talk) 11:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:Nonagenarians and Centenarians

Hey Lynbarn,

The list you are referring to is a work in progress (in fact, i just started it today).

I've got a keen interest in longevity and I will be working on the page over the next few weeks to build tables listing everybody over 90, providing they have Wiki pages.

For now I've only done 1909, 1910 and I've made a start to 1911. As far as I know, there is not a phrase that can be attributed to an individual who is 99.

Thank you for taking interest in my page and please feel free to edit it if you have any contributions to the table. I will probably move it to a separate page if it gets too extensive. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Maidstone link

Sorry I kept adding a link to www.VisitMaidstone.co.uk , being an indepentant non profitmaking site of about 10years, I thought it would be useful to put it on. It is similar to the council site, so I dont know why it was rejected. David —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davicsevern (talk • contribs) 12:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:AgeUKlogo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:AgeUKlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

er - wikiwoohoo, it was you who replaced the image with a .png version, which is why it was orphaned! No probs! Lynbarn (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is just one of those standard messages to let you know :) Cloudbound _{(formerly Wikiwoohoo)} (talk) 16:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

HTML5 video

I reverted your edit at HTML5 video. At http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HTML5_video&diff=350476815&oldid=350473244 you suddenly reverted the text with a totally new argument.

Choosing to specifically mentioning IE (which has huge marked share) as the only major browser without HTML5 video support in a paragraph about what is hampering HTML5 adaption is not POW! And in a small intro section it is perfectly reasonable only to mention IE for space reasons. Your argument seems to me to be made in bad faith, for some kind of power purpose, because I reverted your last edit. Thue | talk 21:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thue, not true - I have never made a bad-faith edit in my life! Just trying perhaps to be a bit WP:BOLD I have made mistakes though, and I'm quite happy to admit to them, but as I understand it, The HTML5 standard is unlikely to be fully agreed for another 10 years or so, so the significance of any browser not supporting HTML5 Video now is of little relevance. My second edit comment was intended as an addition to the first, rather than a replacement.

Ask yourself the question - does including that point really add anything to the intro? In my opinion, it does not. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"versed"

I was unclear in my edit. "Versed" in Australia is sometimes used incorrectly as a version of the word "versus" - clearly in other contexts it is a word however not in this context. 195.226.155.83 (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)