User talk:N p holmes

Robert Harrild
Thank you for correcting my capitalisation, I was unable to see how to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saint Michael 2010 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Lar Roscher2.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Lar Roscher2.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ring a ring a roses assistance
Thanks for your help on the article. As another editor seems to have a personal grudge against me and facing RL time constraints, I'll let you guys hash it out for the time being. I think it's important that the article remains clear that there is no connection between the plague and the poem except in the mind of modern readers. Thanks again. leontes (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Having just gone through the wikipedia rules about original research, I can't really see why you think you might be in danger of breaking them with your new ring a roses sources. If I'm missing something, you will have to explain! Otherwise do, please, add them. In general, I think you have skilfully transformed a cringingly bad article into something that is clear, academically without fault and very interesting to read. I have nothing against Leontes (I only know him from this article), my only grudge is against bad articles. JO 24--89.10.28.207 (talk) 10:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whistle and I'll come...
Thankyou for putting me right about Burns... what a blunder! best wishes, Eebahgum (talk) 00:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Frank Kidson
You did great work on Frank Kidson. Thanks. Ogg (talk) 11:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ring a Ring o' Roses
Thanks for your great feedback! However, I have to completely disagree with your desire to delete the Japanese. The section is "Other Languages" and I think it is quite all right to have a Japanese translation too. I fear you might be showing some anti-Asian language bias? I hope I'm mistaken about that. I hope that including non-European languages isn't a problem? Further, I think that link to Kagome Kagome is quite all right, as I believe you agree? Thanks, have a great day. Nesnad (talk) 13:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. The section is about singing games in other languages that appear to be related, not translations that could be made of the text.  Who gains from adding a translation into a foreign language (it doesn't matter whether it's Asian or not)?  Anyone who can read the article, can read English.  But perhaps I am misunderstanding and the translation you are giving has some kind of currency in Japan? It would be relevant then, although perhaps not in this section. N p holmes (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just as in English, as can be seen on this page, there are many ways to render this in Japanese. However, it is a known song and so it is more than simply a "translation" as you may think. For example, check out this book (hope the link works!) that was written in 1988, trust me the title is "Ring a' Ring o' Roses! Nursery Time song book 1". (2000YEN) The "Anyone who can read the article, can read English." part I don't get. Did you ask this same question to the person who added the German verse? The Japanese part is for people who don't speak Japanese (but do speak English) and are interested in how it might be sung in other languages (such as Japanese). Does this help? Is there any other way I could help out with this section? Goodluck, thanks again for the feedback. Nesnad (talk) 13:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... well, I'm not so against it being moved, but still not sure why you protest to it being in the section it is, even if you change the name of the section it still seems to be valid if compared to other European languages. Why is that bad? Confused a bit regarding your reasoning. Cheers! Nesnad (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and a query...
First, a thank you about the references pointer. Much appreciated.

About the Elinor Lyon article, perhaps you could help me clear up some confusion. I did read the Wikipedia codes of practice guidelines (and, I would like to emphasise, have NO wish to offend anyone). I will also remove any links that I have put onto wikipedia (though I would like to point out that some already exist which were not created by me). However, the reason we decided to write articles about our authors ourselves is that a)accurate information is often hard to find when the author is either elderly or dead, and b)the books themselves are hard to find unless you know exactly where to look. In addition, I did some research before beginning and it seems that other publishers have done exactly the same thing. Do you think that is adequate criteria for proceeding, provided direct links are not included? Fidrabooks (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Pantomime
I don't think it's ever been decided officially, but there is no mention of theatre anywhere on the Project page or in the children's literature article, and I've never seen a theatre-related article which is part of the project. Thus, I feel pantomime should be excluded, at least until the project has discussed whether theatre is being included or not. strdst_grl  (call me Stardust) 14:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Talk:Peter and Wendy is one (so's Alan Ayckbourn, but I added the tag for that). I know the Project page doesn't mention it, but I think it should. I'll put a note on the project talk page and see what people say. N p holmes (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Peter and Wendy also covers the novel, so I thought it was in the project for that. (Since this was part of the personal discussion, I felt it was best to put it on your talkpage, but from now on I'll add any further comments to the Project talkpage.) strdst_grl   (call me Stardust) 14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth
The source information provided was paraphrased from the referenced news article, and therefore not misleading. Your edit is speculative, and is an interpretation of the current reference. If you would like to debate the factual basis of the source information, you will require an appropriate citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.121.193 (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved to article talk and answered there. N p holmes (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

DYK!
Thank you for your contributions, and Happy Editing! - Mailer Diablo 19:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Gallery1978
User blocked, thankyou for letting me know. J Milburn (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem of analyzing nonsense
The difficulty of properly dealing with Hansen's idea of trials for crimes against humanity and nature is that it's so incredibly screwed up and flaky from a US legal perspective that you're not going to easily find serious scholarly analysis. The Volokh Conspiracy blog has an awful lot of constitutional lawyers and is the best I could find so far. It's gotten reverted twice but nobody's engaged the problem of properly and sensitively dealing with Hansen's legal kookery.

I would find it a normal thing to strike the citation as unreliable, maybe put in a cn tag in its place but that doesn't seem to be the local style. What's up with that? If you prefer, go off to the talk page. There's already a section on this subject. TMLutas (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

HP FAC
Hi there,

Thanks for your comments at the Harry Potter FAC. I've been through them and managed all except for the ref 84, could you leave a comment regarding that on my talk page or on the FAC?

Thanks, The Helpful  One  Review 15:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you know what I could do for your final point, I can't find any other references - so should I remove that section? The  Helpful  One  Review 16:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please see reply on FAC page. The  Helpful  One  Review 16:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. The  Helpful  One  Review 17:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Robert Louis Stevenson
I see you've been doing a good deal of work on the RLS article. I have just been browsing it and the Fanny Vandegrift and the The Amateur Emigrant articles, and I'm seeing some minor discrepancies amongst them. I just made a minor stab at fixing the issue of when and under what circumstances he followed her to America, but I thought I should call the matter to the attention of someone who might know more than I. Could I interest you in the task? TIA, -- Mwanner | Talk 14:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had been meaning to get around to that later (the years before meeting Fanny are not yet properly covered); but I've filled it out a bit and added refs and a few corrections. N p holmes (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks much! Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 16:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks
oh, sorry about that. Noone ever gets offended from getting an award, even if undeserved :) thanks for the clarification and correction. Ikip (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Boy in the Striped PJs - Thank you
Thank you for your help on this. I'll be bolder next time I see vandalism like that again.--Plad2 (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Jefferies1872.jpg


The file File:Jefferies1872.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Laurence Gomme 2.jpg


The file File:Laurence Gomme 2.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)