User talk:Stelmaris

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Stelmaris. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Fai zan 04:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.--Mais oui! (talk) 19:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Thanks for fixing my edit on the Harry Potter legal disputes. It probably should have occured to me to say who Allen was! --Physics is all gnomes (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Middleton

It has not been discussed for some months (since May, and early May at that). If you look at all the other female royals articles, they indeed use the same format. Also, as the other editor said, she is no longer known as Kate. ★Dasani★ 01:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hook (film)

I've add more details on the cast section. Feel free to check it out.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leveson Inquiry and J K Rowling

Please explain why a link to a the Leveson Inquiry is not an adequate citation. The document cited is a signed witness statement which Rowling was questioned on extensively in open court and on live national British television - it may seem to be at odds with the findings of the extensive Talk discussions on whether Ms Rowling has a middle name, but my wording doesn't comment on or contradict these findings; it simply states, factually, that this was the style of address that Rowling used for her witness statement (and, incidentally, when she swore the oath before giving evidence).Headhitter (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I meant no disrespect but I just didn't think a link to a pdf document was a suitable citation. Now that I've seen the full source, I accept I was wrong but I think you should add the complete reference so that everyone can see where the document actually came from.--Stelmaris (talk) 09:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd thought the reference was complete: what else do you feel should be included? Headhitter (talk) 10:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first link just brought up the pdf document. The full link you've referenced in the Talk section takes you to the Leveson Inquiry site, which clearly shows where the document was downloaded from. That's all I meant.--Stelmaris (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Peter Pan

Hi Stelmaris, Thank you for your recent interaction about the copyright of Peter Pan (on J M Barrie). I have an email from Emily Beahan, on behalf of Peter Pan at GOSH, stating that ‘Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens and Peter & Wendy are both in the public domain and so you would not need any permission to use extracts ’. The situation is rather complicated but do you think the following would be a more accurate edit? He left the bulk of his estate to his secretary Cynthia Asquith [36] although he had already given the rights, including any adaptations or retelling of the story of Peter Pan, to Great Ormond Street Hospital, where they remain in perpetuity. The texts of the books ‘Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens’ and ‘Peter and Wendy’ are in the public domain in the UK. Many thanks Mountain9 (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mountain9. Thank you for checking the current facts - which are indeed that Peter Pan works (the play, the novel, The Little White Bird and PP in Kensington Gardens) are now in the public domain in the UK, which is not in dispute. The point I was making in the paragraph I edited was that at the time of his death, the bulk of his estate was left to Cynthia Asquith, with the exception of the rights to Peter Pan works as their copyright had already been gifted to the hospital: at that time, it was a full copyright, in force worldwide (at least in countries which recognised copyright laws). As of 2016, it is only the play that is still in copyright in the US (until 2023) and in the UK, the hospital has a right to royalty in perpetuity granted by an Act of Parliament (Copyright Designs & Patents Act) passed in 1988, which is not a copyright. Copyright expired in other countries at various times over the last 50 years.

However, because the current copyright status is different in different countries, I don't think we could say the rights were given to Great Ormond Street Hospital "where they remain in perpetuity", which would be incorrect. The copyright granted by Barrie (excluded from his estate inherited by Cynthia Asquith) and the right to royalty granted by the Government are two very different things. Also by implication, copyright means all intellectual property rights in a work, so there's no need to specify "including adaptations or retelling of the story of PP" which should go without saying. I would suggest we just link the reference to "copyright" and "Peter Pan works" to the actual page of Peter Pan, which explains all the copyright stuff for readers who want to find out more. (Incidentally, the right to royalty from the CDPA does not extend to The Little White Bird or PP in Kensington Gardens, but only to the story of Peter Pan as told in the play and novel.).

Yes, it is complicated - but I hope this is helpful! It is actually explained in detail on the GOSH.org website where I got most of this info. --Stelmaris (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stelmaris, Thanks for getting back to me. I am happy with the intent of your suggestions. As you say, The LWB and PPinKG were not part of the Peter Pan Gift to GOSH but that is my point – ‘all Peter Pan works’ includes these books. Would you be happy with this? ‘He left the bulk of his estates (excluding the rights to the Peter Pan play [link to PP page] whose copyright he had previously given to Great Ormond Street Hospital) to his secretary Cynthia Asquith.’ I am fairly new to Wikipedia and still trying to find my way around but I like the culture. Many thanks ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountain9 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Actually, The LWB and PPIKG were definitely part of Barrie's gift, together with both novel and play, but I realise my earlier reply did not make it clear! When he gave the copyright to GOSH, it was to the whole of the PP works, as confirmed later in his will (which you can read on the jmbarrie.co.uk website). Although people often refer to GOSH having the rights to the play, I believe this confusion arises from the fact that it is now only the play that is still in copyright in the US because of the different legislation at the time (the novel entered the public domain in the 80s). In the UK (and the rest of Europe), copyright term was defined by the life of author + 50 Years (later 70), whilst in the US it used to be from date of publication - the play was published 17 years after the novel, so it fell into a different timescale. The rights granted in the UK by the CDPA apply to all commercial exploitation of the story of PP on stage, publication, broadcast, film (but not merchandise or spin-offs). Enjoy Wikipedia!--Stelmaris (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks. Now I understand, I think, and I agree that what matters in this section is what appertained at the time of Barrie's death, not what is the case now. My copy of Birkin's Lost Boys is the old one (!) and other sources are very muddled. Sorry to have taken up your time. Mountain9 (talk) 10:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No apology necessary, you're welcome! I've been studying the story of Barrie and PP, and the complexities of copyright for a long time, so always happy to help clarify. I've reworded the legacy paragraph and inserted links, so trust it makes more sense now. Cheers!--Stelmaris (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stelmaris - I've just undone your undoing of my removal of the "reference" from the Peter Pan article. If you'd checked my edit summary you'd see that I removed it because it was a circular reference - i.e., the source used was Wikipedia itself. As such, it is not a reliable reference and should not be in Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd. I've never seen anyone using a reference citation for a Wikipedia image before, and I'm still not really convinced it makes sense. Surely it would be better to actually add the image, possibly as part of a gallery at the foot of the page. Grutness...wha? 11:59, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I never thought of it as a reference citation, just a link to an image kept in Wikipedia Commons for general use. The image referenced for the statue in Brussels is also from Wikipedia commons, and I've come across linking to a wiki image in many other articles. I don't see it as a problem, on the contrary, as there's no conflict or copyright infringement involved, and the image adds to the piece about the copies of the statue worldwide. If you think they'd be better in the gallery, that works as well. BTW, I like your addition of the Dunedin statues!--Stelmaris (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, I think a gallery would work better. Next time I'm down at the Botanic Gardens I'll take a photo of the Dunedin one to add to it :) Grutness...wha? 23:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centred

Hi there - I think with all due respect that you may have got this backwards!? BrE = centre, AmE = center; so BrE = centred, AmE = centered. No? Or am I going nuts? cheers DBaK (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS Here's a ref. I know it's not OED itself (too lazy right now) but it comes from the right aisle in the right shop ... cheers DBaK (talk) 08:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, you're perfectly right. I must have had a mental meltdown that evening, apologies for amending your correct edit.--Stelmaris (talk) 13:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't apologize, especially since (in the words of the song) it wasn't me ... I just blundered into the aftermath with my size 10s on. :) Thanks very much for the nice reply. DBaK (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely meltdown. However, as the previous editor didn't identify him/herself, you'll have to accept the apology on their behalf! --Stelmaris (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks for that! :) cheers DBaK (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cynthia Asquith may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

to [[Peter Pan]] creator [[J. M. Barrie]],<ref>Birkin, Andrew: ''J. M. Barrie & the Lost Boys'' (Constable, 1979; revised edition, Yale University Press, 2003</ref> with whom she became close

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks for spotting this. --Stelmaris (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zena Dare

You wrote: "This is covered in most reference books on Peter Pan, which I'm happy to list as sources if necessary."

Yes, please, would you add a reference to a page number from a book or article that shows which major production(s) she appeared in? Once you have a good reference (including page number or url), feel free to reinstate the edit. By the way, it would be better to use the article's talk page, rather than our personal talk pages, to discuss the article's progress, so that other contributors can easily follow the discussion. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peter Pan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Once Upon A Time (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Peter Pan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

get the hang of it".<ref>Barrie, J M. ''Peter Pan''. Hodder & Stoughton, 1928, Act V, Scene 2 )</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Enid Blyton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St James's Church (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Berkhamsted may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

for the character of [[Peter Pan]].<ref>Birkin, Andrew: ''J. M. Barrie & the Lost Boys'' (Constable, 1979; revised edition, Yale University Press, 2004</ref> The house was demolished in

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Pic

Not sure why you keep removing this pic! How is it inappropriate? It's a vintage picture of a Peter Pan statue from London Ontario showing the wide spread popularity of this figure, please don't remove again without proper discussion on talk page~

I have explained several times why I have removed the picture, and already left an explanation on the talk page, which you ignored. This picture brings nothing of encyclopedic worth to the page and is clearly about the little girl (whom I suspect is you?) - which is very sweet by the way, but is not suitable for the page. It will be deleted again, if not by me, by others. --Stelmaris (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I cropped the pic so the focal point is the statue, the statute has long since been removed from the park ( which I thought was a shame) :(

Hi. I'm sorry, but even cropped, the picture is wrong for the page - the girl's face is still the most prominent feature of the shot, and you can't really distinguish the statue itself. The fact the statue has long been removed from the park is another argument for not posting the picture. Please take the discussion to the talk page before reinserting it. If you want to include a picture of the statue in Glenn Gould Park in Toronto, that would make more sense. (By the way, please also sign your posts.)--Stelmaris (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ahab and Hook

Why are you undoing the relevant information on Ahab in the Lead?MackyBeth (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer. I suggest we discuss this further where we should, which is on the Talk page for Captain Hook. Cheers.MackyBeth (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adaption

'Adaption' is a valid alternate spelling of 'adaptation' and not a typo. I won't revert, though; 'adaptation' is more frequently used. Elizium23 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Alice B. Woodward may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Dserve.ini&dsqApp=Archive&dsqDb=Persons&dsqSearch=Code==%27PX195%27&dsqCmd=Show.tcl]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tinkerbell Cats

Heya, Thanks for explaining your revert. I'd been seeing some enthusiasm on Tinkerbell as a great intro to engineering for kids as she designs and builds things that people needs. Since there isn't a category for tinker and engineering encompasses those traits and skills I thought it fit. Let me know what you think! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUVGZiPN0hM & http://www.themarysue.com/stem-tinker-bell/ H0n0r (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see your point about encouraging and inspiring girls (and boys) into engineering and designing, but I cannot see how these categories would fit into the Tinker Bell page, which is primarily about the character created by JM Barrie - and Tinker Bell was definitely not an engineer in the original story. This is something made up by Disney (who probably didn't like the idea of promoting a tinker!), so I would suggest you add the categories to the Disney Tinker Bell pages, as that would be more appropriate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_Bell_(film_series) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinker_Bell_(film). What do you think? --Stelmaris (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

George du Maurier

Born in Paris of English descent. Later moved to England. Therefore French of English descent and an immigrant to England. How are my edits in any way incorrect? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Stelmaris. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

La Belle Sauvage‎

For your information [1]. Cheers! Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 11:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Stelmaris. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Stelmaris. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Lit WikiProject

Hi. I'm Barkeep49 and I am working to re-establish the Children's literature WikiProejct as an active project. It seems like you might be interested in (re)joining. If so I would encourage you to add your name back to the active members list. If you have any questions feel free to leave me a talk page message or ping me here. Otherwise I hope to see you around the project. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BrE for Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Based on your recent edits, you may be interested in Template talk:Lang-el § Non-Oxford British English for translit parameter. — BarrelProof (talk) 17:56, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Books Do Furnish a Room, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heinemann. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the article Miss Marple.

Stelmaris,

I have reverted your edit to the article Miss Marple where you deleted the referenced addition of Estonian actress Ita Ever. Your reasoning for the deletion that the actress is unknown in the UK or USA, and the performances were not authorised by the Christie estate, have no basis in Wikipedia policy. English language Wikipedia doesn't have a preference or tiers of preferences for what is known or not known in anglophone nations. Any language or culture is acceptable, so long as it is properly referenced. Whether or not the films or plays were authorised by the Christie estate also has no bearing on notability. We are not somehow beholden to the Christie estate to bury "unauthorised performances". That they were performed, were notable and are referenced is what matters -- not whether someone in Ohio or Dorchester has heard of the actress that portrayed Miss Marple or not, or whether the Christie estate approves or sanctioned the performance. Ever is widely known in Estonia for her appearances in film, television and theatre as the character of Miss Marple. ExRat (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

North African villas

Thanks very much for the image of the Villa Harris at the Walter Burton Harris article; it's an excellent addition. We now have such a number of valuable Harris shots that I almost think we need a gallery. Taking a very long shot, you don't happen to have a photo of the Villa Taylor in Marrakesh, perchance? I got interested in the villa when I did this little thing, Tower of the Koutoubia Mosque, but I always regret doing an architecture article that doesn't have an image. No worries if not, of course. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Sorry, I don’t. I’ve just come back from a short stay in Tangier, when I visited the gardens of the Villa Harris (which I knew as a child, before Club Med took over) but I haven’t been to Marrakesh for years. I don’t know the villa Taylor but I’ll now look it up. Cheers. Stelmaris (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jas is short for James

Well, don't I feel silly. Thank you for the correction. --FPTI (talk) 06:15, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easy mistake. Who uses Jas nowadays? Stelmaris (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of works based on Peter Pan: Difference between revisions

Stelmaris with your Clean up - removed self-published works, not notable since titles Peter Pan's NeverWorld and Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between by Peter Von Brown are done by a rather well known scholar who did his thesis on James Matthew Barrie and is therefore a noted expert in Barrie's literature who was granted special access to his unfinished works and used his genuine unfinished drafts to complete his sequel to Peter and Wendy and it's prequel. Both books would've been done by Barrie himself had he been able to finish them. So both books are relative to the list and can you be so sure they were actually self-published and if they were some Users might not see it as particularly relevant http://petervonbrown.blogspot.com/ — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|CSOOCS (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)]] comment added by CSOOCS (talk • contribs) 19:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about we create a section of self-published works on the List of works based on Peter Pan as some Peter Pan's NeverWorld and Peter Pan: Betwixt-and-Between by Peter Von Brown use the exact unused notes and drafts from Sir J. M. Barrie Peter Von Brown is a J.M. Barrie scholar, receiving Honors at Knox College for his Independent Study of Sir J.M. Barrie as a Modern Mythmaker. Von Brown's research resulted in a paper on the socio-psychological ramifications of Pan in our culture, and a new novel. "Peter Pan's NeverWorld" is an extension of "Peter and Wendy." It is based upon J.M. Barrie's notes, jotted down as Barrie mused upon a new adventure for Pan. Thus, "Peter Pan's NeverWorld" is as close as eager readers can come to an authentic sequel to the beloved story. Von Brown's next work was "Peter Pan: Betwixt and Between," gathering the threads of Barrie's works to explore Peter's passage from infancy in Kensington Gardens to boyhood in the Neverland. Peter Von Brown designed the cover image for "Peter and Wendy: The Restored Text." https://www.amazon.co.uk/Peter-Wendy-Restored-Text-Annotated/dp/098237142X Don't you think he therefore desevers to have his work with the other List of works based on Peter Pan (talk) — Preceding CSOOCS comment added 11:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm going to completely disagree with you. Self-published works are not notable, and whatever Peter Von Brown may have said and boasted about his books (using Barrie's own ideas etc), they are just not particularly good or well-written. It is of course my opinion, but if a book is not taken up by a proper mainstream publisher, there is already an indication that they're not up to a certain standard. Self-published books are not properly edited and Von Brown's syntax and grammar are pretty wonky at times. His second book is even worse than the first. The idea may be good, but not the execution. I don't think a new section of "self-published works" is a good idea, because that leaves the door open to all the other ones. As per Wikipedia's rules, they don't merit a listing because they're not notable. Stelmaris (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's very true but on occasion proper mainstream publisher who've turned down such authors who then gone on to self-publish later on get back to said authors with request to publish future projects. The Pirate Princess Chronicles Series (self-published) by R. V. Bowman is currently being made into a live action series so Bowman must've done something right. Then again you could argue that this only happened as standards for TV ideas might be slipping since streaming became more widely available and it's just a competition now to get the next big thing therefore making Bowman's work irrelevant — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|CSOOCS (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2024 (UTC)]] comment added by CSOOCS (talk • contribs) 23:02, 18th July (UTC)[reply]

I take your point. Yes, some self-published books do get a new life with mainstream publishers. However, Peter Von Brown's works have had some 15 years to make it and they haven't. I'm not convinced that he's an expert on Barrie either. He might well have done a thesis Stelmaris (talk) 06:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, pressed Return by mistake!) So he might well have done a thesis or paper on Barrie, but hundreds of students have done that and they don't call themselves experts. Anyone can have access to the Barrie archives at the Beinecke Library so there's nothing special about that. If he was indeed an expert on the subject, his works would appear as references in other works or websites (like Andrew Birkin's or Bruce Handson's books) but they don't, which says a lot. My point remains that self-published books are not notable for Wikipedia otherwise we Stelmaris (talk) 06:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Did it again!) ...otherwise any page on authors or classic novels would get thousands of fan fiction or vanity publishing titles listed. Stelmaris (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that when they do get around to releasing The Pirate Princess Chronicles Series on the small screen it won't be included in List of works based on Peter Pan due to it's source material. If that's the case then maybe you should check whether some of the comics be removed as some of them maybe self-published or released independently like some comics and graphic novels do since you say they're not relevant. Better yet lets take down the whole article until we can all authentically find proof that say none of the material on it was not self-made, or self-produced, or self-published. — Preceding CSOOCS comment added by CSOOCS (talk • contribs) 11:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If and when The Pirate Princess Chronicles are released on TV, they'll be listed under the appropriate section. You're right about the comics: I hadn't checked them recently and I have now deleted one entry. As for the other works, it is easy to check who published them on their Amazon entry and you can then double-check on the mainstream publishers website. Stelmaris (talk) 13:30, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Shelby and the Lost Boy of Misbegot Islands was published more than once over the years were all of them done through independent means? Peter Pan part of the urban-toons series might fit into this as well, as Urban-Toons series may not be entirely independent but might belong to some sort of publisher after all of those that were singled out may not all be self published as they first appear, sorry to be a pain but I just need to make sure, the same goes for those you've left is every one of those books and comics done by an official reputable publisher? I only ask because there's another retelling called The Boy Who Disliked Mothers: The Story of Narcissus' Son, A Jamaican/Yard Man Peter Pan Retelling of Abandonment, Healing, and Self-Discovery by L.A Drecketts and then there's Found Boys: A Peter Pan Retelling by Leigh G there's no point adding either one if they are deemed self-published — Preceding CSOOCS comment added by CSOOCS (talk • contribs) 23:59, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure of your point here because we seem to be going round in circles. I’m not “deeming” books to be self-published: they are or they are not, it’s not up to me. If you want to add titles to the list, it’s up to you to do the checks and add references if necessary. If it turns out they are self-published, they will be removed. These are Wikipedia’s rules and policies, not mine personally. If you’re not happy with these, please take it up to the Talk page of the List of Works page, not my talk page as I’m not the only editor here. As I feel this conversation is going nowhere, this discussion ends here. Thank you for your understanding. Stelmaris (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Truly Sorry for any frictions caused by any of this only I took you as someone who knows their way around numerous works of literature even if that's beside the point...so once again apologies for any persistent pestering — Preceding CSOOCS comment added by CSOOCS (talk • contribs) 21:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - and no apology necessary. Stelmaris (talk) 07:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]