Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:07, 8 April 2012

Userpage	Leave a message	Sandbox	Contributions

• To keep discussions centralized, any new subjects posted to this page will be replied to here.
• If I leave a message on your talk page, I prefer to continue the discussion where it began, but reply wherever you see fit; here or there, I'll make sure I see it.
• Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
• New discussions start below old; you can start a new topic.
• If you wish to talk privately, you can email me.
• Discussions are archived periodically.

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this article know that it will be appearing as the main page featured article on March 18, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/March 18, 2011. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured article director, Raul654 (talk · contribs). If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Misplaced Pages doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch* 19:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is a 2003 documentary centered on the April 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt, which saw President Hugo Chávez temporarily removed from office. Focusing on the role of Venezuela's private media, the film examines several key incidents: the protest march and violence that provided the impetus for Chávez's ousting, the opposition's formation of an interim government, and Chávez's dramatic return. Given direct access to the president, Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha Ó Briain intended to make a fly-on-the-wall biography; they spent seven months filming in Venezuela, following Chávez and interviewing citizens. As the coup unfolded, Bartley and Ó Briain captured footage of protesters and the erupting violence on the streets of the capital, Caracas. Later, they filmed many of the political upheavals in the presidential palace. The film was positively received by mainstream critics and won several awards. Reviewers cited the filmmakers' unprecedented proximity to key events and praised the film for its "riveting narrative". Criticism focused on its lack of context and pro-Chávez bias, a perception which has led to disputes over its neutrality and accuracy; particular attention is paid to its framing of the violence of 11–13 April, the filmmakers' editing of the timeline, and the alleged omission of incidents and personnel. The film is alternately cited as an accurate portrayal or a misrepresentation of the events of April 2002. (more...)

Sherman Minton

Steve, Welcome back. I don't think the building or the bridge belong in the lead paragraph. Maybe you should move them toward the back. I don't think it needs to be mentioned twice. One paragraph could do it all. Cleaner and clearer, I think. I'm leaving it all up to you and to Charles Edwards. Best to you. Keep up the good work. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not at all fussed whether the building and the bridge appear in the lead; I can certainly see both sides, but this is Charles' article, so I'm happy to let him decide. I only moved your addition because it went against the recommendations of WP:LEAD; because the lead is intended as a summary of the entire article, it shouldn't contain information not in the article body. I also felt that how locals now feel about the aesthetics of a building merely named after Minton was too trivial a point to make in a summary of what seems to have been a busy life. However, I hope you aren't put off editing the article because of my tweaks to your contributions; you've added some good and useful content. All the best, Steve  22:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Welcome. Be my guest. I agree with your thoughts, but I did think that the building and bridge might appear in one spot later in the article -- like "Legacy" for instance. You are right, of course, that you and I are just bit players, and that Charles is the lead. So I don't want to get in his way.

But no, I am not putting off editing for anything other than the fact that I'm going skiing and will be out of town for about ten days. And then I'll be busy trying to dig myself out of the hole . . . It was just a suggestion. I.e., an invitation, not an obligation. I've got real world stuff to finish before I roll out of here in the morning. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Chain Saw

No, you're right about the hitchhiker stuff. And I also wanted to say thanks for the other edits. This article has been 3 years in the making for FAC, and I dunno where it's gonna go. But thanks for the edits.--Tærkast (Communicate) 20:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome; the article has appeared on my radar a couple of times in the past, so I know a hell of a lot of work has gone into it. I'm hoping to review at some point this week in between other things; in the meantime, I'll plug away at the (seemingly very minor so far) prose issues before leaving some comments on the FAC page for stuff I can't resolve myself. All the best, and good luck. Steve  21:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Just a headsup. I'm off on tomorrow, the 10th for about 3 weeks. Hope the FAC ends well, assuming it does end. Thanks, --Tærkast (Discuss) 19:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry I've been quiet since seeing my concerns resolved. In part, because of a heavy real-life workload, but truth be told, mostly because DCGeist brought fresh concerns and I was waiting until he finished looking through the article before revisiting. I've been quiet on the FAC-review front for a while, so I'm still a bit rusty; most of what Dan brought to your attention I should have spotted, and indeed would have a year ago. Similarly with the Sherman Minton FAC referenced above; minor issues were raised—after I lodged my support for its promotion—that I should have caught (though in that article's case, I'm still OK with my stance). So, although it doesn't help you any, I hope you can see why I lack the confidence to offer my full support right now. However, all is not lost; Dan is an excellent editor, with many FA contributions to his name, and though he's sometimes a tough reviewer, experience shows that he is willing to put work into articles not his own to push them over the line (barring major issues unrelated to prose quality—and I still do feel that the TCM article is close on that front). Here's hoping you return to see it promoted. All the best, Steve  00:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

It didn't happen. One oppose after the revamp and it failed. It happened the previous FAC as well. I'm don't think I'll bother with it anymore. Even though I told people I was going away, it's as if they still expected me to do all the work (and the problems were fixable by other people), I rarely had access to a computer. But thanks for your comments anyway. It's the end.--Tærkast (Discuss) 18:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Yeah, that's what I meant. :) — Hunter Kahn 23:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Into Temptation

Hey Steve. Just wanted to bring your attention to this, as I'm hoping to make sure people participate in the Into Temptation (film) FAC. I'm bummed to see you are semi-retired, but I've always appreciated your input so just wanted to drop a note at the talk page in case you still check it. — Hunter Kahn 14:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, Steve! Nice to see you pop up this week. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 20:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to be back (for a bit). Still semi-retired, and will be for the foreseeable, but I saw a few-more-than-usual film articles pop up at FAC recently, so thought I'd chip in on a couple of them before work ramps back up again in September. Steve  21:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear! Yeah, the Conan one in particular is a doozy. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:21, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Steve, greetings from the cheap seats. It's good to see you back, albeit briefly. --Dan Dassow (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Jaws

Thanks for your advice in the Jaws FAC, but can you take a further look at the article and see either what the article needs or if you can support the nom? igordebraga ≠ 15:46, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're still around, see if anything you raised was solved. (striking what is good enough helps) Thanks. igordebraga ≠ 23:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I was planning on checking back in last night, but got sidetracked with another review. I'll definitely revisit either later this evening or tomorrow. All the best, Steve  00:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Broken Sword - Edge

Hi, Steve! I heard that you might have Edge's "Making of Broken Sword". I recently promoted Broken Sword 1, 2 and 3 to GA, and now plan to make the first one a FA. It might help. If so, mail me.

Hi. It's entirely possible I have that; can you narrow it down and tell me which issue I need to dig out? Steve  22:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't know. User:hanchen told me he knows there is a "Making of Broken Sword" from Edge, and said, that it's possible that you have it. I have no idea what issue it is. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, the one you need is issue 137; it has Outrun 2 on the cover, so should be easy to locate if I have it. I'll let you know one way or the other tomorrow (I don't keep them at home). All the best, Steve  00:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --Khanassassin ☪ 10:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Check your e-mail. Steve  22:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! There are a few interesting facts I can add to the article. I was just wondering, do you know any user that has French magazines, because "Generation 4" is a French magazine which reviewed Broken Sword, and I'd really like to get that review. Thanks a lot. And, which date did the Making of Broken Sword from Edge come out...??? All the very Best, --Khanassassin ☪ 09:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The issue is May 2004. However, if I have a word of advice for you, it's that you shouldn't be relying too much on other people to do this kind of easy legwork for you. To be clear, I have absolutely no problem with digging through a dozen storage boxes for whatever article you need; I know from my film-related editing that it's very difficult to access old issues of print magazines. But some of the web stuff I had to find out myself, when it was fairly straightforward to find the issue number and date after a little Googling (and indeed, I already told you the date, issue and page numbers by e-mail). All I mean is that other people may be more inclined to help you in the future if you show a little more initiative in this area. I don't mean to be sanctimonious; this is friendly advice, genuinely meant, and I apologise if it comes across otherwise. All the best, Steve  22:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Well the problem is actually, I have no idea where you get these issues. I'm from Slovenia, and here they never sold Edge/PC Gamer etc... But, seriously, where do you get these magazines. Are you a collector, or do they have them in some kind of book shops...? So, that's really the problem - I don't know where to get them + There are no Edge/PC Gamer's here in Slovenia, infact, there's only one Slovenian Gaming Magazine, called Joker... But, you usally just get a free CD with lots of DEMOs of the games, and a couple of reviews... not much use... All the Best --Khanassassin ☪ 13:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Edge

Hi, Steve! I'll be brief: I'm planning to improve Mass Effect and I need the December 2006 (169) issue of Edge which contains a feature on the game. I contacted Hahnchen about the issue, but looks like he can't provide it until the next weekend. Could you drop me some scans of the issue (provided that you have it, of course)? Electroguv (talk) 09:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll check it out; I might not get around to it for a few days (see above), but I'll see what I can do to beat Hahnchen to the punch. :-) Steve  22:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry for the delay. I'll be able to look for the issue on Sunday. Just let me know if you get it from another source before then. Cheers, Steve  22:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. It looks like this is one I don't have, at least in storage with the rest of them. However, it's possible that it's one I've loaned out previously and not yet had returned, so there are a couple of other places I can check. I'll keep you updated as and when I know more. Steve  13:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Steve, hold your horses! It looks like that Hahnchen is the one who won in your so-called "struggle" - I received the issue from him last weekend. Nevertheless, thank you for taking time in order to help me. All the best, Electroguv (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't / wp:bn

the fuck are you doing??? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

whoa .. hang on a second. What's going on? Is there anything I can do to help? I know we've never interacted much (if at all), but I've always thought highly of your work here; and I'd hate to lose a good admin. Can I talk you into re-thinking this a little? — Ched :  ?  22:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I appreciate the sentiment; I really do. But I'm not looking to be an attention-whore, or have editors try to talk me out of it to stroke my own ego, so I'd appreciate if no-one else asked me to reconsider. I've stated my reasons over on Courcelles's talk page, and I'm happy to let that be my major comment. Thanks for posting though. All the best, Steve  22:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. . Either way, I wish you the best in all. — Ched :  ?  22:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; I didn't mean my response to sound so much like a "fuck off" as it did. I only meant that I didn't want people to think that what was a pretty meaningless action in the scheme of things to be an attempt at self-aggrandising. Although it seems that I might have a lot to learn about deflecting attention away from myself ... Steve  23:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem - I didn't take it that way at all. cheers and best. — Ched :  ?  23:16, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• I just want to say that that was very brave of you and you have my respect for doing so. Silverseren 23:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Steve, what you did is not wheel warring. Undoing an administrative action without consultation with the original admin is certainly frowned upon (it's better to get community consensus if you think the action was wrong) but it's not against the rules. --Laser brain (talk) 23:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi there! I probably cocked that part up somewhat, but upon reflection I think it can be considered such in spirit, even if not in practice. I knew what I was doing, and don't regret it. The only thing I'm sorry for is any flak you and Sandy might take in the future for your nominating me for adminship back when; I hope it doesn't make it more difficult for you to get some other deserving editor the tools. For that, and for any dents to your own reputations, I apologise sincerely. Back on point, Malleus' continued presence here is a far greater net gain than my own (not that I intend to go anywhere unless forced). I was highly likely too late, but I hope it makes some small contribution to any decision he's yet to make. I don't mean for it to come across as emotional blackmail—he would treat that with the contempt it deserves—but I hope it does help to show him that his contribution is not unappreciated. All the best, Steve  00:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

• Congratulations on your courageous stand in undoing an abusive block. You have gone some way towards removing the bad taste in my mouth this whole incident provoked. If Courcelles had any integrity he too would hand back the tools having so badly misused them. Your doing so was probably unnecessary; what you did was not wheel-warring in any case. --John (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock?

Why did you unblock MF? Did you contact the original blocking admin first? Or obtain community consensus first? If not, you should self-revert. The last admin who did the same thing was admonished by ArbCom for it. AQFK (talk) 05:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Kinda hard to self-revert when the person in question has given up the bit. Nor is it warranted. Stop bashing on a retired editor. Silverseren 06:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)