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...)
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)[reply]
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, SteveT • C22:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SteveT • C21:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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, SteveT • C00:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SteveT • C21:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, SteveT • C00:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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? SteveT • C22:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, SteveT • C00:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, SteveT • C22:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. :-) SteveT • C22:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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, SteveT • C22:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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. SteveT • C13:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hi once again. Since the last month, I'm working on The Curse of Monkey Island and I need Edge April 1997 and August 1997 issues which contain previews of the game. Could you mail me some scans of those issues/pages containing the previews? Thanks in advance, Electroguv (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have these issues beside me as I type. I'll get the relevant articles to you in a couple of hours when I can get home and scan them. SteveT • C18:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Check your e-mail! Alas, you'll find the August issue to be slim pickings, and April only has a one-page interview, but it might be enough for a few titbits. Article titles and page numbers are in the filenames. All the best, SteveT • C20:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, SteveT • C22:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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 ... SteveT • C23:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, SteveT • C00:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No regrets-- your comments here validate what I've always known about you. You used your tools with characteristic humility and reserve, not arrogance; you valued individuals and their contributions; and you recognized that blocks should be preventative not punative. Just as you are one of Wikipedia's finest content contributors, you were one of Wikipedia's finest admins, and I'd be hard pressed to find ten other editors to fill the void you leave.
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)[reply]
Steve you have guts and principals, and you acted in the interest of the project rather the upkeep of the letter of the law. Impressed. Ceoil (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys; I appreciate the comments. I'm honest enough to admit that seeing the generally-favourable response has had an effect I in no way intended—it's made me feel good about myself. I'm also screwed up enough to feel guilty about that. :-) But let's keep this in context; in no way was anything I did "extraordinarily principled" (thanks Malleus); I gave up a position that should be, but seldom is it seems, no big deal. The sooner we demystify the tools the sooner we'll be able to move on from a culture that treats the position as a reward to be won, a privilege that many editors see as the end result of their useful content contributions. We exalt the position to one beyond that which was originally intended: a user entrusted with access to certain restricted technical features to help with maintenance; instead some explicitly equate it to that of a featured article—Wikipedia's best work/Wikipedia's best editors (ugh). That's not a healthy attitude, and I'm sure we all know it. But enough grandstanding; I'm off to watch Gunther von Hagens recreate the crucifixion. Happy Easter! SteveT • C21:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. SilverserenC06:24, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@AQFK .. if you look at the the blocking admin's talk page you will see that he was indeed contacted. He appeared to be offline for some time. In regards to Steve's actions to unblock, my impression is that it reflected the will (consensus) of the community. I would also ask that you read the AC case in it's entirety. In fact, all the acting admins in that case were advised as to their actions. — Ched : ? 22:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Sandy. As you correctly identified on your talk, my time is fairly limited these days, so please don't think I'm ignoring you if it takes me a long time to respond to something, or if I seem to be ignoring major issues at articles you know I have watchlisted. It's simply that I don't often get more than five minutes at a time to check in these days, and many of the discussions I'd like to participate in would take far longer than that to even read through before crafting a response. Similarly, I find it difficult to keep track of changes to articles that are fast-moving, such as Venezuelan presidential election, 2012 (which I've had watchlisted for a good while, as it happens, before I even knew you were involved with it), meaning I have to avoid the major problems and stick to general clean-up after the dust has settled. All that said, based on my experience rebuilding The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (film) I may well have some thoughts about potential approaches to the Venezuelan suite, if I can find time to get them written down, and I hope what little I can add will be useful. All I ask is you patience! :-) All the best, SteveT • C19:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:
It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.
At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).
Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.
Not sure if you're checking this much, but if I'd love to get hold of scans/summaries of the Cannon Fodder (E5) and Soviet Strike (E39) Edge reviews if you happen to have them. I asked X201 but I guess he's busy. Thanks, bridies (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanztalk00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Holiday cheer
Holiday Cheer
Michael Q. Schmidttalkback is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
Happy New Year!
Best wishes for the New Year!
Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!
Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.
Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; it sure would be nice to see you 'round here again, you are missed!!! Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!
Hey Steve, I re-recreated the Rev. Stuart Campbell page, and after much digging noticed that you had a go previously. Fair play, the subject is even more of a minefield nowadays! I emailed Stu and he seemed pretty chuffed. Take a look, I don't know how it compares to the old entry. Hillbillyholidaytalk02:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm glad to see you've managed to recreate the page without getting as much stick as we had the last couple of times we tried—perhaps testament to the quality job you've done. I don't recall exactly how it stacks up against what I created previously, but I do think your sourcing looks a lot stronger. If I can find what I had before, I'll let you have it in case you think there's anything worth including; if not, that's fine too. :-) Just let me know if I can be of any help otherwise. All the best, SteveT • C21:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo! Yes, and you too I hope. I still check in from time to time (mainly to have a glance at the state of those FAs), and I've been glad to see you more active these days too. I might even consider increasing my involvement in a couple of months, as I'm finally approaching the end of that second stint of higher education that I somewhat incautiously agreed to three years ago, but don't hold me to that. :-) SteveT • C21:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I am more active again, mostly with little tasks like starting articles or dropping into discussions as a third opinion. I still itch to do big projects but never feel like I have the time to extract content from my research. I would say WikiProject Film has become less bureaucratic (no more newsletters or coordinators) but it is still bustling with discussions. There's a few new editors on board and coming into their own, which is nice to see. That sounded rather grandfatherly... I do hope you'll be able to come back after finishing up school! Erik (talk | contribs) 21:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...
New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian
Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.
New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??
New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges
News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY
Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions
New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration
Non-free use of File:American Beauty gymnasium.ogv
Thank you for uploading File:American Beauty gymnasium.ogv. However, there is a concern that the use of the image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the image may not meet, can be obtained by going to the image description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the image description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.
As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!
Hi Betty. Sorry for not responding before now. I agree with you that the review probably isn't appropriate for inclusion over there, and have commented accordingly. Thanks for the heads up. SteveT • C15:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
