Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:24, 17 January 2008

WebHamster is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #98

Picture of the day The Kefermarkt altarpiece is a richly decorated wooden altarpiece in the Late Gothic style in the parish church of Kefermarkt in Upper Austria. Commissioned by the knight Christoph von Zelking, it was completed around 1497. Saints Peter, Wolfgang and Christopher are depicted in the central section. The wing panels depict scenes from the life of Mary, and the altarpiece also has an intricate superstructure and two side figures of Saints George and Florian. The identity of its maker, known by the notname Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece, is unknown, but at least two skilled sculptors appear to have created the main statuary. Throughout the centuries, it has been altered and lost its original paint and gilding; a major restoration was undertaken in the 19th century under the direction of Adalbert Stifter. The altarpiece has been described as "one of the greatest achievements in late-medieval sculpture in the German-speaking area". This image shows the upper-left wing panel of the Kefermarkt altarpiece, depicting the birth of Christ. Mary is portrayed kneeling in devotion in front of the infant Christ, who is placed before her on a fold of her dress. On the other side, Joseph is also kneeling in front of the child. Above Mary, on the roof of the building behind them, are two angels playing a mandolin and a lute. The annunciation to the shepherds can be seen in the background.Sculpture credit: Master of the Kefermarkt Altarpiece; photographed by Uoaei1 Archive – More featured pictures...

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Arditi S.p.A

You didn't left me time to improuve the page, or to put the "hangon", and I don't think it is much less relevant than for example Calcomp, Guide Friday or Floform, only to cite a few. What is your advice? User:Miguelfms

December Newsletter, Issue III

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue III - December 2007 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Member news The project now has 31 members. 3 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. Andrew has also created another template for your talk page (even though this links to your userpage) which displays for all to see that you are a member of the project. You can add it to your page by including {{WPGM Talk}} to the page. It may be difficult to see the true effects of these welcoming messages, but I'm estimating that since the introduction of these that 12 new users have joined, all 100% have accepted their invitations, and therefore they are 100% successful in their aim. Greater Manchester Article News Once again, the project has been subject to much praise from three newly promoted featured articles, and one more good article. Oldham (nom), Manchester (nom), M62 motorway (nom) and Chat Moss (review) have all passed with flying colours. Featured articles now make up 0.03% more of the overall articles that there are relating to the project, than last month. Of all 791 pages which are tagged with this template, 100% have been assessed with the new scale which was introduced last month. It may also be worth noting two others pages that are undergoing transformations are: List of companies based in Greater Manchester and Belle Vue Zoo. Current Debates There was a lengthy debate over Manchester Airport this month, which lead to three article for deletions, second nominations viewable here and deletion review viewable here. Basically, what happened was there was quite a great misunderstanding of what the purpose of the lists actually were. They were to compile a list of the destinations served by each terminal and linked along into a sub-page, where it would seem the overview page (i.e. Manchester Airport) would look less cluttered, as was the suggestion at the peer review. Some participants at the first AFD, stated that reviews shouldn't be carried out upon unless there is consensus, and as they are not authorative should only be used as a guide. It was soon sorted though and all three daughter-lists were deleted. There has also been a change to the projects aims, which took a dramatic overhaul this week following the FA pass of Manchester. The change was performed by Jza84. It is now recognised that we should bring not only top importance articles to FA standard but also ones that have been long-since reviewed, like Altrincham and Stretford. And if you're wondering why Salford is there it's due to the fact that there is a consensus among the project members that as Salford is in such close vicinity to the City of Manchester, that it's our "duty" to help promote it. The change came about about after this discussion. Monthly Challenges New this month, we have to get Greater Manchester upto Featured Article Standard. However, with Manchester now rated as FA-Class and the proposed "skipping" of the GA process, it may not be too long before we see this under the success section on the project mainpage. It would be ideal if all 791 articles were at least GA standard, but that will never happen in the next month! But please if you can, assess your ability to understand an article and if you're acquauinted with the task in hand and potentially long wait for a writing and for a review, go ahead! Be bold. The progress monitor can be seen here. Once again, Portal:North West England has been subject to much exposure on behalf of it's editors. The current status of the portal is looking good and it has so far gained unanimous support at it's FPOC. Hopefully, it'll be promoted and we'll have yet another success on our hands. Also, most major articles that are relevant have been tagged with a shortcut to the Portal mainpage, by Jza. And finally, have a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Created by Rudget | Single-Page View

Soldiers of the Cross - Colorado

You left me a message some time ago about an article with the above title being deleted as insignificant. I am not really interested in playing the silly wiki games that go on here and as another admin put it, he is not interested in the subject and deleted it. Understand why wiki has problems raising money now?

As to what is the importance or significance of it. What is the importance of this article Church of Jesus Christ–Christian? It is/was a white supremacist church run by Wesley A. Swift.

So, lets apply the above to the deleted article on Soldiers of the Cross - Colorado. It was a christian identity school, aka the Rocky Mountain Kingdom Gospel Institue run by Kenneth Goff. Kenneth Goff is listed in the Encyclopedia of White Power, pg. 120.

Do not send me any more messages please (or ban me). I am no longer interested in wiki-politics and I am not interested in the lame reasonning that goes on from what appears to be mostly immature, college kid admins.

January Newsletter, Issue IV

The Greater Manchester WikiProject Newsletter

The WikiProject Greater Manchester Newsletter Issue IV - January 2008 Got any suggestions? - Add them here Member news Happy New Year to all our Greater Manchester Wikipedians! The project now has 34 members. 5 new participants enrolled last month, they can be viewed here. On behalf of the team I hope they have prosperous and enjoyable usership and wish them well with their forthcoming work! User:Archtransit and User:Rudget, both part of our team, are current candidates for adminship (see here for Archtransit and here for Rudget). We wish them luck with this persuit and hope they will become our latest project participants with admin status! Greater Manchester Article News Since our last newsletter delivered by User:Rudget on 03 December 2007, our teamship has continued to bear fruit in the form of obtaining featured article status for Chat Moss (nom). User:Malleus Fatuarum has been heavily involved with this article and we thank him for his efforts! It's a great addition to our FA family! In addition to Chat Moss, Altrincham (nom) is a current featured article candidate, whilst Trafford is a recent good article candidate. Simillarly, the Portal:North West England is now officially a featured portal. User:Rudget has been overwhelmingly involved with this portal and he too is hereby thanked on behalf of the project for his continued contributions to this page and many others. Following a title change this month (from city-wide to county-wide per this discussion) Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester has been one of the project's successes, albeit unofficially, with good collaboration and rapid rates of development. It is hoped by several users that this become a featured list in the short term. If you think you can help with images, information or just filling in the dead links, please feel free to join in! Simillar articles to undergo large transformation are List of churches in Greater Manchester, Kersal Moor and List of railway stations in Manchester, all of which are now in good shape. Current Debates There have been a number of debates this month, some of which with a high level of potential impact for the project and its members. Article assessment for the project became a point of contention when around 1400 articles were tagged by a bot. Most of these artcles were on "minor" association football players. The consensus was that in our state of around 30 participants and as a predominatly geography based project, most of these articles should be untagged, at very least for the time being. Of our 1403 articles now tagged however, only (?) 85% are assessed - a drop of 15%! Other debates have included the notability and verifiability of Commonwealth Black Pudding Throwing Championships and its mention on the Ramsbottom article. Whilst on Shaw and Crompton, one of our featured articles, questions have been raised as to what constitutes a "town". If you have any veiws on these matters, please feel free to share them at the project talk page. Perhaps one of the most notable debates this month was the possibility of... scrapping the project newsletter! User:Rudget has written the last three editions (that's all of them!) and has decided that he'd like to pass on the responsibility. It has been proposed that a noticeboard system be introduced to highlight new issues in a near(!)-realtime fashion. I User:Jza84 am writing what could now be the last GM newsletter for a while. If you're a member of the team, but aren't closely involved with the project, then we'd love to hear from you at WT:GM with your views on which system of communication is the right way forwards (if any/both!). Monthly Challenges As was stated in last months newsletter, the Greater Manchester remains a key article for the project, and one which has been identified as urgent in our quest for Featured Article status. Sadly, for all our other successes, Greater Manchester has changed little since this time last year] (!) and is still an article requiring expansion and development. The new WP:UKCOUNTIES guide may provide new ways in which to channel our efforts. Although we endevour to have good article status even for our suburbs and hamlets, other articles specifically identified as needing development towards FA include Salford, Stretford and Altrincham. Many of our most crucial articles about our largest towns are still in poor condition: Rochdale, Bury, Prestwich, Bolton, and Wigan are of "start class" standard - much lower than we should have. If you feel you can help, please be bold and try to improve these. One final challenge for this month is for all those with new digial cameras for Christmas, or even digial images stored away on a disc!... many of our place articles are still without a single photograph, and www.geograph.org.uk is running low on quality images. Even those with photographs often have a low quality photograph of the local church. MORE ARE NEEDED! Especially townscapes! If you think you can help, a barnstar is up for grabs for best picture added in the next month or so! We're always looking for potential new project members and ways for greater communication, collaboration and participation. WP:GM has a strong core of users, but would like to have more input from a wider user-base. If you can think of ways to improve our ways of working, please feel free to mention them at WT:GM. Simillarly, if you notice a new or unapproached user who is producing sound work related to Greater Manchester and its consituent parts, please don't forget to ask them if they'd like to join us, either in your own hand, or by adding {{Welcome WPGM}} to their talk page. Would you like to write the next newsletter for WP:GM?? Please nominate yourself at WT:GM! New editors are always welcome! Created by Jza84 based on a template by Rudget | Single-Page View

Article about The Curve (shopping mall)

Why are you deleting my article, The Curve (shopping mall) that I created. It is totally not fake and it is a real shopping mall. - Tee Meng 9:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

And one more thing, if you still think this page needs to be deleted, feel free to try and PROD or AFD it. For your information, Tee Meng (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Winnie Mariama Forewa

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Winnie Mariama Forewa. The reason is:

the beauty queen of any country is significant, although not necessarily notable

If you still think this page needs to be deleted, feel free to try and PROD or AFD it. For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Repeating speedy deletion postings

Please don't do that. If an admin takes down a speedy notice, you should just accept that the article has been reviewed. William H. Osborne is CEO of a large company, and that should be treated as an assertion of notability. You can take it to AfD if you must. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Right to Resist

I'm not gonna post this on the debate page because it's unnecessarily inflammatory, but I thought you'd enjoy it. I thought of it when the subject of "natives" and "Americans" came up:

This user supports the US troops in the lands of dark-skinned people.

--MQDuck (talk) 05:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

LMAO. The depressing thisg is that there are editors here who wouldn't see anything wrong in it :( --WebHamster 05:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. I'd dearly love to include it in one of the userbox lists but, after all this, it would be an incredibly thing to do.

Anyway, it seems to me that a consensus is being reached on the issue. It's been about 19 hours since The Other Side made an argument. I don't think it's my place to suggest the discussion be closed - and it would probably be smart if you're not the one to close it - but at what point is a consensus considered to be reached? If we can make that happen soon, how do we do it?

(Oh, and I thought your "oil in Texas" comment was brilliant. It works in at least two ways. British humor - sorry, humour (rhymes with "hour" (sounds like "how're"?)?)?) --MQDuck 20:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Errr..

Did you see why this was removed? Do you honestly think we're better off with it than without it? Friday (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, nevermind. Good call. Friday (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

MfD

Please withdraw it yourself, now . This is not helpful--in fact, from your point of view, it might be seen as counterproductive.DGG (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You've got no chance of me withdrawing it. Unless of course the Iraq resistance one is kept, in which case maintaining non-bias demands I withdraw it. But not until then. It's only one day. Meanwhile are you telling me that the MfD is against the rules or inappropriate? --WebHamster 02:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, i closed it to avoid confusion. Wait until the other MfD is closed, one way or the other. Don't you see that WP:POINT is relevant, and is going to risk losing sympathy for your position? Personally, even then, perhaps you can find some even more militaristic box to start with. Email me for further explanation if you like. DGG (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I vaguely remember reading on a related MfD that even if WP:POINT is relevant it doesn't detract from the fact that it is also a valid reason. WP:POINT doesn't cancel that reason out. As regards my own personal position I'd rather keep that to myself as I don't want my own POV to interfere, but I have no problem with it going either way. If one goes they both go (and others) if one stays the other stays (and others). If one stays and one goes then I shall kick up holy hell (within the rules of course). --WebHamster 02:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Just wanted to take this away from the MfD.

"Go lecture someone else" -- Was that really necessary? We on Misplaced Pages tend to correct each other when in violation of policy. You asked someone a ridiculously unfaithful and incivil question. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "don't make assumptions". It means you definitely SHOULD ASSUME -- and assume GOOD faith, at that. So when you ask someone if they have an ulterior motive in making a comment, you are in violation of WP:AGF, because you are failing to make the assumption of good faith. I hope this makes things clearer. And telling me not to lecture you doesn't do anything, because again, there are no policemen on Misplaced Pages, so we each do our part to keep each other under control. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:58, 16 Jan 2008 (UTC)

There you go again, lecturing. I don't appreciate it and I shall remind you of it every time you do it. Now, it's about time we get onto YOU assuming good faith. You immediately assumed bad faith when I asked the question. There's nothing worse than being lectured by a hypocrite. I told you why I ask, you assumed bad faith on that too. Now I'd appreciate it if you took your piousness and shove it where the monkey shoves his nuts. It's not wanted, it's not welcome and it's not necessary. I've been on WP long enough to know what is an isn't right, I've been on the planet long enough to know what is and isn't right. At this late juncture I don't need you to come along and arrogantly explain it to me. --WebHamster 18:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Telling someone to shove things anywhere is hardly fostering an attitude of collaboration. Please try to be more civil in your comments. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe there's additional orifice space available for your lecture too. --WebHamster 21:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I've changed the format somewhat, to look more like threaded discussions, instead of the "endorse/oppose summaries" format. You're welcome to refactor your comments. Thanks- Mtmelendez 16:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)