Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Limeheadnyc (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 22 April 2005 (→?????). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk archive

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...

Thanks... rewrote badly

Thank you Timbo. I *did* lose my comment, and was very upset about it. I rewrote something not as good and posted that. I'll stick with what I posted, but I do thank you for your quick intervention. High regards, BradGad (Talk) 06:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Me too! (Off topic)

Hi again Timbo,

I was making great strides as a scholar at UVa -- completed all coursework; passed orals; dissertation 1/3 done ... then I decided a divorce would be way more fun and profitable. Turned out I was wrong.

You have a good page. Thanks again for the help.

Regards, BradGad (Talk) 07:04, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Invalid VFD Thanks

Originally posted to User_talk:ClockworkSoul

Hi ClockworkSoul, thanks for at least agreeing with me about the VFD vote :). I really don't think the image is only used for shock value, but I can't convince everyone! Cheers, TIMBO (T A L K) 06:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Heya Timbo. The way I see it, if I have to be underhanded to prove my point, then my point obviously isn't very strong to begin with. In pursuit of that, I try to be sure that I care more about being honest than right. My wife hated that about me during the presidential elections. ;) – ClockworkSoul 14:15, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair use

En Misplaced Pages en español no se admite la subida de imágenes "fair use", por eso he tenido que borrar algunas de las que subiste. Siento las molestias, un saludo. --Comae 19:29, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Spam

No, I think "counteracting" it only legitimizes it. Man, this is so unwiki. We're supposed to reach consensus, not campaign and make targeted spams. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:04, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I was discussing the same with Tony, and I just wanted to point out that admins tend to take every single vote into account, even if it was seemingly a result of vote stack spam. I realize this doesn't feel quite right, but I can't think of a feasible solution since the votes are cast by legit 'Pedians. Yours, Radiant_* 12:28, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

IfD

Hello,

Have read your message (excuse me I'm a bit tired it's soon midnight in France). OK, I saw the bug was fixed, then my vote is a vote to keep the image. Thank you for your message on my French User Page which was appreciated.

Pabix ܀. 21:36, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IfD vote was 65/48, no consensus

Phew! See you again next month, same venue. :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I just got your message. I'm in the middle of a move, so I haven't been on much, and I haven't had time to deal with the cleanup tasks that I had previously taken over. Anyway, thanks for taking care of it. – Quadell 13:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

you're welcome

You're quite welcome indeed! The way things are going tonight, someone might even have to do it for me. Happy editing, Antandrus 05:09, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

re: Thanks

N/P, it just gives me something to do. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• idk, i think so, just a metter of finding some one willing to do it. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:54, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your user page is temporarily protected. -- Curps 08:20, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Im Back

Hi Tim I figured I'd come back after my self imposed exile (I'll honestly try not to fight on articles I feel disturbed by)--198 04:43, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How about If I move the drawing down? It's down that way in the Oral sex article--198 04:52, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok. Also I noted the IFD on that picture (that caused me to throw up); I figured I'd abstain from voting--198 04:56, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fair use

Fair use depends on the use. If it's being used to describe the specific incident depicted, it should be fine. If it's being used as a general article, I'm not sure. No lawyers in the hizzy. --SPUI (talk) 22:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I think fair use requires the source to be credited. --SPUI (talk) 22:42, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Republican party article

Hi Limeheadnyc. User:Lagavulin is simply wrong about the paragraph being inaccurate or negative and I still believe that the paragraph should be in the article to highlight GOP beliefs. I can assure you that my own personal views have nothing to do with wanting it to stay. However, I think that Lagavulin is being completely partisan. -- Old Right 01:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks mate. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah i noticed that a bit back, just waiting for one of socks to pop up, just a matter of time. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:12, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Personaly, i can't see it being a problem, i figure if someone had a problem with it something would have been said by now. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oral sex

Ullo. Looks like Luke's bowlderizing page for the Oral sex article (the one that shows the article without pictures) has been successfully VfD'd. He has reacted to that by linking the image, which seems rather mean to me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't create the "bowlderized" page, and will stand for a sockpuppet check with User:Chakravyuh to satisfy Tony's overactive imagination. Cool Hand Luke 10:16, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I apologise for assuming that Luke created the article now seemingly headed for deletion. It doesn't alter the fact that he's using this as an excuse to change the parent page. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

?????

who the hell are you? 66.74.179.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm Shaft, mofo. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:00, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)