Talk:Jesus Dress Up

[Untitled]

I don't think coming up second on google.com for Jesus and selling a small amount of merchandise is notable. I think the article should be deleted. 128.205.191.59 02:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does one go about sizing a picture on a page without actually ruducing its quality. The Sarah Silverman image on this page appears way too big. I would like it to be a forth of the size as it appears on Sarah's Wikipedia page. Any help? nobs 19:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC) I recant this request now that the picture has been moved down the page. nobs (talk) 16:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's awesome that a picture can make so many people go absolutely insane...

What I think is awesome is just how many Americans object to their constitutional right to freedom of speech! DuncanHill 20:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I don't understand what the picture of a woman holding the sheet in the street is supposed to add. My guess is that it's a blatant attempt to get a friend's picture in an encyclopedia, though I do try to AGF. Unless there's some kind of real objection, I'll remove it in a couple of days. Matt Deres 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn; I get it now. For some reason, I completely missed her name in the text. Matt Deres 11:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is funny about ridiculing religious figures? There is a concerted effort to destroy traditional values. Maybe Sarah should do a skit about Mohamed and see how it goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronwagn (talk • contribs) 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is funny about ridiculing religious figures? There is a concerted effort to destroy traditional values. Maybe Sarah should do a skit about Mohamed and see how it goes. Ron Wagnerronwagn 21:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not a place for "ridiculing religious figures" or "a concerted effort to destroy traditional values". WP should tell it like it is (if it is notable and referenced). WP is not politically correct so unpalatable info is occasionally presented. WP is a place where NOTHING is skewed by govt, business,religion, interest groups etc. Therefore it has the potential to be a more accurate source of info than anything that has gone before it. In the past information was controlled, quite violently in earlier history, by the churches. We can be thankful that we now have a source of knowledge that is not skewed in favour of religious groups. -- Alan Liefting talk 09:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presently this page is asking for a citation of a photograph of Penn Jillette w/Jesus Dressup magnets. As far as I know no such photo exists. However Mr. Jillette has said on his radio show (PennRadio.com): "NormalBobSmith.com is a fabulous site. Normal Bob Smith is a beautiful writer and a great artist, and he does the Jesus Dress Up magnets, which I have a set of in my home." This information is posted here: http://www.normalbobsmith.com/press/ You can click the link there to hear the audio. nobs (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Many other citations for the content on this page can be found at that location. nobs (talk) 02:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image is to be deleted at Commons

The image is to be deleted at Commons, see the associated deletion request. Whoever wants to keep this image under a fair use rationale, should transfer this image to en-wp, or even better, ask an admin at en-wp for a restoration as this image was originally uploaded to en-wp and then unfortunately transfered to Commons. But please notice that the uploader claimed to be the copyright holder which is apparently not the case as this image appears to have been copied from here. --AFBorchert (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has meanwhile been done by Inductiveload: File:Jesus Dress Up magnets.jpg. --AFBorchert (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consolidation/elimination of Normal Bob Smith page

I'm nearly 4 years late to the discussion, but it seems clear to me that the wrong decision was made 4 years ago in regard to eliminating the Wikipedia entry for Normal Bob Smith and instead causing the page to redirect here (i.e., to the Jesus Dress Up page).

(Because those actions were taken, I cannot even post this recommendation in its proper place — on the Normal Bob Smith Talk page — but must instead post it here.)

Upon reading the last pre-deletion/redirection version of the old Normal Bob Smith page, it is immediately apparent that the page had different, non-redundant content that was more sensibly presented on a separate page. Consequently, it is clear that:

(1) The separate entry for Normal Bob Smith should not have been eliminated. Two separate pages on two distinct though related topics was the better way to go.

(2) Even if — contrary to what used to appear on the Normal Bob Smith page — there was nothing more of interest or note to be said about him than "he created the Jesus Dress Up game", the correct way to have eliminated the redundancy between the two entries would have been to eliminate the separate entry for the game, and have the Jesus Dress Up page redirect to a Jesus Dress Up section of the Normal Bob Smith page.

I'm not about to try to impose either of these alternative states of affairs by myself, nor do I know whether Wikipedia mechanics even would allow me to do so (specifically, to eliminate the Normal Bob Smith redirection and restore an actual page). However, it would be very easy for someone who has the authority to do so to restore the old Normal Bob Smith page — the last version is still accessible — and, if desirable (which I question), to incorporate all the material from the present Jesus Dress Up page as a section thereunder, prior to eliminating the separate page for the Jesus Dress Up game.

Again, I would just have two separate entries; certainly there would be no harm in having both. But IF the consensus is that two entries are one too many, then the one for Normal Bob Smith should be restored and the one for Jesus Dress Up should be redirected. They did it the wrong way 4 years ago, in December of 2010, and we should fix it and do it the right way now.

P.S. I never heard of "Normal Bob Smith" before, and he strikes me as more than a bit of a snarky jackass who takes childish delight in pissing on the religious beliefs of others, on caricatures of Christianity, and on transparently shallow, weak, straw-man arguments for the existence of a deity. But that does not make him any less interesting or noteworthy. I add this so no one will suppose that I am a friend or partisan of Normal Bob Smith, whose claim that his page should have been kept is the result of personal bias.

2001:5B0:24FF:3EF0:0:0:0:3B (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]