Slim's New Twitter Pic, with extra added Brandt, Slim, and Martin Luther! Options

[Daniel Brandt]

NEW FACE ALERT

SlimVirgin just changed the pic on her Twitter account. The previous pic was the one on the right:

The new pic is this:

A day later: Well, well, Photobucket feels that Slim's mug is too profane to grace this thread! That pic is also here, by the way.

And here's another pic for Photobucket to censor, with a copy here in case you need it:

I didn't create it on Google, I merely found it. Google Profiles — an entirely new sandbox for teenagers!

[EricBarbour]

SlimVirgin just changed the pic on her Twitter account.

Please Daniel, we beg you, fer crissakes.............
DON'T TURN THE CRAZY WOMAN INTO A CELEBRITY.

[Daniel Brandt]

Please Daniel, we beg you, fer crissakes.............
DON'T TURN THE CRAZY WOMAN INTO A CELEBRITY.

I have to do it; it's a question of self-respect. I may be an atheist, but my father, grandfather, and brother were/are Lutheran ministers and I was taught that Martin Luther was a decent sort of fellow. And so was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

When the Martin Luther article no longer mentions Hitler or the Nazis, maybe I'll reconsider.

By the way, a leading expert on Martin Luther, and the head of a Lutheran publishing house, User:Ptmccain was banned from Wikipedia because he tried to bring some common sense to that article. SlimVirgin would have none of his nonsense.

(Later edit: I changed the link because it led to a page that requires a login. Now it leads to a list of SlimVirgin's involvement with Ptmccain, aka Paul McCain, Concordia Publishing House.)

[Doc glasgow]

Please Daniel, we beg you, fer crissakes.............
DON'T TURN THE CRAZY WOMAN INTO A CELEBRITY.

I have to do it; it's a question of self-respect. I may be an atheist, but my father, grandfather, and brother were/are Lutheran ministers and I was taught that Martin Luther was a decent sort of fellow. And so was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

When the Martin Luther article no longer mentions Hitler or the Nazis, maybe I'll reconsider.

By the way, a leading expert on Martin Luther, and the head of a Lutheran publishing house, was banned from Wikipedia because he tried to bring some common sense to that article.

For once, you've got a point.

I'd say not mentioning the use the Nazis made of Luther would be a bit too much. But not in the lead. And, if "the influence of Luther on Hitler's thought" is worth discussing, so is "the influence of Darwin on Hitler's thought".

Funny, that's not mentioned on Darwin's bio.

[Cla68]

Please Daniel, we beg you, fer crissakes.............
DON'T TURN THE CRAZY WOMAN INTO A CELEBRITY.

I have to do it; it's a question of self-respect. I may be an atheist, but my father, grandfather, and brother were/are Lutheran ministers and I was taught that Martin Luther was a decent sort of fellow. And so was Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

When the Martin Luther article no longer mentions Hitler or the Nazis, maybe I'll reconsider.

By the way, a leading expert on Martin Luther, and the head of a Lutheran publishing house, was banned from Wikipedia because he tried to bring some common sense to that article.

For once, you've got a point.

I'd say not mentioning the use the Nazis made of Luther would be a bit too much. But not in the lead. And, if "the influence of Luther on Hitler's thought" is worth discussing, so is "the influence of Darwin on Hitler's thought".

Funny, that's not mentioned on Darwin's bio.

I just removed that sentence from the intro. Let's see how long it lasts. By the way, there is a passing reference in the Darwin article about the influence of his eugenics ideas on the Nazis.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Mon 20th April 2009, 11:49pm

[Somey]

I just removed that sentence from the intro. Let's see how long it lasts. By the way, there is a passing reference in the Darwin article about the influence of his eugenics ideas on the Nazis.

Thank you, Cla68!

But no, it won't last... Hmm, now we need an emoticon for crossing one's fingers, don't we?

Regardless, this is the sort of thing that astounds me about Wikipedia. I would never in a million years have imagined that a thread about someone's Twitter avatar being changed might ultimately result in someone making the one little edit I've been trying to get them to make for three long years.

And I'm not even a Lutheran!

[Cla68]

I just removed that sentence from the intro. Let's see how long it lasts. By the way, there is a passing reference in the Darwin article about the influence of his eugenics ideas on the Nazis.

Thank you, Cla68!

But no, it won't last... Hmm, now we need an emoticon for crossing one's fingers, don't we?

Regardless, this is the sort of thing that astounds me about Wikipedia. I would never in a million years have imagined that a thread about someone's Twitter avatar being changed might ultimately result in someone making the one little edit I've been trying to get them to make for three long years.

And I'm not even a Lutheran!

Take note what has happened in response. Although it would have been good theater for Jayjg, IronDuke or someone like that to swoop in, revert the change, ignore requests to discuss it on the talk page, and then arrogantly and imperiously warn me for vandalism or revert warring, the opposite has occurred. The editor who wants it to remain in the lede refrained from reverting and instead left two polite comments on my talk page. Also, a civil discussion is taking place on the article's talk page about it.

Reverted. It lasted about an hour. I've made a suggestion on the talk page. We'll see how that goes.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 21st April 2009, 12:41am

[Noroton]

I've made a suggestion on the talk page. We'll see how that goes.

I got interested and read the section, found I disagreed with you and Doc and put my two cents in (all right, 87 cents). I hope that with polite comments on both sides, we've set the tone and the discussion will stay that way. (Well, it's a hope, anyway.)

I don't think there was anything wrong with your edit or its revert. It's a discussion-page thing. I'm hoping people who know more about Luther will take the lead.

[Somey]

I don't think there was anything wrong with your edit or its revert. It's a discussion-page thing. I'm hoping people who know more about Luther will take the lead.

"People who know more about Luther" have been banned in the past, mostly for knowing more about Luther. So why should it be any different now?

What they need are "people who know how to write encyclopedia articles that are to be read by large numbers of readers, and which bring credit to the website that publishes them."

[Noroton]

I don't think there was anything wrong with your edit or its revert. It's a discussion-page thing. I'm hoping people who know more about Luther will take the lead.

"People who know more about Luther" have been banned in the past, mostly for knowing more about Luther. So why should it be any different now?

What they need are "people who know how to write encyclopedia articles that are to be read by large numbers of readers, and which bring credit to the website that publishes them."

WP:WEIGHT is a pretty singular concept in Wikipedia. It depends on what a whole range of sources say and how much "weight" should be given to each element of a subject. The question of just how much information to include in the lead section basically depends on WP:WEIGHT, which is where the discussion has gone, now. People who know more about Luther should take the lead on that.