Wikipedia talk:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Some people have no sense of humor

After adding this link to Reichstag, a user wrote this on my user page:

==Reichstag==

If you add such nonsense to an article again I will report you for vandalism. Adam 04:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha ha. Travb (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That is actually a bit understandable. Unfortunately as a new user User:Dfrg.msc did in fact spam that article's talk page with the original spidey image. Needless to say the editors who frequent that article didn't take too kindly to such a demonstration and you're now "reaping the rewards" of their previous experience. Don't take it personal and please take this bit of advice and do add links to this decree somewhat sparingly at this point because it is still a bit new and is going through a "breaking in" period whereby regular editors are becoming aware of it in their own time (essentially let us not force the issue about this). Thanks for sharing this story. (→Netscott) 05:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Netscott: essentially let us not force the issue about this That sounds reasonable. I didn't know this articles "colored" history. Thanks for your efforts. I love the article, too bad some people have no sense of humor, but under the circumstances I understand why they maybe so uptight, if this user would have simply said this, I would have understood.

Best wishes, Travb (talk) 07:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Uh, yeah, that was probably me. Sorry! Dfrg.msc 07:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Come On...

Let's face it: wikipedia does not have infinite space. Wikipedia does not have time for useless articles like this and if anyone looked at the rest of this talk page, the person who said the thing about admins posting stuff: First, how will you know a wikipedian, especially when he looks like Spider-Man? And we don't climb it with a wireless laptop connected to your user page, looking for admin warnings. Please delete this article.--Mac Lover 00:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

• As per the tag at the top of this talk page, this miscellaneous page was nominated for deletion and the result of the discussion was Keep. I doubt whether there would be any interest or support in a second nomination.--A Y Arktos\^talk 21:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Apart from that, deleting pages does not free up space. In case you didn't know how Wikimedia projects work, all deleted edits are still stored in the database, so you do NOT get more space by deleting stuff. —Nightstallion (?) 14:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Please delete this article? How about no? Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 07:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorsement

Now that this has the official endorsement of the cabal, I am officially removing my opposition to it. Congratulations, builderers! --M@rēino 21:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou Mareino. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 05:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Anniversary

This article was created: 10:22, 27 June 2006 . An Anniversary is coming up. I propose a Spider-Man Piñata. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 05:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Template

I have a template for the policy list with this important policy included in my user space (per the German userbox solution): {{User:CRGreathouse/Policylistfull}}

Enjoy. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The history of this important guideline

Can now be found here - User_talk:Dfrg.msc/Archive_1#How_did_this_Start.3F, as Dfrg has foppishly decided to archive his talk page. Proto::type 10:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean guideline? This is a decree. --ais523 10:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as a commandment. 'And yea, thou shalt not climbeth thine neighbour's house whilst thou art clothéd in the likeness of the spider'. Proto::type 12:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It will always be a GUYdline to me. Newyorkbrad 13:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll do what Netscott said in the first place and create a sub-page on my page, it need s to be re-written and help from Guy would be appreciated. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And here it is: NCR: A History. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself.

There seems to be a slow edit war over this shortcut, so I'm posting here on the talk page to try to settle it. I'm neutral on the issue myself; do others think this should be in the shortcuts list? --ais523 10:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the redirect was RfD'd, but I could easily see a debate about whether that RfD was closed correctly (only the nominator requesting a delete, and 1 keep, so as RfD can delete with a low number of !votes it comes down to balance-of-arguments). It's probably worth seeing the redirect's deletion log too (there's been several recreations). --ais523 10:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In my less than impartial view that redirect merits existence relative to this "decree" it adds to the humor because of its pure ridiculousness. :-) (→Netscott) 11:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly concur: the shortcut and redirect should be reinstated immediately. In fact, I have an appointment at the costume shop if this isn't rectified by the weekend. Newyorkbrad 11:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Is that a threat? You are aware that illegal threats are illegal (by the nature of being illegal), and legal threats will get you blocked, so that all threats are either illegal or will get you blocked? --ais523 12:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, as there is support for the redirect here and the RfD seems slightly suspicious, I'll take the matter to DRv and see what happens. --ais523 13:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Speedily-closed the DR and reinstated the shortcut earlier today. Personally, I think it is really funny, but more importantly, the RfD's closure was highly suspect. If it ran through RfD again and was deleted after actual discussion (and was closed by someone that hadn't already displayed bias for deleting this page), I'd happily accept it as community consensus and move on. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Cheers EVula. :-) (→Netscott) 05:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

For recordkeeping, the DRv is currently archived at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 6. --ais523 09:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I love this shortcut with every wikiounce of my wikibeing. It also serves to acurately describe situations before one even has to click the link. Cheers ~ Oons 216.91.240.14 17:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Language

Now, were in another language: cs:Wikipedie:Nešplhejte na Reichstag převlečeni za Spider-Mana. Amazing. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 01:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yea, but you notice the Humour Cat? Someone thinks we must really be thick. Malangthon 05:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

To be honest...

Wile I have climbed the reichstag dressed as Spider-Man I hope I do not get blocked for it. Djf2014 01:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll recommend just a warning since you admitted it, but please don't do it again. Happy New Year. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:IAR?

Hypothetically, if someone actually was Spider-Man, and there was a super villain on the roof targeting Wikipedia's servers with a death ray, would WP:IAR take precedence? Webrunner 00:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

If Spider-Man climbs the Reichstag and no-one is there to look, is he dressed as Spider-Man? --ais523 13:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to your questions:

• Yes. The rule specifies you dressing up as Spider-Man, not if he does it himself. But we're hardly going to change it into "No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man unless there is a Super-villain on the roof targeting Wikipedia's servers with a Death Ray". Unless.....
• No. That's just silly.

Cheers, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The rule only forbids climbing the Reichstag for the purpose of gaining advantage in a content dispute. Protecting the servers themselves is independent of any particular content dispute and therefore is an authorized reason for climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man and may be undertaken as appropriate. (I suppose some wikilawyerish type could argue that eliminating the Wikipedia servers with a death-ray really is an extreme form of content dispute, i.e., taking the position that there should be null content rather than 1,500,000 articles and growing, but I've considered that argument and decided it's wrong.) Newyorkbrad 16:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Brad you've proved your not silly enough by passing an RfA. Go now, get a lampshade or a teacosy on your head. Go! Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 09:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Club

Why don't we make an all star club to enforce this rule aye? Culverin? ^Talk 11:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Because WT:SPIDER is not Esperanza. --ais523 10:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New Logo

Free image: Image:DFRGNCR.jpg. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 23:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It's quiet

Too quiet. Dfrg.msc 22:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your new logo is a good addition. It makes me laugh as I look at it and with the exception that spidey isn't climbing but is already on top of the Reichstag (which thereby is inspirational to would be WP:SPIDERs) seems like a sensible addition. :-) LOL (→Netscott) 22:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia

It seems to me as though this article belongs on Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. Tiejaz

IMO, all of the articles in Category:Wikipedia humor belong there, but there is consistently enough support for these articles by people who are more likely to frequent these areas to keep them all here. Ansell 03:25, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was mentioned in one of the MfDs that this page might be better on Meta. There is a serious message behind this decree, and it's come up in serious discussions once or twice if I remember correctly. It's sort of a more humorous version of WP:POINT. --ais523 14:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Climbing dressed as other super-heroes/villains

File:Wonderrougewoman.jpg

Me on my way to the Reichstag.

Before I do this climb, I want to make sure that I don't get in trouble for it.

1. I'm not an admin (rouge or rogue). Does this apply to me?
2. If I WAS an admin, I would likely be a rogue admin, rather than a rouge admin, because I am female,

and there are too many gentlemen here wearing rouge.

I will more likely stand out by wearing cologne. (the fragrance, not the city)

1. I was considering climbing as Wonder Woman. Is this decree restricted to Marvel Comics characters?
2. Would it be more advantageous for me to climb now or later?

Thank you for your time. Sue Rangell 22:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Users scaling any public building dressed as any popular comicbook character may be blocked for disrupting Wikipedia to make a really stupid point. Even threatening to do so is generally viewed as unacceptable. On the other hand, if it has absolutely no connection with a content dispute, you may just about get away with it, even though WP:IAR is a bit of a tenuous defence in such cases. The decree has nothing to do with admin vs. non-admin (the rouge admin cabal are the group of people who enforce this, rather than necessarily who it applies to (and rouge admins aren't likely to let something as simple as a decree get in the way of what they want to do anyway). As for the timing of the climb, I have no idea. --ais523 09:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I fear the Cabal, therefore I'm unlikely to do this climb in my Wonder Woman costume. But now I find myself wondering if it would be acceptable to wear a red or pink business suit and climb the Reichstag as Diana Prince (Wonder Woman's secret identity), since technically I wouldn't be climbing as a super hero or villian. I thought perhaps I could display a large red, white, and blue banner reading "I am not Wonder Woman".

This may be a grey area not covered by the official decree. Sue Rangell 22:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but you have just revealed Wonder Woman's (formerly) secret identity; therefore, there is no secret any longer and the decree is fully applicable. Proceed accordingly. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn.......Sue Rangell 00:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am allergic to cologne, and therefore will need to scale in protest. There are not too many male admins wearing rouge, because I like men in makeup. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No climbing the Petronas Twin Towers?

After reading this news story, I am trying to figure out if someone was trying to expressly violate our dictum here :) Orderinchaos 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

N he wasn't dressed as a comic - book hero... he's only known by that name... no cabal intervention necessary here. ;-) (→Netscott) 04:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Robert has climbed over 65 buildings around the world, including the Eiffel Tower, London's Canary Wharf building, New York's Empire State Building and Chicago's Sear's Tower." Sounds like the guy's got a pretty impressive record. I think it's time for his RfA. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is This appropriate?

No not THIS article...this other one.

Would it be a good idea to include it as a link? or a see also? I fear the Cabal, so I didn't want to just slap it in there.

Sue Rangell 04:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What does it mean?

What does it exactly mean by "climing Reichstag", is it literal or an expression? Wooyi 01:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its pretty obvious by the article's text that it is literally talking about about climbing Reichstag building. If this sounds odd, its because its suppose to. This article is meant to be absurdist to illustrate the point to editors that they need not take every discussion on the Wikipedia too seriously. —Mitaphane _?|! 18:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In some eastern religions, "Climbing the Reichstag" is an analogy for the struggle of life, obtaining Nirvana, or finding inner peace. As one "Climbs the Reichstag of Life", new realities can open, and one can obtain enlightenment. Sue Rangell 19:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As a result of the first of no doubt many users before him/her mistaking this essay to be taken literally (for example, "...will result in a Indefinite Block...") which should not be permitted. The edit I intend to implement should be along the lines of:

Sections of this page use illustatrions which are kept because it is considered humorous. They should not be interpreted literally; the only section of this page which should be interpreted absolutely literally is the "This Decree in a nutshell" box below.

..etc..; comments or suggestions are invited.

anthony^[cfc] 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is extremely obviously humor... such a tagging would only be redundant. (→Netscott) 21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do people always want to stick that purple banner all over everything? Sue Rangell 21:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the humor banner should stay on the talk page. That is a good compromise between not having it at all and having it actually on the main page. (→Netscott) 08:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I think this should be policy for all humor pages. With the category tag at the bottom, and the ugly purple banner on the talk page, it should be MORE than adequite. Sue Rangell 17:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I like that. Nothing spoils a joke like a purple billboard saying "Joke Ahead". Assuming someone is Appalled and Dismayed^TM at the page, the first thing they should do is click "discussion", and there is the purple banner. It's not as though the (non-editor) reader is likely to find his way here.

Perhaps we should ask the developers to add a new user option. Go to 'My preferences', check the 'Sarcastically impaired' box, and purple banners will appear in front of all jokes. — Randall Bart 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe we'll just block people at random. Dfrg.msc 23:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You people take this way too seriously! It's hilarious! Just imaqgine standing on the top of the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, shouting:

"IF YOU USE TERMS LIKE "IT IS SAID, SOME SAY, IS WIDELY CONSIDERED, ETC. WITHOUT VERIFICATION, IT IS CALLED A WEASEL WORD! WEASEL WORDS ARE TO BE AVOIDED, AS THEY COMPROMISE WIKIPEDIA'S NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW! OKAY?!"

Use this when an editor is taking things too seriously in an edit war and it'll end fast. Trust me. LOZ: OOT 02:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This never happened it kind of happened

By the time I finished reading this, I was on the floor. Absolutely brilliant. That said, it needs to be made clear somehow that the origin of the page has absolutely nothing to do with a real event (at least, so far). I had a lot of difficulty getting that first. So… how should it be done? $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 04:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and my bad for not reading the above section before posting the humor tag. It's really late, OK? Some time, I'll bring up a totally different discussion about why something ought to go there. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 04:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaand… my own question is answered. Glad to know that WP hasn't taken Uncyclopedia's right to Complete Originality™. $\sim$ Lenoxus " * " 04:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You just had a conversation with yourself. We do have a history page: User:Dfrg.msc/NCR: A History Dfrg.msc 00:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The redirect is up for deletion... again

See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 6#WP:Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. ⇒ Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Some people just don't seem to understand humor. -- Ned Scott 00:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Well, let's go save it. Again. Uhh... some people. Anyway, I leave this place for two week and the talk page get's huge. There hadn't been a post in months! Dfrg.msc 00:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

We still have one: {{subst:User:Ais523/User wikipedia/RC patrol (NCR)}}. Dfrg.msc 00:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

This user is a Reichstag climbing patroller.

Policy or essay

And how is this considered a valid Wikipedia policy. This page must be deleted immediately. — ^tz (Talk) (Contribs) Sat 03:08:07 2007-05-05

What? -- Ned Scott 03:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been proposed for deletion twice, and strongly voted "Keep" both times. If you don't like it, don't read it, but it's fun, sometimes useful, and certainly harmless, so there's no reason to make an issue of it. Newyorkbrad 20:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Uhh. Again. Dfrg.msc 04:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Despite being (deliberately) in hyperbolic terms, the page makes a very valid point. Although the profusion of pictures is making it look like ass at the moment. Neil (►) 10:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an official decree by SCREW, not a policy. Get it right.61.68.24.145 15:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CLIMB

Should we join? If they won't let us, I know what we can do... - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Some concerns

How do we assert the identity of the climber, given that he is wearing a mask, and might subsequently deny doing any such thing? Also, why this bias against spiderman vis-a-vis other superheroes. I am a new user, so please forgive me if I am missing something here. Comments welcome. Regards -- Amit 09:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

...you could ask SCREW if you really want to know. Though I can't forsee you getting an answer anytime soon. (Really, no one has any idea. But don't tell them I said that.)--Song 03:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:REICHSTAG Violation??

Hi.

Has anyone been WP:BANned from the WP for "violating" repeatedly, even with a good reason, this... thing??? Just curious as to how much force these admittedly silly things carry and how lightly you can or cannot take them and what consequences it may have. mike4ty4 (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to answer this question by sticking my right index finger into my left nostril and wiggling it around, then pretending to be an airplane? --Kizor (talk) 02:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Only if you're making aeroplane noises while 'doing the actions', otherwise it would be totally unacceptable.--Alf ^melmac 04:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A corollary to the guideline ...

Just for the sake of not stepping on the Cabal's toes, I would like check for objections to adding the following text to the "Review" section:

As a side note, the city of Berlin has developed excellently-trained and efficient resources for dealing with this recurring problem. Once Spider-Man has been observed on the Reichstag, it is best to simply go about your business. Donning a Green Goblin suit and climbing up after him is strongly deprecated.

--7Kim (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)