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

Serious point?
I almost added something to the top about this being intended for humorous purposes only, but maybe there's a serious point here that I'm missing? Someone at a RecentChangesCamp suggested that it's about WP:POINT, but if so I think it would make me more confused about POINT rather than less.

Could this please be tagged appropriately? --Chriswaterguy talk 02:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, it isn't serious at all- it is a juvenile "WP" thing that bitchy people can throw at you just before they storm off a project. Like most of WP, it's just like the tantrums in junior high, with everyone accusing everyone of everything. Remember, don't shoot the messenger is always shouted by the editor/admin who shows up with a machine gun and a grudge.-- Djathink imacowboy  05:28, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

What makes you think that?Did someone say it to you & now you are calling them names secretly? Don't POV push on what you think this article is.It's just humourAssistant N (talk) 18:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Any attempts?
Has anybody actually tried to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.115.183 (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but only thanks to my vigilance, being an Berlin based admin :). Lectonar (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I have. *runs*  The Ninja5 Empire  ( Talk ) 11:38, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF prevents us from accusing you of lying. Lettherebedarklight (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:SPIDER
A shortcut to this page,, has been nominated for retargetting. Your views would be welcome in the discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 2. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Misuse of shortcut
The code  is causing this page to appear in CAT:SHORTFIX. How should we address this? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

This disgraceful article should be deleted
This disgraceful article should be deleted, on grounds of sexism and homophobia. 1) This disgraceful article should be deleted on grounds of sexism and homophobia as it oppresses all men in general and gay men in particular by allowing females in general and lesbians in particular to climb the Reichstag dressed as Catwoman. 2) This disgraceful article should also be deleted on grounds of draculophilia and arachnophobia as it oppresses Spiders while allowing Count Dracula to climb the Reichstag looking like a bat. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No u. Booyahhayoob (talk) 07:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * real mature Allaoii talk 18:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Please discuss your Bold move here, as per BRD
(Besides wrongly accusing me of vandalism, incidentally), you (twice) deleted a large amount of text, much of which had been there for quite a long time, and had been vieved by well over 600 people (according to the stats) without anybody expressing any objection, except eventually you. That was a Bold move. Bold moves are allowed by Wikipedia, but if somebody objects to a Bold move, there is a procedure for handling them: WP:BRD, which stands for Bold, Revert, Discuss. You have made a Bold move, I have reverted it, we should now discuss it here on the article's Talk page.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, upon reviewing it, what I dislike most is "Thou shalt lick Jimbo's Most Holy Posterior, and thou shalt pretend to enjoy the taste". Everything else is ok (that's one long note), but I just find it distasteful. I didn't examine your contributions in the article before, which I should have. They do fit in pretty well. Could you adjust that line? Thank you for following policy, Origamite (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've provisionally put in "Thou shalt always be absurdly sycophantic towards Jimbo, and thou shalt pretend to be happy about it", plus in the Note I have accordingly changed "deliciously tasting" to "happy", all of which conveys essentially the same message. That's because the average person's way of saying "sycophantic", a word not found in many people's vocabulary, is "arse-licking" in British English, and "ass-licking" in American English - note that I had deliberately avoided using "arse" and "ass" in the text to try not to be accused of vulgarity. However, perhaps mistakenly, I don't feel my new wording does the job all that well. If you can find a wittier way of saying it without mentioning the licking of holy posteriors, please do. Alternatively I would actually prefer something like "Thou shalt lick Jimbo's Most Holy Posterior, and thou shalt pretend to be happy about it", but if you still find that unacceptable, I guess I can live with the current 'provisional' change. Thanks again for your cooperation. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you figure out a way to shorten the whole thing? Now it's longer than many paragraphs in the essay itself.Origamite (talk) 17:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I've split it into 3 notes. I hope that's better. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, can you change the caption area you edited into a note? The part with the sycophantic comment? If you did that, it would be a decision to view, and if you really wanted you could return it to Jimbo's Most Holy Posterior. Origamite (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I've turned it into a note, but I'll still omit his posterior, just in case it upsets anybody else.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Dilemma
Imagine a villain in top of the Reichstag who beat up people who didn't get to the top by climbing, and Spiderman had to defeat him. Write a section about that case — Preceding unsigned comment added by Braden1127 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please understand that this is a guideline for Wikipedia editors. Should Spider-Man be a Wikipedia editor, and should he see a villain on top of the Reichstag, he would not climb it. Rather, he would go to see if he could find a reliable third-party source stating that there was a villain on top of the Reichstag, as a good editor knows that relying on personal knowledge is unacceptable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What if the villain the Reichstag itself, and to defeat it you had to go on top? いくら Braden1127 イクラ ꅇ 00:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We'll tell him "Parker, go home and leave this to S.H.I.E.L.D." Cambalachero (talk) 00:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Whoa, Parker? Spoiler. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Far worse than a mere spoiler - it's clearly an unforgivable violation of WP:OUTING (provided of course that the climber's identity is confirmed by a WP:RS). Tlhslobus (talk) 00:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * well that's still dependent on spidey being a Wikipedia editor 67.167.161.150 (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Fnords
I experience a kind of inexplicable anxiety while reading this article; therefore, if this article contains fnords, I ask that they be removed. If, on the contrary, it does not contain fnords, I ask that they be added. Nlaylah (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * . Immanentizing the eschaton is not permitted here. IAO! -The Mgt. 06:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I have a question.
If I were to go up the correct way, then change into a spider man suit, would this be okay? I want to be sure this won't cause another revolution. 11:01 AM Mountain Time Wednesday, January 23rd, 2019. GeorgeWashingtub (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not okay at present, as indicated in the section 'This page in a nutshell'. Of course once atop the Reichstag you could try changing that section by mobile phone, and then quickly jumping into your spider man suit before the minions of the Supreme Cabal had time to revert you. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Humorous justification for retaining out-of-date audio
Recently there was a minor kerfuffle about the out-of-date audio. Both the audio and its justification were ultimately restored by User:Tlhslobus with the comments "Restoring longstanding consensus audio. Being out-of-date doesn't stop it being humorous. Indeed its out-of-datedness has inspired other humour here in the past, and may well be again in the future" and "Restoring previous humorous justification for retaining out-of-date audio". I don't have a problem with the audio, but does the "humorous" justification really need to be that great religions are laughably full of internal contradictions? I've had a go at an alternative wording that hopefully everyone can enjoy. Rnickel (talk) 13:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Undid change. Didn't enjoy. Explaining that one is being humorous is rarely if ever humorous in itself. We do not laugh at the "LOL, JK" in this world. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you didn't enjoy my proposed alternative. I'm not sure that going back to the offensive, unfunny attempt that was there before is any better. I'm not going to edit war on a page about the importance of not edit warring, that would be a little too ironic and meta, but I do hope that by making my point reasonably here on the talk page, some other editors can be engaged to consider the question and hopefully together we can, as I said, find something everyone can enjoy. Rnickel (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the idea that our inconsistency here is in deliberate service to a huger goal is indeed a legitimate humorous one. I don't hold religion to be the sacred cow that you do, and even most of the religious people I know will tell you that there are inconsistencies in the great religions... just not, perhaps, their own. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's not that it's a "sacred cow" (pun intended?); I would feel just as strongly that it should be changed if it were, say, a racist joke or a "dumb blonde" joke. If we're here to build an encyclopedia, and if this is an essay about how to do that, then it can't also be a forum for casually belittling a certain subset of editors or their values in the name of "humor". Rnickel (talk) 23:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I made a small tweak that basically keeps the same joke, but refocuses the prior "great religion" reference to "great repository of human knowledge". I actually think the joke is sharper this way as (a) Wikipedia does actually aspire to be a great repository of human knowledge, (b) many such repositories do actually contain internal inconsistencies, (c) it's an obvious and humorous fallacy to embrace such inconsistencies as though a desirable step toward what we wish to be. Worked this way, the fact that the joke is also more widely accessible basically becomes a side benefit. Rnickel (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I have restored part of the text to make the joke easier to understand, but I've at least temporarily left the original change, even tho I'm deeply unhappy with it. To supposedly avoid causing 'offense' (which has seemingly not been expressed before by anybody except Rnickel, and they seem so far merely to be trying to avoid offense to others, while, as usual in such cases, ignoring the possibility that such censorship might itself cause huge offense, as well as incidentally being seemingly contrary to such core principles of Wikipedia as WP:NOTCENSORED), it has removed any suggestion that Wikipedia is trying to become a great new religion, thus significantly altering the meaning of the joke, and reducing its humour (at least in my opinion), and removing something which has been WP:CONSENSUS text for at least several months now, and which is consistent with the tone of the rest of the article. Furthermore it leaves the door open for removing similar even longer established and arguably even more 'offensive' WP:CONSENSUS text, such as the bits about it being a mandatory religious belief that was made optional by vile heretics, and about the proof of Jimbo's supposed divinity, etc. And there is also the problem that accusing some Wikipedians of causing religious offense may eventually gain publicity, and may then literally endanger their lives (what happened to writers and cartoonists can presumably also happen to Wikipedians, even if it hasn't happened yet - and this is incidentally one of the things which can make such censorship hugely offensive). Meanwhile this was a WP:BOLD change made without consensus, and seemingly contrary to the apparent consensus. So having given the matter further thought (as already explained above), per WP:BRD I am now going to fully restore the original text until if and when there is a clear consensus to change it, which there currently quite clearly is not. Tlhslobus (talk) 11:45, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1) I could also add lots more about the (presumably unwitting, per WP:AGF and WP:NPA) offensiveness of implying that critics of books and ideas (and, incidentally, quite often both highly offensive and mass-murder-inciting books and ideas) are the moral equivalent of racist and sexist critics of people. But I won't bother going into the details of that.
 * 2) Instead (in the spirit of WP:BRD, tho perhaps unwisely, as it may actually be safer to just do nothing and hope the whole thing will die) I'm going to try to 'be constructive' and suggest a possible compromise change for consideration: replace 'great new religion' by 'great new false religion' (Note: false is only highlighted here for Talk purposes; I'm NOT suggesting it should be highlighted in the essay's text).
 * 2a) The advantages are as follows:
 * 2a1) First, that religious people do not get offended by criticism of false religions (presumably partly because in their eyes their religion is true, and partly because their religion probably does a lot of criticizing of other allegedly false religions).
 * 2a2) Secondly it may also be funnier to have the Supreme Cabal explicitly state that it is trying to create a great new false religion, which additional funniness would arguably also mean that we were not actually caving in to unjustified censorship pressures, but were making a reasonable compromise that improved the encyclopedia.
 * 2b) The downsides are:
 * 2b1) That it may not in fact be funnier,
 * 2b2) and, especially if it is not in fact funnier, that it might constitute a dangerous precedent of caving in to unjustified censorship pressures while mistakenly claiming that is not what is actually happening.
 * 2b3) and, as already suggested earlier, even discussing the suggestion may be unwise and unsafe, as this kind of discussion risks anything from wasted editors' time to religious death sentences against allegedly blasphemous Wikipedians if the discussion somehow gained publicity. (This may incidentally give an unfair advantage to anybody supporting the change, thus raising doubts about the validity of any apparent consensus in favour of the change, since it is presumably the opponents of such a change who would seemingly be at greater risk of such a death sentence for alleged blasphemy, and who would thus be more likely to be intimidated into silence).
 * 2c) As I can see some merit in both the pros and the cons, I won't be making such a change myself, but I'll quite likely be happy enough to go along with any consensus that emerges about making or not making the above suggested change (tho the current default position under WP:BRD is presumably "don't make the change unless there is clear consensus to make it").
 * 2d) Incidentally, this may all seem a rather absurdly surreal instance of Wikipedia trying to produce humour by committee, but hopefully that very absurdity may itself prove a source of amusement to at least some readers.
 * 3) Regards, Tlhslobus (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to throw me a bone, but the "false religion" thing really doesn't do anything for me. I really do appreciate the thoughtfulness given to your response. Just to be honest and in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a Christian and that one line struck me as dismissive and belittling. Simple as that. I don't know what to make of all this about censorship and dangerous precedents and death sentences. It just seems like a joke that is mainly enjoyable to those who *do* believe a prerequisite of a great religion is self-contradictions in its sacred scriptures, at the expense of those who *don't* believe that. Again, in an essay about Wikipedia policy and the ridiculous lengths that some edit wars escalate to, I just can't see the need for drawing and defending controversial battle lines within the essay itself. Is it fair to wonder, among those participating in whatever WP:CONSENSUS supports the seemingly urgent need to include this one specific "joke", how many would self-describe as people of faith vs. how many personally tend to believe that such people are laughable? How big was that consensus, and where (if anywhere) was this actually previously discussed? It was intimated that I am the only one who's ever found any reason to object to this "joke", but it looked as if it had been restored pretty recently after *not* being part of the article for quite a while (poking through the history, I couldn't actually find the previous incarnation of it). To me, that seems like pretty clear-cut evidence that, even omitting the given "joke", the article can still exist and function in intended role. I am frankly surprised by the tenacity and hyperbole around keeping it in. Rnickel (talk) 00:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * P.S. Interesting links that you provided; I followed them, read them, and learned some interesting things. For instance, WP:NOTCENSORED: I followed that and read the following, specifically at WP:Offensive_material: "Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." I think it is fair to say that almost nothing in this particular essay is "treated in an encyclopedic manner", which would suggest that the lightest possible hand be applied. I also think it would be hard to argue that the joke in question passes the "informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative" test. Continuing with the supplied links, I also read at WP:CONSENSUS:
 * "Reaching consensus involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns": here, though, it appears it is being invoked in an effort to dismiss my concerns.
 * "When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal." I am certainly willing, even eager, to participate in a process of consensus building; it is why I began this conversation on the talk page in the first place. Can there be any movement towards "adapting the proposal"? So far I have not seen that willingness.
 * "If the edit is reverted, try making a compromise edit that addresses the other editors' concerns." Again, I have not seen much room here for this as the only response instead has so far been a flat, full revert to the status quo.
 * "Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances." I believe this is what I am doing. I did not see the perspective of those who may find themselves the butt of the so-called "joke" being considered in any form of discussion to this point, and I appreciate the opportunity to consider that perspective now.
 * I also see that there are way to bring in outside perspective, such as WP:RFC. That may be the best way forward at this point. If there is a fair discussion and the new consensus becomes that the current form of the essay is the only possible form, then I will certainly defer to that. Rnickel (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

RfC about the outdated audio justification
Should the "Humorous justification for retaining out-of-date audio" be kept as-is, kept in some alternative form, or removed altogether? Rnickel (talk) 01:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave it as it was and go do something useful. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter Southwood (talk): 05:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave it as is.Tlhslobus (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave it as is per above. SemiHypercube 17:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave as is, or else re-record it yourself. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @  05:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Leave it as is, as a general rule. Benjamin (talk) 13:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

The source of this nonsense
It took me a while but I eventually found it here. Fish +Karate 09:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interesting bit of scriptural research, even though I am offended to the very core of my being by your blasphemous characterization of my favourite sacred scriptures as 'nonsense', and am hereby demanding that the Supreme Cabal impose on you its ultimate sanction. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As the first person to reply to that thread back in aught-six (under my old username, User:Proto), I am a venerable elder of these scriptures, and can say what I like. A pox on you! <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate  13:10, 27 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I only have one problem with this page: people keep tagging it as humour. That fails the First law of jokes, and also is patronising. Anyone who does not recognise it is humorous in fact almost certainly needs to follow it as policy. Guy (Help!) 09:28, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * hear, hear! Yama Plos   talk  23:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I have a question.
What about climbing Buckingham palace dressed as Batman?-- Lerd the nerd wiki defender  11:19, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that falls askance of WP:COPYVIO without a Fair Use exception, as royalties are potentially involved. -Nat Gertler (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Updating "official lunancy" box
The current box at the top is

I tried updating it to this:

This made a few changes:
 * Updated wikicode to modern formatting (not visible to readers, but looks better in the source code).
 * Removed excess shortcuts (which will still work; they just don't need to be listed here). Sorry, the repeat shortcut isn't funny.
 * Added a few jokes in the text, and made it match the current version of Policy more closely for easier recognition.
 * Removed the talk page line, which is redundant to the cabal notice.
 * Changed the check color to purple (Wikipedia's color for humor); this helped with disclosing the humorous nature of the page and didn't do anything to kill the joke.

I see these as pretty straightforward changes, but reverted me, with edit summary You added manual formatting, removed several long-standing shortcuts, and changed the colour of the tickmark. These are not helpful. It's pretty absurd to be having to bring this to the talk page, but what do the rest of you think? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 22:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What you did was:
 * Remove some shortcuts which appear to be in active use.
 * Marked an obvious joke as a joke, something that has been tried and reverted several times in the 14 years this page has been around (the entire point is that it's a parody of a policy: in fact it's more serious than policy, it's an official decree by The Cabal). MOSing this article - and edit warring to do so - is to miss the point pretty much entirely.
 * Added what looked like "humor" that in my analysis as the leading subject matter expert on Wikipedia's Reichstag-climbing policies, made it less humourous. This page is written in British English using British English Humour.
 * Remember, this is not a joke page. It has a serious purpose, which is to remind people, in a light-hearted way, that they are within sight of being blocked.
 * The page has been on Wikipedia for probably twice as long as you have. You can trust me on this. I am one of the rouge admins to whom it refers. Check this history of this and WP:ROUGE. Guy (help!) 22:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I requested a WP:3O since we seem to be the only ones here. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 02:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm watching this page and have no idea why you think your edits should prevail. Not everything fits in a neat pigeonhole, and there is no reason to imagine that the world will be improved by forcing more formal language and a more uniform style into an essay about the merits of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. Frankly, it's nonsense. Johnuniq (talk) 04:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify what the "more formal language" is you think I'm trying to introduce with this change? Surely you don't object to modernizing the wikicode? Remedying the WP:LINKBOXES issue is an absurd thing to have to be discussing, but I assumed it would be a quick fix. Mirroring the current language of Policy helps out the joke by making it more recognizable. I don't think I was insane for thinking those things would be uncontroversial. This clearly isn't something remotely worth fighting over, but I am a little exasperated, frankly, at the apparent extent to which JzG/Guy is claiming WP:OWNERSHIP here and trying to WP:PULLRANK. I'd like to wait to see what the 3O is — I can't imagine that a neutral party would take objection to at least the more straightforward parts of the update. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * At least JzG is not claiming ownership of Wikipedia, unlike some others here. What makes you think that disagreement with your personal opinion is a violation of WP:OWN? What makes you think that other editors want or need to spend their time arguing about climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man? Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * "an English Wikipedia official lunacy" is language that sets my teeth on edge. It isn't automatically a violation of WP:OWN to disagree with you, Sdkb. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:1.1em/1em Arial Black;letter-spacing:-0.09em"><u style="text-decoration:none;color:#38a">Fish +<u style="text-decoration:none;color:#B44">Karate 09:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * agreed, it doesn't sit super well with me either, but good luck trying to make a more substantive change given the reaction I've gotten. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think you are begging the question here. Maybe F&K doesn't want a more substantive change. Maybe it's not broken so doesn't need to be fixed. Guy (help!) 10:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Move out of humorus
I was wondering if we can move this article out of the "Humorous essays" and into the "Essays on civility".Waylon111 (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the navbox? It's clearly a humorous essay, so yes, it needs to stay in the humorous essay group. It's also in clear violation of the WP:Humor disclosure requirement, so per community consensus that cannot be overridden at a local level, it needs to have Humor or another indicator added. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 16:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Sdkb - Can you add your purple thing back? That's just super-omega-clearly the correct thing to do here, right? casualdejekyll  21:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don't make comments that are off topic and on a closed discussion. Waylon111 (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Waylon111 - The discussion wasn't closed and it was completely on topic, since the purple thing in question was a humor notice which the article needed. casualdejekyll  19:34, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Corollary potential?
Should one also use this fellow as an example, or is one concerned solely with the Reichstag? Man who recently climbed Salesforce Tower in San Francisco Her Pegship (?) 17:10, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

A gift for y'all
Feel free to put this on ur userboxes, nerds ;) InvadingInvader (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove the Supreme Cabal Regime Banner?
With all due respect to the supreme cabal, especially on mobile versions of Wikipedia, most people would prefer not to see a GIANT banner of text regarding the supreme cabal in the morning, and want to read the actual joke page first. Lunacy and the Nutshell are small enough banners which don't impede mobile readers as much.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 10:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @InvadingInvader, but cabal humor is nice 88.110.55.255 (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we really use Spiderman in these images?
Isn't he a copyrighted character? Shouldn't we do something about that? RteeeeKed 💬📖 00:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * See commons:COM:COSPLAY; basically Wikimedia Commons accepts images of cosplay of copyrighted characters. Di (they-them) (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I need images of Spider-Man! -- J. Jonah Nat Gertler (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

wait is this not allowed 😦
oopsie What is this username? (talk) What is this username? (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

what if i wasnt dressed as spiderman?
can i then climb the reichstag? Reallybadcoder (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Why would a person ever choose to not be dressed as Spider-Man? -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I climbed the reichstag as spiderman
guysl ook Chuterix (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)