Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman

message: Aw come on! This is the best thing in years! The fact that I can threaten to climb the Reichstag, Dress up and do so, become  bollocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman, and then have it become an official policy on Wikipedia (and to be an official decree by the Supreme Cabal Regime of the English Wikipedia (SCREW)). Is Absolutley fantasitic!. This is so great! 
This single event is a great example of all the good qualities of our beloved Wikipedia!
Next stop: The Kremlin! 
PS: I had to wash that outfit several times. Do you know how much detergent costs these days? Do you? Have you even steped foot outside the  house? I want to know! 
Dfrg.msc 07:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, how exactly is this page a "free host, blog, webspace provider or social networking site"? Snoutwood (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *Try "what links here" and look at how it is being used.  Then tell me how it does fit within wikipedia policy.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * That's not really an answer to how this violates WP:NOT. Could you please just answer my question? Snoutwood (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see it as merely social networking and with no other purpose.  It is not being invoked to ask editors to calm down over content disputes.--A Y Arktos\talk 22:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment. I for one have had it with you pro-climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman editors. · rodii · 22:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * Yeah! Snoutwood (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: * How is this in any way a network? The only thing I can think of is someone created a cat for RC patrollers, but it's not being used to network. It's just a silly, yet curiously serious (I won't spill the beans!) page. Hardly a "network". Oh, and there's all of five people in the cat, at least one of which didn't even put himself in it. Snoutwood (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Turn the question around and enlighten us as to how this page "Wikipedia project pages are aimed at supporting the creation of the encyclopedia, and not to promote points of view or non-encylopedic purposes."--A Y Arktos\talk 01:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * It supports the creation of the encyclopedia because laughter is a tension reliever and keeps people wanting to be engaged in working here. I don't like working it stodgy places, I like working in fun places. When I saw this page, as I mentioned in my vote below, I felt like Wikipedia had redeemed itself in some way by still being intelligent enough to laugh. In addition, it is a reminder to 1) not take yourself too seriously, and 2) not to disrupt Wikipedia, just work things out. Now, can you please answer my question? Snoutwood (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Very slowly, because, I believe I have already answered your question.  Wikipedia is not social networking site.  If you need to laugh, perhaps you need to find another web space or get out into the real world.  The page has not been used as a reminder to users for the purposes you suggest but as a joke between a network of users.  We are no  longer on April 1 - perhaps you can save it up til then, but by that time it will definitely be stale.  Some of us think it is stale already.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I don't care overmuch what dfrg.msc is doing (people can blank his talkpage spamming if they like) but I would remind you that this page was not created by dfrg.msc, it was created by me.  It was not created as social networking, it was created as a lighthearted version of the policies we already have on edit warring.  Humour can defuse tension, I have already exhorted the warring parties at Falkland Islands not to go climbing the Reichstag and I'm sure there will be other cases of heated debate where this will come in handy.  What it says is "lighten up, guys, you are taking this way too seriously".  Of course, I am a trigger-happy rouge admin and well-known for my subversive tendencies, but this does have an encyclopaedic purpose, in addition to its primary purpose of making people laugh at the absurdity of some edit wars. Just zis Guy you know? 08:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Lighten up!''' 

message: I believe this page has not the "wiki love" behind it, and whilst I cannot deny the "keep" votes are of a high proportion, there are a lot of valid points made by the "delete" voters. This article could set a precedent for more "funny" articles being created (and kept) with little or any actual benefit to Wikipedia within them. This article is not funny, it is at the very best (and at my most generous), "silly". There are already existing policies making the exact point of this, but I know which one potential vandals will use as their justification for causing merry hell across articles.
I urge those who created this article to consider moving it to a user page. Surely sensible people can see how it has no real place here? doktorb wordsdeeds 15:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am with you on this. The only reasons I have seen for this to be keept is "It's funny". Well, humor isn't universal, not everything is funny. And I would say that most of the delete voters (if not all) had more then valid points for this to be deleted, or atleast moved. I am disappointed myself. Havok (T/C/c) 20:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the spirit...:)Lectonar 05:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very Disappointed in the "keep" vote