Forum:The Noopstein Files (AI image discussion)

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Noopstein Files (AI image discussion)

Note: This topic has been unedited for 9 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

As you may know from Kurtz's talk page, we had a HUGE conversation about the future of AI images on this website. Flamewars ensued, blah blah blah, Russell's Teapot. We then decided that starting a forum would be a better idea. Now, I'm off to eating my breakfast right now, but here's all of the evidence and disputes that I've found. Discuss them as you please.

• This one's probably the worst one... depending on which side you take. So, Dani moved File:Donutpedia.png (the AI one) to File:Noopnurf's Donutpedia.png (notice: the move has happened!) without properly communicating the change to Noopnurf. In mine and Noopnurf's opinion, this is targetting as HELL. Noopynurf expressed concern from this, wanting to move it to a much less targeting name, but Dani didn't explain why he'd move it and why he didn't move it to Donutpedia (AI) like Noopnurf wanted.
• The Breadcyclopedia edit war. I mean, the Breadcyclopedia logo is kind of unnecessary? Not against it, though.
• Here's that wiki page conversation Noopnurf was talking about! Was the image cute? Yeah. Does it deserve to be used everywhere? Probably not. It has a lot more depth to this whole case, though.
• The Ukrainium image getting replaced with a completely different one, before ultimately getting removed by DaniPine3. I get the idea of "removing an image on a page with too many"... but not only are there less funnier Wikimedia Commons images on that page, but he should've probably removed a different image when the relations between him and Noopnurf are... let's just say, a little "tense".
• Dani removing an AI image for no reason I guess? Not even a replacement? Not even putting the fact that he failed to remove it correctly?!? (Yet again, this article also had a lot of images, but yet again, there were worse images. (I should also mention that "worse" is subjective, so although I think there are worse images, you guys might not.))
• The Wallace and Gromit image we all know about. "Fuck AI" are strong words spoken by a user we only saw once.

Well, that's all the evidence that I found for now. Although most of these disputes have been resolved, it still adds to Noopnurf's belief that this website openly disapproves of AI images. And although I do agree that green-lighting AI images is a bit of a slippery slope, I have begun to fix some of these images (Notably File:Ukrainium alt.png), though I can't do it forever. So let's discuss the future and fate of these images. Maybe we have to vote on this topic! All I want is an agreement between us all. Cheers. 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 15:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

As copied from Kurtz, here's a potential AI image policy.

• No rules against creating AI images, but they should be used within, say, 48 hours from creation
• If a better image can be found, use it, but keep the original AI image around for maybe a month(?) for author preference
• No AI articles. Most of the time the writing isn't funny.

TURB0-SUNRISE DE LA RED SOX 15:27, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Here's my potential policy on AI:

• No AI articles, those are subject to QVFD, VFD, FFW, etc...
• AI images are allowed... BUT:
  • If a replacement is found, communicate it to the owner like how you'd replace a regular image with your own. It's rude to simply run over someone's stuff, even if it's "AI".
  • If the user is no longer active, burniate them as you please.

🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 15:32, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gergdown: so I'd like to contribute to this conversation

• about that "Ukranium" image, I removed both the AI one and the non-AI replacement from the Ukraine article, because none of them seemed to fit in the article imo. I didn't delete Fish's image because it was being used in her gallery, but as far as I'm aware that's the only place where you can see that file being used. I can't remember why I deleted the other file; but it was probably due to it not being used anywhere.
• about that "File:Donutpedia.png", I can't deny that I shouldn't have done that filename move; I mostly did it since I thought it'd only be used in Noopnurf's page. however there are already too many articles with custom logos and I think I should get rid of it, AI or otherwise.
• I got rid of that AI image from Scotland since it was a featured article and normally featured articles aren't changed that much (not that this is a golden rule that's always applied, but still).
• You're calling that one "The Wallace and Gromit image we all know about", but this is the first time I'm seeing that one image.

🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 23:29, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

@DaniPine3:

• I see your point with Ukranium. But I do suggest that in your edit summaries, you should put a reason why you removed the image. Like, without that context, it looks like you actively hate AI images. (this is probably an exaggeration, eh, whatever) Same goes with the Scotland one.
• Is it okay if I move Noopnurf's Donutpedia to Donutpedia (AI)? That'd make things much better for everyone.
• I wouldn't say adding an image is changing the article a bit too much, especially when the image is funny. (Well, in this case, this image was AI, but... I can potatochop it.)
• If you haven't seen that Wallace and Gromit image, that's an issYOU, not an issME. 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 00:20, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

I think Gergdown's proposal is fair given the current circumstances. There would also be less complaints of "unexplained removals" --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 13:51, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

(I mean, it's basically just how we treat regular images with deletion if unused + its owner is gone, but whatever.) 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 17:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Me chiming in

I'm travelling so I missed most of this. AI text content is not allowed.

I am strongly against AI images, but if there was any nsebsusnto allow it, I think AI images should not be obviously AI, used sparringly and replaced if original images are found. ShabiDOO 03:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Shabidoo: What is nsebsusnto? --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 03:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

You DUMBASSARY USER! How do you not know the correct spelling of... actually I have no idea what that was meant to say... MK^yap!_{Fðllðw Ðåmågê †råïl} 03:37, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't know how many AI images he uploaded (I'd guess ~30), but it was spread out across many pages, so there was never a page (I hope...) that was filled 100% with AI images. Except for that one VFD'd one, but that was made by a completely different user who AI generated the text, so that doesn't matter to this story. Anyway, I still believe we should contact the original owner for replacements, but that's an opinMEon, not an opinYOUon. Also, @Fish on skates:, A nsebsusnto is a word which means fancy. Like, as in, "Nsebsusnto nsebsusnto kill yourself." which means "Fancy fancy kill yourself." 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 03:43, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

might I suggest HowTo:Kill Yourself? Also, yes to the AI image replacing. I'm more than happy to help replace AI images with potatochopped ones, its basically my job irl so its all I do all day and I love it. AI images are nice placeholders, but like my overall opinion of AI, its just a tool to get to an end, NEVER the end itself. MK^yap!_{Fðllðw Ðåmågê †råïl} 04:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I found an image, File:Coughify.jpeg, which is used on a bunch of pages via a signature template. We might want to double-check with Coffi before replacing. Other than that, I think all other images are fairly easy to replace. --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 15:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Coffi's inactive though, so we could theoretically delete the image, if the policies above were in place. TURB0-SUNRISE DE LA RED SOX 15:10, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Deleting a user's signature image just because it's AI? Is this how low you guys have sunken? Sure, I'm (mostly) against ai-generated articles but this is too far. OᑭöᔑᔑᙀᙏHey, that tickles! (vandalize my talk page) 15:32, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

If you have to ask what nsebsusnto means then you are totally uncool and you should go spank yourself (but not in a fun way). ShabiDOO 15:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@OPOSSUM: no no no, simply remaking the AI image as close as possible without it being AI (at least that's what I think we're aiming at, and an option that would make a lot of sense). Not just straight up deleting, but replacing with "superior" images of the same exact thing, just not having been farted out by an AI. MK^yap!_{Fðllðw Ðåmågê †råïl} 15:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Bro WTF? You might as well just copy and paste the image, than slightly change a single pixel. There, have your beautiful non-"farted-out" non-AI image, as close to the original as possible. Jeez. OᑭöᔑᔑᙀᙏHey, that tickles! (vandalize my talk page) 15:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I still have no idea what the problem with AI images is. The image, if ever needed, should be discussed based on how it looks and how it’s used, how it was created shouldn’t matter. Why would we want to replace a good looking ai image with a bad looking non ai image? File:Coughify.jpeg is probably a perfect example. How would recreating it with ms paint or whatever make it better? MrX blow me 15:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Well said MrX. These guys never actually explain what the real problem is with AI images, especially if they don't have deformed hands or whatever. They'll just say the images are "slop", "farted out", or call you a "clanker lover". They don't care how good an image actually looks, as long as it isn't AI. OᑭöᔑᔑᙀᙏHey, that tickles! (vandalize my talk page) 15:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I do agree with that statement. Plenty of them are totally fine, like the coffee cup, and all of Noop's donut and bread logos. No point replacing those! There are (were) a lot of shitty images a while back though, but the plan to discuss them going forward is smart, so there's at least a precedent for quality. Then again, we do that for every normal image as well, so unsure why this entire thing was ever a problem about AI images, I think it's more about a lack of given reasons when deleting said images, and no due process MK^yap!_{Fðllðw Ðåmågê †råïl} 15:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) The image page itself says it's a placeholder. I brought up Coughify as a possible exception to the rule, not something that should be deleted right away if it's used on so many pages. --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 16:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, let's not delete AI images for user purposes. So AI images for signatures, userspace pages, talk pages, et cetera should be okay. 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 18:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I feel the greater issue here is the impression it gives our readers, and they aren't likely to read userpages. --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 18:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I don’t see an issue with ai images in main space either. MrX blow me 21:02, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@MrX: eh, idk. I'm not much of a fan of AI images personally. they just have a sort of uncanny feeling to it, plus there's the whole ethical baggage behind them that I'd rather not go on about right now. I don't mind if there are some AI images on Uncyclopedia mainspace, but I think a non-AI solution should always be considered if possible and/or suits the article better. 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 21:14, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that ai images often look weird. Countless non ai images on this site look weird too. If an image looks bad, have that discussion, but don’t attack its origin. That shouldn’t matter. What is the “ethical baggage” behind ai images? MrX blow me 21:24, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I feel like the reason people don't like AI images is because humans want the "human" element in emotional/comedic material. But AI? When you realize an image is AI, you begin to lose the humanity in that image. AI also likes to hallucinate and makes shit up, which can actually end up horrifying sometimes. (This is just what I think, you probably think differently from me.) 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 21:40, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I should mention though, AI is getting wayy better at images, so hallucinations will probably happen way less. 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 21:42, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I hear what you’re saying, but it sounds then like any image that isn’t hand drawn or a photograph could be problematic. AI images, when they turn out nicely, allow us to create images to fit our articles that would otherwise be impossible for anyone except professional graphic designers. MrX blow me 21:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

some useful links: w:Artificial intelligence and copyright, w:AI slop, w:Artificial intelligence controversies, w:Environmental impact of artificial intelligence --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 21:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I hear you, MrX. I like AI images that actually feel real. A good example would be File:Average Girl.png. If somehow, someone can recreate that and make it better, they HAVE to be the Potatochopper of the Millennium. 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 21:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Fish on skates, all of those controversies pertain to computers, smart phones, the Internet, and technology in general. Just because something can be used controversially doesn’t mean every use of it is controversial. MrX blow me 21:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, ethics, environmental impact, and copyright issues aside, I think we should focus on the images that look the most out of place in the articles they're being used in. --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 22:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fish on skates: So like, poorly made AI images on pages? 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 22:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gergdown: Yes, exactly. Those are probably the highest priority for replacement/fixing/what have you. --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 22:55, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

This site has a big history of chopping original images if ones you search for cannot be found (there used to be a yearly award for it). We don't need AI images. It's lazy and especially if the images are obviously AI, cheapen our articles. If you don't find what you're looking for, chop the images yourself or ask someone that do it for you. I think promoting AI images welcomes a slippery slope of unoriginality. There is a real loss if we just start having AI images instead of chopped ones. Besides, if you cannot find an image through Google image search, you haven't searched hard enough. For the Don't vote for my do g articles, I just chopped the yoghurt one myself. It took 15 minutes. ShabiDOO 08:51, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe promote RadicalX's corner more? (Well, we should probably rename it, but there's some new good potatochoppers here). 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 14:16, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gergdown: you're right that RadicalX's corner should be promoted more. It has been abandoned for at least a decade and it'd be a quite useful resource. miles better than asking some robot to mimick a piece of art imo 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 14:24, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

My 2 cents

I think some of us might be missing the point if the goal is simply to replace AI images with identical non-AI versions. A non-AI image isn't 'superior' just because of how it was made. If the goal is to recreate the exact same image without AI, it proves the AI version is already perfectly sufficient and doesn't need changing.

The takeaway from this discussion shouldn't be a policy to replace AI images with real ones purely because of their origin—that contradicts a main point of this forum.

We should evaluate AI images at face value using the exact same standards we apply to normal photos. Are they high quality/resolution? Do they fit the article? Unless an AI image is objectively sloppy or visually flawed, there is no reason to replace it. View it as you would a normal photo. If it's low quality, with unreadable words, distorted faces etc, then treat it accordingly. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 18:02, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I concur with that statement. Always contact the original creator of the image if you want to replace it. 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 18:00, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Also a possible exception only for images on deliberately slop-focused articles like AI slop and Great AI Conflict of the 2020s. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 15:53, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

The takeaway is, don't use obvious AI images from now on. I'm less concerned with replacing current AI images than with stopping AI image creep. It's one thing if you use an image that is unknowingly AI. But last thing on earth we should do is ask an AI generator to create images for articles we are making or improving, or pick obvious AI images we find via search. The replacement part, whatever you all agree on. But avoid AI creep at all costs. This site is about original content. Always has been. ShabiDOO 17:18, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@Shabidoo: That's absolutely not the takeaway. This whole discussion began because people were arbitrarily removing AI images purely because they are AI - if that ends up being the outcome then this entire discussion was pointless. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 17:26, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Noopnurf. Shabidoo, we can still celebrate potatochops and use ai images when we’re unable to find/create an image that works. The vast majority of images in use on this site are images found on google or something, definitely not the original work of the article’s author. MrX blow me 17:30, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Moving targets

Alula and DaniPine3 have moved from huffing my AI contributions to huffing my other contributions now, feigning ignorance and vandalising my userpage. If the admins are going to behave in such a twatty way for such a prolonged period of time here, I don't see much point in staying on this site. I can't waste any more of my energy on idiots. Just know if I end up removed, you can blame them. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 03:14, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Noopnurf: They had a reason, it was because it was a bit too esoteric/vanitylike for mainspace. And the only reason your user page was "vandalised" is so the template would still work under a different name. --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 03:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Noopnurf, i need to get this straight with you pretty much immediately: no one here is out to target you OR your contributions. Your belief that we are sort of just shows that you're unable to accept pushback, which is a natural thing that happens on basically any wiki (or reasonable place on the internet, for that matter) you'll ever go to. 03:25, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fish on skates: I really don't buy Alula or Dani's excuses any more. Told Dani to back off and he ran straight to Alula with it. All throughout my debacle with the AI contribs, DaniPine3 was constantly running to Alula's defense and trying to convince me to isolate my own contributions in almost every example. In every situation Alula or Dani is gaslighting, just like the above message, but I am indeed being targeted. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 03:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Noopnurf: you are showing more and more the martyr syndrome that AI bros are stereotypically known for. you should know that having a slight disagreement with some admins is not at all being targeted, and if you can't see the difference, that's an iss-you. 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 03:29, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that my contributions have been called pretentious or vain, sworn at, huffed, and constantly rollbacked for a year and a half.
But sure, I'm imagining the hostility. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 03:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Noopnurf: The AI stuff isn't just you, other people have added AI articles and images to this wiki and those pages have been deleted. And some people have made pages/templates that were userfied, such as User:OPOSSUM/Template:Olula, which was moved from template space. --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 03:32, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Fish on skates: With all due respect you really don't see what's happening here. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 03:33, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Noopnurf: this is the only time I've called your contribution "vain", and I simply meant it would be better in userspace; I didn't even delete it or anything. also, how many of your contributions have I deleted? one? two? three, perhaps? definitely not enough to feel persecuted over it. you're making a castle out of a grain of sand. I'm not even sure what's supposed to be happening here, if you ask me. 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 03:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@DaniPine3: You keep trying to force my contributions into userspace despite my protests. Just go away. Being called out isn't persecution; it's accountability. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 03:35, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

All of you, please... please just calm down. I'll... try to figure something out. 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 03:36, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Noopnurf: the other times it's that I thought it was just for personal use, and this time is because of the subject matter of the template. and, once again, this isn't something I've done many times. plus, as an admin, I don't know how you want me to "go away"
also Gergdown you don't have to figure anything out, don't worry 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 03:38, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Noop, i seriously need you to consider that you sound extremely paranoid here. The honest truth is that i really don't care about your userbox beyond the fact that it's pretty much vanity. That's how i, as an admin, approach pretty much anything similar to this. I fully assume that Dani thinks the same as well (actually i would know, we are the same person after all) 03:39, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gergdown: It's okay Gergdown. There's not much to be done when trolls are running the place. Now they pretend to be compassionate, but the reality is they've been rolling back and huffing my edits for over a year. I've had enough of being gaslit by these two. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 03:40, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Noopnurf: ???????? bro you really get worked up over the simplest things 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 03:41, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Noopnurf, you're the only one gaslighting here. I barely know who you are. I only might have deleted one or two images of yours, and it wasn't a personal attack or anything. I even talked to Kippy on Discord because I knew he would be on your side and help you with the christmas logo thingy, yet you think I'm trying to attack you somehow? dude, with all due respect, fuck off. 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 03:45, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Holy shit guys. Chill out. 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 03:46, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gergdown: I'm just defending myself. this guy, whom I know nothing about, comes and starts accusing me of stuff I know nothing about? like, I'm genuinely perplexed. I try to be as chill as an admin can be, I don't see what his problem is. 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 03:49, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I get that... but telling him to fuck off when he's on the edge of leaving? What do you think you're trying to do here? 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 03:51, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

personally, if a user who's being a dick for no reason decides to leave, it's not that much of a loss. 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 03:54, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I mean, i literally told him right before (or i guess right after) Dani blocked him that he was heading that way. Would i have done a month? Definitely not. But that's sort of just the situation he put himself in, sadly. 03:57, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Dani, smh, what are ai bros? Don’t you realize that telling Noopnurf to fuck off only made it look like Noopnurf was right? And then you blocked him for a month? REALLY??

Noopnurf, if you’re still reading this, please try and understand that the word vanity here just means anything we create about ourselves, it doesn’t mean you’re a vain person. Templates/boxes like that are almost always put in user space. MrX blow me 03:58, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@MrX: Appreciate the explanations. Cheers. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 16:41, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Wait, Alula, no, it was not heading for a block at all. MrX blow me 03:59, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

In my personal opinion, yes it was. I told him before he brought it over to this forum (and messages maybe three people not involved) that he needed to stop being a dick over this. He flat out ignored me and then ranted about how i was gaslighting him or whatever. I feel like that's pretty reasonable grounds for a two hour long block. 04:03, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

He falsely accused me of gaslighting too, as well as sealioning, and I’m still not happy that he falsely accused you of being on a power trip for blocking ColonelKurtz. He was the one who ignored obvious warnings. Noopnurf just needs to understand that this template move was normal. He has dealt with a lot of bullshit that could have been handled better. I think we can cut him a little slack. MrX blow me 04:06, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, but... i was already doing that though. My patience was actually about to run out, which isn't really helped by the fact that it's now past 5 in the morning and i could've spent my time sleeping instead of dealing with the worst drama i've seen on this site ever since i joined (that i can remember. hopefully there isn't worse) 04:19, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

Man... why the fuck did this all happen? Why'd he have to ban him? We literally potentially got RID of one of our users because we were being dicky to them! All I wanted is to cool this the fuck down... and it looked like that escalated things further!!! All in the pursuit because we think wanting to keep a vain template in the templatespace = dicky, 1 month ban. Fuck, UN:BAN says this ain't even worth a ban... this was not worth it. 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 04:34, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

@Gergdown: he was being a dick. I think that is indeed worthy of a ban. 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 10:22, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with the block either. His behaviour has been unnecessarily hostile and drama creating. A bit of devilish drama can be fun. This is cringe drama though. Encyclopedia has been relatively cringe-drama free for years, it is delightful that way. Last thing I'll say about AI on this forum, I stand by my statements. AI should be a last resort for inages, and should absolutely not be normalised. ShabiDOO 13:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I stand with ShabiDOO, and all my AI images uploads are mostly satirical and self-aware. ~ Kakun · talk 01:04, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Made this if anyone here wants to use it.

Case File Extract: This user was mentioned in the Noopstein Files.

Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 16:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

rahhhhhhh tis nice, maybe i should start collecting userboxes! MK^yap!_{Fðllðw Ðåmågê †råïl} 17:33, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Apology due

I just want to make an apology for trading barbs and getting angry with all this. I was out of line in many ways and to anyone who was bothered by it, I'm sorry. Noopnurf, Noopiest of Nurfs 15:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

@Noopnurf: Apology accepted. I'm glad you learned something. --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 16:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

And I’m glad you’re back. MrX blow me 16:20, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

In my early years here I said some cringe things, all is forgotten with a genuine apology and moving on. This all makes me feel warm inside. When I get warm, I start thinking about big hairy sweaty balls. It has been hypothesised that MrX has big balls. I'm just saying. ShabiDOO 17:46, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, babe MrX blow me 17:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

my list of ships i've seen so far: shabidoo x MrX, Shabidoo x alula, shabidoo x shabidoo, Shabidoo x Turb0-Sunrise, BMF x turb0-Sunrise --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 18:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Well it's nice that you're back now. I think we should continue this discussion though, just in case an event like this happens again. (And before anyone points out the AI bubble, saying that it's gonna end AI is like saying the .com bubble was gonna end Amazon. (Though, it should be stated that OpenAI is running out of money...)) I still stand by my proposal that we should promote RadicalX's corner and allow AI images, but heavily recommend replacements, remove poorly-created/obviously AI and unironical ones, and communicate to the owner (if they're still around). 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 23:27, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Let’s please not forget that people hitting the panic button over ai has caused significant problems. MrX blow me 23:44, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

@MrX: Totally different kind of AI. Gerg's proposal won't make it harder for people to read the site. --Dame Fish on skates DUN VFH UotM 00:09, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I’m saying that some people’s attitudes and misconceptions about ai have created multiple problems. MrX blow me 00:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

True. Though I actually like the compromise that we had with the 429 errors today, I still wish there was a better outcome. Alas, things had to be this way. 🍂 gergdown🍂(talk) ☀️ 02:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

What compromise? There was no compromise on that one. Adding a little more explanation to the error message was not a compromise. And we still don’t know that it has to be this way. Almost everyone wants to at least try removing the restrictions. Sysadmins say no, and they still have no intention of fixing the problem they created. MrX blow me 04:21, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so i think this might have to be said because apparently no one here noticed it: the wiki was going very slowly for a couple of days (or possibly even weeks according to the message log in our "help" channel on discord) until they implemented the rate limit. Like, it was genuinely difficult to edit at times because it went so slowly that you'd automatically time out and have to try again. I don't see how having to do that is a problem that they created themselves. 08:40, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

That is very useful information. In fact, I had asked if anyone else experienced this slowness, but nobody outside the sysadmins chimed in. Again, I was active during that time (at least part of it), didn’t notice anything, but now that someone I trust has corroborated it, I do feel a little better. That being said, this still is indeed a problem that they created. Their solution to ai bots created another problem, I feel like maybe a captcha would fix it, but whatever. MrX blow me 16:26, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Captcha will likely never happen. Neither will any reasonable communication from the sysadmins. I will just wish in one hand and shit in the other. MrX blow me 16:30, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

You know, we could just remove only some of the rate limits, such as the ones for page offset numbers. Preventing IPs from accessing those fucks up a few articles like God's answering service, Keir Starmer and Evolution, as well as a bunch of UnGames. OᑭöᔑᔑᙀᙏHey, that tickles! (vandalize my talk page) 16:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

we'd have to aks sysadmins first if they can remove the limits from a few selected articles tho 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 16:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)