User talk:Damburger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Damburger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 16:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. You currently have 7 reverts for 10 July 2006 on Bill O'Reilly controversies. -- Dcflyer 16:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

 You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

Stifle (talk) 10:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tinernet

Howdy! I've deleted the article Tinternet that you created. It appears to be a neologism created by someone recently that has not entered any large scale use. Even if it was, the article you wrote was essentialy a one liner, so it was deleted under both article 1 and 7 of the WP:CSD. Please take a moment to read WP:NOT to avoid any other unfortunate misunderstandings like this. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

What the hell? Just because something occurs outside the US does not make it irrelevant. Article 1 does not apply because the article gives sufficient context to expand and Article 7 does not apply because Peter Kay is a very famour comedian in Britain. The term gives over 100,000 hits on google, more than many of the concepts I've seen have articles.
Furthermore, there are articles on the similar terms internets and interweb. Of course, they are American... Damburger 14:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stanley's War

Sorry you were suspended. Remember next time not to make more than three reversions per day, though I can completely sympathize where you are coming from. Sadly it looks as if Stanley hasn't learned his lesson is back making reverts fresh after his supension has ended. Maybe if we kept making two reversions each per day everyday we could put an end to Stanley's war. I'll be checking for you in the edit history and continuing to make the case in the comments section. Sysrpl 17:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Its my first edit war, I'm a bit of a newbie unfortunately. I won't let him bait me again, I'll simply revert his changes when I'm confident he has gone offline instead of doing it immediately.

[edit] Comment

I was removing your personal attack...[1]. See WP:NPA--MONGO 16:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Which, I have now removed twice...[2]--MONGO 16:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's three...on the fourth, you get a short block of your editing privledges.--MONGO 16:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the way I see it, YOU have now broken the 3RR and I intend to report you. Damburger 16:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you can do that...don't forget to add this nice little tidbid you gave me...I'm not a fascist, thank you. Time for you to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.--MONGO 16:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

This is inappropriate: [3] Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Tom Harrison Talk 16:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. Please note that page blanking, addition of random text or spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, and repeated and blatant violation of WP:NPOV are considered vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may come back after the block expires. Naconkantari 03:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] revert dispute International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict

Hi and welcome, There is an dispute in International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict. The dispute is over inclusion of the AIPAC reaction to a US House of Representatives Resolution expressing support for Israel. Various accusations are being thrown around by Comrade438 eg. im being accused of trying to paint a "zionist conspiracy".

Comrade438 has made few silly edits, and comments, along with what might be a threat. It degenerated to Comrade438 blocking the page without consulting WP:RPP, then reverting last changes. I am trying to alert other users who have edited the article to this dispute as I believe the detail should be included. Is it possible you can look and see if you agree that AIPAC's reaction should be included in the article? I dont believe its a content issue and is possible trolling. I previously highlighted the problems on wikipedian noticeboard [4] 82.29.227.171 21:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop.

It's extremely annoying when you falsely claim things are vandalism. No, their reverts of your edits are NOT vandalism, and if you continue to misrepresent them in such a fashion, action may be taken against you. Please discuss your widely challenged changes before you put them back again. Also stop claiming that the talk page has given you permission to do this, like "per talk page". Nah uh. Honesty, please. --Golbez 22:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked.

You have been blocked for 48 hours for continued incivility and disruption at September 11, 2001 attacks and the associated talk page. JDoorjam Talk 09:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your edits to Nuclear terrorism

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Stanley011 01:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. Ryūlóng 08:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Weird...you suffer from a lack of social and communication skills. Who would have thought? P.s. We all know you have not graduated from a 4 yr. university; quit lying. Have fun working in the comic book store for the rest of your life.

Nice of you to hide behind an IP address when you are harassing people, Stanley011. Damburger 18:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
The above-written personal attack left on your page by the IP user was not written by me. If, however, you think the above-written personal attack by the anonymous IP user was written by me, then feel free to report me to an administrator--they have the ability to check users' IP addresses. Here is the list of administrators. Stanley011 19:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

This [5] is not appropriate. I see you have been blocked a couple of times now for incivility, disruption, and personal attacks. Please consider seeking some form of mediation if you have problems with people. Calling them names is not productive, and will result in longer blocks. Tom Harrison Talk 22:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your input on Protest Warrior

You've made some fine contributions to the Protest Warrior article, and I ask that you stay very actively involved - if you have the time. 3 'Pretend Warriors' RB, R9, and NB always revert the edits, and the other 3 people who are active there are very pro PW too. I got an 8 hour block for adding the Anti Racist Action section back in 3 times in 24 hours. If we can alternate adding it back in, we should be able to keep it there. it is documaented legit criticism, and belongs there. Those 'Preschool Warriors' really are a sorry lot!

NBGPWS 09:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think that they are actually 'fighting' here on Wikipedia. Perhaps they consider this project 'digital Maoism'. The section clearly isn't OR but anybody who has a pro-PW isn't going to see that.
I'd also ask that you help getting 'Islamophobia' as a link. These people are openly, and admittedly Islamophobic (although they probably wouldn't use that word, as they might associate it with fear and we all know how fearless protest 'warriors' are, heh). The article needs quite a lot of work, and I'm glad to be working with you on it. Damburger 09:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Will do ! When I used to post on PW one of my sig files was "Pretend Warrior - fantasizing about 'fighting the left'- from their the safety of their mommys computers - when they're not busy playing Dungeons and Dragons' :-)

CAIR and SPLC might come out with official positions on PW soon.

NBGPWS 19:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS, please attempt to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. You also neglected to mention your love of swastika and Hitler avatars on the PW forum. Damburger, please do not make edits without attempting to abide by consensus - the Indymedia link violates WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:V. You are welcome to add respectable criticism to Protest Warrior, but please make sure it conforms to Wikipedia policy and to participate in the article's talk page. Thank you. --Neverborn 04:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your advice re Poisoning the well...

to User:NBGPWS on his user page was excellent and well said.  :-) Lawyer2b 16:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reasons:

Autoblock of 80.249.49.6 lifted.

Request handled by: WinHunter (talk) 14:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Desmond Tutu

Why have you deleted this mans bio? Damburger 15:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! The vandal User:Condon69 created a whole bunch of attack pages including some named after real people, but with the surname in lower case. I somehow missed the fact that Desmond Tutu was the real article and not "Desmond tutu". The article's been undeleted now. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] September 11 2001 attacks comments

I just wanted to let you know that this article is written, monitored and presided over by US propagandists. That is the reason "terrorist" and other violations of Wikipedia's NPOV policy appear in this article. It is not due to over zealous patriotic Americans. Rather we Americans, just like everyone else in the world, are victims of their propaganda (and other more active measures). Please help expose the propagandists and try to continue working diligently to get this and other related articles to meet Wikipedia's standards despite the intervention of these US government workers. --OpenTheDoor 02:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place for fighting a POV-war; while I will definitely support good-faith attempts to improve the neutrality of this article, I cannot allow comments like "If you can't detatch yourself enough to see that I am right about this, I suggest that neither of you continue contributing to this article." Everybody has the right to edit a wiki, and Tom and MONGO are respected contributors. Please stick to debating the issues of our coverage in terms of our policies and guidelines in a collegial and encyclopedic manner; that way lies the possibility of progress. Telling people not to edit isn't going to achieve anything. Thanks for your understanding. --Guinnog 06:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


OpenTheDoor's comment is troubling when I see that the terrorist reference on the 7/7 london bombings page has not sparked any controversy. If such users as this, and Damburger are such ardent supporters of article neutrality, then why is it that they do not protest the same flaw equally. Damburger claims that he want's to fight POV pushing, and yet it only seems to be a problem when it is "American." Erikthe2nd 03:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment on Userspace

I am sorry but I had to remove this comment from your userspace due to violation of WP:NPA. [6] --Jersey Devil 17:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

How can it possibly be a personal attack when it wasn't directed against a person? I think you should work on your reading comprehension before wading into other peoples user pages. Damburger 12:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Comments like the above, "I think you should work on your reading comprehension", just got your unblock declined - Alison ☺ 18:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Damburger and WP:NPA WP:CIVIL

You may want to comment on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Damburger_and_WP:NPA_WP:CIVIL. Weregerbil 17:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for 48 hours

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy, by by continuing to violation WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. The duration of the block is 48 hours. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. [7]--Jersey Devil 18:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Jersey_Devil is blocking me for personal reasons. I have not attacked anybody, merely their arguments. If people couldn't do that, there would be no disputes and wikipedia would never change."

Decline reason: "You were making repeated snide comments and - yes - personal attacks on other editors. Block endorsed — Alison ☺ 18:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

That was quick. I feel I've just been the subject of a dogpile. Damburger 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

11 minutes from your block message. This admin monitors Category:Requests for unblock to ensure people don't stay blocked too long if there has been an error. In this case, there has not - Alison ☺ 19:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I still disagree with the decision, and can't help noticing its well timed with my RFC on the September the 11th article. I've come to expect this sort of response really. Damburger 19:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I stopped editing about 2 years ago because of similar issues but I just returned on a very part-time basis so I'll try to help you with article content sometimes. Your point on the Blair bio is well taken. In my opinion their is a culture of passive aggressiveness here which you can best deal with by simply being nice and extra mild as you would with a child when interacting because any little sign of natural human frustration will be used against you. It's "when in Rome" kindof thing. Don't expect adult discourse because it's simply not here among most contributors and even fewer administrators. Mr.grantevans 14:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] could use some attention

Please have a look at my edits here [8] to see if you agree with how I think the article should be NPOVed. Mr.grantevans 12:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently blocked but I shall have a look afterwards Damburger 14:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Accusing other editors of being a "mob" and "sock puppets" is improper, and you have been warned about incivility repeatedly. -- Kesh 16:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So if people are using sock puppets, then I should just shut up about it? Might I ask where you stand on the issue presented in that article? Damburger 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If people are using sock puppets, gather the evidence and report it. Do not make accusations without backing it up, as that's nothing more than a personal attack.
And I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "the issue presented in that article." Are you referring to the diff in your comment on that talk page? -- Kesh 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Your swift presence makes me somewhat suspicious that you are associated with those arguing with me on the talk page. Damburger 17:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, no. My "swift presence" is because of today's date. I knew people would start using Talk pages as forums and arguing, so I've been browsing the various related articles to try and keep the flames to a dull roar. People are going to be on-edge today, and I expect lots of personal attacks, soapboxing and edit warring on those pages. My only intent was to try and douse some of those flames before they got out of hand, nothing more. -- Kesh 17:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 11, 2001 attacks-related block

Hi. Why did you revert war on the 911 article when I specifically warned against doing so immediately upon unprotecting. As a result, you've been blocked for 24 hours. I want to see a few days of discussion before I see another revert. Thanks. El_C 21:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darfur conflict timeline

Thanks for taking this on -- see my response to your request. I'm definitely interested in helping. ivan 04:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up requested

You posted in the Talk:Quasi Universal Intergalactic Denomination page, and I was wondering if you could add additional comments. Maury (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Maybe you could have a look here. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)