Talk:CyberBunker

message: In what way have the owners who are/OR/claim-to-be a government acted as a government?  If it's a government then what is the population/number of citizens?  Is there a constitution (don't need the text of it but a date would belong)?
It's pretty obvious I'm so far unconvinced that they are, rather than claim-to-be, a government, but I'll listen if people have evidence. RJFJR 17:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you even have evidence that they claim to be a government?  I can't find any.  Guy Macon  03:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the author of the above really is Sven Olaf Kamphuis (owner of Cyberbunker) would you be so kind as to repeat your claim about Cyberbunker being a state on the Cyberbunker webpage?  If the owners of Cyberbunker claim statehood, that makes it a candidate for inclusion in the Wikipedia micronations project, but I need more evidence than an anonymous post on a talk page and random websites recycling the statehood claim without any proof.  I would very much like to see citations backing up the claim that in 1955 it was a NATO base not under dutch laws (the cyberbunker website just says it was "built by the Dutch Ministry of Defense in 1955") and, assuming that the NATO/not-under-dutch-laws claim is documented, citations about the 1996 decommissioning/selling -- did it revert to dutch rule as one might expect?  I see many claims, but no evidence backing those claims up.  Guy Macon  03:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's entirely untrue that the grounds are not considered Dutch property due to alleged NATO history of the complex. As stated below, this facility never was a NATO bunker. Further, in the past construction work on the "CyberBunker" had been halted as there were building permit problems with the Dutch government. Also, the use of the bunker is regulated by Dutch zoning regulations. The XTC lab once located in the bunker also resulted in legal consequences. This all goes to show that what goes on inside the bunker does have to comply with Dutch law.BabyNuke (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: A government

message: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyberBunker. Johnleemk | Talk 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failed AFD 

message: This webpage is clearly written as an advertisement for cyberbunker (especially since it is linked to from the cyberbunker website) and also makes many claims which could easily be documented (if they are true) but instead there is no documentation in the entire article.  Why is this article even here?  If you are going to make an article about such a specific topic (which maybe you shouldn't) then why not write a valid article at least?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rageasaurus (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Page is an Advertisement 

message: This is definitely not neutral. The sentence makes Europe look like a threatened entity which itself didn't attend the cold war warfare race:
"It remains a sobering reminder of how Europe lived with and prepared for the possibility of a Soviet nuclear attack." --GDR! (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral language 

message: Lats month, http://torrentfreak.com/movie-studios-threaten-strike-on-pirate-bay-nuclear-bunker-100422/ talked about the MPA threatening cyberbunker with legal action over their hosting of The Pirate Bay and other sites. Now http://torrentfreak.com/hollywood-gets-injunction-to-disconnect-the-pirate-bay-100512/ says that Columbia Pictures, Disney Enterprises, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros. have obtained a preliminary injunction against the owners of cyberbunker from the Regional Court of Hamburg, prohibiting them from connecting The Pirate Bay website and associated servers to the Internet.
I am waiting for more reliable sources before putting this info in the main article.  Guy Macon  08:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  When Lawyers Attack 

message: They have an indoor swimming pool? Sign me up! 58.6.251.53 (talk) 01:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ha! 

message: There should be a reference to the White Mountain cyber bunker as well, known from WikiLeaks and Pirate Bay  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.143.118 (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: [Citation Needed]  - Guy Macon   —Preceding undated comment added 20:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  White Mountain 

message: There is this guy called Joe Baptista who is deliberately attempting to harass the CyberBunker crew with lies and untrue stories. It has something to do with a personal vendetta against one of the managers. We think this is something that should not belong here. Here is what others say about Joe Baptista: 
http://whocalled.us/lookup/4169126551  (bottom)
http://inaic.com/index.php?p=internet-terror  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perinda (talk • contribs) 08:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Baptista 

message: Cyberbunker is not a country. It was probably some post-soviet Eastern delinquint who has an ego which happens to manifest as the face of this organization.  Ofcourse this individual is totally wrong with their views and assumptions, and is creating a path of meaningless stress and destruction on the world for no reason whatsoever. The internet does have to be regulated, otherwise the common people have power, which is very obviously bad because they do not actually know what the ideal system is, they only focus on one thing like internet freedom and are ignorant of everything else. You know what would happen if everyone was free for a day? The world would end abruptly. We cannot sustain individual animalistic behaviour with this population and resource base. Cut your bs you wronged idiots, your only creating more chaos.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.151.25 (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Easterners whom think they know better 

message: As I happen to enjoy a bit of military history I was surprised to read the history of this bunker as described on this page. To my knowledge (and various sources agree with this , ) the bunker was constructed by the Dutch military (not NATO) as a Provincial Command Center. I'm changing the article to match these descriptions.BabyNuke (talk) 09:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the bunker 

message: Either theres trackersaffiliated to The Pirate Bay's torrents or the WEBSITE s hosted there, i haven't verified, but The pirate bay is not a bittorrent tracker.
Please correct. (i know WP toomuch to do it myself, i'll be rewritten/deleted/reverted/yelled at)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.4.50.252 (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ThePirateBay is not a Tracker 

message: According to this article, Cyberbunker has no (current?) association with the bunker. Phiwum (talk) 12:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: what article? [Error 404 Not Found] -- 79.21.61.64 (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer in the bunker? 

message: It appears the claims of hosting within an ex-NATO bunker may be based on a marketing ploy and Photoshopping, as per http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-04-04/cyberbunker-hacking-as-performance-art. 74.108.115.191 (talk) 11:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already reflects that in its current revision. CyberBunker hasn't been hosted in the bunker they claim to be in for years. I've removed the photo of the bunker though and edited the caption of the server photo to avoid any possible confusion.BabyNuke (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edits. But, there doesn't appear to be any actual evidence that servers were ever located there; and there is now evidence that they were not from an apparent reliable source. This article still appears to be an advertisement whose original source is the owner of the company it advertises. And he does not appear to be a very reliable source with several, recent, contradictory statements; some of which, at least, appear to be based on possible racial paranoia or animus.74.108.115.191 (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is. For example, the BunkerInfra press release (see above) states: "12 years ago, an organization named the Cyberbunker was housed here, mister Sven Kamphuis was a member of this organization. After a fire in 2002, the storage of data was stopped based on a decision by the municipality.". If the current owner - who does not wish to be associated with CyberBunker at all - substantiates that they were indeed once located there, then I have no reason to doubt that. I would imagine that as the current owner BunkerInfra has a good understanding of the history of the bunker. News reports from 2002 also mention CyberBunker in relation to the fire and an online report from the local firebrigade states that an "internet company" was located at the site at the time of the fire, though admittedly it does not specifically name it as CyberBunker. I agree though that there's a lot of confusion, lies and false claims.BabyNuke (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Those photographs were clearly fake, but to be honest I'd never considered that their claims to be in the bunker might be questionable until now. Given the alleged business practices of Cyberbunker, I can see that there might be some value for them in concealing the physical location of their operation. Shritwod (talk) 08:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on CyberBunker. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100123170153/http://www.datacentrumgids.nl/datacentrum/cyberbunker-com to http://www.datacentrumgids.nl/datacentrum/cyberbunker-com
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified