User talk:Gunter

Page Blanking

On 30-June, you blanked Baron Ricasoli. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If you believe a redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe an article should be written instead of the redirect, please write a stub. However, the rationale provided in your edit summary (this is a company unrelated to the statesman) is incorrect. The company name is actually Barone Ricasoli [1] (notice the e). If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 16:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, thank you for the correction Gunter 22:32, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest companies

I am confused by some of your contributions to List of oldest companies. For example, on the latest diff you added 3 breweries from the Czech Republic. Can't only one of them, by definition, be the oldest? -- RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 12:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list is of any company founded before (in the current revision) 1852. Gunter 17:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Hope you like what I started this morning. I will try to finish up tonite, it is a few simple regex's just was already over two hours late to work this morning... ;) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 20:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks! i've wanted to start that for a long time, but never got around to it. This morning i started a couple...and now wham, you got a hold of it :) Gunter 22:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe do the years as well? Gunter 00:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I think that is overkill. Having multiple links to the same things are already kinda against WP:MOS. I might get to the other stuff later tonite. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 00:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now asked for help on the main talk page. Please help. ;) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib Reverts} 02:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 16:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Gunter 22:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the Gunsmith links to Firearm? Beretta, et al. make guns, which, by definition, makes them gunsmiths. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 13:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Gunsmith definition could be used for all the small English makers which really handmake their products. But companies that mass produce like Colt, Reminginton, Beretta are better placed under Firearms. Gunter 13:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter, would you mind explaining where you got some of your dates from? Specifically there has been a dispute over the year of formation of the rolling paper company Bambu. Several of us did a lot of research and found several verifiable references that the formation year was 1907. These references included the University of Barcelona, a historical book and Spanish trademarks. The company Bambu has been relying on your list as t's own citation and hasn't provided any actual reference as of yet. Could you confirm where you got the year from? Was it from seeing the year on their webpage or perhaps earlier text on the Bambu rolling papers page? Sorry for the hassle but I am trying to resolve a dispute (if you're in the mood to read a lot see Talk:Bambu rolling papers ) so any input you could give would be great! (ps, the Bambu promoters are stalking so you might get a long arduous post below from one of them - regardless please do answer my query and thank you for your patience.)Nahome (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warka, Tyskie

Tyskie is a brand, not a company, and the name comes from Tychy, where the brewery is located. Similarly, Warka is a brand and also a name of the town the brewery is located. So why exactly did you edit them? --P.B. 14:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is the brand "Tyskie" is old. Whereas the brewery/company has changed ownership and name since inception and merely taken over the brand name, is this not correct? Gunter 16:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah, the Tychy Brewery is now a part of Kompania Piwowarska, but the brand of course remains. But isn't that a list of oldest companies? If you prefer it this way, you may list brands as well, I don't mind. But in this case at least fix Warka link to point to another article, rather than the one about a town. --P.B. 16:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the intro paragraph i stated that it is a list of companies & brands. I will fix the Warka link. Thanks Gunter 18:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SpinyNorman

Have your say about him here. [2] his 3RR violation on the bottom. Add your say. Amoruso 11:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He should be banned, he is continually disrupting wikipedia pages, his own talk page is full of people complaining about his 3RR and other bad behaviour. In my case, the "List of the world's fastest cars by acceleration", besides 3RR, he continually removed entries without talk page discussion. Of the few items that are discussed he make statements ridiculing vendors and stating his own POV as an authority, whereas all he shows is an arrogant ignorance of the subject. Gunter 18:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although we don't entirely agree, could I suggest you comment at SpinyNorman's RfA. Extra opinions are always welcome and will aid the arbitration process. Thanks, Addhoc 17:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. SpinyNorman is now under investigation from the ArbCom (See [[3]]) for his constant edits on other car-related pages and his refusal to compromise. I suggest tying in this case with that one (to be presented on the Evidence page there) so that any ArbCom judgment on SpinyNorman can be effected on all car-related pages. Jsw663 12:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter, I moved your statement to the evidence page. [4] Your statement will be more useful to the Arb comm if you make an argument and use diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring. FloNight 14:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Strangelove

I'm sure but that is original research and is too much trvia that is unnotable. It is also unwikified (but I would remove it either way). Cbrown1023 20:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A transcription from a film is not original research. Too much trivia is just your POV. If you don't like the format, ask for it to be cleaned up. Don't remove other people edits without discussion. Gunter 20:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you call this? And make sure you understand that policies apply both ways. Cbrown1023 20:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... you have not read the WP:OR, technically, a transcription from film is original research because you are originally researching it yourself. Please also read WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOT before you dispute them. 20:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Dalek

The amount of detail is not needed for a general understanding of Genesis of the Daleks - the essential points are that Davros experimented on the Kaled mutants to create the Daleks; there's no need to specify the travel machines as "Mark III"s - that's in the Genesis of the Daleks article. Also, the reason there's a "Main article: History of the Daleks" tag there is because there's more detail in that sub article for those who want that detail, and the stuff about experimentation, et al. is all there. It's not necessary to place every single thing about it within the main article because the sub article covers it. If you read History of the Daleks, you'll see all the information you placed there, in the correct context. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, i didn't not see the sub article Gunter 17:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:12 18 2004 3 10 PM 0001.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:12 18 2004 3 10 PM 0001.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 02:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we add the Warner Company?

Can we add the Warner Company to the list of oldest companies? Waste Management has 1,674 subsidiaries. They will not be listed on its website. However, another website contains the list and it does include the Warner Company. See www.corporations.org/wmi/subs.html. For verification of the 1794 date please see chapter 34 of the History of Delaware (you will need to scroll down). It is at www.accessible.com/amcnty/DE/Delaware/delaware34.htm. The company is located in Morrisville, Pennsylvania. The website www.pennsburymanor.org/Guide.html explains how the Warner Company (located next door) gave the land where William Penn’s house once stood. The company was operated by the Warners from 1794-1960. It was on the New York Stock Exchange (WAR) from 1959-1977 where it was bought off by Robert A. Fox in 1960. See www.rafind.com/Key%20Management.htm. In 1978 Warburg Pincus purchased the Warner Company. Then, in 1981, Waste Management purchased the Warner Company and ran all of its plants. Each of the plants eventually closed except for the one in Morrisville, Pennsylvania. It was sold to Thomas Lafferty in 1985 who sold it back to Waste Management in 1990. They still own it as a wholly owned subsidiary to this day and it still bears the name “Warner Company”. (Notably, the company you list as the oldest company in the world, Kongō Gumi, is also a wholly owned subsidiary.) For further verification feel free to call the Warner Company at 215-295-7193 or write to them at 600 Tyburn Road, Morrisville, PA, 19067. A book was once written on the Warner Company called “Of Gold, Ships, and Sand.” The Warner Company (my family’s company) is 213 years old this year. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.82.21.86 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

ok :) Gunter 11:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) - Rob

List of oldest companies

Do you want this AWB stuff for anything? — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was that the script your wrote to change all the Fields? I thought that was very useful. I don't know how to use it, are you giving up on keeping the fields unified :) Gunter 22:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is the XML for WP:AWB. I don't plan on working it, I was gonna have it erased for me. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AlexR.jpg

Hello, the statement "Since this company is no longer in business the copyright on the photo has lapsed." is not valid. If you have any questions feel free to ask them here or at WP:MCQ. If you know the license of the image please update it at the image page. Do not revert my edit unless you do add a license however. This is required by the image use policy. Thanks. - cohesion 23:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just so you know, you still have to provide a fair use rationale or the image will be deletd. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to XB-70 Valkyrie. Thank you. MBK004 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Gunter! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of oldest companies

(→1300 to 1399: Gaffel was founded 1908 by the family Becker and never changed name or hand. Please ask the company Gaffel or the Family Becker or look up the old Adressbooks in Cologne. Your statement is not correct:The brewery was founded 1302 and has changed names/hand numerous times. Farina-Archiv (talk) 16:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaffel's own web site states the brewery has existed since 1302, the ownership has just changed hands.Gunter (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.gaffel.de/index.php?nc=2 Die Geburtsstunde der Marke Gaffel Am 24. Mai 1908 war die kurze, wechselvolle und zugleich unruhige Zeit der Brauerei beendet. Denn zu jener Zeit übernahmen die Gebrüder Becker die Brauerei. Sie hatten klare Vorstellungen, bauten das Haus im Stile eines alten Zunfthauses... 87.79.66.147 (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So Proudly We Hail!

I agree with your edit, removing the POV statement about the film being "effective propaganda." However, your edit summary "removing arrogance/ignorance" disregards WP's guidelines for both good faith and civility. A wrong or POV edit is not arrogant or ignorant just because you don't agree with it, and there seems to be no reason to denigrate the previous editor. Let's keep things on a high level, okay? Monkeyzpop (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gift economy

An editor over at Gift economy has reinsreted what I think are dubious examples of "gift economy." To my mind, they are not examples of an economic system, but rather gifts or altruism; every gift or altruisitc act is not an example of a "gift economy." Anyway, I see you have removed irrelevent text from that article in the past. Feel free to weigh-in. Novaseminary (talk) 15:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bambu

Hello Gunter. I see that you stated a few years ago that a company is "as old as it's oldest business entity. Changing the name after a merger does not affect the founding date" Can you explain how this pertains to Bambu which is on the list, and c2learly traces its origins back to 1764...Thanks again.. Best —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.21.67 (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been checking in and seeing a User (talk) attacking this brands est. date while there seems to be others like me trying to not have this rouge users do this unfounded. After reading all of this bickering, I have looked back to see that Bambu was one of the very first companies place in this article, added by you on 15:40, 18 January 2006. If you look at this users history- He/She is only interested in cigarette or marijuana related posts making it seem like she works in there industry. As well, there is an abnormally high history of this user making strictly negative posts on the Bambu Page. I even see the user placing very favorable posts for other cigarette paper brands, along with false establishment dates such as for the brand Pay Pay. There is another user (talk) who is fighting it, however all I keep seeing is each other claiming "you work for the company" or "you work for a competitor brand." Or "the business added itself to this list." After reading that, I looked through the history to find you. There is plenty of info on these two- and others- Including on editors talk pages, for they have "frozen" the worlds oldest company page, Bambu, and others I think.... As I am not a supper active Wikipedier and do not have an account, I thought I would bring it to your attention since it seems like there are other Wiki-people going after a page you created and a company you researched and placed on there.. I will check back in here later. Thanks for your time in advanced.-- Lawrence

Oh geez, looks like another Bambu Promoter Sockpuppet (this time using their Blackberry account). This has all been discussed on Talk:Bambu rolling papers, let's keep your conversation about Bambu's date of formation and how I'm a bad bad person in one place, Please talk here: Talk:Bambu rolling papers, See you there and thanks! Nahome (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to update you on what has perspired since this post Gunter- User NAHOME has been banned from Wikipedia after having being revealed as a competitor to Bambu in the tobacco industry. They tried to do whatever the could to attack the establishment date, product, various aspects of history and so on. As well as pretending to be a woman when actually a man. Sounds ridiculous, I know. Im am speaking with editor SlimVirgin right now to have the removal of Bambu from worlds oldest companies list reverted.. Something you placed on there, even though it was taken down by the slanderers. All the best. Arnaud..--ArnaudMS (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Drum memory and G. Taushek

With reference to this edit, [5] can you provide a source and explain a little better what Taushek actually invented and how it worked? Robert K S (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Campbell Hausfeld

Gunter,

Can you add our company?

Campbell Hausfeld http://chpower.com/ 1836 United States

Not sure of category, perhaps tools or powered equipment.

See our history page for more info on the history:

http://www.chpower.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/XAboutCH?langId=-1&storeId=10051&catalogId=10001

E-mail if you have any questions.

Thanks for your help

dsanchez@campbellhausfeld.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.40.152.102 (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your edits

I disagree entirely, but cannot be bothered to argue - the article needs lots of work (as per the talk page - the place that civil editors go to discuss differences of opinion) and while you're turning it into a collection of external links, the article was shit beforehand, so never mind ay! I will leave you to it, enjoy, Nik thestoned 09:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 20

Hi. When you recently edited List of oldest companies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hampton Ferry (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

In this edit you accuse me of being a vandal, when I added sources. That is not only patently absurd, it is a personal attack, which is against Wikipedia policy. I have no patience for insults, the next insult from you will be brought to administrator attention. Please not that if you continue to violate Wikipedia policies you may get blocked or even banned, so it is in your interest to follow policies. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added no source, and no value to the page, you are simply disruptive, i suggest you report yourself to an administrator and stop wasting my time and effort. Gunter (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter - please take this as a final warning. If you continue to remove reliable sources from any article - including the List of oldest companies - then that will be viewed as disruption and dealt with accordingly. Please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:OWN for more information. This matter should be discussed further on the article talk page. Giant Snowman 16:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources were removed, if anything adding these are disruptions of the webpage. Referring me to WP:OWN is absurd, if you would monitor this page you would see without someone taking interest is this article it is vulnerable to butchering and castration of information. Where were you when that happened? Gunter (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter, what Giantsnowman said is 100% correct in every possible way. This list is not an exception to general policy here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter - your edits are not useful, there is zero support for them and a helluva lot of opposition. Please taken on board what we are saying. Giant Snowman 16:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You edits are simply bullying and intimidation. I have spent 6 years putting this list togther, and out of nowhere people like you come along.... Fine i will leave the source column since you value it so much and just making my work more difficult. Gunter (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter, please read some of our policies. We prefer secondary sources to company websites. --SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has bullied or intimidated you. You have spent 6 years on the article? Great, thanks for your hard work - but you do not own the article and other editors are free to make changes as they see fit, and as governed by consensus, as these changes are. Giant Snowman 16:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To claim that the *addition* of reliable sources to an article is vandalism is really remarkable. I hope you do not intend to continue with this plan. EdJohnston (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that no "bullying" or "intimidation" has taken place. Gunter, with every edit you make, you renew your agreement to Wikipedia's Terms of Use, which includes editing under the policies and guidelines set by Wikipedia. WP:V is one of the core content policies of this encyclopedia. It applies to you as well to every other editor, and applies to this article as well as to every other article, and you cannot unilaterally declare that it does not apply to articles you edit. This is not "your" list. It is Wikipedia's list, and any Wikipedia editor may likewise - with as much right as you - seek to edit it, to add reliable sources, to remove invalid sources, and to remove unsourceable content. If you can operate within Wikipedia's rules - as you agreed to do when you joined this site, and agree to do with every edit you make - then your further contributions are welcome. Ravenswing 21:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~And yet again with the "Vandalism" claims. [6]. Stop calling other people trying to improve the article "vandalism". OK? It's not vandalism. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)~~ No, sorry, my bad, that was an EARLIER case, from the 6th of August. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter, they did it again. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning

Perhaps I haven't made myself clear, so I will rectify the situation. The way you are going about editing List of oldest companies is disruptive. Calling good faith edits that are based on the information from an ANI and the talk page of the article, "Vandalism" [7] [8] is disruptive. You are at the end of your disruptive rope. If you continue, you will be blocked. Use the article talk page. This is absolutely your last warning. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking to be reported for abusing admin privileges. If you think removing valuable data from a long standing article after a couple of hours biased chit chat between friends on the talk page are valid good faith edits, you need to start doing some serious rethinking of what possible purpose you even serve on wikipedia. Considering that i wrote the majority of the article and all you and your buddies have done is try to trash it, saying that i am disruptive is quite ignorant. Gunter (talk) 01:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter, you've ignored warnings on the article talk page, in WP:ANI, and here. You're repeatedly accused other users, whose contributions are positive, of vandalism, despite being explicitly told not to. You've edit-warred extensively on List of oldest companies. You've misused the long-term alternate account user:RebeccaH to continue edit warring. You've shown no interest in abiding by Wikipedia's mandatory policy on reliable sources, in favour of your own opinion. So I've blocked you from editing, to protect Wikipedia from you. Before you can be allowed to edit again, you need to demonstrate clearly and unambiguously that you understand wikipedia's policies on reliable sources, on dispute resolution, and on treating others civilly and with respect. Your repeated hostile responses today show you're very far from that understanding. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gunter, you do not own the article. You also need to stop making personal attacks and to stop refusing to listen. Edits that follow policy are not vandalism. Reverting them and calling them vandalism is. You need to understand all this before you even think about requesting unblocking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Socking

CU confirms that User:Gunter and User:RebeccaH are socks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]