GreatGreen

Welcome!

Hello, GreatGreen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for List of living supercentenarians. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 22:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

List of German supercentenarians

Do not blindly revert all edits under the guise of calling it vandalism. If you have a particular issue then discuss it. The pending and unverified claims are not reliable sources as have been repeatedly discussed and do not belong in any article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:List of German supercentenarians. Please explain to me what your exact concerns are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this article. Do NOT restore the chronological list section because it cannot be sourced. Unsourced information has no business being on Wikipedia. CommanderLinx (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course it can be sourced by the links given above. And the problem is also that articles you voted for delation like Charlotte Klamroth involved these information. The article was eloborated before changing all the way down and now the problem is just half of the sources are obtained. So this problem is caused by people like you and it is a great pitty that you just talk about the same over and over again without noticing it is your fault. E.g. when Mrs Henze passed away all media named her as Germanys OLP, and this goes for so many other SCs as well, so I don't get what the problem is. If it that media are claiming this than I do not know how to handle wiki itself because so many information of all articles are not scientifical...GreatGreen 10:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 11:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

ARBCOM alert notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Longevity, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Regarding List of German supercentenarians, no other article anywhere uses the word "verified" to refer to claims of any type. That is because unverified claims of any type are inappropriate. You are only using verified for what reason I can't figure out because "unverified" claims aren't going to be in the tables no matter what. See Talk:List_of_German_supercentenarians#.22Verified.22_claims. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Signature

GreatGreen, I noticed your signature here. I just want to say that's it's considered policy (because it's incredibly convenient) to include at least a single link to your user or talk page in your signature. With yours, to talk to you, I had to go through the history and click that which is not particularly convenient as you can imagine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

But I use as mentioned "GreatGreen 20:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)".

That's all text. There should be a link to this page somewhere. It's very difficult to communicate to you directly without having to look at the history of a page to get your username. Not everyone signs their name with their username so a link helps there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I use the button "Sign your posts on this talk pages" with the 4 waves... So I don't know why it isn't working as it should. I do nit tip myself "GreatGreen ..."GreatGreen 17:41, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I don't think it's intentional. I think you may have changed something but forgotten. Please check your preferences under the "Signature" section. Again, this is not what I'm concerned about. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

ArbComm DS Enforcement Request Notification

I've started a case requesting discretionary sanctions against you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#GreatGreen. Please respond there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

GreatGreen, are you willing to follow the advice of Ricky81682 regarding the sources required to include content in the English Wikipedia? I would prefer not to impose a topic ban on a newcomer, but to avoid that, I need your agreement. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned I try to do that because I use the 4 waves. I am not willing to ignore this rule of sign. It doesn't work sadly.GreatGreen 18:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It took me several minutes to understand what you meant, because the "wave" (~) is called a "tilde" (pronounced tilda). To fix your signature, go to "Preferences", look at the first page and make sure the box that says "Signature" is empty, then hit the "Save" button at the bottom of the page.

Also, you really need to answer Jehochman's question above, otherwise you are in danger of being put under a topic ban which will limit your editing. Assuming you do not want this to happen, you need to give Jehochman assurances that you will follow Rick81682's advice above. BMK (talk) 05:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, now it should work GreatGreen 10:38, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

TO give an answer to Jochman it is a such an manipulation of people participating on wiki to ban them although reasons and arguments that are given by me are logical and explained. A whole difference to the behaviour of Ricky and all the others ones. I just want to point out the following: on the one hand it is said verified cases are involved. Then explain why e.g. the list of living SCs has been crashed down to top 100 in past. It only involves now a minium of living cases what destroys the actual characterization that is needed and more interesting. I am convinced that people like Ricky are manipulating everyone and are the firsts to ban people giving arguments against the things they do. I will answer in the ban topic too. GreatGreen (talk) 10:44, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

You have given the wrong answer. You could have said, "I agree" or you could have said, "I don't understand, but I see that you are more experienced than me and I'm willing to follow your advice if you explain it to me." This particular topic has been subject to much disruption. As a result, people are unwilling to spend a lot of time explaining to people who don't want to learn. Jehochman ^Talk 16:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is no question of willing to learn something - there is a difference between having personal interest and knowledge on a topic or not. The last on goes for Ricky. But now it is and so what, I will get over it and such people worrying by any stupid thing without noticing any other opinion. I am just another member that was banned by people like them. Maybe you should think about this fact... A disaccord, isn't it?GreatGreen (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from Longevity broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at age#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Well done you did what Ricky was looking for. Are all of you blind? This guy is laughing now about the fact being of queen of everything. What would have been the minium is also to ban this person.GreatGreen (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edit at AE was a Tban violation. You are not permitted to discuss/engage with Longevity anywhere on the project. This includes discussing longevity related enforcement. You can consider this your final warning. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I do not know why you are complaining. As you can see I did this comment before you give a sanction that is quiet unfair. But if you want to than do so. Your behavior gave more strenght to Ricky and his crew and makes people leave wiki on their own or by such quiet one-sided consequences.GreatGreen (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Having a look on last events you will see Ricky has no idea of his own hooey. Firstly, GRG is the top, everything else has been deleted. Now everything is different... and have a look: Maria Volmer has been verified, I ask myself who is gonna update the list of German SCs? So much staginess of these fault-finder - and now?! GreatGreen (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

List of German supercentenarians

I reverted your recent edit to this page as you are topic banned from longevity articles. Not a good idea to break your topic ban in an area where discretionary sanctions are in place. CommanderLinx (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Do not edit longevity articles

Second time now. What part of "you are topic banned from longevity articles" do you not understand? You are not allowed to edit in this topic area or you may be blocked from Wikipedia. CommanderLinx (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting someone posts this who is also banned. The reason I did: this information were known for more than 2 weeks and they were not involved until now. So I did it - by accepting all the rules that were made this years. GreetingsGreatGreen (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not banned so I'm not sure where you got that idea. It doesn't matter if the information is out of date because you are topic banned from longevity articles. Which means you are NOT allowed to edit in this topic area. CommanderLinx (talk) 07:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GreatGreen. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Topic bans include talk pages

I've had to remove your edit to the talk page of list of German supercentenarians as topic bans also apply to talk pages per WP:TBAN. You really are pushing for a block if you don't stay away from these articles. CommanderLinx (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I know about the consequences but infact, no one update the page I don't care. Your acting shows, you are not interested in this topic in anyway because you could have updated the page. The only thing you want to gain is kicking out all these people adding the pages. You just want to play king, nothing else.GreatGreen (talk) 09:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, GreatGreen. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)