User talk:TFBCT1

She's not the oldest person alive right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.18.68.105 (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, TFBCT1! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --CWY2190^T^C 06:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

November 2011

I'm "in arbitration" am I? Care to provide evidence of this? Or are you referring to the incident earlier this year when a number of editors were cited in arbitration case which resulted in the, fully deserved, banning of the editor who brought the case up? None of which affects the unconstructive editing you persist in doing by changing tables before the day has changed thereby introducing incorrect information. How about you waiting until the date has changed so that the update is correct? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest people list

Please lookup Elsie Evans in Windsor, Nova Scotia, Canada. She turned 110 yesterday (7-11-19). Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.113.130 (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta say, you are there just about everyday updating the table. Thanks.--ZooFamily (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you doing the oldest person updates by hand? Kd4ttc (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that it looks like you're updating the "Oldest people" and "List of the verified oldest people" manually every day, and likely have been doing so for years. I commend and am impressed by your dedication, and if you want to continue doing this, by all means do so. I see, however, that the "List of oldest living people" article seems to be set up to update automatically. Perhaps, if you want, you could revise those articles to follow that template. It might relieve you of a lot of work. Anyway, thanks for your efforts.Ryan Reeder (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both Lists use the same template to advance the age daily. What I do, systematically advancing the rank, as they tie or surpass, individuals on the list needs to be done manually. Thanks for your input. TFBCT1 03:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

WHERE IS CHIYO MIYAKO! MiaMiaMiaMe1 (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok chiyo died, but this is unacceptable! Since the death of GUISEPPINA PROJETTO? Chiyo is verified and died after Projetto. OldestPeople11 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are both of you babbling about? Chiyo Miyako is represented correctly on all appropriate lists as deceased and has been immediately after source was available. MiaMiaMiaMe1- Do not vandalize my page with infantile messages like “I hate u” as you just did or I will have you blocked.TFBCT1 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jiroemon Kimura

Hello, because you normally maintain the tables, I want to ask a question. Is it possible I could have the honor of updating the table of oldest verified males when Jiroemon Kimura ties Christian Mortensen in an hour? You (or whoever else is there) would still do the oldest person table for that day if you would agree to this. I'm not usually this gleeful about my edits but this would be one of the most wonderful edit I have done here so far and would make me feel really happy. Thank you for reading this and considering what I have asked. --Thebirdlover (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of the verified oldest people

Thank you very much for list update every day. Really thank you.

List of Japanese supercentenarians has not been updated for a long time. This also needs to be updated.--219.111.171.98 (talk) 09:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 115+ table in Supercentenarian needs to be updated as it is well out of date. Why no edit function? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.148.180.178 (talk) 09:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of supercentenarians who died in 2014, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. dsprc ^{[ talk ]} 01:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I reverted your nonconstructive edit is because these tables violate the Accessibility guidelines. Please see my comments on the article's talk page: Talk:List of supercentenarians who died in 2014. These changes were made by me, with the recommendation from editors at the Tea-house, where I went for consultation on how to improve the articles for blind and visually impaired users. All of these tables violate the guidelines for accessibility, and I intend to fix them so blind people can use Wikipedia just like everyone else. Instead of thwarting my attempts toward opening this information to the visually impaired, please join with me to make sure they have the same access sighted people do by assisting in fixing all these tables - which is a very cumbersome task because of their length and multiplicity; please be that help. Thank you. dsprc ^{[ talk ]} 01:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your attempts to remove the additional cells from List of supercentenarians from the United States. I have also posted to the articles talk page as I did at Talk:List of supercentenarians who died in 2014. Please engage in open discussion in either one of the talk pages to work out structure and state of these pages. Thank you. dsprc ^{[ talk ]} 20:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting

Regarding your edits at [List of supercentenarians who died in the 1980s], please review Wikipedia:Reverting. I have explained my edits on the talk page. If you disagree with them, let's discuss the changes there. Reverting without discussing is a waste of time. Also, you should be familiar with WP:3RR. Regards, Ground Zero | t 11:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I notice in a discussion on Ranginui Walkers disputed date of death, it had been changed to 28th February 2016. Please note he actually died on Monday 29th February 2016, at about 2am. I know because I was there. I’m his granddaughter. Please correct his date of death to 29th February as this is the correct date. He died 1 day before his birthday. Interestingly he was born ON a leap year too, so to pass on a leap day, the very day before his birthday means he went around the sun a perfect number of times to end up in the exact spot he started in. MarciaWalker (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Italian supercentenarians table updates

I'm just stopping by to say thank you for letting me do the table updates for List of Italian supercentenarians for the past twelve available days. I will do the table updates for List of Italian supercentenarians every day that I am available to do them from now on. Deaths in 2013 (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bad news: I will not be able to do the updates until I can get a new computer mouse since the right click of the mouse that I use to copy and paste the names to move in rank does not work. You will have to do it until I can get a computer mouse that I can use to do the updates again. Deaths in 2013 (talk) 02:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Margaret Fulton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nairn, Scotland. 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) 17:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for leave-out

Regarding this edit to List of living supercentenarians: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_living_supercentenarians&diff=631321143&oldid=631306773 the reason I left out Masae Okaguchi is because she was deceased when the August update of Table EE came out. Deaths in 2013 (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Merle Barwis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria. 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) 11:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Link

Hi,

Thanks for spotting the invalid link for Giannis Papadimitriou on List of living centenarians. A Wikipedia page for this man does exist in Greek, here is the link:

https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%93%CE%B9%CE%AC%CE%BD%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%82_%CE%A0%CE%B1%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%B7%CF%84%CF%81%CE%AF%CE%BF%CF%85_(%CE%B2%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%85%CF%84%CE%AE%CF%82)

However, there is a different man with the same name who has an English Wikipedia article, so it directs straight to that. What can be done?

Cheers,

Ollie231213 (talk) 21:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Mushatt Jones

Mushatt Jones is one of the last two surviving verified people who were born in the 1800s.

The verb to be in the past continuous tense were in this case refers to the two people who were born in the 1800s, not to "one of" them. Hence the plural form "were born" is correct. "Was born" would only be correct if the verb referred to a singular subject, as does the first instance "is". Please do not change it again. General Ization ^Talk 10:14, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, can you please redirect the name Nabi Tajima in the list of the 100 oldest verified people to her page! Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.221.73.64 (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old people

Please don't get into an edit war over this. The issue on time zone was discussed previously on the talk page. Pleas refer to this archive. Nyth 63 14:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oldest people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eastern Standard Time. 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) 09:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy Cammock-Bennett

I saiw a "Club 110" dating from January 2015, (112 birthday), she is in awaiting verification, I held you posted --109.217.117.127 (talk) 08:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions for Longevity pages

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.

Ca2james (talk) 00:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further to these sanctions, you want to explain why you wholesale reverted by clean up of an article reintroducing many errors? [1] Legacypac (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the List of supercentenarians from the United States page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why my edit was reported vandalism?

Hi. ClueBot NG didn't accept my source which said that Nguyễn Thị Trù was passed away at 12 July 2016 [2]. I tried to update this information at Longevity Claims but ClueBot NG removed it and claimed that my edit was vandalism. Why? 62.80.158.180 (talk) 05:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Another my edit from Longevity claims was again removed even I clearly added a reliable source that Celina Del Carmen Olea from Argentina was passed away at 13 May 2016 [3]. What's wrong with these people? 62.80.158.180 (talk) 11:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of oldest living people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Express. 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) 12:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Larkin Malloy

Malloy died September 24 per reflink related to his death. If you have a reliable source that says September 29, fine then show it and link it to the article. IMDb is not a reliable source for biography info. Otherwise your changing the date will become unconstructive and treated accordingly. Quis separabit? 00:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK but the new link you provided gave Wednesday as his date of death; Wednesday was 28 September, not 29. Yours, Quis separabit? 03:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Sweetland

I am sure that you are well aware that disrupting Wikipedia to make a point by removing cited, verifiable information (the fact that she turned 100 is not in question and the fact that she is deceased is WP:BLP-violating speculation) is not an acceptable means of dispute resolution. I urge you to either recuse yourself from this topic or work productively on it (say, by taking up one of my suggestions about getting her death information approved by the community that I left on the talk page), because the next stop for disruption is WP:ANI. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia has very specific policies on biographies of living people, for many reasons, including ones I have outlined on the talk page. Don't take this as a warning, but as an opportunity to take some time to consider and understand how Wikipedia works so that we can collaborate on articles and work to improve them, rather than butting heads because we don't get our way. Consensus and policy are key in that regard. Canadian Paul 20:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at Sally Sweetland's talk page, it appears the consensus is that to perpetuate the falsehood that she is still alive (now that the family has been contacted and it has been confirmed that she was deceased 02/08/2015), is a dis-service and counter productive for Wikipedia. With that said, I am going to recuse myself from this topic as it is clear I am not going to sway you in this argument. TFBCT1 22:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TFBCT1. 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)[reply]

Arbiration request for Maxine Grimm wikipage

Your Username has been included in an arbitration request: {{subst:arbcom notice|Maxine Grimm}}.--Spray787 (talk) 00:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The case has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. You may wish to see User_talk:Spray787#Arbitration_case_request_declined for further information. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Elizabeth Hamm

I suggest you read WP:BDP which states we assume she is alive until 115 unless a reliable source says otherwise. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on you to find a source that she is deceased per that policy and WP:BLP. CommanderLinx (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

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

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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.

Apologies if you are signing your posts, but I'm assuming you're not, since you only give your user name. There should also be a timestamp and a link to your user or user talk page. clpo13_(talk) 00:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Confession

On the List of Italian supercentenarians as well of List of North American supercentenarians I made up Violet browns death date as well as some Italian supercentenarians and I also on List of supercentenarians from the United States made up Delphine Gibson and Ila Jones death dates. I'm doing it for amusement. 47.208.26.240 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.208.26.240 (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2017 (UTC) This is my other IP address. Sincerely, Timothy McGuire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.80.144 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltan Sarosy

Okay, so my edits were reverted because of an older discussion....is this wide spread knowledge? There are plenty of articles regarding supercentarians that I've seen that still use the years and days format, so for uniformity, that's why I kept it that way. So either a lot of pages have to be changed or one minor change should be made to maintain stability amongst the different articles. Articles in question include:

amongst others....

So which is the correct and widely accepted age format? Just for future reference. Snickers2686 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 20

All of those people qualify for the for the age format of years and days because they are notable for longevity reasons only. Zoltan Sarosy, Shivakumara Swami etc. are notable for reasons other than longevity and do not qualify for this format while they are alive. Did you read the discussion? Are you still confused?TFBCT1 03:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for one week for abusively editing while logged out. See WP:GAB for your appeal rights.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have not touched that page in days. I respected your request and stopped editing once you asked me to well prior to three times. I have been updating the longevity pages on a daily basis for the pat 10 years. I'd suggest you unblock me immediately or I am going to raise hell like you've never seen before. I will have you permanently removed from Wikipedia. I'm giving you 15 minutes to correct this.TFBCT1 00:09, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Before I file an official grievance against you, it states I must personally try to resolve this situation with you. My grievance will be this: Administrator Bbb23 is abusing his/her authority in blocking accounts. I have been blocked for one "good faith" edit and one reversal to cleanup the mess when my edit was reverted both on 04/30/2017. The page in question is Andy Whitfield. I did not touch the page for almost 3 days and then was inexplicably blocked by Bbb23 citing use of multiple accounts which is a complete falsehood. This type of abuse of authority should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. I have been a registered user for almost 10 years and have never witnessed such reckless behavior. Failure to communicate. Poor judgement. Please respond before I commence.TFBCT1 01:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TFBCT1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for making one edit and one reversal to Andy Whitfield both on 04/30/2017. I have not touched the page since. User Bbb23 inexplicably blocked me on 05/02/2017 without just cause. My first edit was in "good faith" and my reversal was because the page was left a mess when my edit was reversed. I did not touch the page for almost 3 days and then was inexplicably blocked by Bbb23 citing use of multiple accounts which is a complete falsehood. I have been editing Wikipedia for nearly 10 years and update the longevity pages on a daily basis as I have for the past 10 years. I strongly believe Bbb23 has over stepped his bounds and should be reprimanded for improper actions on Wikipedia. Failure to communicate. Poor judgement.

Decline reason:

It says very clearly above that you've been blocked of abusively editing while logged out. None of your request addresses the reason for your block. Before you re-request, please consider that Bbb23 is a checkuser whom has access to advanced technical information such as underlying IP addresses, browser headers, and so on. SQL ^{Query me!} 02:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TFBCT1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Obviously, if you're going to claim advanced technical knowledge without proving it and then claim that an IP address is somehow specifically linked to my user account once again without proving it (when an IP address can cover several user accounts), I guess there's not much that I can do about it except ride out the week. However, I do want to congratulate all involved; longevity pages on wikipedia- list of the verified oldest people, list of the verified oldest women, list of the verified oldest men, list of supercentenarians from the United States, List of Japanese supercentenarians etc. were not updated for the first time in 10 years. I guess my 17,244 edits have some value. Shame. TFBCT1 10:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; this isn't an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It doesn't take any special tools to see that these edits to Andy Whitfield were were a continuation of the previous editing by your account. —DoRD (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting DoRD. Do you often contradict yourself? I'll quote you, "please consider that Bbb23 is a checkuser whom has access to advanced technical information such as underlying IP addresses, browser headers, and so on." That would appear to be special tools. It is not MY fault that someone else has the same opinion on the Andy Whitfield page as I do. If you do not have definitive proof that edits after 04/30/2017 were tied to my User Account, you have no business blocking me. You appear to be a hypocrite. Also, I don't understand how to fix my signature.TFBCT1 14:26, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Please reread this section - it was another admin who wrote that, not me. —DoRD (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

On another note, while you're waiting for your block to be resolved, please correct your signature to include a link as specified here. Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since your signature has no custom formatting, the easiest way to fix your signature is to go to Special:Preferences and scroll to the box labeled "Signature:". Clear the box, un-tick "Treat the above as wiki markup.", and click the "save" button at the bottom of the page. —DoRD (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Longevity updates

I have been doing the daily updates on many longevity pages for several years. Namely, list of the verified oldest people, list of the verified oldest women, list of the verified oldest men, list of supercentenarians from the United States, List of Japanese supercentenarians, List of European supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians from Asia, List of British supercentenarians, List of Italian supercentenarians, List of French supercentenarians, and List of German supercentenarians. I will be unable to edit from 05/02/2017 to 05/09/2017- the 05/03/2017 through 05/10/2017 updates. Hopefully someone will come to this page and see why and pick up the slack for this period of time. Don't forget to add Nabi Tajima to Ten oldest verified cases ever on the 05/07/2017 update. Thank you.TFBCT1 (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am no longer blocked, I am still currently unable to edit/updateTFBCT1 (talk) 23:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TFBCT1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

If you're not going to unblock me and are going to continue to restrict my ability to communicate on all of the following pages, then have Bbb23 or another administrator take care of this issue. "I have been doing the daily updates on many longevity pages for several years. Namely, list of the verified oldest people, list of the verified oldest women, list of the verified oldest men, list of supercentenarians from the United States, List of Japanese supercentenarians, List of European supercentenarians, List of supercentenarians from Asia, List of British supercentenarians, List of Italian supercentenarians, List of French supercentenarians, and List of German supercentenarians. I will be unable to edit from 05/02/2017 to 05/09/2017- the 05/03/2017 through 05/10/2017 updates. Hopefully someone will come to this page and see why and pick up the slack for this period of time. Don't forget to add Nabi Tajima to Ten oldest verified cases ever on the 05/07/2017 update." TFBCT1 (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That's not an unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|I was blocked for one week which I was not happy about, but decided to let it pass. The block was over @ 15:49 05/09/2017- the one week period, and then inexplicably changed to 03:59 05/10/2017. I'm starting to get extremely annoyed. It's clear that checkuser Bbb23 is incompetent to no end. Fix this immediately TFBCT1 (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)}}[reply]

You're no longer blocked. Please learn how to tell time and how to read block logs. Hint: UTC time is used, although that doesn't explain part of what you're saying. And stop ordering people around.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock the IP address that I'm attached to. It's been over one week for that as well. I think we've all, including wikipedia (longevity pages) have suffered enough.TFBCT1 (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock | Unblock the IP address that my User Account is attached to. The reason that this IP Account is blocked is that it was attached to my account. Now that my account is no longer blocked and the rationale no longer applies, it is ludicrous to continue to block this IP address. [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]], Do you think you can take care of this without it getting blown out of proportion? [[User:TFBCT1|TFBCT1]] ([[User talk:TFBCT1#top|talk]]) 20:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)}}

The IP you used has never been blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what is the exact message you get when you try to edit a page other than your Talk page?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit while logged in or out. This is the message.

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address.

This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong.

A user of this IP address was blocked by Bbb23 for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "TFBCT1". The reason given for TFBCT1's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts".

This block has been set to expire: 03:59, May 10, 2017. The block ID is: 7464309. TFBCT1 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will not clear the autoblock. It looks fairly clear that you tried to evade your block by editing directly with your IP. What that did was to reset the autoblock. You're luck I don't reblock you directly. Sit it out, and if in the future you persist in editing without logging in, you risk being blocked for a lot longer than one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listen. I don't know how to make this any clearer. I have not tried in any way to edit any pages on wikipedia since 05/02/2017. Please stop accusing me of things I haven't done. I'm not that technical and I don't understand what's happening. All I know is that I sat out the week and I still can't edit. I'm asking for your help. I've taken care of the 'longevity pages' on a daily basis for 10 years. And it really bothers me that they're a mess. Can you please help?TFBCT1 (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I'm being treated very unfairly and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. I've done nothing to affect the date of an autoblock. How do I know it's not going to just keep re-setting itself? I have no control over this. Maybe someone else is affecting it? This truly isn't right.TFBCT1 (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock-auto|2=<nowiki>Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "TFBCT1". The reason given for TFBCT1's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts".|3=Bbb23|4=7464309}}

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

TFBCT1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

TFBCT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "TFBCT1". The reason given for TFBCT1's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts".

Blocking administrator: Bbb23 (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Autoblock has expired. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

</nowiki>

The above autoblocks are no longer active. --Yamla (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TFBCT1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My one week block ended over 3 hours ago and I still cannot edit. I was told by Bbb23 that there is an autoblock which he/she will not remove because I must have tried to evade my initial block and tried to edit. Not only do I not understand this (since I have no ability to edit logged on or off), but it simply just isn't true. I'm starting to feel very victimized. I've had this user account since February 2008 with no problems and have made a number of contributions to wikipedia. Can somebody please help me? TFBCT1 (talk) 23:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You had four (!!!) open unblock requests when I came to review your request. Four. You only need one, posting more than one just wastes our time. Anyway, I can see you have made multiple edits since posting these requests, so you are obviously no longer blocked. Although not directly related to this, I note that you once again removed content without providing a source for your removal. You'll want to very, very quickly go to that article's talk page and provide your reliable citation before you are reblocked. Yamla (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@talk Thank you for addressing my concerns several hours after my inquiries; however no longer relevant. Regarding your comment, The 'longevity pages' have their own set of circumstances that you seem to be unfamiliar. My notation in the 'edit summary' that the reliable source including this individual on the list is 20 months old is grounds for removal- I don't need a citation. I also opened a discussion on the article's talk page because the page history appeared to show some confusion. Nothing more needs to be done. Longevity pages are heavily monitored and if something were awry, my edit would have already been reverted. So thanks for your input. I'm assuming it was in my best interest, but let my nine years experience speak for itself on this topic.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@talk I re-read your comment. Quoting you, "Although not directly related to this, I note that you once again removed content without providing a source for your removal. You'll want to very, very quickly go to that article's talk page and provide your reliable citation before you are reblocked." Please tell me, at what other time are you referring that I "removed content without providing a source"??? You said, "once again." My original block had nothing to do with removal of content. Or do you just make things up as other individuals do in your department? I also don't appreciate idle threats regarding reblocking when I have done nothing wrong. Clearly rhetorical.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toichi Sasaki

Please remove Toichi Sasaki in your next table updates as he is in limbo. Dorglorg (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-GRG cases

There is a discussion on the List of British supercentenarians talk page you will likely be interested in. Newshunter12 (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Impostor account?

Hi TFBCT1, based on the name and their area of interest, would you say TGBCT1 is an impostor account trying to pass himself off as you, or is this an alternate account of yours? Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely NOT an alternate account of mine. I have only had one Wikipedia account since February of 2008- this one. I absolutely believe this is an imposter account or a very unlikely coincidence. TFBCT1 (talk) 19:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TFBCT1. 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)[reply]

List of the verified oldest people

I saw that you added Magdalena Oliver Gabarro. Isn't this page only for GRG validated people?--Dorglorg (talk) 00:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to treat this any differently than the list of the verified oldest men which has several entries which have not been validated by the GRG, as long as it's a reliable country/source with a verification of birth date and within a 12 month time frame.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Your recent editing history at List of oldest living people shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have something to say to you TFBCT1

I notice that on the top of your one of your talk page's article said that you have been blocked from editing this month. I heard that you are destroying and taking over Wikipedia's longevity pages. I heard that you have been saying mean things to me. I wish I could block you from editing for a month. Goodbye, Thomas.24.190.40.112 (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done 24.190.40.112 has been blocked from editing en-wikipedia for 1 years. deleted a mad comment. Ayuta Tonomura (talk) 14:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Failure of comprehension

Consider my patience with you on this matter at an end. The RFC was NOT about whether the established and clearly worded WP:CONSENSUS should be changed/amended/clarified, it was about whether users are justified in ignoring that consensus. I was hoping that some experienced and impartial editors might come up with some Wiki policy, guideline or precedent where such behavior is/was justified. Clearly a vain hope, as was the expectation that editors would be able to understand the intent of the RFC. My understanding of Wiki procedure is that when an editor wishes to clarify/change established WP:CONSENSUS they take it to the talk page FIRST and THEN make the change on the page. Instead you made false claims about the state of the consensus and edit warred. In hindsight I should have taken you to ANI at that point. When the RFC got went off-topic by those attempting to justify changing the you could have simplified things by starting a thread specifically aimed at changing the consensus (so could I, but then it was bad enough wasting my time on this without losing computer access as well), but then I don't recall that you have ever started a talk page thread to resolve such an issue. And I suppose the continued failure of comprehension by those contributing to the RFC made it seem like that was the topic of the RFC. It wasn't.

So let me make this as simple as possible for you: Revert again without getting a change in CONSENSUS and you go to ANI. If you want to change the CONSENSUS start a thread on the talk page with EXACTLY what YOU think the criteria for inclusion should be. And as it appears you do not understand exactly what WP:CONSENSUS is (given your last edit summary) I suggest you read WP:CONLEVEL very carefully. Rest assured I will be pinging as many people as I can find who were involved in the relevant discussions on this in both the archives of List of oldest living people, WP:WOP and WP:RSN. I expect to have more luck in finding people who were in favor of the current consensus than those against as many of the latter have been tropic-banned from Longevity articles. You might have more luck in that regard. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 03:38, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly I have no idea why you have so much animosity toward me. For ten years I have contributed in good fashion in all aspects of the longevity pages. Several people disagreed with you. It was to no avail. You started a new thread and still achieved no consensus. Several individuals raised concerns regarding the validity of news articles and age verification comparing them to "medical claims." Then you make a statement in the text that consensus has been reached and you will be making changes. That to me is abuse of power. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just a select few. If several people are in disagreement with you, you don't have consensus regardless of how many policies you want to enumerate.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of supercentenarians from the United States

The rankings are derived from "Age as of 18 February 2018" column, which is sourced from citations in "Name" column. Please discuss on talk page before reverting. It's just plain silly to have a rank column that is only 14% populated. It would be better to not have a Rank column at all rather than have the vast majority be blank. Peaceray (talk) 01:52, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the past it was proposed that the Rank column be eliminated altogether or changed to No. representing number for enumeration because it is not sourced for ranking. For now however, as you can see on all other country pages, only those that have a source for rank are listed with a rank, ie.. Japan, Spain, England etc..TFBCT1 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please then direct me to the discussion of the proposal. I am usually accustomed to someone showing me a link (or conversely, if I am citing chapter and verse then I will link to) policy, guidelines, or consensus governing edits. As it is now, I see no attributions/citations for the Rank columns for List of supercentenarians from the United States#Living American supercentenarians or anywhere in the Rank columns for List of Italian supercentenarians, List of Japanese supercentenarians, List of British supercentenarians, List of Spanish supercentenarians, & probably etc. You stated to me that 'you are the one going "out of protocol"' in your reversion edit, but please note that the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy will overrule any protocol, & it states Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. It goes on to state that Please immediately remove contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced.

Please let me know where I can see & join such a discussion. Otherwise, I think we need to start tagging these rankings as unsourced.

Peaceray (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite respectfully, if you're that interested, you'll have to dig it up yourself. I recollect that it's from 2015 and that it was specifically directed at the List of oldest living people. I have changed that page to read "No.", and not "Rank," because some of the names listed there are dubious. This way it lends toward enumeration, not ranking. I'm not opposed to the same being done on the U.S. page, however, as I've stated, currently on all other pages "Rank"is listed if "verified" and left blank if "not verified." It has not been a contention with any of these pages.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Info request

Have you initiated or participated in any sockpuppet investigations regarding this? I'm in search of evidence only. Thanks Tiderolls 14:08, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I've gotten the info elsewhere. Excuse the ring. Tiderolls 14:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re

The user you are referring to has changed IP addresses. Please keep an eye on the affected articles and drop a note on my user talk if you find discrepancies. Also, any admin can help you if I'm unavailable. Thanks Tiderolls 14:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese supercentenarians

The Nagasaki prefecture report, which is only 6 months old, is the source for Ichi Hatta, Tsunahei Ogawa, Sanae Uchiyama and Hide Morokuma. This source is less than 1 year old. Then howcome only Hide Morokuma goes into limbo while the others don't? PrithviMS (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC) PrithviMS (talk) 05:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is really a simple question. The source is valid for the others because they have not been reported "in limbo". Being reported "in limbo" has a 99% likelihood of being dead. The others have not been reported as such, so their source is valid.TFBCT1 (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chiyo Miyako

Look at Talk:List of the verified oldest people. Have you looked at the bottom of the page yet?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese Supercentenarians proposed for deletion

Since you are so protective of this page I hope you will be voting against this proposal. Crveni5 (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert on List of French supercentenarians

Why do you keep 102 people in the list of 100 oldest French people ever here: special:diff/839519637?

And why do two of them have to be listed without ordinal numbers? Aren't numbers in a numbered list to be assigned to every item in a list? --CiaPan (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you are unfamiliar with "all lists" on the "longevity pages." The 100 that are numbered have had their ages verified. The (2) that not numbered are pending verification, once verified by an organization that specializes in age verification, they will also be numbered accordingly and the list will be altered as you attempted.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If so, possibly some note could be added to the Rank column (similar to the note in the Age column) to explain what the empty cell means. --CiaPan (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is somewhat of a controversy whether the "unverified" should be listed at all. It would be ill advised to draw any more attention to their inclusion.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If unverified are listed, they may be distinguished with a wider color code, like in pl-wiki. For example, pl:Lista najstarszych mężczyzn w historii Europy assigns a neutral background to verified deceased, green to living (unused in that list), brown to dead whose age is suspicious, and blue to those who died and their age is uder investigation. That quite clearly explains the status, as well as holes in numbering. --CiaPan (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of British supercentenarians

Hello, Are Lilian Wignall and Amy Johnson eligible to be added to the "100 Oldest British people ever" table on the page by somebody now? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.145.214 (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we wait until they appear on the list of 100 Oldest Lving People, then they can be added unnumbered until verified, and if verified permanently numbered.TFBCT1 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC) TFBCT1 (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Maren

Hi. This should clear up any doubts as to YOB. The death certificate gives 1920 as YOB ([4], [5]). Quis separabit? 00:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

George Feldman and Kameo Oya

There is an ongoing discussion on the List of oldest living people talk page regarding George Feldman and Kameo Oya, which you might be interested in joining. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Newshunter12 (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thread is now at this link. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#TFBCT1 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 07:41, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

To enforce an arbitration decision and for edit-warring, see AE request on the page List of oldest living people, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Sandstein 15:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

This in reply to your following appeal per e-mail:

"I am strongly appealing any block being imposed for activity involving "list of oldest living people." This was an issue between me and another editor which was amicably resolved on 07/21/2018 by the edit warring board with the result of "a warning for both editors" and no further action. Why change this decision now? I have done nothing further. If I need to do an official appeal, please advise. As I have stated, I update the longevity tables on a daily basis I have for the past 12 years and any block will cause disruption. There is entire community the relies on me for this service."

Please provide a link to the discussion in which the edit-war has been amicably resolved. Sandstein 16:00, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_oldest_living_people Heading: Does George Feldman meet criteria for inclusion?TFBCT1 (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please also link to the prior edit-warring noticeboard discussion. You should have done so in your AE statement: anything people write there without links or diffs as evidence is basically pointless. Sandstein 16:07, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I dont't think I can create diffs now that I'm blocked, but if you look above where it says Notice of Edit warring discussion board above, there is a thread. I'm not sure if it's still active in that it's over 48 hours ago. I apologize for being inept at this. I haven't had many problems in 12 years and this is very foreign to me.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know how to find it. It was between myself and Newshunter12 from 07/20/2018. I'm not a young person and I'm not tech savvy. I need some help with this.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher)(Unyoung person comment) @Sandstein:, it's archived now, but the ANEW report is here. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. It appears that the matter was indeed resolved. I'm therefore lifting the block but ask you to be more cautious next time. Sandstein 16:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much. And I willTFBCT1 (talk) 16:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quick suggestion

Since the Gerontology Research Group now uses the term Validated instead of verified, I think it would be a good idea to replace "verified" with "validated" in the titles of the lists of the verified oldest men, women and people so it says List of the validated oldest men, List of the validated oldest women, and List of the validated oldest people. Hope I made sense I tried my best. Timothy McGuire (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Kane Tanaka

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kane Tanaka. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 100.40.125.198 (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Asian supercentenarians article has been deleted

It appears the person who wanted to delete the article "List of Japanese supercentenarians" (and failed), has deleted the "List of Asian supercentenarians" article. I suspect it is Newshunter12 (talk). Are you able to reverse this deletion?

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TFBCT1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring across multiple articles

Please see my note here.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 00:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of the oldest people

Hello, I've read you may leave the longevity topic because of haters who had ruined the List of the oldest people. But may be it is possible for you to make and guide similar list on the Simple-English Wikipedia or in another language section? Sorry for my poor English, and great respect for your work!--Levgr (talk) 07:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Supercentenarians

Hello, Can you or somebody agree that Alfred Smith, Robert Weighton, Violet Davies-Evans and Daisy Bastin can be added to the "100 oldest British people ever" table on that page as they are older than the 100th placed person in the table, Ethel Wood. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.145.214 (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of living centenarians

Hi. I restored Sheila Mercier after adding a valid reflink (included in the IP’s edit summary but not updated to the entry). It appears to be a valid and authoritative link but please check for yourself here (scroll down a tad bit on same page to which link opens to see what I am referring to, but don't scroll too vigorously as the pages fly by). Yours, Rms125a@hotmail.com 18:08, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

It is hard to assume good faith and be civil when you create edit summaries such as "He's at it again. Will you please block this user!!!". Please cut it out. -- Rockstonetalk to me! 19:31, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Touche. You have consistently demonstrated editing abuse with the longevity pages which have their own set of standards. And it is my opinion that for this you warrant blocking.TFBCT1 (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that I've demonstrated editing abuse, and I have been following the reliability and undue weight standards articles on Wikipedia follow. That being said, I have stopped making any further edits to the page (unless I see a typo) and I look forward to constructive discussion on the talk page. I apologize for the disruption. Best, Rockstonetalk to me! 19:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Italian supercentenarians. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. You declared a woman dead without citing a reliable source or any source at all, which is a serious WP:BLP violation. Please be more careful in the future. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have have had multiple issues with you in the past. You over react without researching and making sure you are in the right. You revert my well constructed edits with no purpose at all as you did above. If you took the time, you would have seen the said individual was removed from List of oldest living people with appropriate sources on 07/01/2019 and should have also been updated on the Italian page for which I now assume you're are maintaining, but not on a timely basis. As a seasoned editor, I'd suggest you start showing me some civility and stop posting this garbage to my talk page.TFBCT1 (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if it was done correctly somewhere else by someone else, you violated Wikipedia policy in this article. Deaths need to sourced in each article and I would also point out you are citing a specific date of death, but the source you provided doesn't give a specific date of death as required. The source was also not added to the article either. You have been reverted again. She needs a specific date of death or she needs to be removed entirely. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are completely incorrect. A death source only needs to be indicated once within the longevity pages to be valid not multiple times on multiple articles. Futhermore, it was your gross error to leave a deceased person as "living" now (2) times on the Italian page. Although it is accepted that her date of death as dated in the article is 06/29/2019, I would be more than happy to remove an "unveriified" deceased individual from the article altogether as being in "limbo."TFBCT1 (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had already removed her from the list myself. Her date of death is not mentioned in the news article stating that she died. A month or year isn't even given for when she died. Honestly, did you even read it? But I see this matter as now resolved, so good day to you and if you're an American, Happy Fourth of July. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I Know

I know you're the one who's been leaving threatening messages on my talk page and when I prove it your going to be banned permanently. Newshunter14 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear TFBCT1, I have nothing whatsoever to do with the above account and am sorry that it is threatening you. I've gotten threats, including a death threat on my own talk page before because of my editing and would never do that to someone else's page. Someone is trying to get me blocked, probably because of my recent Jeanne Calment edits. Newshunter12 (talk) 15:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've blocked the impostor account. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

We have clashed before and I am sorry for my part in that, but please hear me out. I have a lists of oldest people by country (so List of British supercentenarians etc.) proposal that you might be interested in crafting with me. You have been quite clear that you are against ranking non-GRG verified individuals on country lists. I originally supported that change, but realize that wasn't the best way of going about trying to solve the issue of the GRG only validating age 112+. Without your devoted edits, these lists are not being updated frequently enough, as you have pointed out, which is a problem. You cut a list of mainly non-GRG people here to prevent listing Maggie Kidd with the 100 oldest Americans. Well, would you be interested in creating an RfC with me to trim country lists so that most or all the non-GRG people were de-facto cut out? We could agree on a number to include in the RfC like 20, 30, or 50 or maybe a minimum age of inclusion as well. We could also word it to change the inclusion criteria to go back to GRG only rankings. Are you interested? I could do the actual leg work of staring the RfC for us. Please let me know what you decide. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Restore list to 100"

If I remove someone from the list of the oldest living people and this makes the list go down from 100 members to 99, the correct thing to do is not to revert me unless you can find that GRG's removal of her from the list was a mistake. The right thing to do is add someone to the bottom of the list. Georgia guy (talk) 00:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Learn how to update what you are doing correctly and don't make the change unless you can do it correctly. You should have added an additional entry from the bottom of the list.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest People

Why persist in removing factual data without even give an explanation? DrKilleMoff (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don’t know what you are doing. The Top Ten List must match list it is referencing- in this case- the List of the Oldest Verified Men. If you go to that list you will see that he is unranked because he has never been “verified.” After I’ve made this correction nearly 50 times with explanation it becomes tiresome. I would suggest discerning the page history before you make arbitrary edits.TFBCT1 (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I just wanted to let you know that Newshunter12 is leaving you threatening messages on Talk:List of the oldest living people. 46.45.138.100 (talk) 14:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see no threatening messages at that talk page. I do see a caution that edit-warring can be reported to WP:ANI. That isn't a threat. There does seem to be trolling, probably intended to goad User:Newshunter12 into over-reacting. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Newshunter12 (talk) 15:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transfers from Oldest Living People to Oldest People

Should Ms Kamarou (114 years 110 days) qualify for the latter list? Chromatistes (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m assuming you mean the List of the verified oldest people. This list only accepts “ranked” entries which are “verified.” In that Ms. Karnarou is not “verified,” she cannot be ranked nor added to this list.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile mode?

How do I access an article's edit history on mobile mode? I know how to access it on desktop mode. Timothy McGuire (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regular notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in longevity. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:13, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia McLaurin

Per my recent edit, I'm going to have to point you to Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Please do not restore that version of the page without using a reliable source. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:19, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mina Kitagawa and Gustav Gerneth

In the list of japan esce supercentenarians an anonymous user updated with the death of Mina Kitagawa(without sources) when she is alive , update this instead of canceling my edit on gustav gerneth who died on October 21 and not on October 22. There are no real sources that he died on October 22, the fact that the article was made on October 22 does not mean that Gustav died on the 22 october. why hasn't Mina's change been reset? My change has been cancelled and Mina’s change no! Ignoto2 (talk) 20:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Gerneth and Oldest people

Hi TFBCT1. Can you link to the consensus where it was agreed that an unverified individual can be added to a list of verified individuals? A lot has happened on the project in the past two years and consensus can change, but I want to review the discussion before I make any proposals. It seems to me like one can either say that a limited list of sources (such as the GRG) are reliable or that the list should be open to all, but including someone who was "probably" the age they claimed is original research. Canadian Paul 17:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Canadian Paul. This is what I'm referring to Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 16#Verification standards and sources and Talk:List of the verified oldest people/Archive 16#Inclusion of non-verified men on male list. Also more recently Talk:List of the verified oldest people#Long term dilemma with the Men's list is also relevant. As you will see, I was not supporting these changes and would not be opposed to removing all unverified men from the list. The main reason being that the Mens and Womens lists now have different criteria for inclusion which is contrary to me. Thanks for your help.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, interesting. I'll take a look at this in more detail another day soon and think about it. Thanks for the information and Happy New Year! Canadian Paul 18:31, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

11 elements in a list of ten

You appear to be an experienced editor. What is your reasoning for 11 elements in a list declared to be a top ten? There are a variety of reasonable resolutions, e.g. not calling it a list of 10. Just forcing 11 elements in isn't in that set. Lycurgus (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see second revert for specifics of why edit was reverted. Be aware that the longevity pages have special guidelines for editing as indicated on every longevity talk page and that any user who does not abide by them can be banned from editing the longevity pages.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrational and you are staking an ownership claim to the oldest people space. However I have better things to do with my time than defend the integrity of this site. Also you did not explain a list of 10 with 11 elements, the substantive issue which is the clearest demonstration of the character of your behaviour here. Lycurgus (talk) 16:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem quite defensive here and certainly did not have time to review the extensive archived talk pages I provided you on the second revert which explain why there are (11) entries on a list of (10). And goes into detail what the purpose of an “unranked” entry is. If you have no interest in understanding that is fine with me, but please do not attack my character.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven elements in a list of 10 and your continued behaviour, as illustrated as is typical in these case of staking out subspaces by a long history, are sufficient in and of themselves to establish your character. A report of fact is not an attack and should be a cause for reflection but your response makes the matter even clearer. Your justifications "unranked" and so forth are transparent rationalizations for something that is indefensible on any logical basis. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinions have systematically been overruled by group consensus. Good day.TFBCT1 (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Eileen Hocquard

Hello, I was just wondering as Joan Eileen Hocquard is shown as still living on the List of British Supercentenarians along with Robert Weighton, is there a reason why she is not listed with Robert on the "List of oldest living people" page? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.145.214 (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the page history, she was removed on November 3, 2019 by Newshunter12 because her source was a self published factoid likely deriving from Oldest in Britain. Seeing that this is the same source being used on the List of British Supercentenarians, if challenged, she could technically also be removed from that list as well.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info. I guess this is why Hilda Clulow keeps getting killed off due to unvalidated sources, and has now been given the wrong number of years and days lived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.145.214 (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit

Greetings, regarding the list of French supercentenarians, I apologize. That was the only source I could find on the internet. Sorry I will try to find a reliable source and if I can I will add her back. Timothy McGuire (talk) 00:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centenarians who almost made it

Good evening, I was wondering if Wikipedia can have a list of centenarians who almost made it to 110. I have a complete list on my userpage but these people come from many different sources, many of which I have forgotten what website I found each person on. I would greatly appreciate your feedback. Timothy McGuire (talk) 05:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   To be more specific, 109 years, 275 days or more just like on the Gerontology Wiki only difference is the Gerontology Wiki's list is far shorter than mine, unless you can ask around and see if anyone is willing to add the missing cases to their list. Timothy McGuire (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest people POV

Care to point out where in Wikipedia there is a consensus for this [6] point of view? DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 05:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know that there is a consensus. However, I’m the only one who updates this table and it’s the way I’ve been doing it since the end of 2018, when unverified men were introduced to the table. My reasoning being that unverified have no leverage, so put the living of the same age first. If you prefer I change and do it chronologically as with the verified, I do not have a problem with that.TFBCT1 (talk) 08:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I am trying to find a solution to repeated edits like this keeping the list in strict chronological order would help. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

We should have just talked about it rather than reverting, I am sorry for the heated exchange. I have been there myself plenty of times misunderstanding a closure of consensus. What you are doing is not in bad faith as you want what is best for the article and I respect that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Re: List of American supercentenarians. Did you look at WP:COLOR? What do you think is unneeded or disruptive about proper table semantics? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read MOS:COLOR and MOS:TABLECAPTION? I need to know if you are flagrantly vandalizing the encyclopedia and know better or if you are flagrantly vandalizing it and don't know better before I move forward with contacting an administrator. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel for some reason that the above changes are necessary you should initiate a discussion on a talk page to gain group consensus, rather than persist with a “bold edit.” Then you should make these changes on every single table on every one of the longevity pages to establish uniformity. Also you should never leave a page “out of order” with margins differing arbitrarily, and you did not update for the current day.TFBCT1 (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Listen I’m not interested in getting involved in a pissing contest with you. I can tell you that your edits are clearly out of line with longevity pages conditions which are agreed upon by consensus and that your edits place this page out of uniform with all others. If you do not desist, I’m going to refer this matter to someone who specializes in situation just like this.TFBCT1 (talk) 00:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TFBCT1, It is not "bold" to do what is consensus across the encyclopedia. So I am going to assume that you have not read these pages, refuse to abide by them, and you insist that local consensus overrides site-wide consensus on basic accessibility. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I have read and am familiar with both pages. I am also familiar that the longevity pages are highly scrutinized and if the many, many tables that use this coloring scheme and bold emphasis were in violation it would have been noticed long before now. And you are overlooking the fact that you repeatedly left the page out of order, did not update which shows in longevity terms you don’t know what you are doing, and your edits were deemed by me who has 15 years experience with the longevity pages to be of no value.TFBCT1 (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TFBCT1, Please explain to me how these tables are exempt from needing a table caption or why it's okay to use only color for semantic purposes but only on these pages. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are just not getting it. This is not a topic for just you and I or this one page. If you feel that strongly that a change needs to be done across all of the longevity pages- Go back to the list of American supercentenarians, go to the talk page and open a group discussion with your concern and what you propose is the adequate fix. I’m finished with this conversation.TFBCT1 (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TFBCT1, I do feel strongly about this and I helped make an RfC for the entire encyclopedia. Feel free to make your own encyclopedia that is hostile to the blind if you want--I can't stop you. All data tables need captions. Color alone is never appropriate for semantic meaning. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved user comments - TFBCT1 while you may have an established style for articles in this series all pages on wikipedia must abide by the manual of style. In particular, MOS:COLOR and MOS:TABLECAPTION which have now been around a couple of years. A local consensus for project styles is great however it doesn't override the manual of style. These small changes are relatively insignificant for you or I but to someone who uses screen reading technology, it makes a huge difference. There is now a discussion over at: Talk:List_of_American_supercentenarians#Please_see_the_accessibility_guidelines ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the concept. However, if it is done it must be implemented correctly, which it wasn’t and it must be done across all the longevity pages, not just one article.TFBCT1 (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TFBCT1, It should be across the entire encyclopedia. Don't make the perfect the enemy of the good. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am really starting to tire of your personal attacks when I am trying to be as helpful and cooperative as I can possibly be and even offered to do all the work. Is this how you normally conduct yourself on Wikipedia?TFBCT1 (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TFBCT1, What personal attacks? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s see. How about the comment that I can “start an encyclopedia that is hostile to the blind“ or any of the other rhetorical commentary that has nothing to do with the problem at hand.TFBCT1 (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Hello and good afternoon. I was wondering where to go to make an adminship request? Timothy McGuire (talk) 23:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Timothy McGuire, this is way too early. The page is WP:RFA, but having to ask for the location of that page is a clear sign against adding a request at this time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Oldest people

Hi TFBCT1, please join the discussion at Talk:Oldest people. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GRG

Have you been to GRG's Table E lately?? When I try to go it it always tells me "line 379 is broken". Georgia guy (talk) 16:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgia guy: I respond here because User:TFBCT1 seems to be among the most active in maintaining the relevant Wikipedia articles (thanks!). I keep getting the same server error since last month. Both the links here and here have been dead for a while, according to the Web Archive. Any suggestions for alternatives? The admin at the SRF website has been unresponsive. Renerpho (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not having responded to this sooner. I looked into this just today and the above problem appears to have been fixed?? I am now able to access the GRG site.TFBCT1 (talk) 03:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)The correct access link is https://grg.org/WSRL/TableE.aspx and should be inserted anywhere it’s not functioning.TFBCT1 (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new link is working, thank you. Renerpho (talk) 20:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kane Tanaka

The reason "oldest Asian ever" was removed is because it is not contained within the cited article. I have removed it on numerous occasions and Jason Phelps has just removed it too. I hope this explanation is satisfactory. Regards, Matthew. MattSucci (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a rather “matter of fact” statement. Are there any verified Asian supercentenarians older than she- no. It’s also much more impactful in that there are less than 126.3 million Japanese in the world and over 4.66 billion Asian. I will however not push this point any further.TFBCT1 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)I also just took a look at User:JasonPhelps rationale for removing this statement and it’s flawed. The statement that she’s the oldest Asian person ever was not removed; what was removed is that she’s the oldest ‘verified’ Asian person ever. In that there are only two people ‘verified’ older than her, one American and one French, this statement is true.TFBCT1 (talk) 11:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have always understood that anything that is not contained within a cited article should not be added. Obviously, she is the oldest verified Asian person ever, but is it okay to add without a citation? Her article is, in my opinion, already ruined due to the fact that supercentenarian fans have been allowed to decide what is in her 'bio', what is considered encyclopedic and what is, in their opinion, relevant to her longevity. Up to a few weeks ago 'she graduated primary school' was in there. 'Kane's childhood included events that took place during the waning years of the Meiji period', is another. I mean, seriously!! Or, 'raised on breast milk by wet nurses', none of which have anything to do with her longevity. Anyway, you have much more experience in this field and I will gladly accept your judgment. Regards, Matthew. MattSucci (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with your point of view on her article and thank you for monitoring it. I get wary when it comes to pure facts, but I can appreciate your stance here as well. Take care.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Japanese supercentenarians

There is Misao Uemura to add who is validated and died at the age of 113years, circa 229 days Ignoto2 (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she was validated and appeared on the table at one time. She was removed from the table when she went into “limbo” as deceased with an uncertain death date. As with all these tables, even if the person was validated, if their death date is unclear, they are removed.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I'm new(ish) to longevity articles, and since you are the primary updater of these pages, I'd like to tell you that today you did not update List of American supercentenarians. Instead, I updated the article, and technical language is my weak spot. Would you mind updating the US list in the future? --Chicdat 11:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Additions to Oldest German Supercentenarians

I would like to suggest two additions to the German Supercentenarians page.

Hildegard Wustenberg born 18 May 1911 https://www.op-marburg.de/Marburg/Hildegard-Wuestenberg-wird-heute-110

Anna Braun born 5 July 1911 https://www.moz.de/lokales/fuerstenwalde/soziales-und-demografie-anna-braun-feiert-in-steinhoefel-110.-geburtstag-_-in-der-staatskanzlei-in-potsdam-ist-sie-nicht-bekannt-57893033.html Bromleychuck (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I’ve completed the edits.TFBCT1 (talk) 17:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Gustav Gerneth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chicdat#Death_of_Gustav_Gerneth Would you please share your opinion on this topic? It concerns his actual date of death. Renewal6 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect deletion

Please add Barbara Barton back to the list. She is my grandmother and my mother visited her this week. She is definitely still alive. Sornborg123 (talk) 02:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In order to add her back to the list, we would need a source (reference) from within 12 months showing indication of life. The latest there was was from WJAR October 12, 2020 13 months ago and that is why she was removed. Do you have a current source that can be used?TFBCT1 (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't worry @Sornborg123. This guy believed that Jeanne Calment was a hoax!!!! So he clearly has no idea what he's on about sadly. Sirhissofloxley (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Théobald

I see that you deleted his link, which I agree with, but it was decided when his page was deleted that he would have a redirect to 'List of French Supercentenarians', something I thought was totally unnecessary, however, I wouldn't want to hear that someone has kicked up a fuss or something because you did. Just thought I would let you know. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 06:06, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I restored the link.TFBCT1 (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :-) MattSucci (talk) 16:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Death Date of Alfred Smith

Why is the Death Date of Alfred Smith in "List of British supercentenarians" showing as 3 August 2019 when his obituary in The Herald shows it as 4 August 2019. They also state that he had lived "111 years, 128 days", so their date is not a typo. Please refer to https://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/17841188.obituary-alf-smith-scotlands-oldest-man/. Thank you. Rklingmann (talk) 08:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please address this query to @ Newshunter12 who made this determination (without debate) at the time of Alfred Smith’s passing. Thank you.TFBCT1 (talk) 13:35, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted @ Newshunter12 and have yet to receive a reply after a month. What is wrong with the date in the obituary of an accredited newspaper? I'm new to this, so what will it take for my correction to not be undone. Please advise. Rklingmann (talk) 07:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

maria rojas

Can you add Maria Rojas to the list of verified oldest people? She just overtook the bottom entries. Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.47.116.189 (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list of the verified oldest people/100 oldest women requires GRG verification or the like for entry. I’m assuming your inquiry was regarding Sophia Rojas who is currently pending by the GRG. Once validated and if she is still living she would be added to the table.TFBCT1 (talk) 16:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TFBCT1 actually wanted Jeanne Calment to be removed from the list for being a hoax. So anything he says should be taken with more than a pinch of salt! Sirhissofloxley (talk) 22:16, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this edit is referring to.TFBCT1 (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oldest_people/Archive_17 on the 15 July 2019 you claimed "Your deduction that the balance of probability massively favors the Calment claim is just plain false. The standard deviation mathematically between Calment and all other verified longevity claimants is highly mathematically improbable, and the imposter theory leads toward more common sense. Her claim has clearly been disputed." You were a supporter of an embarrassing few weeks where her claim was almost deleted. Enough said Sirhissofloxley (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That comment from over 3 years ago is still correct. Her age is mathematically improbable, however, that doesn’t make it false. I believe I was advocating that while there was a current question regarding her age with reliable sources that footnotes be present.TFBCT1 (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of the verified oldest people.

Apologies for not seeing that Fusa Tatsumi was equal with Kama Chinen. Thanks for noticing and fixing and for all the work you do. Regards, MattSucci (talk) 17:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I thank you for all the work you do as well. TFBCT1 (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]