User talk:Softmist

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of the verified oldest people
Thank you for correcting my mistake. Regards, MattSucci  (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) Softmist (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much, Chicdat! Softmist (talk) 19:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought you'd like it. 🇺🇦 Chicdat Bawk to me!  09:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixing!
Thank you for repairing the damage that I always seem to cause... 🤦🏼‍♂️ Regards, MattSucci  (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * No worries, Matt! Softmist (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you; I appreciate it! Softmist (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Supercentenarios Latinoamericanos
Hi Softmist, When looking at Supercentenarios Latinoamericanos (LAS), you have to look at all the pending cases, not just the recent pending cases. Rklingmann (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, @Rklingmann. I can assure you I did just that. I am aware that Josephina Maria da Conceição is in the pending cases section of the the living persons list—there's no dispute about that. However, she is nowhere to be found on the page specifically for pending cases (both living and deceased), and that's critical because the pending cases page is the one that actually contains the date it was last updated. Because the latest entry on that list is from December 28th, and because all living pending cases on the list are still marked as such, we can say there is a reliable source confirming their vital status as of December 28th. The living cases list, on the other hand, only contains the LAS founding date of January 2020, so that doesn't help us in that regard.
 * From what I can see, the earliest entry on the pending cases list, all the way at the bottom of the page, is Jose Domingos de Lemos Filho, whose application date is March 8th, 2020. I presume that this is indeed the oldest currently pending case because it became pending only two months after the LAS was founded—not very "recent" if you ask me. There are only two cases dated earlier than that, but they are already validated: Maria de Paiva Pereira and Elvira Paredes de Samaniego (see very bottom of this page). Given this, it would not appear that I failed to look at all the pending cases and "missed" da Conceiçao. It would also not appear that the pending cases list contains "recent" pending cases exclusively, despite the title of the page containing the word "recent." And I have not found a separate page on the LAS website that contains "older" pending cases, either.
 * If you can provide a reliable source (i.e., not Facebook or The 110 Club) that shows da Conceição to be alive within the past year, please do so. If not, I'm afraid I'll have to remove her again. Softmist (talk) 07:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Shige Mineshiba
Hi Softmist, Just a reminder that under normal circumstances Twitter is not a reliable source (WP:UGC). However there may be an argument to apply WP:SELFSOURCE in this case. I'll leave it for the time being. I've asked the local media to report the passing of Shige and note the new oldest living Canadian, Mabel Mah, which would make the problem go away. Thanks Rklingmann (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, @Rklingmann. Yes, I'm aware Twitter isn't a reliable source under normal circumstances. Unfortunately, there appears to be no source for Mineshiba's death other than the one I linked and a Facebook post. However, I think that because both posts are by the Vancouver Shinpo, the same news outlet that reported on Mineshiba's 113th birthday, we should make an exception here; this is not a death report by any old anonymous Twitter user. And the alternative—keeping Mineshiba on the list of oldest living people because the Shinpo reported her death on Twitter instead of on their website—would undermine the credibility of the entire list. In any case, thank you for being proactive and reporting Mineshiba's death to local media; I really appreciate that! Best, Softmist (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Softmist, I contacted local media and 2 extensive articles were written.  https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/shige-mineshiba-obituary-1.6711392 and https://canadatoday.news/bc/one-of-canadas-oldest-people-has-died-at-113-at-her-home-in-vancouver-7-120116/.  I'll enquire about an article on Mabel Mah.  Thanks Rklingmann (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent, @Rklingmann. I happened to find these only minutes before you messaged me. I will change the death reference for Shige Mineshiba to the CBC article momentarily. Thank you again for your help! Regards, Softmist (talk) 19:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Masu Usui
Hi @Softmist, Do you see any problem with adding Masu Usui to the "List of the oldest living people"?

She has some documented history and seems to have a current reliable source. Thanks

Rklingmann (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, @Rklingmann. I've just added her to the list. Thank you for informing me about her case. Best, Softmist (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Albertina Alves de Albuquerque
Hi @Softmist, I've added Albertina Alves de Albuquerque to the "List of the oldest living people",

Brazilian cases can be dubious but she has some documented history and seems to have a current reliable source. Thanks, Ralph Rklingmann (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No worries, Ralph. A reliable source is all she needs to be included. Thanks for adding her. Softmist (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rklingmann Unfortunately, though, I did have to remove Miyoko Hiroyasu. The source you provided for her merely says she was born "in the Meiji era," and supercentenarians must have a source that verifies their full date of birth in order to justify their placement on the list. Thank you. Softmist (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Softmist, Yes you are right about missing full DOB. I added another source with full DOB, if you can see past the subscription notice. Thanks for the extra pair of eyes.  Rklingmann (talk) 04:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Yes, that source is sufficient. Thanks for providing it and adding her back to the list. Softmist (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ana Nogueira de Lucas
Do you think GWR and/or GRG is trying to validate her life?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure about the GRG, and GWR is unlikely to do a posthumous validation for someone who held the title over 10 years ago for only 14 days, but Ana Nogueira de Lucas's case is pending by Supercentenarios Latinoamericanos (LAS)/LongeviQuest, so that organization may validate her age. The fact that she is pending validation means her claim has enough documentation to be plausible (e.g., she is not completely "unvalidated," like Gustav Gerneth, who is also listed on Oldest people). Moreover, I think that if we're going to list Horacio Celi Mendoza and Tomás Pinales Figuereo as oldest man titleholders, it doesn't make sense not to list Nogueira as an oldest person titleholder since all three cases are pending validation by LAS/LongeviQuest. Softmist (talk) 16:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Editing Longevity Lists
Hi @Softmist,

My understanding is that when multiple people have the same longevity then they should be grouped together chronologically and share the ranking of the first person of the group.

When a living person reaches the same longevity as others then they are added to the bottom of the group and share the ranking of the others in the group.

It is only when they have a greater longevity that they move ahead of the others in the group and are ranked higher.

Can you verify that this is the proper way of handling these cases? Thanks Rklingmann (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, @Rklingmann. Yes, that is correct. Softmist (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a user ( Crveni5 ) that is refusing to follow that convention, If a living person has the same longevity, they are moving them ahead of the others and giving a higher ranking.  I have undone there changes with notes and explanations but they persist to the point of undoing my corrections.  I thought this was something new but when I looked at their "Talk" page today apparently they have been admonished a number of times for this activity.  I am fairly new to this and am wondering if there is something that you can do to convince them to follow the standard convention.  Thanks Rklingmann (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rklingmann I've just read through some of the threads on their talk page and I see what you're saying. My best advice would be to explain the situation completely on their talk page in a new thread. If they still seem unreceptive to that, maybe can help you, as I see he's actually dealt with this user for the same issue in the past (and he is also more familiar than I re: consequences for persistent disruptive behavior). Softmist (talk) 00:28, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Crveni5 has been a persistently disruptive user in the past. In this instance give them a warning and increase the level every time they make a disruptive edit. If they do it after a level 4 warning take them to WP:ANI. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 01:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Rklingmann This is what Derby is referring to by warning levels, for your reference. Softmist (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Possible vandalism
Hi @Softmist,

There's an anonymous user (122.106.3.236) making suspicious edits to "List of Canadian supercentenarians".

I undid their original edit but they went ahead and undid me with a cryptic comment.

Can you take a look and see if this user and their edits are legitimate?

Thanks, Rklingmann (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, @Rklingmann. I wouldn't classify this as vandalism. The IP merely removed "Rube" from Reuben Sinclair's biography because there was no reference that verifies him using this nickname. Moreover, a quick look at their contributions shows that their edits have, by and large, not been reverted. Their block log also shows they have never been blocked. Try to find a source that refers to Sinclair as "Rube" and cite that—otherwise, this is uncited information, so the IP's edit should stand. Softmist (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Softmist, There is a reference to his nickname in the biography (see ref 99) so I restored the article to it's original form.  I am just naturally suspicious of users that remain anonymous.  Thanks,   Rklingmann (talk) 17:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've used that reference to cite the nickname directly. Softmist (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the date of death for Reuben Sinclair on the "List of Canadian supercentenarians". I just received confirmation from his congregation this afternoon and was fixing the Gerontology Wiki first.  Unfortunately his obit contains some other factual errors which I have to get corrected.  Also trying to find out why Florence Webber has an age of 111 years, 265 days throughout  Gerontology Wiki.   Rklingmann (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. The obituary aligns with the first source to report his death ("over the weekend"), so that gives it some credence. Hopefully his LongeviQuest profile is updated soon to reflect this. Softmist (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

List of Oldest Living People
Hi @Softmist,

Much the same way we have a common reference for all the GRG validated people (WSRL - https://www.grg-supercentenarians.org/world-supercentenarian-rankings-list/ ), can we do something similar for all the LQ validated persons using a reference pointing to https://longeviquest.com/atlas/living ?

Rklingmann (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello,
 * Unfortunately, no. Part of the criteria for list entries is that each individual has been verified to be alive as of the dates of the cited supporting sources. The WSRL citation works because, even though it does not have a "last updated" date as the legacy version does, this can be bypassed by using the most recent date in the "Date of validation" column (since that is essentially the latest possible date the table could have been updated). The LQ Atlas does not have any sort of date we could use to meet this requirement. The LQ profiles for individual supercentenarians, however, do have a "last updated" date, so we should continue to use these for LQ validations. Softmist (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)