We have been contacted by a supercentenarian's family, who have confirmed that their supercentenarian relative is, in fact, very much still alive - despite a post on our forum claiming otherwise. Obviously, we deeply apologise for our embarrassing and painful mistake, and we hope the family will accept our apology.

This is also a clear reminder to all of us to carefully and doubly check whether sources are accurate or not. Let's hope such a mistake will never happen again.

Obviously, someone is trying to bait me into releasing false information. I don't know what is true anymore. When I has been communicating in early 2024 with Santos's grandson, I found that it was a 2nd account with the same name and picture. Either someone stole his identity, posed as him under a 2nd account, and left tons of comments pretending to be him announcing the passing of Santos Cruz Flores, or his grandson had 2 identical accounts. I found this a bit suspicious, as the 2nd account had no personal information attached to it. 

I really don't know what to think or do, but from now on I will let the gsf handle these matters. I won't post any further updates on supercentenarians, unless it is from a news source, or Facebook post.

And furthermore, there is a certain person that I suspect of doing this, because they have baited me before with false information and alternate accounts. I have no proof that it is this person, but I have raised my concern to one of the admins. Stay safe, and protect yourself from trolls.

- Aquanaut

1) for acting as a GRG Forum puppet and spreading propaganda;

I'm not spreading propaganda, I just wanted to convey what Waclaw wrote on the World Supercentenarian Forum, that was the link I provided there, I have no opinion on it and stated my neutrality.

One person asked why Gerontology Wiki doesn't recognize LQ and other validations, I just tried to answer that question, I didn't mean to spread any propaganda, I have nothing to do with it...

The easiest way to explain it is to cite the original source where I read it, after the link was removed, I posted screenshots from that public post, however that was also deleted, then ok, it would have been better if I hadn't commented anything. I had intend to answer someone's question, nothing more than that.

@admin please see https://globalsupercentenarianforum.com/index.php/community/eso/eso-recent-validations/paged/5/#post-9518

Coincidentally, less than 24 hours after the above announcement, it was presented with reasons why we think the above post should be reconsidered...

My initial thoughts are that being a “trusted” member is about being trustworthy, clean track record, kind and polite, etc. Not about how many posts one contributes. Obviously if a person has only made a handful of posts over a period of a year or so, then finding out if they are trustworthy may be difficult.
As many came over from the 110 club, trustworthiness for many should be reasonably well known I guess. 
Im not trying to stir anything up, just curious about those two conditions in particular.

It's a closed thread so as to not clutter it with messages that should be posted separately.

Currently banned:

Dejan, for 1) glorifying a convicted war criminal, 2) consciously spreading false information / propaganda about the war in Ukraine.

AQ, for intimidating and harrassing (an)other member(s) via personal messages, and playing the victim afterwards.

Currently suspended:

Currently at three warnings:

nzak, for self-promotion and advertising, as well as for breaking the rules of this forum mere minutes after having served a previous suspension, showing no growth or self-reflection.

Record_116, for intimidating and harrassing (an)other member(s) via personal messages. This is a final chance before a permanent ban - please show self-reflection.

Currently at two warnings:

pgibbs, for having served a suspension and for spreading false information during the cool down period.

Currently at one warning:

Futurist, for having recently served a suspension.