How much longer do you plan to lie? How much mess you have to make until you're satisfied?

You've literally claimed before how she was born 22 Aug 1904 (not 1902 as she claimed), and that she died on 21 Oct 2012 at 108 years, 60 days (as seen on Gerontology Wiki). 

Not only that, but you've claimed the same thing here on the forum, and on the 110 Club. Just because you can edit the post doesn't mean we don't know what it said before.

Yeah sure you got an email from the registry office... just like you got an email when you made a fake birth record for Elizabeth Kimoff?

@seto2001 There were a lot of irregularities, I'm trying to correct all that, as for this woman, there is no more mention anywhere about the year of birth in 1904 (this is my mistake, because I mixed her up with another person, Karamfila Stoyanova, who according to the census was two years younger year, (NOT Velika Sabeva), What Gerontology Wiki, as soon as I get a chance, anything that is incorrect must be corrected, also on Gerontology Wiki, in several cases from Bulgaria I forgot to add the sign ``fl'' for Limbo cases, so. that it turned out that the last report was the date of death, which is incorrect. As far as this woman is concerned there are enough news reports that confirm everything i have stated, too many. The only thing that was unknown was the date of death, but I previously found an obituary without a date of birth confirming that a woman named Velika Sabeva died on 21.10.2012, so it is about another person, nothing to do with her, she is not even not even from the same city, (Obituary is now a dead link)...

Posted by: @dejan

@seto2001 There were a lot of irregularities, I'm trying to correct all that, as for this woman, there is no more mention anywhere about the year of birth in 1904 (this is my mistake, because I mixed her up with another person, Karamfila Stoyanova, who according to the census was two years younger year, (NOT Velika Sabeva), What Gerontology Wiki, as soon as I get a chance, anything that is incorrect must be corrected, also on Gerontology Wiki, in several cases from Bulgaria I forgot to add the sign ``fl'' for Limbo cases, so. that it turned out that the last report was the date of death, which is incorrect. As far as this woman is concerned there are enough news reports that confirm everything i have stated, too many. The only thing that was unknown was the date of death, but I previously found an obituary without a date of birth confirming that a woman named Velika Sabeva died on 21.10.2012, so it is about another person, nothing to do with her, she is not even not even from the same city, (Obituary is now a dead link)...

You seriously thought I, of all people, would believe you? After everything you did?

Btw, you claimed how Karamfila was born in 1905, not 1904. So you have a census record for Karamfila, not a death record this time? One more to add on the list of documents the rest of us will never see, yet somehow we are supposed to trust you.

@seto2001 As for Karamfila Stoyanova, at the very beginning I made a big mistake, I apologize to everyone, according to reports, she was actually born on 4 September 1903. as she claimed, I contacted several times the local community of the village of Niklovo where she lived, the register of the deceased, as well as the identity card confirmed in 1903, only one middle-aged population census states that she is two years younger. (THE CENSUS OF THE POPULATION IS NOT ENOUGH TO DISPUTE THE CLAIM). Also, her son was born in the early 1920s (I mean Karamfila Stoyanova). As for Velika Sabeva, there is no doubt about her age, it is certainly true. One of the reports mentions her being two days younger than she claims, (nowhere by two years), I don't remember exactly why I put it in 1904 (probably mixed it up with another person who was younger by that much, so 1904 came from my guilt and absolutely no proof of birth in 1904). For now the only Supercentenarian from Bulgaria is Karamfila Stoyanova (soon also Nurie Dermenzieva), two of them are enough to start the list (110+), and of course chronological lists since 2006 for both sexes...

Posted by: @dejan

@seto2001 As for Karamfila Stoyanova, at the very beginning I made a big mistake, I apologize to everyone, according to reports, she was actually born on 4 September 1903. as she claimed, I contacted several times the local community of the village of Niklovo where she lived, the register of the deceased, as well as the identity card confirmed in 1903, only one middle-aged population census states that she is two years younger. (THE CENSUS OF THE POPULATION IS NOT ENOUGH TO DISPUTE THE CLAIM). Also, her son was born in the early 1920s (I mean Karamfila Stoyanova). As for Velika Sabeva, there is no doubt about her age, it is certainly true. One of the reports mentions her being two days younger than she claims, (nowhere by two years), I don't remember exactly why I put it in 1904 (probably mixed it up with another person who was younger by that much, so 1904 came from my guilt and absolutely no proof of birth in 1904). For now the only Supercentenarian from Bulgaria is Karamfila Stoyanova (soon also Nurie Dermenzieva), two of them are enough to start the list (110+), and of course chronological lists since 2006 for both sexes...

I like how you're ignoring the main issue here. The issue is not whether Karamfila Stoyanova and Velika Sabeva were age claimed, but the fact that you lied about debunking them, we both know you didn't make any mistakes here, you made it up, just like you made up lifespans for most of unsolved Balkan cases under the excuse of "I contacted a registry office".

Btw, you think we didn't notice how you casually created some Geni profiles for few Greek claimants to "debunk" them? Any excuse for that?

Posted by: @seto2001

Greek claimants

There is no place here for that, here it is dedicated to this woman. As for Greece, I have not researched anything, I leave it to the smarter ones, let them search and check whatever they want. Actually, I am in contact with several families from Greece through Facebook who do not know the exact information themselves, but I will not deal with Greek cases... As for Bulgaria, here I denied myself and the incorrect information about Velika Sabeva and Karamfila Stoyanov, if I notice any other mistake of mine it will be corrected. As for the excuses, I absolutely did not make those excuses, contact the registry office, where I didn't, in this case I did... The Balkans is difficult in itself, because there are no publicly available documents, and the laws are strict, so only family members have access to the registers...

Posted by: @dejan

As for Greece, I have not researched anything

Sure, you didn't.

Posted by: @seto2001

Sure, you didn't.

That has been corrected...

Posted by: @seto2001

How much longer do you plan to lie? How much mess you have to make until you're satisfied?

You've literally claimed before how she was born 22 Aug 1904 (not 1902 as she claimed), and that she died on 21 Oct 2012 at 108 years, 60 days (as seen on Gerontology Wiki). 

Not only that, but you've claimed the same thing here on the forum, and on the 110 Club. Just because you can edit the post doesn't mean we don't know what it said before.

Attachment : 110 club.png

Attachment : gsf.png

Yeah sure you got an email from the registry office... just like you got an email when you made a fake birth record for Elizabeth Kimoff?

Wait, the Kimoff record was a fake? Interesting.

Posted by: @dejan

Posted by: @seto2001

Sure, you didn't.

That has been corrected...

Yes, but only because several people put in the work to tediously undo the fake information you put into dozens of articles, which not only involved undoing your edits on the articles, but also correcting their infobox details in the databases. 

Once your suspension on the Gerontology Wiki expires, I can only hope you'll stop adding disinformation, since it accomplishes nothing positive.

Posted by: @mendocino

Once your suspension on the Gerontology Wiki expires, I can only hope you'll stop adding disinformation, since it accomplishes nothing positive.

I absolutely agree, only one part was removed. I will do my best to remove everything that was incorrect, made by mistake intentionally or unintentionally, I will not remove what is correct. The example data for Velika Sabev is correct, because I still need to prove it. .my Gerontology Wiki account was managed by a neighbor of mine (10 years old), who stole my password, I changed all passwords. It was his idea of ​​making up date's. I shouldn't have listened to him. it's not very nice to have a discussion about it here, but it doesn't matter. (anything incorrect will be removed, but one part removed, there's a lot more that no one has noticed yet, I'll correct)...

Posted by: @sailor-haumea

Wait, the Kimoff record was a fake? Interesting

When I start the Elisabeth Kimoff thread I will discuss it there then, this is not the place for it. I am currently working on Bulgarian cases...

Posted by: @dejan

.my Gerontology Wiki account was managed by a neighbor of mine (10 years old), who stole my password,

Oh how convenient...

Posted by: @heatwave116

Oh how convenient...

Just so you know, it wasn't my idea, it was a 10 year old's, never mind, I was wrong because I took bad advice. I also have a report from a specialist doctor that I am not capable of heavy psycho-physical work, and editing many articles at the same time is a burden on my brain which does not have the function to remember, but today it thinks like this tomorrow completely differently, I have certificates from a doctor that I am incapable... (Regardless of all that, I don't plan to deal with this for long, just to correct everything that is incorrect and finish what I started, leaving the rest to the successors)...

@dejan do you have DID?

@dejan After reading this thread, we've decided to give you two warnings for knowingly spreading false information about (super)centenarian(s) (claimants), as well as for denying this once confronted with the evidence. It's good to see you are starting to come clean, but it will take a lot of effort from you before we - the Admin team - can trust you once more.

For clarity's sake: one more misstep (either by being caught or by denying a lie/false creation) will result in a first ban of six months (considering the severity of the offense).

@admin of course if there is a need for it, I hope not, because I removed incorrect information, if I notice any more peas it will be removed...

Adding a question mark to the year of birth, and adding more cautious language in the opening post.

@admin There are many more news reports about her, no evidence that she was younger, and for the date of death I have provided proof, screenshot, I am treating her Same as cases from every other part of the world...

@dejan We understand why you wish to treat your finds similarly to cases from other parts of the world, but considering your revelations from the past couple of days, we are treating all of your posts with the utmost suspicion. Obviously, should you have irrefutable and unequivocal evidence (such as an original birth certificate) that proves the claim is correct, then the question mark(s) will be removed.

@admin I don't want to deal with the documentation, especially here we are talking about a person under 110 years old. Ok, that's your opinion, I don't mind...

Posted by: @dejan

@admin I don't want to deal with the documentation, especially here we are talking about a person under 110 years old. Ok, that's your opinion, I don't mind...

I assume this is the main reason why you deliberately changed the ages of SC claims on the Gerontology Wiki to make them barely younger than 110.

@dejan This is not about documentation, this is about your behaviour. The fact that you've falsified information and presented it as the truth - which is a no-go in the world of research! - is why we're adding caution to these topics.

In other words, our message to you is the following: start presenting/posting the truth from now on, and you might be able to gain our trust once more. As long as you keep protesting, it only tells us you're not seeing our point of view / you don't understand what academic dishonesty is.

@mendocino I don't know why, but in this case it is not known that she is younger, but it doesn't matter, on Gerontology Wiki what is incorrect will be removed in a few days, and what is correct I will not remove... I wouldn't want to make additional excuses, that's it, here whether it will be marked with a question mark or not is completely irrelevant, I will correct everything that I can and that's all.. first of all this woman is not confirmed alive at 110+ the last report about her was her 109th birthday...

Posted by: @admin

@dejan This is not about documentation, this is about your behaviour. The fact that you've falsified information and presented it as the truth - which is a no-go in the world of research! - is why we're adding caution to these topics.

In other words, our message to you is the following: start presenting/posting the truth from now on, and you might be able to gain our trust once more. As long as you keep protesting, it only tells us you're not seeing our point of view / you don't understand what academic dishonesty is.

This should only apply to the posts where he's actually falsified information. Quite a few of the claims he's posted have real sources for their dates of birth and/or death, so in these cases it actually is entirely about documentation.

While Balkan SC claims are often questionable, this one in particular doesn't seem that implausible at all.

@mendocino

Posted by: @mendocino

While Balkan SC claims are often questionable, this one in particular doesn't seem that implausible at all.

True, most of the magnified cases from the Balkans are magnified, but why put such persons in the first row, as if they were real, when in fact they were not. A lot especially from Greece, it's bad to invent dates, now I understand, but then those people should be separated or removed from the list, because it is 100% sure that the man from Greece was not 114 years old, so he is probably Exaggerated, and no one checked it. I don't understand why it's so difficult to contact the registry office for such cases by phone or e-mail, I can't because I don't know the language. So far I managed to get accurate data for many cases from Serbia and the region, because I presented myself falsely, in some cases I presented myself as a family member, in others as a correspondent of a scientific research organization and the like. So I advise, if you want to get an answer from the representative of the municipality from which the particular person is from, you have to falsely present yourself, not in the capacity of an ordinary citizen, because you will not get an answer, today only lies can succeed...

Posted by: @dejan

True, most of the magnified cases from the Balkans are magnified, but why put such persons in the first row, as if they were real, when in fact they were not. A lot especially from Greece, it's bad to invent dates, now I understand, but then those people should be separated or removed from the list, because it is 100% sure that the man from Greece was not 114 years old, so he is probably Exaggerated, and no one checked it. I don't understand why it's so difficult to contact the registry office for such cases by phone or e-mail, I can't because I don't know the language. So far I managed to get accurate data for many cases from Serbia and the region, because I presented myself falsely, in some cases I presented myself as a family member, in others as a correspondent of a scientific research organization and the like. So I advise, if you want to get an answer from the representative of the municipality from which the particular person is from, you have to falsely present yourself, not in the capacity of an ordinary citizen, because you will not get an answer, today only lies can succeed...

Again, a very bad excuse for your actions... The cases that are likely exaggerated are to be properly listed either on a separate list with other questionable claims, or with a question mark. BUT, you have no right to decide "this case is fake, let's remove it" when you did nothing to actually debunk the claim.

You supposedly debunked multiple cases, but now I'm even more convinced those very lies as well. If we take Lena Ljubić as an example, you claimed how her grandson admitted her age was exaggerated by 10 years so she could get pension earlier (and if I remember correctly you said how her death certificate states her actual age). I've seen many exaggerated cases from multiple countries, but never a family who decided to admit the truth after their relative's death, especially not to a civil registry office.

@seto2001 her grandson did confess, I have a phone number, you know Serbian, you can talk to them. There is also a source that Slava Ivančević is younger than 15 years old, what more is there to be investigated. As for the questionable cases from my country, there are none, the rest then just SEPARATE, and claims older than 114+ years should not be included in the lists of countries...

Posted by: @mendocino

This should only apply to the posts where he's actually falsified information. Quite a few of the claims he's posted have real sources for their dates of birth and/or death, so in these cases it actually is entirely about documentation.

While Balkan SC claims are often questionable, this one in particular doesn't seem that implausible at all.

Which semi-SCs, would you say, can be considered reliable? (And on what grounds?)