User talk:Pluto2

Kid, why are you reverting my edits?
 * Because you're a troll? --Pluto2 (talk) 03:55, October 17, 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice meme from 2007, troll. --Pluto2 (talk) 03:59, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually bi, try again. --Pluto2 (talk) 04:04, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * But I'm literally a hermaprodite. So what gender am I gay TOWARDS? Also, I'm 15. You were close, but not close enough.--Pluto2 (talk) 04:07, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm actually bi, try again. --Pluto2 (talk) 04:04, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * But I'm literally a hermaprodite. So what gender am I gay TOWARDS? Also, I'm 15. You were close, but not close enough.--Pluto2 (talk) 04:07, October 17, 2015 (UTC)


 * Then get a ressasignment surgery.
 * I don't want reassignment surgery! --Pluto2 (talk) 04:11, October 17, 2015 (UTC)
 * Give up kid, look at Special:BlockList, see all these accounts? They're mine. If you blcok me, I come back. i'm unstoppable.
 * Get a life, man. --Pluto2 (talk) 04:27, October 17, 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's a list of "all" blocked accounts, and not all of them are the troll.Ryoung122 (talk) 01:57, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

To the troll: you really think you're accomplishing something here?

Wikia is the MINOR LEAGUES.

Ryoung122 (talk) 01:56, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Pluto2,

Thanks for joining the Gerontology Wiki.

Ryoung122 (talk) 02:17, October 18, 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for one week
I didn't block you for misbehavior but because your voluminous, yet immature editing style is hurting the direction of the Gerontology Wiki. Your shameless bias for promoting longevity claims and myths as if they were true is 100% counter to the mission of the Gerontology Wiki: evidence-based longevity research.

Perhaps, in time, you will come to understand the difference between true and false, myth and reality.

But for the moment, you do not yet seem to grasp these concepts.

In addition, you writing style borders on arrogant...WHO decided that a list of unvalidated Chinese claims should be called "supercentenarians"? WHY HAVE A CUTOFF AT 122? WHAT'S THE POINT? IT IS TRUE UNTIL IT'S NOT TRUE? WHAT IF AN UNVALIDATED CLAIMANT WERE 121 NOW BUT 123 IN TWO YEARS FROM NOW?

If you are going to take the time to add unvalidated claims, you can take the time to properly category them as such.Ryoung122 (talk) 00:30, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant to move it to "Chinese supercentenarian claims"...I was just about to do so before you blocked me! And note the article says "unless the person was previously known prior to 122", such as if Fu Suqing's claimed age is correct, and she does reach 123, we'll still list her. Apologies for my attitude, I was actually in fact about to move it...--Pluto2 (talk) 00:36, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
 * Can I be unblocked? You were rather hasty...I was in fact about to move it to "List of Chinese supercentenarian claims" when you blocked me. --Pluto2 (talk) 00:38, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

I'll shorten your block if you agree to abide by the following rules:

1. Unvalidated claims to 110-114 should be categorized as "unverified supercentenarians".

2. Unvalidated claims to 115-130 should be categorized as "longevity claims".

3. Unvalidated claims to 130+ should be categorized as "longevity myths".

4. The Gerontology Wiki is, even though a place where kids are welcome, and even a place for kids, it's also a place for LEARNING. And part of that learning is learning to be realistic.

When you compare validated to unvalidated data, there's a huge difference.

Right now, the second-oldest person in the UK is 111. The UK has over 60 million people. And yet yo seem to believe that, somehow, someway, people really do live longer when records of birth don't exist. Well, they don't. They only appear to live longer because their ages are inflated.Ryoung122 (talk) 00:45, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. I never disagreed with that guideline. I only lent credence to China because it has the largest population of any country, and probably has a lot, and I do mean a lot, of SCs. I will abide by your rules. --Pluto2 (talk) 00:51, October 30, 2015 (UTC)

Where did you get THIS  from?
Where's the source for this claim?Ryoung122 (talk) 00:48, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
 * What claim? There's no link... --Pluto2 (talk) 00:52, October 30, 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, James Henry Brett, Jr.? I thought it was discovered it was a double-life mistake...My bad. Could you unblock me? --Pluto2 (talk) 01:16, October 30, 2015 (UTC)