Thread:Richard Monkey/@comment-258494-20160321151020

Your recent edits on the List of Debunked Supercentenarians constitute uncited original research.

I'm going to give you a pass this time, considering the volume of positive contributions you've made in the past day.

That said, you need to shift your thinking, NOW:

1. The GERONTOLOGY WIKI IS NOT THE PLACE FOR ORIGINAL RESEARCH

2. MATERIAL ON THE GERONTOLOGY WIKI SHOULD BE CITED/BACKED UP WITH RELIABLE SOURCES.

3. DON'T CREATE MATERIAL FASTER THAN YOU CAN MANAGE IT.

In other words, it would be better for you to focus on making clean articles than just haphazardly creating articles and categories all over the place, sometimes not being bothering to create the actual category itself.Ryoung122 (talk) 15:10, March 21, 2016 (UTC) 