User talk:OwlUSA

User:OwlUSA/sandbox
Regarding this? What? Exactly how you are distinguishing "Teen marriage or adolescent marriage" from "Teenage marriage"? Per WP:Content fork, any redundant or POV fork will be deleted.

It's also clear to me that you are not a WP:Newbie. You might want to disclose your previous account(s) here on your talk page. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Teenage marriage is 2 teenagers getting married to each other. Teen marriage is between a teenager (usually a female) and an adult (usually a male).

I do not have any previous accounts. I started editing without an account, using my IP address. --OwlUSA (talk) 03:03, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:Content fork, if you create that article, it will be deleted. There is no distinguishing among reliable sources in this case. Do not use Wikipedia for original research; see WP:Original research. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That is your opinion. I'm not doing what you are assuming. Please, do not jump to conclusions. Take care. :) --OwlUSA (talk) 03:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not an opinion. It's a fact. Create it then, and see what happens. I also do not buy your "I only edited as an IP before" claim. But I can deal with that later. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you always this rude?? Please, leave my talk page. I did not make an account on Wikipedia for "arguments". Best Wishes. :) --OwlUSA (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Wife into Marriageable age. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help, Diannaa, it is very useful as I'm still learning to use Wikipedia. :) --72.69.6.226 (talk) 23:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * List of child brides
 * added a link pointing to Age of maturity
 * Marriageable age
 * added a link pointing to Matthew Hale

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of child brides, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Age of maturity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Child marriage, you may be blocked from editing. ''This is a page move against the general consensus, from the WP:COMMONNAME title, that's been stable for years. Since this move is obviously controversial, and disputed as using an WP:OR term that's not found in any reliable sources, you need to use the formal move process. Make your case. This is not optional. Calling the reverting of a controversial move to the original stable title "vandalism" is also bad faith. Any further disruption, and I'll report you to the appropriate noticeboard.'' Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?? Sourced material is disruptive editing?? Just cuz you do not like something, does not mean that it disruptive. Actually, removing accurate information that has reliable sources, as you did, is vandalism. As for the title revert, I never said that you did vandalism; quit making false accusations. The reason for the change is explicitly stated. Quit trying to intimidate me.


 * I'm not trying to intimidate you. I'm just saying it is disruptive, according to policy. Read the two policy pages I've now linked a few times, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSENSUS. This is, as I said, the stable common name that's received repeated consensus, for years. The term you're using "early marriage", isn't a name commonly found in reliable sources, and thus qualifies as WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Moving the page back after it's contested and policy-based reasons are given for the revert, is considered disruptive. Full stop.


 * I attempted to revert the re-write that coincided with the page move, and forgot that a separate edit was required to revert the page. I was only commenting on the edit summary you left, which I thought was in reference to that.


 * Lastly, I am a bit concerned about some of your content edits. While I'd have to look at the specific edits in more detail, I do have to say that the last few I saw on the Catholic Church section seemed to be partly WP:SYNTHESIS, and even partially incorrect on the whole. Catholic canon law did not "eventually adopt Roman law"; it's based on Roman law, full stop, and has been since the inception of canon law in the third century with Tertullian and then its development during the Constantinian dynasty. I'll address the specific edits later, but from what I could tell, it's a bit cobbled together from unrelated sources to make a point that reliable sources themselves aren't themselves making. Such as the statement attributed to Jesus where the Greek word "pais" is used to denote a child, and how that relates to child marriage. I'm not sure I understand the relevancy, if this isn't something pointed out in any reliable sources discussing child marriage. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you babbling on about?? Canon law was founded by the Apostles at the Council of Jerusalem. It was edited by Roman Catholics; Roman Law was adopted and other laws also from OT. Bible commentaries are not sources for Catholicism?? And Christ is not relevant to Catholic marriage?? Christ stating that a 12 year old is a child is very relevant as he stated that marriage is to be between a man and a woman; therefore, marriage with a 12 year old is child marriage and forbidden. The section is marriage age in religious sources. The Bible is a source for Catholicism.


 * If you can't understand how that's original research and synthesis, I can't help you. But I'll try. Please read those policy pages. I will address the content of what you said. The so-called "Council of Jerusalem" has no relevance to canon law, and is certainly *not* canon law; the only thing the apostles agreed upon as related in the Book of Acts is pretty much the same thing as the Noahide Law found in normative Judaism, except that it applied to whether gentiles could be considered Christians. Canon law did not develop until generations after that.


 * And no, you can't use a word ascribed to Jesus (in a primary religious text) to imply something about child marriage, when it's not actually saying something about child marriage. Primarily because this is original research, if reliable sources don't make that connection themselves. It's both synthesis and original research. And lastly, Bible commentaries are not useful as sources to make claims about a religious group, unless the author is considered a relevant expert. Otherwise, it's just a subjective opinion of the author. And it's a weak source regardless, where academic and more authoritative sources should be used for a strong claim. And please don't characterize my trying to discuss this with you as "babbling". I'm going to be more forthright: this is OR, and SYNTH. It's sloppy editing, and violates those policies. That's just my analysis of it, but I think it's a reasonably accurate interpretation. I'm trying to help you, not bicker with you. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , you're among the more active admins in this subject area, and it seems like this user isn't getting it. If you'd rather I take this to a noticeboard, I will, but I think this requires administrator intervention. Pinging, in case you're not active. I think this is causing minor disruption in the article, aside from the controversial move, and I can't seem to get the editor to understand what I'm talking about. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 00:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

OwlUSA, I'm not sure if I can explain more clearly than Symmachus Auxiliarus already has, but they're completely correct that you need to understand our policies on reliable sourcing and original research before continuing to make changes to that article. You also will need to achieve consensus if you wish for the article to be moved from "Child marriage" to "Early marriage". Continuing to introduce poorly-sourced content or original research, or move war, will result in blocks. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing to discuss. Both of you, leave my talk page, right now. Your ignorance of Canon law, Church History, and what is and is not a source for Catholicism is just ridiculous. Also, your refusal to accept one United Nations definition and not the other, shows you do not care about neutral point of view but have an agenda. Ganging up on people to push your agenda is outrageous. I'm not interested in your "wars" nor do I care for your threats or personal attacks.

Signing talk page posts
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI_JS_signature_icon_LTR.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I know how to do that. I'm not daft. There is no point doing it over and over again on my Talk Page. Move along..

November 2020
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You've also been blocked because of your extreme incivility and failure show WP:AGF good faith. I was very tempted to block you indefinitely. If you wish to appeal your block I suggest that you show how your attitude and editing will change in the future. Doug Weller talk

February 2021
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Calligraphy, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Please read Editing policy and Help:Edit summary. Your edit may be justifiable but the bulldozer way you have gone about is not. If you genuinely believe that the change you want to make is justified, then please use talk:Calligraphy to give your rationale and secure consensus. But as a general principle, Wikipedia (like all encyclopedias that aim for a world-wide audience) moves from the the general to the particular, starting from a global perspective then narrows down to individual regional differences. Your change would seem to reverse that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Calligraphy.  freshacconci  (✉) 18:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
You have been blocked indefinitely (not infinitely) for personal attacks here. You had been warned and blocked before for disruptive editing - Wikipedia is a collaborative enterprise, and if you wish to contribute here you must learn to work with others. Saying "vandalism" is not a pass to edit war especially when there is no vandalism. If you wish to be unblocked - you can see the procedures at WP:GAB — Ched (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)