User talk:Schwarbage

Hello, Schwarbage, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help. Need some ideas about what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Andrevan@ 12:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Child development. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The child development page is flawed though and could use some editing. Adolescence does not start only at age 15 (which is unsourced itself and when many begin their Sophomore year of high school or 10th grade, which is well into adolescence) and last until legal adulthood. 12-14 is definitely usually adolescence. The rest of the page can be left unchanged, but I think this is a potential problem. Would you be willing to discuss this further? Many sources says adolescence includes this age range and many say it even begins at age 10 (though I'm skeptical of that myself). I think the typical range for preadolescence that I find is 9-12 years of age, and then which 12 up until legal adulthood is considered adolescence. Schwarbage (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just coming here to make a similar comment, but I see you've already had a final warning. Please start editing based on actual sources, and not your personal opinions.

MrOllie (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I have linked sources to many of my edits and changes, and my edits that you've reverted are not a matter of personal opinion but law, standard and practice. And yes, this is important to the article, and is even consistent with much of its content. Maybe I'm being too picky about this particular aspect, but it isn't out of line with the rest of the article. I'm not sure why you're focusing so specifically on sources when end of child development specifically refers to minor status. When one is granted age of majority, they legally become an adult. If they have the legal and social status of an adult, then they are in adulthood. Psychology and biology are already partially thrown out the window to begin with, this just keeps it consistent.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/age_of_majority#:~:text=In%20most%20countries%2C%20the%20age,age%20of%20majority%20is%2019. Schwarbage (talk) 14:05, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, cessation/ending of puberty can be considered. Maybe I'm just overthinking it. The UN is ridiculous with their definitions! Schwarbage (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Preadolescence into Child. 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., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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 Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Young adult, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Julietdeltalima (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Schwarbage (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I decided to undo your edits to the lead sentence, please discuss with us in the talk page for it before making anymore changes, as it was discussed thoroughly. The wording of your edits also need to be better, in my opinion. MemeTrooper (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and actually I agree. My wording is often rather clunky, but I try to add any useful information on the subject that I can find. I'm fine with your changes in the lead article, as I believe that part would be better fit for later down the article.

As for developmental science, it should be noted that definitions differ and often intersect with what we know as young adulthood. I believe it's important to elucidate many of these individuals are also adults despite being grouped in with 12-14 year olds. There was actually a recent article relating to this subject that went viral.

https://slate.com/technology/2022/11/brain-development-25-year-old-mature-myth.html Schwarbage (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

You've actually got a talk page with several warnings for adding unsourced content. I suggest you stop doing it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Leon Thomas III. Sundayclose (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've received several warnings about making unsourced edits. If you want to continue editing, you need to abide by the requirement to cite reliable sources for your edits. Sundayclose (talk) 03:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Misandry, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being

I'm sorry for not being logged in, but I did not edit the article and contents of the page itself.

"Neutral" point of view. When a huge portion of the is merely discussion of misandry (a male issue) from a section of sociologists under a branch that specialize in women's issues.

"Hateful rant", when anger is being expressed at the state of article and not hatred at any group of people. Schwarbage (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Misandry is a societal issue relevant to all. It is not solely a "male issue". Wikipedia is never going to present just the manosphere version of the topic. The people who study the topic and publish their findings in scholarly journals are scholars, not to be boxed off and dismissed as feminists. Binksternet (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not wish to present a 'manosphere' version, I wanted to make it more neutral. Being more open to the concept of misandry does not mean I support the manosphere, if anythinig, openness to the existence of the idea encourages neutrality. Whether they're legitimate scholars or not, having the article be thoroughly dominated by a perspective of sociologists that write from a feminist-leaning perspective does indicate some form of bias because the ideas are formed by that worldview. Evidently you're going to feel a certain way on this, it's something you feel strongly on. Schwarbage (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bias you describe isn't seen that way by Wikipedia. Scholars who study the topic are the most reliable and authoritative sources. Wikipedia's foundation comes from

WP:SECONDARY sources, with more weight given to authors who are acknowledged experts in the topic. It doesn't matter whether you think Robyn Caplan and Alice Marwick are feminists; in Wikipedia, they are top level experts who define the topic. The MRA viewpoint will be presented as studied by the scholars, not as the activists would wish. Binksternet (talk) 06:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

"The bias you describe isn't seen that way by Wikipedia"

Unfortunately, I'm well attuned to that. Schwarbage (talk) 06:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edit on the article Middle age was supported and validated by seven reliable sources. Nothing wrong has been done. Asking for reverting the edit and protecting the article despite this was very incorrect. Also, what did you mean by "nice IP"? 84.222.66.203 (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are valid sources that include your age range, but you have been disrupting the page for several months despite 40 being a very common range for middle age. 40-45 was the compromise. Don't fiddle with it, "Clark Kent is Still Alive". Schwarbage (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]