Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Leitner system into Spaced repetition. 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. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Judge Rotenberg Educational Center has been reverted. Your edit here to Judge Rotenberg Educational Center was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV5D2ZL0icM) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply] If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Please read this carefully because you're having trouble understanding. I am NOT disputing use of shocks. I am saying there is no evidence that the image is legitimately made by a student at Rotenberg or that it even is related to Rotenberg. Don't restore without that evidence; if you do it will be considered disruptive editing and can result in loss of editing privileges. Sundayclose (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Aversion therapy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sundayclose: Do not accuse me of disruptive editing. The source does, in fact state that the center had a practice of strapping students to a four point board and applying multiple electric shocks. You should not have removed it. It is also not appropriate you to accuse me of edit warring when you are the one driving the edit was with an inappropriate revert, or to use level 3 warning templates against a person that you are involved in a dispute with. This is a civility violation. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 17:33, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AGAIN, read carefully because you are not understanding my simple English. The issue IS NOT about the shocks. It IS about the image. I could draw an image and claim that it is me in bed with the queen of England, but that doesn't make it true. Provide a source about the IMAGE. And yes you have edit warred. Either provide the evidence or move on. That's how Wikipedia works. Sundayclose (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sundayclose The image is of a student being shocked with the GED while restrained to a four-point board. This is a practice that occurred at the Judge Rotenberg Center, and this is not disputed by the center or anyone else (except you). The image illustrates this practice. You may find evidence of this by running a text search for "four-point board" for the source I provided with the image.--66.244.121.212 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me try to express this in as simple English as I can, and then you and I are finished discussing this because I can't make it any simpler. I don't believe the image is about Rotenberg. I have not disputed that shocks were delivered, but I don't believe a student drew the image. My six year old granddaughter can understand that. I'm sorry if you can't. And now we are done here. Don't bother responding because I'm not continuing to discuss this dead horse that refuse to stop beating. Add the image without the evidence and you could lose your editing privileges. Sundayclose (talk) 17:48, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sundayclose: This source proves that the image was made by a former student of the center. I would like to note that you could have easily solved this problem with a simple change of the caption, rather than a total revert. A chronic reverter like you should have a better understanding of WP:REVERT, as it is actions like these that drive off newcomers and shrink our editor-base. Now that this has been decided, I will add the image back into the article with appropriate sourcing. I expect that you will be more civil in the future. --66.244.121.212 (talk) 18:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Amkgp was:
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ABA International and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:ABA International, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, 66.244.121.212!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ~ Amkgp💬17:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Buidhe was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Psychiatric abuse and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Psychiatric abuse, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
New content
I added a paragraph about awards via ABAI's sister charitable organization, SABA, on November 9, 2020, and would like some clarification please about why it was removed. Thank you. 75.48.228.60 (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, 66.244.121.212. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:ABA International, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, 66.244.121.212. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Psychiatric abuse, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
