User talk:EJA94

September 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Autism spectrum have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Autism spectrum was changed by EJA94 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.92815 on 2021-09-25T23:34:16+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Autism spectrum, you may be blocked from editing. Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

EJA94, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi EJA94! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

August 2022

Hello, I'm Uricdivine. I noticed that you recently removed content from Stranger Things without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Uricdivine^TalkToMe 20:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Stranger Things, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Uricdivine^TalkToMe 20:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi sorry, I was on my phone and had trouble accessing primary user account, User:ATC. And I also apologize for not providing valid reason for removal in the edit summary, which I will do in the future. ATC ^{. Talk} 20:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

ST Edits

Please be mindful of how you edit then use the talk page as an escape route. Example, this your edit and the one before. Like when did we talk about this in talk page? Also do not edit content in articles that are currently in a dispute discussion if consensus hasn't yet been made. Uricdivine^TalkToMe 17:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Multiple Accounts

Hello, EJA94, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as ATC (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Uricdivine^TalkToMe 15:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

May 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Summit School (Queens), did not appear to be constructive and have 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. CodeTalker (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ABA Page

Is there any action that can be taken regarding the edit warring on the ABA page? There are some users who are insistent in having the page be slanted towards one view in violation of NPOV. Barbarbarty (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Yes my edits were the least POV-oriented, but it keeps getting reverted back. I might need to get an administrator involved, and possibly have article locked to avoid future vandalism. Thanks. EJA94 (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I saw you reverted my edit on the ABA page. I just wanted to inform you it was not my attempt to alter the lede. However, I was trying to find a compromise that would satisfy the other user who seemed to be edit warring, as I was worried that they would continue dramatic alterations to the article’s text. I hope this is a satisfactory explanation for you. Barbarbarty (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

EJA94 (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cariprazine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tremors. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

March 2025

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Autism did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

August 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Applied behavior analysis, did not appear to be constructive and have 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.

Specifically, you removed a well cited claim that a study had been criticized around the time of its release and replaced it with an unsupported claim that the journal that published the study had recently "debunked" it. In your edit summary, you claimed you were making the change based on Wikipedia's policies regarding maintaining a neutral point of view, but there does not appear to have been any part of the original statement that was not worded or cited in accordance with those policies. Please see this Wikipedia policy page for more guidance regarding adding, deleting and analyzing citations. Thank you. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that you seem to be frequently alternating between your two registered usernames and numerous single-use IP addresses when editing the Applied Behavior Analysis article (something you recently admitted to on the article talk page). Please see the guidance below.

( 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 blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I just explained on my user page that it's the same account as User:ATC, but I've been locked out of my account for over a year now and I have no other way of logging back in, so this is my only account I'm using now. I am no longer using that IP address and only this account now. EJA94 (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

To which IP address are you referring? By my count, between July 7, 2025 and August 4, 2025, there were six unique IP addresses in the edit history for the applied behavior analysis page, most of which made multiple edits and were primarily focused on editing the ABA page (or closely related pages).

On the talk page, you explicitly identified yourself as being the editor behind the IP address ending in CE8A and complained about having an edit you made reverted while logged in as the IP editor ending in 9ab6. The IP editor ending in 173.38 edited the sandbox page for your ATC username, which I can only assume was you, as well. Were the other three you, as well? Even if you were having temporary difficulty accessing your EJA94 account, why were you constantly changing IP addresses? DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

It sounds like you need to learn about dynamic IP addresses. That's when your internet service provider changes your IP address without your consent or knowledge. Nobody can be blamed for this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Autism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. CFCF (talk) 09:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Autism, you may be blocked from editing. Specifically, you have been adding claims that are unsupported by the sources cited and removing or improperly modifying supported claims. You were warned about this specific type of disruptive editing earlier this month (see above). I strongly recommend you review the resources I previously suggested you review. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

DoItFastDoItUrgent I am re-providing the sources; the whole autism article is written in a way that is not encyclopedic and goes against WP:POV. Also, you are not an administrator (I might have to contact one) and there was no reason to threaten to block me (you could have just reminded me to change the citation tag) and there have been others who posted on your talk page about your disruptive editing behavior. EJA94 (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Autism. CFCF (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello EJA94. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Autism, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:EJA94. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=EJA94|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. Link: [1] CFCF (talk) 19:38, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not being paid, it's an unpaid externship. EJA94 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Nonetheless WP:EDITCOI applies. It surprises me that an experienced editor like yourself is not aware of this, but also that you are not aware that 1) warnings can be given by editors regardless administrator status and (the escalation you see is a standard escalation starting with a level 2 warning and ending with a level 4 warning) 2) contacting individual administrators is inappropriate.

I suggest you follow the discussion, which has gone on for months at Talk:Autism before making large-scale contentious edits. I would not expect to need to say this to an experienced editor. You should also be aware of the provisions surrounding WP:EDITWAR and that edit-warring with a COI is taken seriously. CFCF (talk) 19:55, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I strongly recommend you follow @CFCF's guidance and declare your COI as soon as possible. You admitted earlier today on the talk page of the administrator you inappropriately reached out to directly that you are currently an unpaid extern for the Association for Science in Autism Treatment (whose article you edited as recently as May 2025). It's important you formally declare that COI on your user page (preferably with an approximate date the COI began). Because ASAT primarily promotes applied behavior analysis, this also may impact your ability to directly edit the article for that topic and related topics. Continuing to edit these or related articles without a formal disclosure of your COI (which your talk-page comment doesn't count as) could result in sanctions. Editing with an undeclared COI, particularly after being prompted to declare it, is an extremely serious breach of Wikipedia policy. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

You are edit-warring on my talk page every time I try to respond. Also, the Autism article is written as if this is a neurodiversity blog as opposed to a factual encyclopedia source at just defining ASD (unprofessional to that it's a "difference" — although it is — instead of more sophisticated writing like "deficits", "impairment", etc.). You think this is a reliable valid source?:

Kirkham Patrick (2017)'The line between intervention and abuse' – autism and applied behaviour analysis (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0952695117702571 journal=History of the Human Sciences, volume=30, issue=2) to justify that ABA is abusive and uses aversives (which you inaccurately called punishment).

How about the reliable sources here:
Bringell, A., Chenausky, K. V., Song, H., Zhu, J., Suo, C., & Morgan, A. T. (2018). Communication interventions for autism spectrum disorder in minimally verbal children. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 11(11).

Eldevik, S., Hastings, R. P., Hughes, J. C., Jahr, E., Eikeseth, S., & Cross, S. (2009). Meta-analysis of early intensive behavioral intervention for children with autism. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 38, 439-450.

Eldevik, S., Titlestad, K. B., Aarlie, H., & Tønnesen, R. (2019). Community Implementation of Early Behavioral Intervention: Higher Intensity Gives Better Outcome. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 21(1), 92–109.

Orinstein, A. J., Helt, M., Troyb, E., Tyson, K. E., Barton, M. L., Eigsti, I. M., Naigles, L., & Fein, D. A. (2014). Intervention for optimal outcome in children and adolescents with a history of autism. Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics : JDBP, 35(4), 247–256.

Kasari, C., Shire, S., Shih, W., Landa, R., Levato, L., & Smith, T. (2023). Spoken language outcomes in limited language preschoolers with autism and global developmental delay: RCT of early intervention approaches. Autism Research, 16(6), 1236–1246.

Langh, U., Perry, A., Eikeseth, S., & Bolte, S. (2021). Quality of early intensive behavioral intervention as a predictor of children's outcome. Behavior Modification, 45(6), 911-928.

Myers, S. M., Johnson, C. P., & American Academy of Pediatrics Council on Children With Disabilities (2007). Management of children with autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics, 120(5), 1162–1182.

Paul, R., Campbell, D., Gilbert, K., & Tsiouri, I. (2013). Comparing spoken language treatments for minimally verbal preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 43(2), 418–431.

Rogers, S. J., & Vismara, L. A. (2008). Evidence-based comprehensive treatments for early autism. Journal of clinical child and adolescent psychology : the official journal for the Society of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, American Psychological Association, Division 53, 37(1), 8–38.

Smith, T., & Iadarola, S. (2015). Evidence Base Update for Autism Spectrum Disorder. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 44(6), 897–922.

EJA94 (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, I was not trying to edit war (I will stop editing the article; it's pretty bad as it is anyway and lost its FAC status a long time ago) but you don't have authority to threaten to block me because you are not an administrator. EJA94 (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

An WP:EDITCONFLICT is not an WP:EDITWAR. Please read the content about edit-warring, as you have evidently not done so if you suggest I am doing it here.

The list of sources you provide can be assessed according to WP:MEDRS, I am not going to discuss them here. If you wish to engage in the improvement of the article, please go to Talk:Autism and await input. You may very well be able to contribute, but you should be aware that especially the lede of that article has been worked on iteratively by many editors over months, and that replacing language that has WP:CONSENSUS-support with what you suggest is "more sophisticated" is not appropriate.

Also be advised that any editor has the authority to warn you with standard templates and standard escalation of warnings. The very fact that separate editors have done so should be seen as informative. CFCF (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

It might be time to move towards a regular discussion, without boilerplate warning messages. Yes, anyone can post any 'warning' they want, even if they're not warranted. Most warning templates aren't left by admins. But we could just talk like humans.

For example, I glanced through the list of sources above, and I'm concerned about WP:MEDDATE problems. Only two are within the last five years, and some are even older than 10 years. Things have changed a lot in the last ten years, so I'd prefer newer sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Sources

EJA94, I see that you placed a long list of sources above, and WhatamIdoing (a very experienced and knowledgeable medical editor) indicated problems with WP:MEDDATE. Unlike some other areas you've edited (films, TV, actors), best sources for biomedical content are usually those published within five years, and many on your list are very old. Many of them are also primary studies (see WP:PSTS), so I want to give you some resources for sourcing biomedical content (such as at autism).

WP:MEDRS is the guideline for sources for biomedical health content.

This page -- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches -- is quite old, but it gives an overview of how to use PubMed, and is useful to help you determine the type of source. Wikipedia prefers recent secondary reviews for biomedical content, and the PubMed listing for each article tells you whether it is a review. A secondary review is one that looks at and evaluates primary studies (the original research study) -- and sometimes finds problems with them.

To pick some examples, you listed above this article:

PMID 26430947 - Smith's "Evidence Base Update for Autism Spectrum Disorder" from 2015

If you look at that PubMed link for Smith's article, you'll see the words "Review" at the very top. Another of your sources was:

PMID 30395694 - the 2018 Cochrane review from Brignell, et al

If you look at the top of that page, you'll see it is a meta-analysis, which is also good. But both of these sources are quite old in terms of how fast research is evolving in autism -- it's better to focus on the last five years, and when using PubMed, you can set custom filters on the left-hand side of their main page to limit searches to, for example, the last five years, or reviews only.

If you look at:

PMID 37070270 - the 2023 Kasari article

That is a recent article (in terms of date), but it is a randomized controlled trial; that is, it is a primary study that may not have yet been covered by a secondary literature review, so it would not be an acceptable WP:MEDRS source for most cases.

Similarly, many of your sources above aren't the best for biomedical content, and when editing autism, understanding the sourcing as discussed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches, and how to use PubMed to look up papers you use, will help.

You can also use a shortcut PMID template to reference studies, which makes it easier to talk about them on talk pages, by linking to them via their PubMed Identifier (PMID) like this:

{{PMID|30395694}}

So, overall, before relying on a source for autism, it's good to look it up first at PubMed (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/) to be sure it's recent and not a primary study. I hope this helps! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:18, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2025 (UTC)