EmLyCasa

Manuel Casanova

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for editing. Unfortunately I reverted your edit you made to your husband's page; the content appears to be properly cited to reliable secondary sources, in the view of tenured editors and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the content in that section is absolutely fine.

You additionally have edited a page where you have a tangible relation to the subject (your husband). Per our conflict of interest guideline, you should not edit an article directly if you have some sort of relation to the subject of that article. Instead, request edits on the article's talk page, with the {{request edit}} template at the top of your request, dealing what should be changed.

Your addition also added unsourced content, which, ironically, can be liable to immediate removal if the article is about a living person (which of course it is), see WP:BLP for more info.

I would also like to make you aware of the neutral point of view policy, and a part of this that is about giving 'due' or 'undue' weight.

My recommendations if you wish to attempt again, is to do what I said above about editing the talk page with your suggestions, copying the slightly different fonted text into a new section, say what you want changed, and most importantly, include a reference to go with it. Below is our boilerplate notice about conflict of interest editing. Thanks, !dave 18:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

COI notice

Hello, EmLyCasa. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. !dave 18:27, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Some proposed changes

The University of South Carolina Greenville Medical School is not *at* the Greenville Health System (GHS), which is a privatized hospital system. It's associated with GHS and shares a campus. Source: http://sc.edu/study/colleges_schools/medicine_greenville/index.php

Under "Views on Neurodiversity," the Newsweek quote has been taken out of context of the original interview and was retelling of an earlier occurrence involving Aspies for Freedom (AFF) forum and an earlier media article that misquoted Dr. Casanova. Therefore, Newsweek citation should be marked as suspect.

"he communicates online about neurodiversity and shares research with Jonathan Mitchell..." reads as if he works with JM, which is not the case. JM follows his research via Casanova's blog and often writes about it on his own (JM's) blog. This sentence needs to be reworded to read more clearly.

"Casanova also points out that parents that support therapy or treatment for autistic children say that it will reduce their suffering and give them the best chance to succeed in adulthood, because they claim that it is not possible for society to accommodate autistics" -- The citation used is of a Powerpoint presentation that doesn't make this claim. Citation being misused; this statement should be removed.

EmLyCasa (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Emily L. Casanova, wife of Manuel Casanova

I've put this to the bottom. Talk pages go downwards in chronology. Nonetheless:

• 1st request:  Done
• 2nd request:  Additional information needed -- what was the earlier media article?
• 3rd request:  Done -- simply because it doesn't appear to be relevant (or fails to link back to his views on neurodiversity)
• 4th request:  On hold Slide 29 says something along the lines of this. I wouldn't extrapolate as much as been done here, I think it should be rewritten to reflect what it says on the slide better.

!dave 20:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)