User talk:EquiisAutisticSavant

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! Wperdue (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

Proposed deletion of Mary Katherine Day-Petrano -- U.S. Autistic Savant
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mary Katherine Day-Petrano -- U.S. Autistic Savant, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * I'm still debating about whether or not notability has been asserted here. In any case, this entry is self-sourced and self-promotional.

Notability has already been established: Mary Katherine Day-Petrano has already been determined to be a notable figure, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Law, and was already proposed to be added and has been requested by others who view her as a public figure in American history to the research pages. This is not a self-promotional article. She has been published about in law review articles. This is a historical article about one of only appx. 30-100 diagnosed savant autistics in the World.

If her article is deleted, so should the Savant Syndrome articles on Daniel Tammett, Alonzo Clemmons and all other famous historical savant syndrome and autism figures just like her. Her page should be linked Savant Syndrome just like the other savants and people with autism, but she does not know how to do this.

Ms. Day-Petrano is a widely known Internet personality, and has many followers who belive she is one of the most incredible adults with autism in the entire United States. She is currently being followed on Twitter, for instance, by the Florida Governor candidate Alex Sink and her campaigh manager. There is no justification to delete this article.

Moreover, because she has autism, Wikipedia is required to assist her in placing her article properly in Wikipedica before deleting it. She has severe communication deficits, and those who initially proposed an article about her (above) have sought to public inaccurate and potentially defamatory facts about her due to anti-autism sentiments. Such anti-autism sentiments has not been allowed by Wikipedia to defeat or delete the articles on Alonzo Clemmons or Deniel Tammet, why should this article be deleted ? That would deny equality of coverage of verifiable diagnosed autistic savants, and deprive the public of knowing about one of the most prodigious savants currently living in the United States.
 * My reasons for proposing the deletion are clearly spelled out in the tag. I want to understand this. You are saying that anyone who proposes an article about someone with autism be deleted, whatever the reason, is defamatory and "anti-autism"? I'm going to assume good-faith, but I do wish you would not jump straight to accusing me of defamation and being "anti-autism". Wperdue (talk) 04:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

How do you remove the code to prevent the deletion ? People wiht autism need accommodations help to navigate doing this.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Wperdue (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

What improvements do you want to the article ? It contains historical publicly verifiable fact about the subject, that has been posted in numerous public records, and Internet forums elsewhere.


 * Verification is exactly what's needed. I did a Google search, and the closest I found to a reliable source was filings to the Florida Supreme Court. I found blog posts, comments, social networking pages, etc., but no news articles with substantial coverage of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the Florida Supreme Court googles are defamatory -- they say I do not have savant autism DX. The only reliable source for savant autism DX is the DX itself.

There are over 50 court cases on public record in Calif and Fla., 9th and 11th Circuits, and US Supreme Court petitions, all about autism accommodations under the Americans With Disabilities Act. There is a law review article, published. There is an ABA e-Journal article in 2003. The savant autism DX of April 2009 demonstrates the public records are based on misdiagnosis of my status as one of only appx. 30-100 savant autistics in the World.

I do not know who the editor on Wikipedia is under anonymity since I do not have this access, but the person who was stalking me was named Elizabeth Oyer, a Harvard Law Review editor working under Barry Sabin at the U.S. Dept. of Justice. Her posts are on ezboard, with a group who stated they were stalking me and she was making medical diagnoses that I did not have autism without a medical license and while assigned to my 11th Circuit cases as a law clerk (I have the ezboard links) -- and the category I was initially propsed for along with Matthew Hale tracks numerous of her posts and I highly belive she has Wikipedia editor privileges or her friends do and proposed me to portray my notability in a false light.

But that aside, I am notable because I have a very rare savant autism DX from an international brain expert, and I also have an e-mail from Dr. Treffert who has the Wisconsin Savant Syndrome site, that compares my artwork to other savants that have article on Wikipedia including Richard Wawro. The DX itself is that makes me not every other person int he World and makes my DX notable.


 * Obituaries aside, Wawro's article is sourced to Scientific American and the Wisconsin Medical Society. Both of those publications wrote about him. No evidence has been furnished that any similar articles have been written about Day-Petrano. —C.Fred (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Without the DX, none of the savant autistic people on Wikipedia would have been written about elsewhere. The DX itself is the reliable source that makes it notable. Even if you get a verification of one of the others you cite, but they lose the DX, their former articles would not matter because they would become unvalidated. People want to read about notable savant autistics because of the DX, not because you can "validate" by unreliable second hand news sources. the fact any one single additional person gets the DX from a licensed brain expert doctor to join the elite savant autism group of 30-100 peple in th eWorld is what makes them notable. In my case, my doctor also has the irrefutable childhood savant autism bilateral temporal parietal hypoperfusion on PET scan, an irrefutable reliable source. My DX and PET scan would be accepted under any court's standard for reliable evidence. But your second-hand unreliable news sources would not meet those reliability standards. I have been written about int he ABA e-Journal, which you fail to cire whatsoever. I have an e-mail from Dr. Treffert who publishes the Wisconsin Medical Society, recognizing my savant art abilities. Savant autism is a unique and differnet classification of article. That is why I was already found notable in the other Wikipedia link about me I cited, that has been left on Wikipedia unchallenged for years now.

If Alonzo Clemmons or Daniel Tammett were suddenly undiagnosed, they woudl need to be deleted from Wikipedia, is essentially what you're saying. If I were not notable already, then why has someone else been allowed to put me on Wikipedia without it being deleted ? That is pretty damaging to me personally to leave it on for years without the true facts, and without deleting it -- has been very harmful to my professional reputation. And I did not put my entry there ! You let someone else do it without true facts. I simply provided the true facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EquiisAutisticSavant (talk • contribs) 07:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hold on. You say that another article about you exists on Wikipedia? Please provide a link to it, so we can evaluate what's already out there. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am Looking for help!
Your question. Wikipedia is not accessible to me due to my autism. I do not understand the technical symbols here. I need someone to assist me and accommodate my autism under the Americans With Disabilities Act to ensure my article will not be deleted. I am a notable public figure with many public court cases and published law review articles and posts by others about me on the Internet. The fact I am notable and my article should not be deleted was already made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Law --EquiisAutisticSavant (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC) EquiisAutisticSavant
 * I will reply in just one moment. &mdash; Deon555talkI'm BACK!


 * You must be careful claiming that Wikipedia is failing you under any sort of law. Such remarks may breach our No Legal Threats policy. You seem to be fairly able to access the website and contribute. If you claim that you are this notable public figure, your account will need to be blocked until we can ascertain outside of Wikipedia that you are indeed the person you say you are. As for the deletion, can you tell me the name of the article you created that was deleted? &mdash; Deon555talkI'm BACK!  04:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made no legal threats. I only asked for help. I am not very able to navigate Wikipedia. I have hypoperfusion in my PET scan, it means I need help sometimes, and I am more unable than I look. I appreciate the help.


 * I have found the article, and note that it was proposed for deletion due to breaching our Conflict of Interest Guidelines. Editors are discouraged and generally prohibited from editing articles on themselves as they may not be written from a neutral point of view. &mdash; Deon555talkI'm BACK!  04:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The article was initially proposed by people who have attacked me and stalked me on Internet forums, who have posted defamatory information elsewhere. Since they introduce my notability for an article, I should be allowed to put the true facts into the article about me. For example, the initial proposer defamed me on numerous Internet formums by claiming I did not have autism. I do have an autism diagnosis with savant abilitiles. I can certainly pdf and e-mail it to you for verification. There are numerous peopel always aksin gwhy I am not on Wikipedia where they can find history on me. I may have contributed to my own article, but I contributed only objective facts. It is not self-promotional or biased. I could have said a lot more, longer article, but I stuck to the objective facts. And this should not be a reason to reject my article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EquiisAutisticSavant (talk • contribs)
 * This is patently false, and I ask you again to stop the accusations. I have not "attacked" you or "stalked you on Internet forums". Frankly, I have no idea who you are and no reason to attack you. I've never been to an autism forum. Furthermore, I have been a Wikipedia editor in good standing for quite some time. Wperdue (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue
 * Wperdue, I think she's referring to another editor who may have listed her at Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Law. Speaking as an admin, your proposal of deletion was in good faith and within guidelines. —C.Fred (talk) 05:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, can we please get some clarification as to what editor is "stalking" this person? If it is indeed true, then it is obviously an issue that needs to some attention. Thank you for clarifying things. Wperdue (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)wperdue


 * (ec) You need to provide independent reliable sources. Not yourself, or your lawyer, or your brother/sister/dog/cat/mouse, that means linking to your own blog isn't acceptable. I don't need to see proof from your doctor that you are autistic, it is irrelevant. We have thousands of biographies on Wikipedia, I'm sure that we have some autistic, and some non-autistic. As for your friends asking 'Why aren't you on Wikipedia?', see WP:NOTMYSPACE - Wikipedia is not MySpace. If your friends would like to network with you, maybe a site like that is better. Unfortunately if every single person in the world wanted their own article on Wikipedia, we'd have a very large, and probably useless project. Also, please sign your posts so we can see what you have written, and what others have written. At the end of your post, type --~ . Cheers, &mdash; Deon555talkI'm BACK!  05:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A reply from another editor

 * First, a note: standard formatting for article titles is the shortest form possible. Therefore, the article in question has been moved to Mary Katherine Day-Petrano.

That is ok, but it still needs to be linked as all the other savants (Alonzo Clemmons, Daniel Tammett, etc) to the Savant Syndrome subject category.


 * I have removed the proposed deletion tag from the article to challenge the proposed deletion. However, other editors can—and likely will—nominate it for deletion via the articles for deletion discussion process. In that case, discussion will go own for seven days about the merits of the article and the notability of the subject.

I don't have problems with several days of discussions. I have people who can verify my information and notability and why I am a great addition as a subject to Wikipedia. I do want help linking the article to Savant Syndome subject, because I am one of several people who are already linked. Thx.


 * A couple of points:
 * If you have a close connection to the subject (or are the subject), you have a conflict of interest. While this does not prohibit you editing your own article, it also does not remove the requirement for independent reliable sources. As it stands now, the article mentions no independent sources. The only source or external link is the subject's own blog.
 * The formatting for links and sources can be daunting. Feel free to add raw links to sources on Talk:Mary Katherine Day-Petrano; other editors can assist with the formatting.

I have autism -- I need help to add links and sources. The subject's own blog is very famous, and contains photos of some examples of savant artwork, no different than Alonzo Clemmons or Richard Wawro.


 * There is a subset of Wikipedia guidelines that deal specifically with biographies of living people. Simply put, any assertion about a person that is not backed up by a reliable source can be challenged and removed from the article. The "burden of proof" is on the person adding the assertion to provide a source that verifies it.

I have a licensed Florida lawyer who can back up everything stated in the article in addition to other independent sources. If his verification isneeded, please advise me how he can get his verification of whatever you need to you.


 * Nobody owns articles on Wikipedia. Other editors are free to add text (within BLP guidelines), edit, delete, tag, markup, and—if Wikipedia policies provide for it—delete the article. Expect this article to be edited heavily if it remains on Wikipedia.

That is not a problem so long as everything stated in it is true, and not something remaining on the Internet put there by people who have not corrected defamatory statements to conform to true fact. I can certainly back up everything thst is true, and refute anythng that is not. But I am a historical public figure and there are very, very few savants with autism in the United States that have the DX. I do not think there is one other than myself who graduated law school or passed a bar exam. I am open to whatever editors need.


 * I'll be watching the article to see what happens with it. I'll also be watching your talk page, so you can reply to my comments here. —C.Fred (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)