of two of Wikipedia's editors ©
Why the criticism is necessary
The public needs to know who is in control of World Knowledge and Why.
My comments are specifically about two of the editors.
The 'ignore all rules' policy gives Wikipedia the feature of 'survival of the cheats' instead of 'survival of the best', and the policy which states that 'the truth doesn't matter', gives some of the editors an excuse for deleting anything they want, any time they want. See my reports here and here.
I invite high school and university students, and other clubs and public speaker organisations to debate the issues discussed on this webpage, and to discuss them by email and on twitter. See also this article which was started on 2-1-12 here, and you should find this article very interesting here, and their attitude towards new contributors and how they treat people who disagree with them. They call them Lusers, bastards, jerks, little shits, and prey. e.g. here. See also here.
They also called them immature, and said that their contributions were worthless cruft (rubbish), that Wikipedia administrators were incompetent, that doctors gave sloppy diagnoses, and that articles in top quality medical journals were garbage.
If you want to know how and why my two critics deleted scientifically proven facts, and replaced them with their opinions you can get some analogous ideas by reading "The Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway. See here and also here and here
'Normal' processes of transparency should apply in Wikipedia
I recommend that Wikipedia requires the standard of 'transparency' in all major disputes such as Arbitration cases, and that they condemn the actions of editors who sneak around like slimy 'edit warring' rattlesnakes to plot and scheme ways of subverting the 'normal processes'. They should also ensure that there is sufficient time for both sides of the story to be presented, particularly allowing for responses to false 'accusations', and that they should not allow grandstanding individuals to barge in on disputes and subvert the 'proper process' of 'consensus'. See my report here.
One of the many problems to be solved
I seem to have difficulty convincing people that my two critics are blatant and disgusting liars.
The problem would be due to the fact that most people are not familiar with the topic that I was editing. Hence, for example, they would not know if my main critic was telling lies about Sir James MacKenzie or not.
I will therefore try to explain it with a comparison.
When my main critic described Sir James MacKenzie as an ordinary man who just walked in off the street, joined a society, and attended an ordinary meeting in 1916, it is the equivalent of describing Ludwig van Beethoven and a deaf and dumb hillbilly who scribbled on bits of paper, and played the piano in a backwater village. See here, and my report here
Mid term assignment for high school students: Write an essay about "Double Standards" and post it onto Wikipedia to be used as a new policy. Address the issue of courtesy being required by all editors, and that new contributors do not have to be polite in situations where other editors are using "attitude readjustment tools", edit war jargon, 'strategic rudeness', and double talk in the form of humorously slapping people in the face with wet trouts etc. i.e. good manners for all, or good manners for none. No Personal Attacks on anyone, or make it an all in defamation festival.
Assignment 2: Make a list and count the number of lies that my main critic told about Sir James MacKenzie. The evidence is provided here.
Assignment 3: Make a list and count the number of lies that the same editor has made in the examples linked to this index here. After completing that task comment on whether that individual is trustworthy or not, and, if the administrators do not permanently ban them, would you believe anything at all that your read in Wikipedia? i.e. is it a reliable sources of information?
Two questions for Wikipedia Administrators: What can be done to address the imbalance between rule-abiding new contributors, and experienced, sly, corrupt, edit warring editors. e.g. see here
Also what do you do about individuals who do hundreds of routine edits to establish the illusion of 'usefulness', while they are just "lurking" over their 'watchlists' of up to 2000 articles, so that they can delete any good information which they don't want the public to see??? (Their "obvious" real objective is "content control") See here and here
The secret edit war methods used in Wikipedia, which the public are NOT told about.
I have met some people who won't criticise Wikipedia for fear of retaliation against their biographies and reputations by the anonymous editors, and their friends or associates. Maybe that is an 'unsolvable problem'.
My main critic introduced the concept of 'strategic rudeness' to Wikipedia with the suggestion that it was a method used by 'intelligent' people to achieve power over others. I therefore recommend that other editors use it as their way of driving that individual out of Wikipedia,
You can also hound and harass her with the same type of "attitude readjustment tools" that she used against me.
She also told me that 'she didn't write the rules', but had to obey them just like me and everyone else, but after 12 months of hostile arguments she arranged for me to be banned at the last minute by suddenly 'ambushing' me with the 'ignore all rules' policy. I suggest that other editors ban her exactly the same way.
She also contributed to the page called "The Last Word", and after getting the decision to ban me, she thinks she has won. I suggest that she be given the same message on her way out.
In Wikipedia the highly experienced TROLL MAKERS can disguise their misbehaviour, and the honest editors who react "normally" to such systematic harassment get banned??
What to do about the tactics used by my two critics
My two critics used innumerable and rather childish tactics to block and ban me. One of their early methods was to use LART tools as part of their organised edit war which they were conducting 'behind my back'. Another one was to use 'strategic rudeness' to defame and discredit me. Eventually, when all of their stunts failed, they ambushed me by abusing the "ignore all rules" policy.
They took advantage of the fact that I joined Wikipedia as a genuine person who didn't expect to find that sort of conniving.
I therefore suggest to anyone, inside or outside of Wikipedia, who doesn't like their methods, or the way they treat new contributors, that those two individuals have many strategic weaknesses, but I will suggest three of the main ones.
Firstly, they are both pathological conformers.
Secondly, neither of them could win a dispute against me without telling lies, so they will continue to tell lies in future disputes.
Thirdly, neither of them could win their disputes against me by staying within the rules, so they will continue to 'ignore the rules' and 'break the rules' in the future.
I am a creative person, and suggest, to other creative individuals, that you devise your own methods to exploit their weaknesses and counteract their tactics.
Thank you, and Good luck.
Watch out for the trolls
Trolls are unethical editors who break Wikipedia's rules about good manners by using "attitude readjustment tools" to annoy and harass new contributors to incite and inflame them into a hostile reaction.
Their objective is to make administrators believe that the new contributor is the cause of the trouble who needs to be banned. See also here and here and here, and my report about The Trollsy Twins here, and their Wicked Witch of the West tactics here, and a website which describes trolling as a type of mental illness here.
Any editor who deliberately uses Lart tools to invite other editors into behaving like trolls, and to provoke respectable individuals into becoming trolls, should be branded as a Super troll. Behaving in that manner to put others into a position where they have no choice but to lower themselves to the same grubby level of gutter tactics is inexcusable, but my main critic is very good at making plausible excuses for her own inexcusable behaviour.
Watch out for 'extreme' double standards in the rules
According to the rules of Wikipedia, all editors are required to treat each other with courtesy and respect, even during heated arguments, and they should avoid profane and offensive language here.
There is also a rule which advises the editors to comment on the topic only, and not the person here.
However, my main critic always treated the rules as if they applied to everyone else except herself.
If Wikipedia wants the public to take their rules seriously they should have a "zero tolerance policy" for editors who use "attitude readjustment tools" and enforce it with immediate and permanent bans.
See my report on their bad manners here, and how they made me their target here, their personal attacks against me here, and here, and their straw man strategy here, and their manufactured bandwagon tactics here, and here, and the complaint about the failure of their own 'attitude readjustment tools here.
I am very good at arguing because I base all of my strategy on facts and evidence. However, while I was in Wikipedia I always had one editor who put me on a watchlist and hounded and harassed me for 12 months. In fact she has been described as having a history of joining personal attacks on other editors.
That individual is childish, and has no strength of character, and hides behind an anonymous ID, and takes no "real" responsibility for her actions. She has the honesty of a fork-tongued rattlesnake, the manners of a troll, and knew the language of edit wars. She also faked consensus, and used the tactic involved in Gaming the system", and "Wikilawyering, and used "straw man" arguments, and "setting up to fail" tactics, and had "The Last Word". See more here.
When I criticised her for doing something silly she would argue that my criticism of her was stupid, and when I won an argument she would tell other editors that I lost. She would accuse me of breaking every rule in Wikipedia, while encouraging her friends to ignore the rules, and she rewarded another editor for using the "Ignore all rules policy" to get me banned. You can see my reports on some of her personal attacks against me here. See also my report in the way she cheats here.
If you join Wikipedia and have the displeasure of dealing with that unethical and thoroughly disgusting person I suggest that you immediately prepare yourself by learning all of those tactics, and develop counter measures to neutralise the false advantages. i.e. Use her own methods against her. (See here, and The Golden Rule again here). Good luck!!!
(Note My main critic used the language and tactics of Trolls and flamers to provoke other editors into becoming trolls, and then argue that they should be banned for being unprovoked trolls. e.g. She would waste my time by asking me deliberately stupid questions, and by asking me to prove the obvious. One of the most obvious methods used by trolls is 'attitude readjustment tools' which she told other editots that she had used against me, but failed here. A good definition of trolls and flamers can be seen here).
Are you prepared to be slapped in the face with a wet trout and hit over the head with a 2x4 block of wood for the fun of it???
There is an essay in Wikipedia called WP:TROUT, which is also described as WP:WHACK! and WP:EPICFAIL, which has a window at the top that contains the words . . . "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously."
It refers to treating other editors by metaphorically slapping them in the face with a wet trout, in order to make them take the 'clue' or 'get the hint', or obey the orders. It also suggests slapping 'new contributors' in the face with a 'minnow' for the same reason. It is related to the word clue, which refers to a 'clue stick' which is a metaphorical 2x4 block of wood that is used to hit an opponent over the head to make them obey you.
However, there is a policy which states very clearly that all editors should always treat all contributors, including new ones, with courtesy and respect at all times, (WP:Civil) .
My main critic is arrogant, and doesn't give a dam about policy, and has that attitude, and treats new people, and admins with that sort of contempt regularly. e.g. see here.
She treated me that way for 12 months while I was sensibly complying with the 'civility' policy by maintaining good manners, despite her extremely offensive remarks about my contributions being worthless nonsense.
I eventually responded equally, in a quid pro quo manner, by telling her to stop acting like an ape who was beating her chest as she swung through the wiki trees.
Naturally, she didn't tell anyone else that she had been metaphorically 'slapping me in the face with a wet trout' for 12 months, but acted with furious and hostile indignation, to convince the other editors that i was an impolite editor who had made an extremely offensive remark about her which was unprovoked.
However, if I was to respond in an equal manner, I would tell her that she deserved to be slapped in the face and have her mouth washed out with soap. Of course, she wouldn't see that as humorous, and neither would anyone else, but she would continue to insult me and use the trout essay as her excuse.
World domination of information
According to a 5AA radio report on 15-3-12, Encyclopedia Britannica has announced that it will stop making it's printed edition, but still continue it's digital version. The only sources of such information now are it's digital version, Google, and Wikipedia. The listeners were told that Wikipedia was used because it was 'convenient', but the public should be skeptical of everything they read from such sources, and students should be taught how to evaluate the reliability of internet information.
In my experience the information in Wikipedia is controlled by anonymous and biased individuals who will determine what the public get to read, and what will be deleted. Some of those individuals will be the agents of large organisations, and they work in coordinated, or loosely organised gangs and affiliations to run edit wars, where the winners determine what the public will, or will not be able to see. Their anonymous identities, their ability to write, and include loopholes in the rules, and the 'ignore all rules' policy, make it relatively easy for them to control information. e.g. See here
Please make up your mind before reading any further
Before you read any of my webpages I would like you to consider the fact that I am an ordinary, friendly, and generally polite person, just like you, who joined Wikipedia to add useful information which can be easily verified by anyone who goes to the trouble of reading the links and references which I provided.
However, I had two critics who want you to believe that I am a worthless, non-notable, uneducated, ignorant, disposable, fringy kook whose suggestions are stupid or strange rubbish, and whose ideas are nonsense, and who has difficulty co-operating with others, and is disruptive to good intentions, and has the personality of a big ugly hairy monster called a troll, which lives under bridges and in caves, and only comes out at night to make a pest of itself.
When you have made up your mind please proceed. Thank you.
Who are the anonymous editors
From what I can determine there are two types of editors. The first are those who joined with the genuine objective of adding to the sum of all knowledge.
The second are propagandists who joined up to add loopholes into every rule so that they could use them as excuses to delete the type of information which they don't want the public to see.
They regard the ordinary members of the public as if they are just sheep and cattle who will believe what they read without bothering to check the facts for themselves. See here.
People who are interested in propaganda techniques should study the behaviour of my two critics very closely. Unfortunately other propagandists probably will, and the general public probably won't, and yet, ironically, it is they who need to know how and why they are being fooled. See also here and here.
Also see how they created confusion by being anonymous (by using Wikipedia ID's, but not their own), and then, how anonymous internet adresses were added to the confusion by themselves, or their friends here.
The are extremely sly, devious and thoroughly disgusting and treacherous manipulators of knowledge and people.
A conflict of interest? - not co-operating with the aims of Wikipedia???
When I was about 40 years old I had a blood test, followed by a CAT scan, a bone marrow biopsy, and surgery to remove a small lymph gland to be inspected by microscope, and was then told by a medical specialist that every part of my body was riddled with cancer, and that I had a life expectancy of two months with no hope of a cure. At that time it didn't bother me because I had many other illnesses in the past, and as far as I was concerned it was just another one being added to a long list.
However, I also considered that I would not have long enough to study and cure the cancer, and there would be no point in earning money because I wouldn't live long enough to spend it, so I decided to spend my remaining time compiling all of the information about posture and health which I could find from magazines, medical publications, and history, into one book.
I then managed to still be alive when the cancer was cured 8 years later by a stem cell transplant. In the meantime the book had reached a size of 1000 pages, and I had sold most of them to school and public libraries so that parents and teachers could read it for free and learn how to prevent the numerous and varied ailments in their children, which had caused me so many problems throughout my life.
A few years later I was told about a person called Jimmy Wales, who together with some friends had set up an internet encyclopedia with the objective of putting all of the information from all parts of the world, covering all topics, into one place, and providing it to the public for free.
However, it had a bad reputation of being compiled by a bunch of anonymous amateurs, vandals and propagandists, and school and university students were told by their teachers and professors that if they used it as a reference in any of their homework or exams they would get an automatic fail.
Nevertheless, occasionally some friends of mine suggested that I put my theory in it, so one day I joined up.
I soon found that the rules prohibited a person from writing about their own ideas, but then I received an email from a person who appreciated my book, and it's usefulness to understanding their own health, and was willing to do it. However, a few weeks, or months later six anonymous editors entered a discussion in six hours, and said 'delete, speedy delete, delete', and within a week it was gone.
That did not particularly bother me, so I just started looking for other topics to add information to when I saw the article about Da Costa's syndrome.
Almost immediately two offensively arrogant individuals started insulting me and put me on a watchlist, and began following me around and criticising everything I wrote, and making sure that it was all deleted. In the process they were telling lies about me, the rules, and the subject, and were insulting me and my motives.
Some months later an anonymous editor who had joined Wikipedia a year or two earlier when he, or she, was still a teenager at university, read their comments, and believed their nonsense without bothering to check the facts properly and wrote these words . . .
"I personally think that at this point in time, what Posturewriter has done is so disruptive that the Wikipedia community should not tolerate that. Therefore, I am going to propose a much harsher solution: ACB blocking of his account, perhaps hardblocking as well.
Creating sockpuppet to try to get a point across is not a thing that a responsible editor should do. I have been dealing with sockpuppets for a year now, and I find them not only extremely disruptive, but it degrades Wikipedia as a reliable encyclopedia. That is our mission: to create a reliable source for people around the world to come to for expanding knowledge. If we let this one go, what's the message we are sending to other vandals? We cannot let it go, and we have to show EVERYONE that sockpuppetry will only bring forward their end on Wikipedia.
Therefore, I am suggesting an indefinite, irreversible ban on Posturewriter, his accounts, and his IP addresses" Arbiteroftruth 04:12, 24 July 2008 (end of quote). See here.
The accusation of sockpuppetry had absolutely nothing to do with me mentioning my theory, but was related to a series of four slab deletions of the entire text on the page about Da Costa's syndrome, where I had asked administrators to check to see if my two critics had done it under different anonymous identities, in order to evade blame.
e.g. See here, and my report here.
This is what 'actually' happened
Note that in the early stages my contributions to the page about Da Costa's syndrome were being relentlessly criticised by two editors named WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon, and then an anonymous editor with the internet address of 126.96.36.199 deleted the entire text, and replaced it with the words "I love cheeseburgers" here.
As you would expect, the most likely culprits were my two childish critics who started behaving like juvenile delinquents by doing the equivalent of defacing the wall of a public building with graffiti.
However, they predictably did not leave any proof of their real identity or 'guilt', and were obviously going to deny it, so I didn't' accuse them of it. I just described the circumstances in the hope that 'independent' administrators would trace the address and ban the offenders. e.g. See the dispute here.
The young editor named Arbiteroftruth didn't bother to check the facts, and mistakenly accused me of deleting the information. See here, and here.
The 'sly' editors who 'control' information in Wikipedia
At one stage i entered a very brief discussion to defend myself when one of the editors disappeared immediately, never to be seen again until he barged in on an arbitration page and ignored the rule which required decisions to be made by a 'consensus' of many individuals. He banned me on his own, and told about a dozen other editors that he would argue with them if they challenged his action.
Several months later my main critic gave him a barnstar as a reward for 'ignoring All the rules', and in her 'typical' 'sly' way used an edit 'trick' to hide the fact that it was for banning me.
In the meantime i was told that I could appeal the decision and get back into Wikipedia, but only if I promised not to criticise the editors who banned me, and 'assumed good faith', and treated them with courtesy and respect, and did what they told me to do.
I will let you draw your own conclusions about what I thought of that idea.
I would also like you to think about the personality of the editors who are still there and in control of the information that you and 7 billion other people get to read.
I can describe what is seriously wrong with that system, but I cannot make anyone inside or outside of Wikipedia fix the problem. See more here
Typical of the childish nonsense that I had to put up with
My main critic is an extremely immature adult who spent 12 months putting her own "childish" "spin" on everything by trying to convince other editors that she was a prim and proper person, and I was ignorant and stupid. For example, whenever her choice of references was questioned she would respond with indignation like this . . .
"Please explain why a report by Paul Wood, MD, FRCP, published in BMJ, is "unreliable." On what grounds, exactly? Are you aware Paul Wood was a physician at the National Hospital for Diseases of the Heart, in the Effort Syndrome Unit itself? Do you think he somehow held that position without knowing anything about the sole subject of the entire unit?" (end of quote) here.
However, whenever she was trying to "mock" my use of references she would write like this . . .
"We don't blather on about "In 1987 prominent Harvard researcher Oglesby Paul presented a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome in the British Heart Journal..." This is an effort to tell the reader "You have to believe everything I say that this guy said. He's important. You should know his name. He published in a decent journal." Paul's paper was a routine review paper. Proper style skips this sort of stuff and gets to the actual point." here
You can also see by reading the same discussion that she tries to explain things to other adults by writing in a type of condescending baby talk.
You can also notice how my two critics reacted like spiteful sooks when, on 5-10-2008, a neutral editor told them that my article was "a lot better" than theirs.
Firstly, my main critic cut and pasted my essay onto her own subpage and subjected it to 80 'nitpicking' criticisms. here.
Secondly, she launched into a month of lies and arguments against the neutral editor, from then until the 3rd of November, and then, when I found out about it, she continued her ridiculous arguments against me until the 11th January 2009. (in the same discussion here).
Thirdly, they started several other discussions to criticise me, and finally, one of them set up an arbitration page where the two of them ranted and raved with more lies and nonsense until they convinced one of the administrators that I was a 'disruptive' 'troll' who was interfering with their attempts to produce a good article? See here, and here.
A different take on the same issue
When I started adding to the topic of Da Costa's syndrome I included some of my own research and ideas, but two arrogant editors deleted it on the grounds that I was a "non-notable" person, and in their personal opinion, my findings at a respected medical research institute were nonsense. They continued to criticise me as follows -
Step 1. They said that they appreciated my contributions from other authors, so I added more, and then they deleted them on the grounds that they were 'rubbish'.
Step 2. They argued that I could only provide information from 'top authorities' who were 'experts on the subject', who had 'reviewed' the opinion of many 'other people' in the general literature, and whose articles had been published in 'top quality', 'independent', 'peer reviewed', 'medical journals'.
Step 3. I continued to add to some of my references which already met those standards, and they deleted them on the grounds that, in their opinion, they were 'unreliable', and didn't even meet Wikipedia's basic standards.
Step 4. They wrote the following words to a 'neutral editor',, which I quote again for this context . . .
"We don't blather on about "In 1987 prominent Harvard researcher Oglesby Paul presented a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome in the British Heart Journal..." This is an effort to tell the reader "You have to believe everything I say that this guy said. He's important. You should know his name. He published in a decent journal." Paul's paper was a routine review paper. Proper style skips this sort of stuff and gets to the actual point."(end of quote) here
As you can see I co-operated, and provided everything they wanted, which was a 'review' from a top quality Harvard professor, which had been published in a top quality, independent, peer reviewed medical journal, but they still invented ways of describing me as a stupid person who was doing everything wrong???
They were both liars who were deliberately defaming my character to discredit me. See more here and here.
See my report on their 'straw man' tactics here, See also here and here and here.
If you was to read Wikipedia's article about Da Costa's syndrome which was written by my two critics, and is still there now, you would get the false impression that it was written by someone intelligent who knows what they are talking about, however that is only because it is steeped in jargon which sounds "educated".
You would get the impression that the symptoms are caused by the fear of battle, or incidents of severe anxiety or exertion in the persons life where they panic, and puff and pant, get breathless, and their heart pounds, they feel faint and dizzy, and collapse with exhaustion from worry.
However, while something like that may or may not have happened in soldiers during battle, it is not the only way it happens in normal life. For example, it can affect children for no known reason, occur gradually, or follow a viral infection, and the chest pains usually only occur in the lower left side of the chest about once every few months. The breathlessness is better described as a type of abnormal sighing which may occur ten or a hundred times a day, while the person is reading a comic, or watching television, or is involved in equally banal activities. The faintness may or may not occur in any particular week, but when it does, it usually only occurs in the morning when the person gets out of bed and stands up for the first time that day. The dizziness may occur when the person squats down and leans forwards, or when they bend their head back to look up at high shelves. The fatigue takes two forms. Firstly the person has an abnormal pattern of sleep throughout the day and night, and secondly the symptoms do not necessarily occur while resting, or in light activity such as walking, but do occur out of proportion as the level of exercise increases, where, in some patients it is the only time that several of those symptoms occur together.
The treatment and history sections of the article which contain some of those aspects were written by me and copied by them, but they removed the features which distinguish the ailment from others, and they deleted most of the history.
Their version of the article is of inferior quality because it is full of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, misleading statements and bias, and is not consistent with a proper or balanced assessment of the research literature.
The reasons for my criticism of two of Wikipedia's anonymous editors
While I was involved in Wikipedia I had one main critic, and her constant assistant who were trying to get me banned on the grounds that I had written a theory and a book, and therefore had a 'conflict of interest' and was breaking the rules of 'neutral point of view' by pushing my own point of view.
They also wanted other editors to believe that I was criticising them because they were stopping me from "pushing" my own point of view.
However, I stopped mentioning my theory in January 2008, and had been discussing other ideas, and continued to do so, but those two anonymous individuals managed to get me banned a year later anyway.
I am still criticising them now because they were telling blatant lies about me, and my ideas, and the topic, and the references.
The fact that they are liars is easy to prove, verifiable, and readily available to anyone who wants to check the evidence. e.g. starting here.
See also, the report of John Seigenthaler who discusses how anonymous editors told lies about him, and how difficult it is to do anything about it. here.
I went to a discussion to defend a woman who had been falsely accused of breeching my copyright
At one stage, after joining Wikipedia, it was necessary for me to go to a discussion to defend a woman who had been falsely accused of breeching my copyright, and I had to give my real identity, and provide proof that I had actually been involved in formal medical research, and had published a book.
Soon after that I began editing a page about Da Costa's syndrome, and two anonymous individuals started another "talk" page and put my real name in large bold print near the top, and began insulting me and criticising almost every word I wrote. See here
During the next year they set up about a dozen new discussion pages and mentioned my real name, and linked back to all of those details at every opportunity.
e.g. Ten months later one of them then wrote these words to get me banned . . .
"The dispute concerns Da Costa's syndrome and Posturewriter (talk · contribs), who has self-identified  as MA Banfield, an author with a self-published book - externally reviewed here - and website promoting his Posture Theory about the syndrome's cause." Gordonofcartoon 18:16, 20 July 2008. (end of quote) See here
However, in stark contrast, whenever I asked those two to give me their real identities, and tell me what their experience was, they reacted with great hostility, as if I was breaking the major rules of Wikipedia, and invading their privacy. For example, six months after I was banned one of them wrote these words . . .
""I'm not prepared to quit being anonymous. See this page (and others on the same site, e.g., here) by a permanently banned editor for one reason: Would any rational person really want to make their identity available to a person like this? . . . I edit Wikipedia to get away from my real world commitments. I want my work to be taken or rejected for its merits, not because I'm a person who's supposed to know something."WhatamIdoing 00:54, 21 July 2009 (end of quote) here.
I too would like the quality of my edits to be based on their merits, and not on who I am or am not, but my two critics, who demand that consideration for themselves, did absolutely everything they could to make it impossible for me. See my report here.
Note also that Gordonofcartoon was trying to make other editors believe that I was using Wikipedia to promote my own book, but he is not telling you that they deleted everything about it 6 months earlier. He also wanted them to believe that I had a 'conflict of interest', but he set up several discussions, and 'failed' to get any clear 'consensus', and that decisions about it were made in violation of the rules. He also wanted editors to believe that I was a SPA, (single purpose account), but he doesn't tell them that my book and website discuss hundreds of different topics.See here
Everything that those two editors wrote about me was designed to defame me and my motives, and to discredit me, and all of the information which I provided from top quality, independent sources.
Why I argued against a couple of fools
If the two editors were only insulting me I wouldn't give a dam, and I wouldn't waste ten seconds of my time arguing with them, but they were effectively insulting 2-4% of the population, and I wasn't going to let them do that, so I responded to their comments in a casual and orderly way, usually at the end of each week, but sometimes, on other occasions, and I would provide evidence that they were writing nonsense, telling lies, and breaking the rules of Wikipedia, and they called that my 'tri-weekly whinge'.
For example, according to one of my main critics own references it is a common condition, but she also used the Rare disease database as a reference. See her reference list with number 4 - the Rare Disease Database, and number 7, Oglesby Paul here, and see my reports here.
I would like you to also consider the fact that the best medical brains in Britain were recruited to study the problem, and it is easy to diagnose. Those researchers included Sir James MacKenzie, Sir Clifford Allbutt, John Parkinson, Sir William Osler, and Thomas Lewis, who was later knighted for his study of this topic. Similarly, some of the best researchers in the United States were assigned to study the problem, and they included Samuel Levine, Marcus Rothschild and Frank Wilson. See here, and my report here
However, my main critic, who is only an anonymous middle aged woman, of no known experience, expertise or even knowledge of the topic, but argued that it was just "a vague nineteenth century syndrome", and then wrote these words . . "we can't justify investing several editors time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article". See here. (Note that when she said "we", and "several editors" she was "only" referring to herself and her constant assistant who was always there to agree with all of her nonsense).
Consider also that the condition is seen in children, women, and civilians before they enlisted in the army, but she argued that "Soldier's heart" should be the "chief" alternative label. See here, and my report here.
Any administrator who reads Oglesby Paul's review of the topic will easily see that my main critic was telling a massive number of lies in her 12 months of arguments against me.
See Oglesby Paul's pages 306, 308, 311, and 313 here.
The editor who was relentlessly criticising me is a very stupid, conniving, manipulative, calculating and extremely deceitful individual who should be banned. See an index to my reports about her lies here.
Are you with me yet???
I know a lot about Da Costa's syndrome, so I know when my two critics are being 'stupid', but you might not.
However, supposing you was a meteorologist, and you knew a lot about the weather.
What would you do if an editor acted like a crystal ball reading circus gypsy who could read your mind, and she said something like this about you . . .
"he doesn't even "seem" to "understand" that it is all about "the weather" and not "meteors". e.g. See one of her ridiculous rants by reading the discussion here.
What would you do if they had been accusing you of breaking the rules with almost every word you wrote, and you tried to defend yourself by providing evidence that they were breaking the rules, and they responded by accusing you of being "rude", and breaking the rules of WP:Civil, and "Assume good faith" WP:AGF, and "No personal attacks" WP:NPA, and called it an "attack essay", and told you to stop using your page as a "Soapbox", and that you should be banned for Wikilawyering. I was just gob smacked by their never ending flood of ridiculous nonsense, and thought that they were both nitwits. e.g. see here
A summary of a year of disputes, and their Spin
My two critics were always losing arguments against me, so naturally, they wanted to get me blocked from editing, and they tried to do it by setting up pages for that purpose. However, they failed to get consensus, but on one occasion, "one" administrator threatened to block me anyway. On another occasion the consensus was clearly against them, and in another instance one administrator threatened to block me, but he didn't know that he was breaking the rules by making that decision while a proper process was still active.
A typical example of the trickery in their arguments is where they would take "one" of my references, by a medical consumer, to a "Reliable Sources Noticeboard", and then tell other editors that they got "100%" agreement that it was unreliable - but they didn't mention that I had 60 others from Da Costa, MacKenzie, Lewis, P.D.W. and Paul Wood, and journals such as J.A.M.A. etc,
They were always trying to make it look as if they were in the right, and I was in the wrong, but if you have a close look you can see that they were actually "whinging" about how many times they "lost" arguments.
This is the sort of thing they wrote . . .
"This has be trundling along for 12 long months now. We've "tried" COI 1, and then we "tried" COI 2, but we "need some more eyes" for a real consensus, and we've "tried" Wikiquette's Alert which became "stuck", and an MFD which failed for "procedural reasons", and we've got the "strongest consensus ever" from an RFC, and 100% of editors have agreed that his references are unreliable, but this disruptive editor is exhausting the patience of the entire Wikipedia community of rule abiding editors. We need a solution: the buck has to stop somewhere." (end of paraphrase). e.g. see here
Other editors would read that sort of rant, and conclude that I was an "evil troll", who needed to be "punished".
They invented fault with everything
Supposing Wikipedia policy said that you should avoid "original research", and that they "preferred" articles which "reviewed" the general iiterature on the topic. Supposing that the policy also said that you should not use articles from "magazines", but should supply information from top quality independent research journals, and gave the Journal of the American Medical Journal, as an example.
However, no matter how good my references were my two critics would just "invent" something to say which was wrong with it. For example, when I used a "review" from the "Journal of the American Medical Association", they would say something like this . . . "Oh yes but he "chooses" something which is "just" an "op-ed" which was written by a "non-expert". They were both offensive bullshit artists.
Wednesday's featured item
I provided Wikipedia with an article about Da Costa's syndrome, and supported it with 60 top quality references which included . . .
1.A study of 300 patients by Jacob Mendez Da Costa in 1871.
2. A study of 200 patients by Sir James MacKenzie in 1916.
3. A book by Thomas Lewis in from 1919, and the second edition in 1939. (Lewis was Knighted for his studies).
4 A review of the literature of internal medicine, by J.L.Caughey from 1939.
5.A 20 year follow up study of 173 patients by Edmund Wheeler, which was published in the journal of the American Medical Association in 1950.
What would you do if two anonymous editors deleted almost all of it and then tried to convince another group of editors that your use of references was unreliable, and didn't even meet Wikipedia's basic standards, by saying this . . .
"he then cites, say, a case study involving a single patient, to make sweeping statements about the condition".
See my reference list here, and their comments in their rant here.
Is history obsolete?
It took me five years of detailed assessment to conclude that the pressure on the chest and abdomen, due to poor posture, was the basic cause of the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome. In the next 20 years I was able to conclude that other factors contributed to the problem, such as a thin physique, abnormalities in the chest shape, and the tight wasted corsets worn by nineteenth century women.
In that process I was checking the literature to see if anyone else had made similar observations, and found many examples where the authors would mention the " typical" thin physique, or the typical stooped posture, or the typical chest shape, and in some cases they would include photos of patients with those features, or lists of the same symptoms for women who wore corsets etc.
However my main critic wants you to believe that I am a fringy kook with silly ideas so she wrote things like this . . .
"Posturewriter dedicates an inordinate amount of attention to concepts that were rapidly discarded (restrictive clothing causes DCS: rejected by J.M. Da Costa himself and not seriously entertained by anyone except Posturewriter himself for a century now) and to seriously outdated materials". See here.
While it is true that those physical features were observed and commented on 'a century ago', they have nevertheless, also been mentioned since. in the histories written by Thomas Lewis, in 1919, and Paul Wood, 1954, and one of her own references by Oglesby Paul, in 1987, and in many other publications. See my reference list, and numbers 1, 33, and 5. here, and one of my reports here
The 'selective' deletionist's
A.K.A. Deceit by Omission
Firstly a quote from Wikipedia
"We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge . That is our commitment—and we need your help." here.
In order to make the readers of Wikipedia believe that Da Costa's syndrome is a mental illness involving an anxiety disorder my two critics deliberately deleted all information about the typical patient having a thin and stooped physique, with a long, narrow chest, and other chest wall deformities, and they would not include a link to a reference which contained a photo of the life sized portrait of a typical patient which was displayed in the Museum of the Post-Graduate Medical School of London for several decades. See here.
They have also deleted my reports of all scientific studies of the 1940-s and 50's which discovered many physical and physiological abnormalities, and which mentioned those aspects. My complete essay can be seen here, and their article can be seen by scrolling down past the deletions here.
Information about the involvement of posture and, or physique, can be seen in the report of Jacob Mendes Da Costa, whose study of 300 soldiers, which was published in 1871, determined the name of the ailment, and in Chapter 3 of Thomas Lewis book of 1918/19. He was knighted for his research into this ailment, and Paul Wood O.B.E. who had a chapter in his book about it which had the full page picture of the thin and stooped physique of the typical patient. He was Britain's top authority on the subject, and Charles Wooley's history of the subject which reported on five of the main theories and labels in 1976. He was a world expert on the topic, and Harvard professor, Oglesby Paul's history of about ten of the main theories and labels in 1987. See numbers 1, 5, 11, 33, and 34 on my reference list here.
Comments about the typical physique are also reported in references number 4 (Paul Dudley White -1951), 23 (Sir James MacKenzie - 1916), and 36 (Hurst - 1974), and others.
By contrast my main critic is an anonymous middle aged woman who said that she is not a doctor, and has no intention of becoming one, and didn't know much about the topic until I started providing information for Wikipedia. In her personal opinion the information about posture and physique in the first five sections here, was deleted because it isn't worth mentioning. It is pitiful that she thinks that she now knows more about the topic than all of the 'real' experts in the history of the research.
However, her version of the article does not meet Wikipedia's goal of becoming the sum of all knowledge, and it does not comply with their requirements for 'neutral point of view'. She needs to be banned for sabotaging Wikipedia's main purpose for existing.
My main critic is always giving other editors advice about how to determine the reliability of information in publications, and has recently argued that they do not need editorial boards to do 'fact checking' because "One proper editor is sufficient to meet the policy requirements about 'editorial control'". See here.
I would like some of the other editors and administrators to read my references, and determine her own 'reliability' for fact checking - and 'supplying'. e.g. See also here and here and here.
The War of Words
On a recent episode of the TV show called "Fry's Planet Word", British entertainer, Stephen Fry, was discussing the fact that throughout history, the rulers and elite members of society were the only ones who could afford to learn how to read and write, and hence had the ability to control what the public thought.
He also mentioned that invading armies would burn the libraries to gain power over the people of that nation.
He then described how the invention of the printing press enabled the mass production of books, which made them cheaper and more readily available to the ordinary person, and hence produced the 'democritisation of knowledge', where vast numbers of people could learn and contribute to our understanding of the world.
He also mentioned the development of the first encyclopedia, which presented information in an organised manner, from every aspect of history, science and philosophy etc. Nevertheless, the choice of information was determined by the small number of elite individuals who wrote and published it
He then interviewed Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, who described the objective of providing the sum of all knowledge, from all people, and not just the elite.
In my assessment that original objective is good, but the information is now being controlled by anonymous 'edit war lords' who fill the pages with information that they want the public to know, and delete everything which they don't want them to see. (c.f. burn it).
They also conduct 'edit wars', and use Lart tools to drive out anyone who adds such information.
I have also concluded that some people join Wikipedia for the sole purpose of learning the rules so that they can achieve power and control over the content of articles. Furthermore, if they lose an argument they will write a new rule, and loopholes in the rules so that they can win all future arguments, and secure their position of control. Consequently when someone new joins up and adds information which such existing editors don't want the public to read they will say that is a against one of the rules, and delete it, and if they run out of rules to accuse someone of breaking, they will use the 'ignore all rules' policy to ban them.
What would you do if two editors did this to you?
What would you do if you had been told to use 'review articles' and not 'original research papers' as references, so you did, and they said it was just a 'routine review'.
What would you do if you was told to use review articles from top quality research journals, so you used one from the Journal of the American Medical Association, and they said that it was just an op-ed written by an author who wasn't an expert on the topic.
What would you do if you was adding information to the history section of the page and they told other editors that most of your references were 'old', 'out-of-date' and 'from before most editors were born'.
What would you do if you used a reference by a researcher who had been knighted for his contributions to medicine, and was the chairman of a meeting about the topic, and they told other editors that he was an ordinary man who just joined up and attended an ordinary meeting.
What would you do if you used a reference by one of the world authorities on the topic in 1951, and they deleted it on the grounds that it was 'old', and then used a research paper by the same author from 1941, in their version of the article.
What would you do if you used that top quality reference to verify 18 different statements, and they criticised you for using the same out-dated reference 18 different times.
What would you do if you provided scientific facts that were discovered and proven, and described in a 1951 book, and they deleted it on the grounds that the book was 'old', and yet the facts have not changed, and the book is still readily available in modern universities.
What would you do if you used that 1951 reference, and they told you that you had to take it to a 'Reliable Sources Noticeboard' to convince that group of editors that it was reliable before using it again.
What would you do if you used another reference and they deleted it as 'old', 'ordinary', unimportant, or 'rubbish', and later used one by the same author and argued that . . . 'he was a most authoritive member of a prestigious organisation in charge of the department which was devoted to the study of this very subject'.
What would you do if you started improving an article when it had absolutely no references whatsoever, and later, after you had added 60 from top quality research papers and books, they told other editors that most of your references did not even meet Wikipedia's basic standards.
What would you do if an anonymous woman told a group of editors that she didn't know much about the topic until you started adding information to it, and yet, within the first month she was acting as if she was a world expert, and was later casting judgment on minute details from your own ideas, and the finest details of the research papers of other authors from the past 140 years. See the paragraph here, and her comments about my ideas here, and her nitpicking of my essay here.
What would you do if you added information to a topic from reliable independent sources, and they deleted it on the basis that it was nonsense, and you later noticed that anonymous editors were adding exactly the same information to other pages about related subjects.
What would you do if you added a paragraph of useful and factual information to six different topics, and later found that they had followed you to every page, and deleted every word that they thought had been added by you, which hadn't already been removed by other editors.
What would you do if you responded to their relentless criticism of every type of reference you used, by adding six different types to support each of the most important statements, and you later found that they were describing that practice as 'non-encyclopedic' 'citation overkill' which made articles 'unreadable'.
What would you do if you just won an argument, and they told another group of editors that you lost.
What would you do if they just lost an argument, and said that the discussion 'failied' for 'procedural reasons'.
What would you do if two editors set up a discussion to get you blocked on the grounds of conflict of interest, and another editor said that they were both liars, and only one editor agreed with them, and they then spent a year telling many other groups that they won that dispute by 'consensus'. See here, and their admission of no consensus here, and their complaints about their failure to get agreement from the Conflict of interest noticeboard (COIN) here, and a neutral editor telling them that there was no evidence of conflict of interest in my article here, and there relentless complaints that I had a conflict of interest here etc. etc.
What would you do if two editors were telling lies about a topic, and told you to go away and prove that you was a good editor by adding useful information to other pages which had nothing to do with that subject.
What would you do if an anonymous editor told you that something in the "Related" section of an article, did not mean that it was actually 'related' to the topic, but had been put there by another editor just because he thought it might be interesting.
What would you do if they set up six different discussion pages to get you blocked, and then told other editors that they couldn't remember all of the discussions because they were spread over too many pages.
What would you do if they were criticising you on a dozen different discussion pages, and you didn't even know that some of them had started.
What would you do if the rules said that you could use common sense in determining page style and layout, so you chose to write the history section in date order, and used bold print for each year, and they said "we can't even get him to quit bolding the dates".
What would you do if they told lies about the rules, and they then told other editors "we can't get him to obey the rules even if he understands them.".
What would you do if they accused you if breaking dozens of rules, and then said "we can't be expected to tell him all the rules because is is like shoving beans up his nose".
What would you do if your references included studies of 300 patients, and 200 patients, and a 20 year follow-up study of 173 patients and they said . . . "he then cites, say, a case study involving a single patient, to make sweeping statements about the condition".
What would you do if there were no references on the page when you started, and the first three you added included one by the person who the ailment was named after, and the other two were books written by a person who reviewed the history, and who was knighted for his contributions to the research, and then you added 50 more in the next 12 months, and they said . . . "So he chooses a properly published secondary source -- but from nearly a century ago, and which is known to disagree entirely with current scientific consensus. No, we say: it needs to be a properly published, secondary source that is reasonably current.". e.g. see my first edit here, and their comment here.
What would you do if they said that you must find some modern references, so you supplied about ten, and they then accused you of disruptive editing, and then set up a discussion to get you blocked and banned.
What would you do if you defended yourself from constant criticism, and they told other editors that your response was a litany of 'complaints'.
What would you do if there were only two individuals constantly criticising you, and they tried to create the illusion that you have been arguing with dozens of people by telling other editors that 'we' keep telling you this, and 'we' keep telling you that.
What would you do if only two editors were constantly criticising you and one of them wrote that you was "exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors". See here.
What would you do if you had a sense of humour and saw their tactics as amusing, and they described your response as 'hostile sniping'.
What would you do if they asked for your personal opinion, as an expert on the subject, to answer some of their questions, and then said, that it wouldn't be used on the topic page, but give it to them anyway.
What would you do if they made several obviously sarcastic remarks, and then argued that they were polite editors, who never used sarcasm, and resented the accusation.
What would you do if you responded to relentless criticism by writing an essay about everything your two critics were doing wrong, and then they told other editors that it was "an extended personal attack" which breaks the rules which require everyone to 'Assume Good Faith' in others (WP:AGF), and later told them that it was an "attack essay", and that you were breaking the rules of their "No Personal Attacks" policy. e.g. here
What would you do if they told you to 'play the game', and 'obey the rules', or be banned, and later told their friends that the 'ignore all rules' policy should be the major policy.
What would you do if you considered their arguments to be childish and laughable, and one of them said that perhaps you was finding it unpleasant to work in an environment which required co-operativity, and that you might be happier if you got out of Wikipedia and found yourself another hobby.
What would you do if the rules of Wikipedia require all editors to be courteous and polite to everyone at all times, and you found out that they had been using 'attitude readjustment tools' to hound and harass you with inflammatory and provocative insults to drive you out of Wikipedia.
What would you do if they claimed to be respectable 'rule-abiding' editors, and you found out later that they had rewarded an administrator with a barnstar for being the only person who was willing to use the 'ignore all rules' policy to ban you.
If any member of the public joined Wikipedia today, and tried to add useful, scientifically proven facts, which were verifiable in reliable top quality research journals, what chances do you think they would have if those two editors started arguing about it?
Neutral Point of view about the cause of Da Costa's syndrome
The rules of Wikipedia require editors to present a neutral point of view in their descriptions of each topic. However, my main critic wants the readers to believe that Da Costa's syndrome is a set of symptoms which are caused by anxiety and classified as a type of mental illness called somatoform autonomic dysfunction. The general idea is that anxiety or fear affects to autonomic nervous system, which in turn affects the function of the heart and lungs etc. to produce the symptoms which include chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, faintness, and fatigue.
However, in order to make that idea sound believable she deleted the evidence that the chest pain could be caused by leaning at awkward angles, such as when bending to crank a car engine, and she deleted the scientific evidence that the symptoms are generally mild at rest, but mainly occur during exertion, and increase out of proportion as the level of exercise increases. She also deleted a 20 year follow up study which showed that the patients didn't suffer from any more of the other diseases which are generally considered to be caused by anxiety, than healthy people.
She also deliberately deleted evidence that the anxiety theories are only one group amongst hundreds of others, and that all of them have evidence in favor and against and that none have been scientifically proven, or universally accepted.
My main critic is an arrogant piece of work who thinks that she is more intelligent than anyone else and that all of the other editors and administrators of Wikipedia, and all of the readers are as dumb, naive, and as gullible as sheep and cattle, and that none of them have got enough sense to check the research history directly to determine the facts for themselves.
If anyone such as myself does know the facts, and provides the information to Wikipedia, she describes them as disruptive individuals with behavioural disorders who are interfering with her ability to write an accurate article. She then proceeds to tell lies, defame their character, and ignore all the rules in order to get them banned.
She makes a mockery of Wikipedia's objective of becoming the sum of all knowledge.
I can only hope that I am not the only person on the planet who is intelligent enough to see what she is doing, or the only one who has the strength of character to do anything about it.
The modern labels for that condition are the chronic fatigue syndrome or orthostatic intolerance etc. which affects more than 200 million people. See also here, and here, and here, and you be the neutral judge here.
Facts versus opinion
The symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome include occasional sharp stabbing pains in the lower left side of the chest. They can occur when sitting in a chair and reading a newspaper. (it is usually the only symptom they get at that time).
The breathlessness can occur at any time, but more often during exercise such as walking, especially up a hill, or when jogging, where the person may have to stop and take two or three extra forced, deep breaths, perhaps every fifty yards or so. (it is usually the only symptom which occurs at the lower level of exertion).
The faintness may also occur from time to time, but more often first thing in the morning, when the person gets out of bed and stands up suddenly. (It is usually the only symptom they feel when they stand suddenly).
As you can see the symptoms may effect one person, but they occur in different situations.
My main critic once argued that all of the symptoms could be explained by a bad breathing habit, and 'Hyperventilation syndrome'. See her ignorant and contradictory double talk here.
However, in her latest version of the article, which is still the current one in Wikipedia today, three years later, she describes it as an anxiety disorder where the person is in a constant state of anxiety. (where fear causes the pulse rate to increase, the breathing to become faster and shallower, and the person to become faint, dizzy and exhausted). See here.
In order to make her version believable she deleted all of the scientific evidence that each of the symptoms could occur at different times, in different situations, for different reasons, and arranged for me to be banned.
(Note that she also made her version sound believable by linking to official website's, lists, and dictionaries which give over-simplified summaries of the topic, and that she copied a small amount of the evidence of physical cause and treatment methods from me, but deleted most of it. Her version of the history section is also just a copy of the first part of the history that I wrote. She deleted the later 90% which covered the 20th century. The four lines of text that was in Wikipedia before I started improving the article can be seen here).
One of the editors should be investigated
The rules of Wikipedia were once few and simple, so it was necessary to have an "ignore all rules" policy to deal with any situation that wasn't covered. Essentially an essay was just an essay, a guideline was a set of instructions on how things 'should' be done, and a policy was a set of the most important rules.
I would like the founders and administrators to investigate the behaviour of the editor called WhatamIdoing who has been using sly and under-handed methods of changing the way those differences are interpreted, and has also been recommending that the 'ignore all rules' policy becomes the major policy, despite the fact that there are now hundreds, if not thousands of pages of rules. That anonymous person wants to control the interpretations, so that she can control the content of any article, in a manner that appears to be neutral and proper.
Such methods will be supported by the anonymous agents of any organisations who wish to control the information about their products, but are disruptive to Wikipedia's ambition of providing all information from all sources.
See my reports here and here and here
I have a right to defend myself
Two of Wikipedia's editors spent 12 months writing a countless number of lies and insults in order to defame my character and discredit me, and get me banned.
In defence, I have since presented some information about myself here, and here, and here.
Some examples of how those two anonymous individuals teamed up with ranting tirades of never ending criticism of everything about me and my contributions can be seen here, and here, and here.
According to the rules of Wikipedia they are supposed to focus on the content and NOT the person, here.
What would "you" do if this happened to you after you had been banned from Wikipedia?
Supposing you started adding evidence and proof on your own website that your main critic had told a massive number of lies.
What would you do if that individual then edited a page called "Verifiability" which states in the opening section "Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia" See my report here
Supposing you had started giving evidence that your main critic was disgustingly arrogant and offensively ill-mannered, and had been deliberately breaking the rules which require all editors to show courtesy and respect to everyone else at all times.
What would you do if that individual then edited a page about "Rudeness" and added some text which stated that "skillfully choosing when and how to be rude may indicate a person's pragmatic competence". here
Supposing you had been providing evidence and proof that your main critic was breaking any or all of the rules any time it suited them.
What would you do if that individual then edited a discussion page about the 'ignore all rules' policy which said that anyone can ignore all the rules if they think it is best for Wikipedia, and then recommended that it should be the major policy in Wikipedia.
What would you do if you found out that several months later that individual had 'secretly' given a barnstar to the administrator who banned you, because he was the only one prepared to ignore all the rules to do it. here See also here
I have discussed such things with my friends and assume that your reply would be the same as theirs, unless, of course, you had a prejudice and didn't care about the truth, courtesy, the rules, or the reliability of information that you read in Wikipedia.
Their "typical" Neutral point of view arguments
The hunchback poet Alexander Pope once described his 'headaches, indigestion, and a thousand other aches and pains'. He probably developed his spinal deformity at the age of three, as the result of being stabbed in the neck by the horn of a wild cow that had tuberculosis which can travel through the blood stream to infect the spine which collapses and heals in the permanently bent position. His later health problems would have been due to constant postural pressure on everything in his chest and abdomen, including his lungs and stomach.
By contrast some people stand bolt upright and have good health, possibly because they inherited an abnormally straight spine, or slept on a flat wooden bed when young, or because they injured several vertebra in a car accident, where a surgeon inserted a steel rod to ensure that the spine didn't collapse. There would not be any pressure on their chest and abdomen so their lungs and stomach would be able to function without impairment to ensure good health.
However, my main critic wants to create the false impression that most health problems are due to mental factors, so she would delete all of that information, and argue like this . . .
"We" "wise" people "all" know that confident little children sit upright with "pride" and grow up to be healthy adults with strong character, and straight spines. However, some children are sad and lazy and slouch and slump about, and cry a lot to get sympathy from their mothers when they cut their little fingers. They grow up to become slumped over slouchers who have mental disorders and poor character, and are always whinging about every trivial little ache and pain that "normal people" would easily ignore.
e.d. See what she deleted and replaced here, and one of Wikipedia's articles about posture here
Her team-mate would then join the discussion and say "Yup" - "are we all agreed then", and before anyone had a chance to comment, would add . . . "We", "the entire Wikipedia community" have now reached a 'consensus", so if any other 'f. . . cking editor, dares to change a single 'f. . . cking word', we 'the entire community', will ban the 'f. . . cking sucker' for 'disruptive behaviour', and for breaking the rules of WP:DE, WP:TE, Gaming the system, and Wikilawyering etc. etc. etc.' e.g. See here, and my report on how they fake consensus here.
My main critic, or one of her contacts, would then add a template to the top of the discussion which contained these words . . . "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" (end of quote), and then another template with the following words which I paraphrase . . . 'This article is now under the control and the watchful eyes of lovely neutral and unbiased editors who we call "WikiProject Psychology' . . . if you would like to participate you can join in and recommend changes.". See here
I don't wish to offend psychologists or psychiatrists in any way, but Wikipedia is not a psychology journal. It is an encyclopedia for all information from all sectors of society, so it is against the basic principles to have such individuals in charge of articles relating to anything.
My main critics style of editing, and her arguments about neutral point of view are a ridiculous sham.
See another example of how my two critics reduced ten points of view down to one here.
See my report on how they arrogantly refused to accept the recommendations of neutral editors about how the neutrality of an article could be assured. here
You can see the point of view of a neutral editor, and you can be the judge here.
My main critic is a copyright thief
Chronic fatigue syndrome and normal tiredness are different
When I became interested in medicine in 1975 there was the general prejudicial attitude that people with chronic fatigue were just whingers complaining excessively about normal tiredness.
I had to identify the differences, and in 1982 designed a research programme to scientifically prove that they were different, and succeeded. here
I have since spent thirty years writing articles, books, and my website to make those differences clear. e.g. here, and here and here. and here.
I started adding to the Wikipedia page about Da Costa's syndrome, where the main symptom is chronic fatigue, on the 9th December 2007 here, and added information about my own research a few days later on the 20th December. here
This is a quote from that section . . . "According to the programme designer, the variable nature in some of the results may have related to the fact that participants were recruited from newspaper articles about fatigue, and in reference to the dual meaning of the word that may have brought those with sleep disorders and exertional disorders, and those with a combination of both, to the course." (See the deleted text in the left column here)
My main critic did her first edit on another topic called "Fatigue (medical), a month later, on 13th January 2008 here,
She deleted my comments from the page about Da Costa's syndrome the next day, on 14th January, here.
She then spent twelve months trying to convince all of the other editors that my ideas were non-notable nonsense and eventually managed to get me banned on 28th January 2009. here and here.
She has also since become the highest contributor to the page called "Fatigue (medical)", with 53 edits up to now. here
Recently, on 4th March 2012, she tried to make herself look 'intelligent' and 'useful' on the page called "Fatigue (medical)", by editing it to make the distinction between 'normal tiredness', 'acute fatigue', and 'chronic fatigue' here. Naturally, in order to hide the fact that she got those ideas from me, she has searched for, and found other sources.
She has some very devious ways of stealing ideas, and collaborating with other 'anonymous' editors to do it. However, if my ideas were such non-notable nonsense when I added them, why have they become such important, accurate, and useful details when they have been included in that article by other editors???? See also here
The differences between me and my main critic
I spent thirty years of my time trying to solve a problem that no-one else could solve, and developing 'effective' methods of relieving the symptoms, whereas my main critic was trying to convince me that I was wasting my time.
Before I started editing the article about Da Costa's syndrome, it had been in Wikipedia for fifteen months and that editor had contributed to it twice. It was ridiculous and completely useless, with no mention of how to treat it. here
I was trying to increase human knowledge by adding a summary of all information from 61 top quality independent, peer-reviewed reference here, whereas an anonymous editor with the ID of "WhatamIdoing" was trying to retard human knowledge by using the loopholes in policy to delete information, and leave a biased article based on only 18 references which included 5 of my authors. here
That editor is denying the readers the opportunity to consider all of the useful and relevant evidence.
The two liars and cheats of Wikipedia
While I was in Wikipedia I spent about a year adding an average of a paragraph of useful information per week to one of the topics. However, within a few hours an editor would accuse me of breaking one of the rules, and the next day, another editor would agree with the accusation, and delete the information. The same two individuals took turns doing that each and every time, until ultimately I had been accused of breaking dozens of different rules here. My ID was Posturewriter (with 60 edits), and theirs were WhatamIdoing (with 30), and Gordonofcartoon (with 24) here.
It became a rather boring routine where I would typically add some information on a Sunday night, and a few hours later one of them would accuse me of breaking a rule, and the next day the other one would say "Yup", and delete the paragraph. e.g. see here
After 12 months Gordonofcartoon set up an 'Arbitration' page to get me blocked, However, by then I knew enough about their tactics, and the rules to be able to prove that they were liars, so I wrote a quick report on their 'pattern' of criticism, and advised the other editors that I would watch any further comments (which would obviously come from WhatamIdoing the next day) and present my final defence on Sunday.
My plan was to watch the discussion the next day, write some notes the next, and then gather some evidence to prove that those two individuals were telling lies the next, and submit my report on Sunday, as usual.
Naturally, I was not in the least bit surprised when WhatamIdoing added a hostile rant of criticism, and then an administrator barged in on the discussion and banned me immediately, before I had time to reply. Several months later WhatamIdoing secretly rewarded him with an "Outlaw Halo Award" - for 'ignoring all the rules' here. See more detailed reports here and here.
Extremely Childish editing practices
My main critic is an extremely arrogant, manipulative, and childish liar who acts like a prima donna and dishes out advise to other editors as if she is the owner and controller of the place. The amazing thing is her habit of criticising other editors for behaving that way - as if they "want to order around everyone else on the playground". e.g. here and here. Her own style includes using words such as 'very, very, very important', or 'much, much, much too much detail' or 'many, many, many admittedly complicated rules', and Yep, Yup, Oops, Whoops, and Aarghhh.
I joined Wikipedia to add useful information, not to argue with ignorant nitpicking nitwits
I have been interested in medicine for more than thirty years, and have had more than 100 items published in newspapers and magazines, and have written my own theories and books, and established my own website which had often been in the top ten list of the Google search engine for the topic of "Posture" - long before Wikipedia was invented.
At one stage I had more than 300 medical books in the shelves of my own home, which included Dorland's medical dictionary, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, and the 12 volume set of "The British Encyclopedia of Medical Practice" by Lord Horder who was "Physician to Edward VIII, George VI and Queen Elizabeth II; and also physician to two prime ministers, McDonald and Bonar Law, and labour leader Hugh Gaitskell". See here.
My collection of books covered more than a century, and in consequence I became interested in the history of medicine, and knew much more about it than the vast majority of modern writers who had completely forgotten a lot of useful information.
I joined Wikipedia in 2007 to give them the benefit of my knowledge and experience.
For example, the veins are blood vessels which have one-way valves, and when the blood moving up from the feet is blocked by the pressure from tight leg garters the vessels below swell out, and the flaps of the valves don't meet in the middle, so some of the blood flows backwards. Eventually those veins become permanently damaged with bulges and deformities that are called "Varicose veins". One of the causes is therefore tight garters, and one of the means of prevention is to not wear them.
When I added that information an editor said that he couldn't see a verifying reference and accused me of breaking the rules by adding original research (WP:NOR), and then deleted it. However, it was because I was new to Wikipedia, and didn't get the edit "codes" right, so it didn't appear in the reference list. it was from a book called "The Illustrated Family Doctor" (1935), published by Waterlow & Sons Limited, London, Dunstable, and Watford, page 692.
Six months later, on 27-7-2008 my main critic was trying to convince everyone that I was a useless, worthless, non-notable fringy kook who was adding nonsense and crap based on unreliable sources of information, and she used that deletion as an example. See my report here which includes this.
I therefore replaced the information with another reference. it was a book called "The Specialties in General Practice" (1951), page 48, published by W. B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia and London. The author was Russell L. Cecil, Professor of Clinical Medicine, Emeritus, Cornell University Medical College, New York City,
However three days later another editor deleted it with these comments "Please find a more reliable source WP:RS for garters as a cause of varicose veins than a 1951 textbook." here. See more information on causes here.
Some of the other editors, whose main interest is sport or opera, said that they had just spent five minutes 'reading a dictionary', and that her criticisms 'seemed' to be valid, and that I should 'follow her wise advice"????? and edit pages unrelated to medicine. I was given a link to 'random' articles, which led me to an article which is too ridiculously obscure to remember, but was something like "a rare Siberian moth".
I'm intelligent, not stupid, so I don't write about things that I have no knowledge of.
You don't have to give any reference for the obvious
According to Wikipedia policy, and an edit recently added by my main critic, it isn't necessary to provide a reference for something obvious such as 'the sky is blue', 'an apple is fruit'. See here and here. Consequently, any one who claims to have a knowledge of medicine should not require me to provide a reference which states that 'tight garters block the flow of blood and damage the one-way valves in the veins below'. The editors who deleted it on the grounds that my references were old, were breaking that rule. Also, if they knew anything about medicine they would be co-operative and find a modern reference themselves, or accept the "obvious" fact that garters are mostly out of fashion, and modern references are not readily available, or necessary.
Old scientific opinions obviously change, but old scientific facts just as obviously don't.
Extreme childish naivety about human knowledge
Wikipedia claims to have the ambition of eventually containing the sum of all knowledge, which brings up the colloquial expression . . . Some people are so naive that they think they can learn all about the world by reading the front page of this mornings newspaper . . . and others. . . like my main critic, are adults who are not quite as dumb as children. They think that they can learn everything which needs to be known by reading this months edition of their favorite research journal. See here and here.
How my courtesy was treated
Wikipedia has it's own set of policies which are essentially the rules and guidelines of how things need to be done.
One of the rules requires everyone to be courteous and treat each other with respect, so when I was given advice I would say 'Thankyou', and when giving my response to any criticism I would say 'Please consider this' etc.
However, my two critics were offensively arrogant, which is 'rude', and it was not long before they were choosing deliberately patronising words to create the illusion that they were mighty authority figures, and I was an obedient child.
They later set up a page called Civil POV pushing, where the title refers to people who are polite, but in the opinion of the accusers, is pushing their own point of view.
They were complaining because other editors had told them that I wasn't particularly rude.
They were being extremely offensive, and swearing with these words . . . "and so on and on and on and f***ing f***ing on". See here
One of them also admitted to using 'attitude readjustment tools' to annoy and provoke me, and make me act in a rude manner. Her objective was to make me be rude to her so that she could get me blocked for 'impolite behaviour', but she was becoming frustrated because she failed.
In future discussions they accused me of breaking the rules about 'Civility', despite the fact that I continued to be polite, and that my comments to them were only responses to their arrogance and rudeness to me, and were mild by comparison. They also continued to accuse me of rudeness despite other neutral editors telling them that I wasn't .
They continued to harass me with their rude and insulting remarks, so after about a year, when nobody had blocked them for being rude to me, I decided to tell them to stop acting like a couple of apes, beating their chests as they swung through the wiki trees. See also here
They then acted with furious indignation by setting up an Arbitration page where they accused me of breaking almost every rule in Wikipedia, including 'rudeness' here, and one of the admins "ignored all the rules" and banned me before I had the opportunity to respond to all of the accusations. See here
Since then one of them has added some paragraphs to the topic page of "Rudeness ", which states that it is 'intelligent' to use 'strategic rudeness' to achieve power over others. Another editor is trying to discredit my "Posture theory" and has added the following sentence to the Wikipedia article about posture . . . "The same body position in different contexts may carry other information. It was found, for example, that the greater the enslavement of a social group, the stronger the tendency of its members to express courtesy". (end of quote) here
Summary: When I was polite to them they were rudely disrespectful by treating me as if I was an obedient child, or one of their subordinate lackies.
They set up a page which had the purpose of accusing me of "politely" pushing my own point of view, without giving me the right of reply, and one of them admitted that she was being deliberately rude to me to annoy me in the hope that I would be rude in return. When I eventually responded in that manner, they arranged for me to be banned. e.g. see my report here
They are simply being immature' and childish by disobeying all of the major principles of good manners and were being immature by trying to make excuses for their offensive behaviour which is more accurately described as 'insolence ' and 'arrogance ' and 'snobbery '.
Consequently I do not owe them any respect, and will not give them any.
When they were insulting me all the time I felt like an island of rock in the ocean and they were just waves smashing their silly heads on my shore. They were being ridiculous.
An Open Letter to Jimbo Wales
the founder of Wikipedia
Jimbo, I have seen you on television saying how proud you are for setting up Wikipedia to become a respectable organisation whose aim is to compile all information from all sources in the world to be the sum of all knowledge.
However, I have provided evidence that one of your editors is a liar and a cheat who ignores all of the rules and principles of Wikipedia, and all of the rules of normal discussions, and selectively chooses who can add information and who can't, and which of it can be added or deleted. I want you to read the evidence thoroughly, and not ignore it, or say TLDR, or tell me that it isn't good enough, or hide it, or hope that it goes away,
I want you to tell me if that type of behaviour is what you envisioned, and if it is acceptable to you, and if it is what the readers and public can expect in the future, or not.
How she invented lies "instantly"
and faster than a speeding bullet
While I was in Wikipedia I gradually learned that their policy required me to provide information from "verifiable" "top quality", "independent", "peer-reviewed" "medical sources". It seemed reasonable to me, so that is what I did.
However, 95-99% of the criticism came from one editor and an individual who assisted her, but regardless of what I did, the criticism simply never stopped. For example . . .
1. An article about Da Costa's syndrome had been in Wikipedia for fifteen months, and she had edited it twice, but hadn't added any references at all. I eventually added more than 60, including the most important one by Jacob Mendez Da Costa from 1871. She told other editors that my references were unreliable.
2. Another one of my sources was James MacKenzie who chaired a meeting about the topic in 1916, a year after he was knighted for his contributions to medicine. She told other editors that he was just an ordinary man who attended an ordinary meeting back in the old days.
3, I also used a reference by Paul Dudley White because he was a top authority on the topic, but she told other editors that his 1951 book was "old", "out-of-date", and from "before most editors were born".
4. Another one was Oglesby Paul who was a Harvard professor, so I mentioned it to make the article interesting, and to indicate the reliability of his review. She told other editors that I had added his qualifications to make him sound important so that readers would believe what he wrote.
6. I also used a review from the Journal of the American Medical Association, but she said that it was just an "op-ed" written by a "non-expert".
She just invented ridiculous and twisted lies 'instantly' to such an extent that I have needed to provide an index to them here.
The other editors and administrators should be thoroughly disgusted with her extremely deceitful and manipulative behaviour, and for the great harm she is doing to Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source of information.
She is such a thoroughly disgusting person that she has the cheek to give other editors advice about the policy of using reliable sources of information. (e.g. shortly after I wrote the comments above) here.
She is a serial liar.
Her tangled webs and "never ending" circles of lies
where she tries to defend one lie by inventing more lies
An example: When she used a children's fiction novel in the article, without reading it and finding that it was irrelevant to the symptoms, she was foolish. When i criticised her for not reading it, she said that I was stupid for not knowing the difference between a link, and a reference, and for not knowing the difference between a hatnote, and a reference. Her team mate accused me of breaking the rules which say that I am not allowed to read it and give my opinion that it doesn't contain the symptoms. When I asked him to give me the page numbers where the symptoms were described he didn't, because he had obviously never read the book or didn't know where to get a copy, or didn't want to admit that it didn't mention the symptoms.
When a neutral editor told them that it was a silly thing to do, and deleted the link, they lost their argument against me. My main critic told another group of editors that I lost. She just kept on telling lie, after lie, after lie. See here and here and here and here and one of my reports here
The Cherry Picker
How can an editor highlight one sentence from a 250 page book as her reference number 6, and then try to argue that she wasn't "cherry-picking" information to push her own opinion. She was blatantly breaking the rules which require "Neutral Point of View', and was not presenting a balanced or sensible assessment of all the facts. See here
She wanted a plausible excuse for introducing the word "cowardice" to bolster her argument about the ailment being an anxiety disorder, but she did it in a sinister way to make her comment look like an act of kindness.
She is an anonymous middle aged woman who is afraid to tell anyone her real ID, and her bias is childish.
My main critic wants the readers of Wikipedia to believe that Da Costa's syndrome is a mental disorder which affects soldiers and is caused by the fear of battle, where there is no scientific evidence of a physical basis for the symptoms.
In order to create that impression she plucks items of verifiable truth from the article one at a time, as if they are cherries being picked from a cherry tree.
For example, in one particular week she will delete the comment that it is common in civilians and think to herself "Good, done".
She will check the article some time later and see that I mentioned that it is more common in women than men and can occur during pregnancy, so she will think - "that must go", and then delete it, and think to herself "Good, that will do for now: done".
She will check the article again and see that most of the soldiers who developed the condition during the war, already had the minor symptoms before enlising. She will think to herself and decide what to do, and then say to herself "we'll call that too much detail, and remove it", and then she will delete it and say to herself "that was clever, nobody will notice what we are really doing; good; done".
She will see information about the discovery of the scientific evidence of the physical basis for the symptoms, and the 1950 survey of 173 patients which showed that the patients did not suffer from any more diseases that are supposed to be caused by anxiety than other people. She will then think "Hmmmm, that needs to go, what should she do, and then she says - "it has to go because "we need modern references, not old ones", and then delete it, and think to herself - "Good that will do for this week: Done". See here.
She will check the article again during another week and see all of the scientific discoveries that were made in the twentieth century, and think to herself "Hmmm, what can be done about that?", She will then decide to delete the entire history from 1876 onwards and replace it with these words . . . "Since then, a variety of similar or partly similar conditions have been described." She will then say to herself - "that was clever; problem fixed"
e.g. See my version of the complete history here and her version here.
When you read her very small cherry-picked article which remains you will believe what she wants you to believe, because everything else that will make you think differently has been very carefuly removed with selective precision. She will then tell the other editors that I have to be banned because I was breaking the rules which require "Neutral Point of View"??? e.g. See her comments at the top where she accuses me of "pushing my own point of view" (POV) here.
See one of my reports on her deletion editing here, and the way she breaks the rules of the "Neutral point of view" policy here.
She described my "accurate" statements as "misrepresentation"?
I was telling the truth and she was calling me a liar???
In 1871 Jacob Mendez Da Costa described a set of symptoms which he saw in soldiers, which included faintness and fatigue. It was so accurate that it became known as Da Costa's syndrome. In 1915 James MacKenzie was knighted for his contributions to medicine, and in 1916 he chaired a meeting about Soldier's heart, in which he attributed the fatigue to the abnormal pooling of blood in the blood vessels of the abdomen and periphery, which reduced the efficiency of blood flow to the brain. He also said that the best previous description of the ailment was by Da Costa.
In 1998 David Streeten wrote an article for JAMA in which he suggested that their reports were "early descriptions of the symptoms of orthostatic intolerance which "sometimes accompany the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)". He mentioned that there was a "newly recognised" delayed form which occurred after standing upright for 10 minutes. He also added that "it is inappropriate to consider that CFS is a manifestation of mental disorder unless repeated measurements with the patient both in recumbency and after standing or tilt testing have shown that blood pressure and heart rate are consistently normal." here.
My main critic produced a very small version of the article by "copying" all of that information from me, and using the same references by Da Costa, and MacKenzie, and added one of her own which was the OMIM website. See here. Her own reference states that the symptoms of Orthostatic Intolerance were similar to those seen in the Chronic fatigue syndrome, and could be traced back to Da Costa's report. See here.
However she wanted everyone else in Wikipedia to think that I was a stupid liar so that she could get me banned, so she wrote the following criticism on the Arbitration page . . .
"By "misrepresenting", I mean, for example, that an op-ed piece whose sole mention of DCS is this statement: "It has been speculated that the severe fatigue associated with neurocirculatory asthenia, termed irritable heart syndrome by Da Costa1 and soldier's heart by Lewis2 during World War I, were early descriptions of the symptoms of orthostatic hypotension" has been transmuted in Posturewriter's draft to say, "In 1998 David Streeten presented an article in JAMA, explaining that the fatigue reported by Da Costa and Lewis were early descriptions of a “newly recognised” delayed form of orthostatic hypotension which is a feature of some types of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome." See here.
She has two faces and speaks with a forked tongue
My main critic criticised and deleted all of my sources of information as being unreliable, and argued that everything that she used was reliable, even if she used the same authors after finding out about them from me. For example . . .
Paul Wood was a top authority on the topic in England, so I also used one of his lectures from 1941 as my reference number 4 in December 2007 here. I later used a chapter his book from 1956 as reference number 33 here, She deleted them and used one of his lectures from 1941, and in the meantime told another editor this . . .
"Please explain why a report by Paul Wood, MD, FRCP, published in BMJ, is "unreliable." On what grounds, exactly? Are you aware that Paul Wood was a physician at the National Hospital for Diseases of the Heart, in the Effort Syndrome Unit itself? Do you think he somehow held that position without knowing anything about the sole subject of the entire unit? here. and see her reference number 5 here, and my reports on her ridiculous double standards here and here.
The two magicians of Wikipedia
Now you see it, now you don't!
Two editors relentlessly followed me to every page I went to for 12 months, during which time they told lies and defamed my character in every way possible. e.g. here and here, and here. and here and here.
When they started harassing me on my own UserPage I felt somewhat trapped with my back to the wall and nowhere to go, so I decided to write an essay about them and put it at the top, so that anyone who went to my page could see their comments in the appropriate context.
I didn't study or know the names for all of Wikipedia's rules, so I wrote a description of their inappropriate and unethical behaviour in plain English, together with links to all of the evidence and proof that what I said was true.
They called my defence "an attack essay" and continued harassing me until I was banned, and then my UserPage, which included that essay, was deleted so that no-one could see the evidence against them, so I have put it onto my own webpage here
They were like a couple of magicians full of tricks up their sleeves, and ways of making the evidence against them disappear.
The opinion of neutral editors
While I was writing an article about Da Costa's syndrome I was constantly being hounded and harassed by two editors who were insulting me and nitpicking and deleting every word I wrote and trying their hardest convince everyone else that I was a stupid fool.
However, they became very agitated and hostlle when neutral editors gave opinions about me which upset their smear campain.
Guido den Broeder . . . wrote these words when they accused me of having a conflict of interest . . .
"I don't care what he may have done half a year ago. He does not need to be stopped, since he is not promoting anything or adding any original research to the article now." (See the end of the first section here)
SmokeyJoe . . . wrote . . . "I am assuming that Posturewriter is a well qualified academic individual," here
Avnjay wrote this about my essay on the topic. . . "To be honest, in my opinion, it's actually a lot better and far more detailed than the one that is currently up and I can't find anything which is COI, unsourced . . . or biased." here
A general observation . . . made five months after I started editing that article . . . "he's not particularly rude, so why bother blocking him? here
As you can see, according to the neutral editors I wasn't rude, I wasn't stupid, and I wasn't writing a biased article, and in fact, one of them said it was 'a lot better', than the one controlled by the two arrogant and snotty little grubs who called themselves "WhatamIdoing" and "Gordonofcartoon".
Drowning them in their own bullshit
There are many advantages in being polite, but it didn't do me any good in Wikipedia, so since I was banned I have been lowering myself to the level of 'strategic" and "instrumental" "rudeness' to match my two critics on their own terms.
They will never write a policy about double standards???
While those two editors were tag-teaming to criticise me I was studying their behaviour and how they interpreted the rules, and at one stage I mentioned the extreme double standards and was told that there wasn't a policy about it, and was never likely to be one.
This is a very brief introduction to their double standards . . .
1. The truth doesn't matter when they tells lies, but your article has to be accurate.
2. They can use the 'ignore all the rules' policy, but you have to obey them or you will be banned.
3. They can use 'strategic rudenes' for 'instrumental purposes' because it is a clever way of breaking the rules about good manners, but you have to be polite to them at all times.
See also my reports here and here and here
Wikipedia should not be a place for 'grubby' victim blaming exercises
The topic of Da Costa's syndrome in Wikipedia looks as if it has been written as a victim shaming and blaming page where all of the scientific evidence and proof of physical cause has been carefully deleted and replaced with psychiatric explanations and labels. e.g. see the evidence included here, and excluded here. That page is essentially just a calculated appeal to prejudice.
She has a history of insulting new contributors
My main critic insulted me for 12 months as part of her edit war aimed at provoking me into insulting her back so that she could accuse me of breaking the rules against 'personal attacks', and get me banned. According to another editor she has a history of joining personal attacks on other new contributors, but she ignores the criticism, and nothing has been done about it. e.g. See here and my reports here and here.
On behalf of all of the new contributors who she has harassed in the past I am happy to do something to stop her from annoying editors in the future.
200 million people
There are two hundred million people who have the same type of chronic fatigue described in Da Costa's syndrome, though it has be given many other labels. Those people have families and friends, and I would like them to use my main critics own methods to make her time in Wikipedia so difficult that she leaves and never goes back.
She edits anonymously with a Wikipedia ID, and refuses to give her real name. She is rude, and tells lies, and puts people on a watchlist and hounds and harasses them with nitpicking criticism, and deletes almost every word they write, and she ignores all the rules, organises secret edit wars, and uses 'attitude readjustment tools'. See also here. Good luck!
Human experiments in Wikipedia
My main critic is an arrogant individual who boasts about having an annoyingly high IQ here, and considers herself to be a member of some sort of master race who can use other editors as part of her experiments in human behaviour.
She reminds me of a scene in an old movie where a sane man was claiming compensation for the pain and suffering caused by an injury incurred in an accident. The lawyer was harassing him with questions and innuendos about his personal life, and had sent him to a psychiatrist for assessment where he was branded with labels of mental illness. After some time the man became nervous, agitated, angry, and depressed, when the lawyer told the judge . . . 'See I told you he was mentally disturbed, and that the pain was caused by his psychological condition and not the accident, and now you can see the evidence in his behaviour.'
There is a page in Wikipedia about the subject of rudeness where my main critic added some comments which include the following words . . .
"Sometimes, people deliberately employ rude behavior's to achieve a goal. Early works in linguistic pragmatism interpreted rudeness as a defective mode of communication. However, most rudeness serves functional or instrumental purposes in communication, and skillfully choosing when and how to be rude may indicate a person's pragmatic competence.
Robin Lakoff (1989) addressed what she named 'strategic rudeness,' a style of communication used by prosecutors and therapists to force their interlocutors (a courtroom defendant or patient) to talk or react in a certain way. Rudeness in everyday speech "is frequently instrumental, and is not merely pragmatic failure" (Beebe, 1995, p. 154). Most rude speakers are attempting to accomplish one of two important instrumental functions: to vent negative feelings, and/or to get power (Beebe, 1995, p. 159)." (end of quote) here
My report about her methods of hounding and harassing editors with 'attitude readjustment tools' can be seen here
These facts are relevant to Wikipedia: Any editor who is rude is breaking the rules of 'Civility', 'No Personal Attacks', and 'Disruptive editing', etc, and will be banned.
Administrators who don't ban them are being negligent and irresponsible, and abusing the 'ignore all rules' policy. Lawyers and therapists whio behave like that are guilty of 'professional misconduct'.
The addition of links to lists of Psychiatric labels
If you have another look at the Da Costa's page you will be able to find that it is linked to several hundred psychiatric labels through the classifications at the top right of the page of ICD-9, and ICD-10 lists. You can then check the bottom of the page to see the categories of 'Somatoform disorders' and 'Anxiety disorders' with links to more labels.You can see how someone who wants to define it as a mental disorder in any one patient can easily use those links to do it. For example, if the person is not anxious, it cannot be an anxiety state, so they could argue anything they like, such as the persons behaviour is suspect therefore they must have a behavioural disorder, and then say - 'we told you so, it's mental not physical'. See my report here
They are inventing psychiatric explanations for everything
There also appears to be other editors in Wikipedia, and on other website who are inventing new psychiatric labels, with the effect that any human condition (normal or otherwise), which is not in a category of psychiatric disorder already, will be in the future. Hence any sane man who has any physical symptom can be branded as mental eventually.
They are trying to discredit my theory
A final aspect relates to the fact that I provided Wikipedia with evidence that an infectious illness in childhood can cause nausea, vomiting, and weight loss which is accompanied by a weakness of the bones which causes the spine to collapse into a slouch, and in turn places constant postural pressure on the chest and abdomen to cause a multitude of symptoms later in life, such as Da Costa's syndrome.
Since then!!! an editor in another country??? has written a page in a foreign language called Posture (psychology). It has been translated and transferred into the English version of Wikipedia by an editor named Penbat, and is now their number one article about posture at the top of their list (which is not correctly positioned in alphabetical order).
Note that my webpage contains pictures of poor posture, and tight corsets to show how compression of the chest and abdomen is the physical cause of many symptoms. The Wikipedia article has pictures of a sad looking man with poor posture, and women wearing tight corsets to make their posture upright. They are trying to create the idea that a persons posture is an indication of their mental state. e.g. depression or low-self esteem.
They have deleted all evidence of the real physical causes of spinal deformity (on the page about my theory, and, the topic of Da Costa's syndrome), and replaced them with the minor influences of mood in their new article about posture (psychology)
Hence you could easily consider another situation where an editor could argue that poor posture is caused by sadness and other emotional states, and then say 'see, we told you so, it's caused by mental factors not physical problems' etc. etc.
Some of the editors are "Gaming the system", or should I say 'playing games with my theory' in an attempt to discredit my theory and me. See also here
Everyone should be concerned about this because there are enough psychiatric labels to brand any sane man on the planet with dozens of them, to suit any purpose.
My main critic is a scientific deletionist who has removed all of the verifiable evidence that the chest pains, breathlessness, and fatigue of Da Costa's syndrome have been scientifically proven to have a physical basis, as described in top quality, independent, peer-reviewed medical journals and books.
She is also a foolish Scientific Denialist because she argues that such researchers as Sir James MacKenzie, Paul Dudley White, and Paul Wood O.B.E. are not reliable sources of information, and that the evidence which they provide isn't good enough. She also tries to hide the evidence in jargon to give the false impression that it doesn't exist. e.g. See the discussion here, and one of my many reports here
She is a pompous self-defeating idiot
She told me that I would lose an argument against her because my references were 'old', 'out-of-date' and 'from before most editors were born', and were therefore unreliable sources of information, and she gave the example of chapter 22 in Paul Dudley White's 1951 book. See my reference number 4 here, and an example of her criticism of it here,
However, her list of references contains a research paper by the same author from 1941 (ten years older). See her reference number 6 here.
She also said that I was "mad" at her, when if fact she was "mad" at me (and tempermentally on the verge of tearing her hair out), and she argued that I was pushing my point of view, when I had just criticised her for disruptive editing, and she said that I used an "iguana" lizard website as a reference, when, in fact I had used a specific webpage on that website, and it was about the many labels which were considered to be the same as the chronic fatigue syndrome. See reference number 15 here, and that webpage here
You can see that she was constantly telling lies and defaming my character, and she relentlessly denies everything, obviously with the belief in the principle 'deny, deny, deny'.
She is a traitor of all of the standards and principles of ethics and science.
One of the many disputes about Neutral point of view
My main critic managed to get me banned by arguing that I was interfering with her attempts to write a good article about Da Costa's syndrome which represented 'neutral point of view' (NPOV).
Her version places it in the category of 'somatoform disorders' which involve imaginary symptoms, or symptoms which appear to be physical but are caused by the mind here.
My version stated that some people were born with the condition, and that it could affect them when they were children, and be related to their physique and physiological abnormalities here. I supported those statements with top quality references. See also here
She deleted all of that information from the text, and the referencess, which don't appear in her version here.
She then wrote the following words on an abribtration page to make herself look 'neutral' and and me look as if I was pushing my point of view (POV) . . .
"I'm tired of the POV-pushing and the edit wars (which he's currently blocked for). This editor is apparently not capable of editing without pushing his POV." (end of quote).
Those comments can be seen at the end of her hostile rant which is saturated with lies here
(Note also that I had not been blocked for edit warring).
She was ridiculous
My main critic spent twelve months trying her hardest to make me angry but she failed because her methods were incompetent and laughable. She then tried to convince other editors that I was angry at her anyway, by writing words like this . . .
"Hi Posturewriter, The difference between templating a real article, like Da Costa's syndrome, and making notes to myself in User talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox is enormous. I know that you're mad at me because I oppose using your iguana website to 'prove' that Da Costa's syndrome is a subtype of Chronic fatigue syndrome, and that I've been insisting that you quit relying on a 1951 book, and so forth. But you're going to lose: the sources that support your POV simply are not reliable" (end of quote) here
I wasn't mad at her because I was too busy laughing at her ridiculous nonsense.
The 'templating' of a 'real article' which she refers to was just her 'copying' 'my essay' onto her sub-page called a sandbox, and then nitpicking it here. The reason that she copied my essay was because she didn't have enough confidence to write her own version of the article and let the neutral editors decide which one was the best.
The reference which she referred to as "my iguana website" was not mine, but was written by a medical consumer named Melissa Kaplan, and it contained a webpage which was specifically about the topic of CFS here.
The reference which she called "a 1951 book" contained chapter 22 which was written by Paul Dudley White who was one of the world's top authorities on the subject and had been studying it since 1919.
They were only two items on my list of 61 references here, which were a lot better than the very small list of 18 on her preferred version here.
When she said that I was going to lose, she meant that she was going to get me banned, but she didn't mention that she was going to give a barnstar to the administrator for 'ignoring all the rules'. here.
She was thoroughly ridiculous.
If you are an honest rule-abiding editor you will be utterly disgusted with the way she puts so many lies into one small paragraph, and demand that she be permanently banned.
However, if you are prejudiced, or brainwashed by her tactics you will think that she is justified in telling those lies, and believe her excuses for each of them.
One of her tactics
One of her many tactics was to deliberately tell a lot of lies so that I would argue with her, and then she would accuse me of 'tendentious editing', and 'a disruptive 'pattern' of behaviour', and then tell other editors things like this . "'His interactions with anyone that doesn't agree with him rapidly devolve into hostile sniping" here
What she doesn't say is that if she told the truth, I wouldn't have any reason to criticise her.
An editor who defended her
An obviously prejudiced editor recently described my criticism of her as 'soapboxing' and 'disturbuing', and will 'fall on deaf ears'. e.g. here, and that I was trying to "trash the editor" here, and that the "evidence is insufficient"here, and was calling my evidence a "smear campain" against her here,
It simply doesn't matter how much evidence I provide, or what forum I take the dispute to because she will just get a friend of hers to support her and ignore all of the rules 'again' and 'again' repeatedly until she gets her way - as always - with anyone who disagrees with her. See my index to her many lies here, and also my report on the editor who was recently defending her here.
She is an internet mimic of obsolete scientific attitudes and practices
She is the internet clone of the nineteenth century editors and scientists who were hell bent on convincing the public that negroes were just savages from the African jungle who had smaller brains and were intellectually inferior to white men. They measured the brain size of smaller blacks, and deleted the information about taller negroes, and then argued that smaller brains had less intellectual power than larger ones.
Controlling the POV pushers in Wikipedia
One way to stop people from controlling content would be to make it a rule that all individuals edit on a one year on, and one year off basis. Unfortunately the most dominant editors are content and policy dictators, so they won't allow such a rule to be introduced. However, I would be very happy with the idea because only two tag-teaming individuals were constantly disrupting my contributions. Their ID's were WhatamIdoing, and Gordonofcartoon, as you can see here.
My legal rights
When Charles Darwin wrote his theory of evolution he wanted to avoid the controversy relating to the idea that humans evolved from monkeys, so he didn't publish it until he found out that someone else was about to publish a similar idea and get the credit for it.
However, I have actually published most of my ideas, and avoided the personal effects of controversy by not including photos of myself in any of my essays.
Nevertheless I have a legal right to claim authorship of my own ideas, particularly where I developed them due to circumstances where nobody else had any satisfactory explanations for the problems that I was trying to solve.
They include the idea that the fatigue of Da Costa's syndrome is due a blood vessel disorder, and that it can be diagnosed with tilt-table tests and exercise tests, and that the symptoms can be relieved and managed by maintaining exercise and lifestyle within limits.
A lesson for my two critics - the mushroom farmers
"You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time", and I don't care how many people you make look stupid, gullible, useless, and ridiculous, because you definitely haven't got enough brains to fool me, and neither of you have got any ethics.
Stop treating the public as if they are just mushrooms who you can keep in the dark and feed on bullshit.
See also "Straight from the horses mouth" here
Another report relevant to the issue of the "truth" in Wikipedia can be seen here.
In Wikipedia the Truth doesn't matter
Sensible members of the public would assume that the only information that is kept in Wikipedia is scientifically proven facts and verifiable truths.
However that is definitely not the case.
They have a rule called "Verifiability" which states in it's opening paragraph . . .
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" here
There is enough double talk in the full paragraph to allow a devious editor to include anything he or she wants.
I saw those words after noticing that my main critic had joined a discussion where other editors were trying to improve the policy about the reliability of list entries and references, and then I told them that she should not be allowed to contribute because she was an untrustworthy person who didn't bother to read many of the references which she used herself.
I have recently seen her edits which indicate how she is linking to essays which have some useful application, but also provide editors like herself with a storehouse of 'convenient' "excuses" for putting lies into Wikipedia, and are sometimes 'disguised' as "humor".
One such essay is called "Wikipedia:The Truth" which she put into the category of "Verification". here
Another essay is "Wikipedia:Wikipedia is Wrong" which she also put into the category of "Verification". This is a quote from that page . . . "sometimes things that are true cannot be included", and this is another one about using information published in other places. . . "If what has been published is incorrect then these errors will be replicated in an encyclopedia" here
One of these references is wrong
I expalined how she added some references to the topic of Da Costa's syndrome which had "opposite" statements. For example, reference 7 was by Oglesby Paul which stated that the condition was "common" (click here to see for yourself), and Reference 4 was a webpage called the "Rare" Disease database (click here).". At least one of them was wrong (see my full report here)
The proper and responsible thing for her to do would be to admit to her mistakes etc. However she didn't.
The proper thing for the other editors to do would be to check the evidence and set up a discussion to ban her for damaging their reputation for being a reliable source of information. They should have also fixed the mistake by deleting the Rare Disease database from the list, but they didn't.
However, I will give a brief outline of what actually happened.
The editor at fault accused me of block evasion (for criticising her while I was banned, and asked someone to report me).
Another editor with the ID of Doc, which links to User page Doc9871 states that he is not a doctor, and admits that he acts like an administrator, but is not an administrator here. (Does that make him a faker or a fraudster?)
He appears to have suddenly entered the discussion? (Did she send him an email?)
He said that the evidence wasn't good enough, and that I was using the page as a soapbox for a smear campaign against the editor who was telling lies???? here (No evidence would be good enough for him)
I am old enough to be his father, but he eventually tried to act like a senior high school teacher talking to a disobedient teenager when he pompously used the word "Enough" here and I was blocked. Some people would say "Enough" to a disobedient dog.
The discussion has since been hidden from view, and the last time I checked it could only be seen by clicking a "show" message in the appropriate level of the page. Nevertheless a link is still acive with the discussion viewable at the end of the page (you can see it by clicking here). In this instance he says I should take it up at the ANI (an administratiors noticeboard) which I might do later, but he is avoiding his responsibility and should also take some initiative himself.
My main critic told some more lies on the talk page of my ID address, and I provided the evidence to prove she was lying (see here). She threatens that I will be blocked if I give any more evidence against her.
The net result is that she and her friends created havoc and confusion to evade, delete, hide, or block the evidence, so I will try to make it clear.
Summary - to make things obvious and clear
1. She has used two references which contradict each other on the page about Da Costa's syndrome (one says it's common, the other says it's rare), and the other editors haven't fixed the problem by removing the wrong one.
2. I proved that she was continuing to tell lies about the inappropriate closure of the RFC discussion, and the other editors haven't banned her for telling lies.
3. None of the other editors have taken responsibility for correcting her error, and banning that liar, but they have blocked me because in their opinion, I haven't provided enough evidence? and am a banned user who is breaking the rules of block evasion by using the wrong discussion as a soapbox for a smear campaign????
I am not running a smear campaign, I am telling the truth and giving evidence that she is a liar who needs to be permanently banned because she is damaging Wikipedia's reputation for being a reliable source of information. More proof can be seen via my reports here
Corrupt editing practices
It is obvious that some corrupt individuals and highly paid propagandists want to hide the truth from the public so they would join Wikipedia and write the policies to make the deletion of inormation easy.
This is a quote from the relevant policy as of 2-2-12 . . .
"Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. They work together to determine content, so editors should understand the key points of all three. Articles must also comply with the copyright policy". here
I added studies which scientifically proved that the fatigue was real from 1916, the breathlessness was real from 1947, the chest pain was real from 1956, and earlier. My main critic argued that because those scientifically proven facts support my own theory that they violate the policy of "orignal research" and do not represent "neutral point of view" and deleted them. She left the page with the category of imaginary diseases at the end (Somatoform disorders). A lot of my ideas were then transferred to other pages such as "Orthostatic intolerance" in breech of my copyright.
Scientifically proven facts from top quality peer-reviewed sources do not change, and it is actually a violation of many other policies to deleteverifiable information. For example, the main, and highly promoted objective of Wikipedia is to provide the public with the sum of all human knowledge. i.e. The truth, the verifiable truth, and all of the verifiable truth, not just bits and pieces of it.
Wikipedia is an Edit War Zone
Regardless of what you think about me, Wikipedia is a very hostile edit war zone where anonymous individuals and groups try to win so that they can control what the public does, or does not know or learn by reading it.
The winners then want the readers to believe that what they see represents "Neutral Point of View". See my report on their edit war methods here.
Why I don't go back into Wikipedia
The two editors who criticised me in Wikipedia were pathological liars, and the editor who banned me used the ignore all rules policy. I was then told that I could appeal the decision?
I assume that my readers are intelligent and will know how stupid that is without me having to spell out the details.
While I was in Wikipedia my main critic, who is much younger than me, was an anonymous middle-aged woman who stubbornly refused to identify herself to prove that she did not have a financial, or other vested interest which was responsible for her bias. She behaved like a typical shrew and was ill-mannered and hounded and harassed me with her stupid and deliberately annoying questions, and she lied and cheated her way through arguments. She and her team mate wrote so much pure bullshit that other editors, such as EdJohnston responded with words like this . . .
"There are several editors active in this COI report who should be able to review any changes." (end of quote) See the first sentence here.
In fact, the only editor who joined the discussion was Guido den Broeder who was always arguing with those two individuals and criticising them for making statements which were not true. You can read their conversation of several thousand words and judge for yourself (click here)
There were no other editors discussing the issue, and I was blocked before I arrived to present my side of the story.
They later set up another discussion called an RFC where the admin who blocked me was breaking the rules by ending it while I was still trying to write an essay for a neutral editor to judge independently.
After the neutral editor said that my article was a lot better than theirs they set up another discussion where an admin suddenly barged in and ignored consensus and all of the other rules to ban me on his own. Several months later my main critic gave him an "Outlaw Halo" award for ignoring the rules.
When I considered the possibility of appealing the ban I saw instructions which said that I must convince the panel that I am prepared to assume good faith in the editors who banned me and will do what I am told when I get back, I have got no intention of following the advice of ill-mannered liars and cheats.
I would like the other editors and administrators to permanently ban those two individuals, and if they don't, I would like the readers and members of the public to take some action to ensure that the people who are controlling Wikipedia are honest and reliable.
My main critics use of policy makes her look stupid in 30 seconds
My main critic claims that she can become an instant expert in any narrow subject here, and that she didn't know much about Da Costa's syndrome until I started editing the topic here.
However, she spent the next twelve months acting as if she knew everything about the topic and I knew nothing, and telling everyone else a pack of lies about me, the topic, and the reliability of my references.
I have been studying this subject for thirty years and can prove that she is a stupid "instant expert" in 30 seconds, because she does things in such a hurry that she hasn't got enough time, or sense to read her own references.
Please set your stop watch.
In her version of the article she places it in the category of imaginary illnesses (somatoform disorders) which you can see at the very end of the page here
In her reference number 5, on page 770 it states "There are three good reasons why the pain is not imaginary" See the opening words of the third paragraph here.
Thankyou for your valuable time. Please tell your friends by phone, email, or twitter.
I had provided verifiable scientific proof that the symptoms had a physical basis, but she was childish, and was deleting most of that evidence and "loading" the page with her bias that the symptoms were imaginary or psychological in nature.
My two critics are Your problem, not mine
If you are a young person paying insurance and superannuation, you expect that if you ever get an illness, that your doctor will be able to diagnose it and the insurance company etc will pay you your entitlements. However, if at some time in the future, you become ill, there is a fair chance that you will be told that there is no way of scientifically testing or proving it. You will then be referred to a psychiatrist who will give you a few labels, and you will be denied your entitlements on the grounds that nothing physical could be found, and that it is just "all in your mind". You will, in that process be called a coward, a fake, a lazy person, or a mental case.
My two critics are not your solution to that problem; they are part of the problem. I therefore suggest that you keep a record of everything they have written, and if and when you find yourself in the same predicament, that you arrange for them to be permanently banned.
At the moment you are healthy, and it is probably beyond your comprehension to think that it can and does happen all the time, to people just like you,
What are their motives for hiding scientific information
I would like you to consider why my two critics systematically deleted the scientific evidence that the chest pain, the breathlessness, and the fatigue of Da Costa's syndrome are real, and why they tried to argue that it was not the major type of chronic fatigue syndrome. See here and here and here
Without the evidence you won't be able to succeed in claims for compensation etc, so in that regard the deletion of that evidence from Wikipedia is a case of my two critics committing the criminal offense of obstructing justice.
Medical consumers organisations, and other groups who are interested in the rights of patients should thorougly investigate their motives for editing in that manner.
The motives of my main critic in particular, could involve an association or allegiance with the insurance or pharmacological industries. In that regard, the lack of scientific information available to the public would mean that insurance companies could save billions of dollars by not having to pay entitlements, and the drug companies could make billions in profit from patients who don't know how to control their symptoms by physical means, and have to rely on medications which cost them up to, or more than $100 per week, making them a human cash crop.
See my comment on a picture of a 'plateful of colorful pills' here, and another editor commenting on the 'sheer number of medications' recommended, and their ineffectiveness here, and my report on the relationship to that topic here
By the time I was 35 years old it was obvious to me that I had the good fortune of being able to solve some major medical mysteries, and, despite the fact that my ideas had not been published in formal medical journals I had the evidence to prove it in other sources. It was also obvious to me that some people had put a lot of time and effort into gaining Universtity qualifications, and had then spent a decade or two trying to solve the world's problems, but unfortunately had not been successful. Given the nature of their objective there is no shame in that. However, some of them think that the only people who have a 'right' to solve problems, are qualified like themselves, and that 'ordinary' people are not entitled to try or get any credit for that. They are seething with resentment and 'academic jealousy'. My two critics fit that description perfectly.
My main critics childish editing practices
While I was in Wikipedia I was confronted by an individual was always telling the other editors that my references were unreliable, so I decided to use one of hers to support my statements. It was Oglesby Paul's history of Da Costa's syndrome and it became obvious that she had not even bothered to read her own references. I called Oglesby Paul a 'notable medical authority' (see here), and she said 'neutrality disputed'. Paul said, in the third paragraph of his introduction that it had an unknown cause here, and she said 'citation needed'. Paul said in his conclusion that it was easily diagnosed with these words "The diagnosis is usually not difficult for an interested reasonably intelligent physician"(end of quote), and she said 'citation needed'. He reviewed ten theories which had been used in the past, and when I described them as 'popular' she said 'by whom'. Paul said that none had been proven, and she deleted nine and left her own prejudice that 'anxiety' was the cause. Paul said this . . . "It is important to be able to recognise the condition irrespective of the label used."(end of quote). He reported that it has been common in the past, and despite the change of labels, it was still common, and she deleted that statement and added a link to a website called the "Rare diseases's DataBase". See an example of her childish editing here, and part of my report here and here
Note also that Da Costa's syndrome is also commonly discussed by fifteen year old teenagers in their first year of medical school, and can be accurately and reliably self-diagnosed by any patient of similar intelligence.
The new 'label'
I know that Da Costa's syndrome is the main type of chronic fatigue syndrome, but I also know that a fussy pedant would try to dispute that for 'technical' reasons, so at one stage I added some information to the page to say that they were similar, and I used one of the top authorities in history of the topic as a reference (Paul Dudley White). My main critic then argued relentlessly for months about it, but if you have a look at her version of the article you can see that she wrote exactly the same thing, except that she used jargon instead of plain English with these words . . . "The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome" here.
Orthostatic intolerance is due to a weakness in blood flow which can be measured when a person moves from the laying to standing position. The same weakness of blood flow causes the fatigue. You can also see her reference number 11 (the OMIM website here). This is a quote from that site . . .
"This syndrome, first described by Da Costa (1871) . . . is similar in many respects to chronic fatigue syndrome (Schondorf and Freeman, 1999)."
See also my report here
I can use her article about Da Costa's syndrome to prove that she is a liar in a few seconds
If you place a Da Costa's patient on a bed and measure their pulse rate and blood pressure when tilting it at different angle there will be changes in pulse rate etc that are different to healthy people, so those physiological changes can be used to diagnose the ailment.
This is what my main critic wrote in her version of the article on 26th January 2009. . .
"a physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities" (See that comment by scrolling down to the text here)
This is what she wrote on the Da Costa's syndrome talk page half a year earlier on 7th June 2008 . . .
"Some researchers will tell you privately that giving someone a DCS diagnosis before giving them a tilt-table test is malpractice" (See here)
Note also that DCS is the abbreviation for Da Costa's syndrome, which is the label that was previously used for the chronic fatigue syndrome. See my report here
You can see that she also mentioned Oglesby Paul's research paper, and you can read my report on her blatant lies about it here.
Paul states on page 311 that according to Cohen and White the condition affected 2-4% of the population at the average age of 25 years. See here. That amounts to a total of 200 million people in the world. Anyone who tells lies about that many adults is an idiot who should be diagnosed as a malevolent sociopath.
(in confidence - now you know the truth)
Privately, my main critic, and her "colleagues", know that Da Costa's syndrome is a real physical illness which can be proven to exist by scientific tests on a tilt table. However, publicly, she and her team mate spent twelve months arguing that it was a mental illness based on the vague 'self-reports' of patients where there is no physiological evidence that it is real.
e.g. See here, and the article which remained after I was banned here.
Note her ridiculously biased choice of references and notes here, and her attempts to associate it with trivial or imaginary symptoms by including the category of Somatoform disorders at the end of that list, which links to this list here.
Would you just sit back in your comfortable lounge chairs and let her describe the illnesses of your own children and parents as being mental, when she knew that it wasn't true, or would you actually do something constructive and effective to stop her.
Surprising or Not?
If I had been told that it was possible for a shameless and prolific liar to become the sixth highest contributor to policy and control 2000 pages in Wikipedia, I would not have believed it unless I saw it with my own eyes, and now I have the evidence to prove it. I also have a responsibility to tell the founders, the administrators, their readers, and the public that the Wikipedia ID of that anonymous editor is WhatamIdoing, and that she was assisted on one topic by Gordonofcartoon.
She is anonymous but claims to be intelligent because she has university qualifications, but won't tell anyone what they are. I can only assume that it is a B. A. (a degree in bullshit art), and that she fits into the category of O.Q.U.B. (over qualified and under brained). She wants you to believe that because I don't have a degree that I am a stupid fringy kook.
However, when I was a teenager I found myself arguing against other people who would claim that little green men from Mars had landed in the hills in their flying saucers and were about to invade the earth, or that their mothers could gaze into a crystal ball and predict the future, or that you could break a forked piece of stick off a tree and use it as a divining rod to locate water under ground. Also as an adult, every major radio announcer in Adelaide will remember me from my arguments with top scientists and professors who claimed that Agent Orange was safe enough to drink, Maralinga fallout was harmless, and cigarette smoking did not cause lung cancer etc.
The reason that I argued when I was young was because I found it to be easy and amusing. As an adult I found that it was necessary for someone from the general public to challenge professional bullshit artists. In Wikipedia I was arguing with a couple of idiots who were acting as if they were children playing an internet game. e.g. see here. They were treating the readers as if they were as gullible as sheep and cattle, and they were playing war games, and acting like ugly trolls, and Wicked witches, and recruiting mischevious monkeys in their attempts to drive me away. e.g. see here and here
Burying my opponents in their own bullshit
One of my methods of arguing was to bury my opponents in their own bullshit. For example, when someone told me that they could predict the future by looking at the pattern of tea leaves in the bottom of a tea cup, I would ask them to give me their own money so that I could bet it on the winner of a horse race, and give them half the winnings. I would then wait for their ridiculous excuseses for not giving me their money. When a University professor said that Agent Orange was safe enough to drink I asked him to prove it by giving a glassful to his grandchildren but, of course, he wouldn't. When two critics in Wikipedia linked a childrens fiction book to a medical topic, I asked them to give me the page numbers where the symptoms were accurately described, but they gave a series of excuses for not doing that, and changed the subject to hide their mistake from other editors.
Please give me 5 minutes of your precious time . . .
reading this section and the links to the evidence.
This is what two neutral editors did - They suggested that each of the three people involved in the dispute should write separate essays about the topic of Da Costa's syndrome, and let the neutral editors decide which one was the best.
This is what I did - I wrote such an essay. I also accepted the fact that the two "biased" editors would continue to write thousands of words of insults and criticism against me until I was banned. You can see my final description of their unethical tactics two days before that happened here.
This is what one of my two 'biased' critics did - He blatantly refused to write such an essay here, and accused me of deliberately breaking fifteen of Wikipedia's rules here.
This is what my other biased critic did - She arrogantly ignored the option of writing a separate essay and just cut and pasted mine onto one of her pages and added more than 80 comments of nitpicking criticism here.
She doesn't give a dam about Neutral Point of View. For example, she wants readers to believe it is a post-war syndrome so she deliberately deleted the information that most soldiers already had the minor symptoms before enlisting. She also deleted the fact that it is common in civilians, and can affect children, and is more common in women than men, and that it can be caused or made worse by pregnancy.
She doesn't want medical consumers to have any say in articles about their own ailments, so she deleted a link to Melissa Kaplans webpage, and a 20 year follow-up study of 173 patients in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Obviously she doesn't want neutral editors making any decisions about 'neutral point of view' unless they agree with "her own point of view". See my report here. She also doesn't give a dam about the quality of her references unless they support her bias, so she used the "Rare diseases database" as her reference number four here, despite the fact that it is common.
It would be completely and utterly impossible for any honest new contributor to win an argument against those two deliberately offensive liars and cheats.
The two biased little snots of Wikipedia
For 140 years the people who studied the medical condition called Da Costa's syndrome could be divided into two main groups.
1. Those who were trying to find scientific evidence of a physical cause.
2. Those who were arguing that there was no such evidence, so therefore it must be a mental disorder involving imaginary symptoms.
I had those symptoms in their most severe form in 1975, and my doctor said in a professional and friendly manner, that he did not know the cause, and could not explain the symptoms, and his medications were not relieving them, so I began studying the problem myself.
I found that it was called Da Costa's syndrome, and that the physical basis of the symptoms had already been proven, and began writing my own theories about the cause.
Thirty years later I joined Wikipedia and added some of that information, but was confronted by two editors who were filling the page with psychiatric emphasis and labels, and deliberately, and systematically deleting all of the scientific proof of physical cause, with great precision.
They argued that I had a conflict of interest, and managed to get me banned on the grounds that I was being disruptive to their attempts to produce a good article because I kept on putting the verifiable scientific proof back.
They want the readers to believe that their version of the topic represents a 'neutral point of view'.
Aint they a couple of precious little snots.
(Both sides were in my version of the article here, before more than half of it was deleted and replaced with their biased one-sided view here).
(Brainwashing techniques include washing away one side of a story so that the reader thinks he is seeing all of it, and sincerely believes it to be reliable and balanced truth).
Injustice in Wikipedia
There was no neutrality in the decisions to block and ban me
The decision to block me was made before I gave my side of the story here.
I was criticised without being invited to give my side of the story here.
The decision to ban me was made without me being given the opportunity to respond to this criticism here.
It was comparable to being in a boxing ring where one boxer has lead in his gloves, and the other has his hands tied behind his back. The game was rigged by a grubby cheat, and the outcome was ridiculous.
My book called "The Posture Theory" describes the physical basis for many health problems, and an editor named Penbat set up a page in Wikipedia to discredit it. His article is called Posture(psychology) here. He has also established a page called 'Setting up to fail' which describes 'sham investigations'. "lambs to the slaughter', and 'wild goose chases'. e.g. here.
For example, my main critic, who called herself "WhatamIdoing", would delete a reference on the grounds that it broke the rules about "original research" and say that it must be a review article. I would provide a review, and she would reject it on the grounds that it was old, and tell me to find a modern one etc. She just invented excuses for rejecting everything I added. e.g. See my report here. She would also advise me that the correct place to discuss an issue was on the Da Costa's syndrome talk page, not the topic page, and when I recommended an improvement for the topic page she would say that the evidence wasn't good enough. She set up several 'investigations' such as MFD's and ANI's but she would ignore them if the decisions went against her and then set up another 'investigation' until she got her way.
She is a manipulative idiot who thinks she is clever and important but I was laughing at her making a pest of herself with bullshit, and telling my friends that she had the brainpower of a rabbit.
It was obvious to me that she wasn't going to stop rattling here silly beak until I was banned.
She made mountains out of molehills
The reliability of references disputes
The Da Costa's article had been in Wikipedia for fifteen months and my main critic had edited it twice, and yet it still contained only four lines of text and absolutely no references whatsoever. See where she edited it here, and when I started on it here.
During the next 12 months I added more than 60 top quality references which included some by Da Costa, MacKenzie, Lewis, Wood, and White. By contrast she only added about a dozen which included a dictionary, two volunteer websites, and links to a children's fiction novel.
In order to make herself look useful and important and me look ridiculous she wrote words like this about ONE of my references in just two days, in her frenzied attempt to get me banned . . .
26-1-2009 She wrote these words on the Da Costa's syndrome talk page . . . "shall we take this step by step? Nearly all of your sources are unreliable in terms of Wikipedia's policies. I realize that you won't take my word for it. I'm willing to discuss your sources, one at a time, at Wikipedia's Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which is where questions of this type are usually settled. Does that work for you?"
She added these comments about an hour later on the same page to create a sense of importance and urgency . . .
"Because of the time zone complications, I decided to start tonight anyway. I picked the iguana website for the first source to contest. It's at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome". here
27-1-2009. She wrote a lengthy rant on the page called the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (RSN) which included these words . . . "Posturewriter, this source does not meet Wikipedia's standards. All sources must meet the requirements of the basic policy. This one does not. If you can provide a reliable source that includes this information, then the information may be included. But this source itself may not." here
27-1-2009 She said this on the arbitration page to get me banned . . . "Posturewriter's use of references frequently, perhaps even usually, does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards. For example, a recent RSN question produced 100% agreement that the personal webpage of a patient is not a reliable source for facts about diseases. Posturewriter has argued that neutrality requires him to include facts asserted by "medical consumers". here
As you can see, one of her styles of argument is to make mountains out of molehills. She ranted on like that about one reference by a medical consumer. My other sixty references were medical research journals and books.
See also here and my report here, and note that that my reference was the medical consumer's webpage about CFS, and my main critic was misrepresenting it as a website about iguana lizards. She was trying to make me look ridiculous. (You can also see my report on how she tried to discredit other references here and here)
My main critic tells the lies that a lot of people want to tell, and a lot of people want to believe, and that very few people have the courage to criticise. They haven't got enough sense to consider the consequences to their own lives, or that their own decisions will be ruled by the bullshit they read.
Another lie has been told in the past - that the gas chambers of Auschwitz concentration camp were shower blocks, and nowadays people complain and say 'how could it happen' and 'why didn't somebody do something about it at the time'. The same reason is evident today in Wikipedia.
They described my contributions as nonsense
There are about 7 billion people on this planet and many of them have health problems. i am one of them. in 1975 my doctor said that he didn't know the cause, and the treatments were not relieving the symptoms, so I decided to try and solve the mystery myself. Over the next five years I made detailed observations of my own symptoms and described them in about 12 essays which were published in the Australasian Nurses Journal.
I concluded that poor posture was compressing the chest to cause chest pains, and the lungs and breathing muscles to cause breathlessness, and I eventually considered the possibility that pressure on the air in the chest could be blocking blood flow and damaging the blood vessels of the abdomen to weaken the blood flow to the brain to cause abnormal tiredness and fatigue.
About thirty years later I co-operated with another person to get those ideas onto a page in Wikipedia but it was deleted because my essays were only available in the crypts of Australian state libraries, and the editors could not verify that I actually wrote them.
Soon after that I found an article about Da Costa's syndrome, and added a smaller amount of information from my theory there, but was criticised for including it, so it hasn't been there since January 2008.
However I then started adding information from independent research journals and books but two individuals were describing me as a non-notable fringy kook who was filling Wikipedia with rubbish and nonsense and interfering with their attempts to produce a good article, and they managed to get me banned. Their version has the ailment in the category of imaginary symptoms called 'Somatoform disorders'.
Neutral Point of View in Wikipedia
In 1916 Sir James MacKenzie described how the fatigue of Da Costa's syndrome was due to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal veins which affected the efficiency of blood flow to the brain.
In 1947 S.Wolf described his x-ray studies which showed that the breathlessness was due to abnormal movements of the respiratory muscles.
In 1956 Paul Wood (O.B.E.) described how the chest pains could be relieved by injecting a pain killing drug into a precise location in the muscle and tissue between the lower ribs. He also said that one of the causes might be faulty posture.
My main critic deleted all of that 'independent' information and replaced it with her version of the topic, and as I said before, she included it in the category of imaginary symptoms called somatoform disorders.
She than arranged for me to be banned by arguing that I had a 'conflict of interest' that was making me write a 'biased' article, and that I was disrupting her attempts to produce a good quality article from a 'neutral point of view'.
I criticised her three years later on a page where she and other editors were discussing the importance of providing reliable information to their readers, and an editor named Doc, who is not a doctor, blocked me. He then argued that he didn't need medical qualifications to be able to make the decision.
The Motives my main critic has for telling lies
At this point in time the insurance industry is able to deny hundreds of millions of people their entitlements to insurance payouts and compensation on the grounds that there is no scientific evidence that their illness has a real physical basis. They then argue that the symptoms must be trivial, imaginary, or all in the mind.
I spent 12 months writing an article for Wikipedia about the history of a common medical condition called Da Costa's syndrome. My main critic spent much of her time systematically deleting each item of evidence that the physical basis of most of the symptoms had been scientifically discovered and proven, and she made sure that the page was kept full of text, references, and links to hundreds of different psychiatric labels.
I don't know if the insurance industry, or some other organisation is paying her to do that or not, but she needs to be put in jail for obstructing justice.
There are several new modern labels for Da Costa's syndrome, with the main one being the chronic fatigue syndrome.
If medical consumers don't do something about this, I don't think anyone else will. Other people need to be aware that they can find themselves in exactly the same predicament in the future.
My main critic is a liar and a cheat
I have provided evidence and proof that my main critic is a prolific liar and a shameless cheat, and she can't prove me wrong, but she sometimes tries by telling more lies. e.g. here
She responded by saying this
"repeatedly calling me a liar is a violation of WP:No personal attacks" See here
She is telling lies about that policy so I will quote from it and provide the link . . .
"Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.( end of quote) here
I am providing the evidence and the links and diffs to Wikipedia so I am making serious accusations properly, which means that I am not breaking any rules.
You can see how she has been manipulating the rules to keep the evidence out of sight of other editors and administrators.
I would like any of the administrators who value honesty and integrity to ban her.
Her corrupt way of getting me banned
When a neutral editor told my main critic that my essay was a lot better than hers she went into a jealous rage of ranting lies and criticism and started to plot and scheme to get me thrown out of Wikipedia. She later told more more lies to a dozen editors on an arbitration page. She then obviously bribed an administrator by telling him that she would give him a pretty barnstar if he ignored all the rules and banned me on my own before I had the opportunity to prove she was telling lies again (See here and here)
She was desperate to avoid the risk of neutral editors making a decision in my favor again.
She now wants other editors to believe the ridiculous illusion that I was banned by a fair process which involved the consensus of a dozen sensible, neutral, and respectable rule-abiding editors. See some of the evidence here
Good manners in Wikipedia
This is a quote from the Wikipedia policy about good manners, called WP:Civil . . . "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative. See here
This is a recent and typical example of the type of lies that my main critic tells about the policies . . . "Civility is not friendliness or cooperativeness. It would be nice if all of us were friendly, cooperative people, but we don't actually require that. See here
I warn you in advance that if you discuss this with her, she will give you an excuse.
See more examples of her inappropriate attitude and violations of the civility policy here
Mirror, mirror on the wall
Does the Wicked Witch of Wikipedia have good manners?
Please show me in her own words, not pictures!
The following text was written by my main critic. However, I have deleted my ID and the topic of Da Costa's syndrome, and replaced it with her ID, and the subject of Women's Rights.
My purpose is to give you another perspective on exactly how disgusting her manners are. Her words were as follows . . .
"This is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor case, but it may illustrate some of the damage: We have identified a one person account, run by an anonymous individual who "just happens" to be a middle aged woman. Her real article, "Women's Rights", was deleted as non-notable through AfD. A few days later, she decided to hang her idea on the peg of "Premenstrual Syndrome" (a vague 20th century idea, generally considered a psychosomatic anxiety disorder). It's overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia, so we can't justify investing several editors' time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article and discrediting her personal views. Considering the basic priorities, the goal for this article is to have it not actually be actively wrong while we deal with more important articles, like Meningitis or Mental health.
. . . She's (finally) mostly given up on getting her name and her website (with her expensive self-published book for sale) in the article. She comes by every week or two and adds bona fide medical publications on the subject -- but always and only those articles which support her particular views. Of course, the condition is entirely related to females, so most of the refs are from uneducated women.
No men have ever supported her view. Five editors have directly told her that using Wikipedia to promote her personal ideas is not accepted. We've been at this for more than six months, and she's undeterred in her overall goal . . . My existing attitude readjustment tools apparently don't reach as far as her village in Africa, and the editor remains unscathed.
It's back at WP:COI/N for a second go-round. I expect no practical improvement: she's not particularly rude, so why bother blocking her? Unless I'm willing to undertake a concerted campaign to drive away the editor by convincing her that Wikipedia is controlled by a particularly rude version of the Ghosts in a dungeon, then I'll probably still be removing the same trash and leaving the same explanations and warnings on talk pages at the end of the year.
And that, by the way, is the only effective solution currently in place: When I am no longer willing to put up with this self-promoting nonsense, I can team up with other disgusted editors to be so mean and rude to the SPA that she leaves in disgust. It's not just the good editors who can be driven away by bad behavior. Unfortunately, every time someone resorts to that approach, Wikipedia's reputation is damaged . . . Her entire statement could, and in my opinion should, be handled in the footnote. An enormous amount of garbage crawls into her writing this way.
In the end, she puts a lot of effort into achieving very little, and requires an enormous amount of other editors' time to prevent the article from turning into objects promoting her POV. I am running short on the patience to continually explain basic issues because I no longer have any hope that she is willing to apply Wikipedia's core principles, even if she understands them, because the actual scientific views disagree with her personal POV. Her interactions with anyone that doesn't agree with her rapidly devolve into hostile whinging. (I recommend looking over her user talk page.) I'm tired of the POV-pushing and the edit wars (which she's currently blocked for). This editor is apparently not capable of editing without pushing her POV. I understand: she believes that her ideas about breast cancer and pills have practically saved her life. But it's not appropriate for Wikipedia.
I think that a broad topic ban (including Women's Rights, Women's Health, and any articles even slightly related to Premenstrual Syndrome, Pregnancy, Post-Natal Depression, or the Menopause) is an appropriate outcome.
We need another solution." (end of quote) signed by The mirror of my critic, 02:25, 18 May 2008 See here, and the end of her rant at 20:25, 27 January 2009. See here
(As I said at the outset, this was not about the content, but about the arrogant, ill-mannered and disrespectful style of writing used by my main critic. The section above was added in mid December 2011).
A bit of calm and common sense assessment is required here
When my main critic accused me of an enormous amount of hostile sniping she was not telling you that for every paragraph of useful information that I wrote once per week, she and her team-mate would write two paragraphs of criticism each, or four times the volume of words, often within a few minutes of me adding the information. You also need to take into consideration that I had to deal with those two ranting fools, when no-one else was involved. My main critic was also regularly doing 100 edits a day on other topics. One of the reasons that I didn't do more than one or two a week was because If I made ten comments a day they would have criticised me 40 times a day.
They would also ask me to prove the obvious. For example, if I said that water was wet, they would say "Posturewriter, we have told you repeatedly before, but you never listen to us. You cannot add any information to Wikipedia unless it is supported by a reference from a top quality independent research journals in the past two years. We have told you before, and we are telling you again, we are not interested in your stupid idea that water is wet". See my report here
To give you a more pertinent example, I have said in my theory that poor posture can strain the muscles of the back and compress the chest, the lungs, and the stomach to eventually cause backaches, chest pains, breathlessness, and abdominal pains. My two critics told the other editors that all of my ideas were "fringy ","self-promoting", "nonsense", and "crap", and argued that they were mostly, if not all based on references that don't even meet Wikipedia's basic standards of reliability. What they didn't tell them was that my article about Da Costa's syndrome contained more than 60 references, and that their small list only contained 18, and about half of them were by the same authors as mine.
As far as the chest pains, breathlessness, faintness, and fatigue of Da Costa's syndrome are concerned, I have suggested that they may also be caused by poor posture, but my two critics want you to believe that 200 million patients are imagining them, or that they were all soldiers, and that the only possible cause was the fear of battle.
One of my supporting and verifying references was Paul Wood O.B.E.
According to Wikipedia policies anyone can add any information to an article as long as they can verify it from top quality independent sources. One of my references (number 33 here) was a book by Paul Wood who was Britain's top authority on the subject in 1956. My main critic also used a different reference by exactly the same author, and when challenged about his reliability and authority, she defended it vigorously here. This is a quote from his book pages 939-940, which describes the chest pain . . .
"It is immediately abolished by the intramuscular injection of 2ml. of novocaine at the site of maximum intensity of tenderness . . . it arises locally in muscle or fascia, and suggests that it is related to 'fibrositis' and low back pain. It may be initiated by fatigue or strain of respiratory muscles in cases with respiratory neurosis, by strain of certain muscular attachments involved in such actions as cranking a car engine or lifting a heavy weight, by incessant or by faulty posture. It is exaggerated or perpetuated by the belief that it arises in the heart." (end of quote).
Note the obvious fact that anxiety neurosis is not the "only" cause, and that not every patient worries about it being caused by their hearts, which leave the obvious possibility that there are cases where 'faulty posture' is the 'only' cause. As I said before, my theory has evidence to support it from top quality independent sources. See also here
The most logical sequence is this . . . poor posture causes the chest pains, and the chest pain causes some people to worry about their hearts.
My main critic wants you to believe that anxiety causes chest pain, and that posture has absolutely nothing to do with it. She is a fool.
My main critic spent 12 months telling me to be polite while she was trying to convince everyone else that I was stupid
My main critic spent twelve months hounding and harassing, and defaming me with lies and nonsense to get me blocked and banned from Wikipedia, so since then I have been providing evidence and proof of her massive number of lies.
However, she always has a way of casually convincing the other editors that the massive amount of evidence against her simply doesn't matter. For example, she recently wrote these words. . . "The blocked user now has his own website, where he vilifies me personally but has completely stopped harming Wikipedia . . . Difficult blocks are too often greeted with hand-wringing about how awful it is that the biased, hateful, power-tripping admin interfered with this person's human right to edit Wikipedia" (end of quote) here
She was deceiving them in her "typical" way again, because she wants all of the editors and members of the public to believe that she is a very respectable rule-abiding editor of great authority and prestige. However she didn't tell them that decisions to ban someone are very serious, and need to be made by a consensus of about a dozen "uninvolved" assessors, and not by one admin who did it by using the "ignore al rules" policy (WP:IAR), and who she later rewarded with a "barnstar" called the "Outlaw Halo Award". See my report here
She thinks that I, and the other editors, administrators, and members of the public are as dumb and gullible as sheep and cattle. e.g. see the illustration at the top of the discussion here
(You won't notice this either, but my website has been established since 1994, long before Wikipedia, but she wants you to believe that I started it after I was banned, just to vilify her. Did she fool you? - if she did, then you now have some insight into how she does it.)
One of the problems of this page is that I am not particularly interested in criticising Wikipedia itself, but mainly just two individuals, and others who share their attitude and style. My main critic is an extremely arrogant, ill-mannered, and manipulative individual who knows that there are some other editors who want to decieve the public in the same way, and that there are some who are naive, and will come to her defence in order to protect Wikipedia's reputation, instead of solving their problem by banning her. Now it is the pathological liars and the highly paid professional liars who control Wikipedia.
When a neutral editor described my version of an article as being a lot better than hers she started a furious and spiteful agenda of revenge which didn't stop until she succeeded in getting me banned. See the third sentence here, and her rant of nitpicking here, and her silly arguments on the arbitration page here
She has been a major contributor to policy and medical topics for several years, and yet she is a prolific liar, so unless the founders or administrators arrange for her to be permanently banned they do not deserve to be regarded as a respectable organisation or a reliable source of information. e.g. See one of my many reports here
I was educated to establish facts and evidence, so I am truly astonished that she hasn't been banned already. I am also truly amazed that anyone such as herself can consider themselves to be intelligent when they leave a trail of evidence in Wikipedia, especially when you consider that people who join are advised that everytning they write will be on the permanent record.
The History of Official Modern Mainstream Opinion about hysteria
According to my main critic everything in Wikipedia must be consistent with modern mainstream opinion otherwise it is old, out-of-date, and obsolete, or it is just the non-notable nonsense of fringy kooks, and will be deleted.
She is the type of person who has failed to learn from history, and is destined to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, which is okay for herself. However it is not acceptable for her to be making me or anyone else the victim of her failure to learn one of the most valuable lessons in life.
To illustrate what I mean I will give you a brief account of one of the official mainstream medical opinions of past centuries.
The word hysteria comes from hyster - the womb, and ia - the state of, and means illness caused by the womb. It was once thought that the womb was like a small animal which sometimes wandered up to the stomach to cause stomach pain, or kept walking to the chest to cause breathlessness, and up the throat to the head to cause headaches.
We now all know that the womb does not, and cannot dislodge itself from it's position to move about and cause such ailments, but that idea has been replaced by equally dubious concepts about the mind supposedly causing the same set of symptoms.
The fact to be learned from history is this. Just because something is 'modern', or 'mainstream', or 'official' in the dark ages, or in the 17th, or 21st centuries, doesn't make it true.
It just means that some people believe it themselves, or want you to believe it, and that people who don't consider the facts and evidence, and the history of the world, will believe it.
Information Control Freaks
From my observations of the editing practices of Wikipedia it would be very easy for any large company to pay someone to write, change, or add policies which enabled them to exert complete control over any article, and hence world knowledge and opinion, related to their products. They would also be able to get a consensus of agreement from their associates, or like minded individuals, or co-operation from the young, genuine, and honest, but naive and gullible editors and administrators. For example, the "ignore all rules" policy would be a magnet to all grubby cheats, pathological liars, and control freaks, and yet, many anonymous editors are scheming to keep it, and make it their major policy.
There is a petition against the abuse of that policy, which seems "proper", but it is just a childish and ridiculous diversion from the real issue of whether or not it should be deleted altogether. See here, and my report here
The Pyramid Scheme
Wikipedia structure has some of the features of a pyramid scheme where the people who got their first write all the rules to suit themselves, impose all the rules on everyone else, and know how to ignore or avoid them to get their way. The people who join now have to argue with the individuals who have been writing and using thousands of pages of rules for many years, so it is an uneven playing field.
For example, if you was to add that 'water was wet', it is quite possible that someone would delete it by arguing that 'in Wikipedia the truth doesn't matter', and then harassing you by saying 'we have told you before that Wikipedia is not a democracy or a bureaucracy', and you appear to be too stupid to know all of our admittedly complex rules which require you to prove every word you say by providing 'us' with reliable independent sources'.
My main critic has more than 2000 individuals or topics on her watchlist to control them which makes Wikipedia's claim to be the source of all knowledge ridiculous. It is just the limited source of knowledge that a small group of self-appointed dictators and deletionist's want the public to see.
The total control of world knowledge and opinion can be achieved by one or two anonymous editors per article
Most people have the impression that the information in Wikipedia has been provided by millions of editors who ensure that it is comprehensive and reliable. However, in my observations many of the articles are completely controlled by anonymous paid, or unpaid individuals, or small groups of 2-6 editors. The editors who got there first are not only controlling the information, but have also been writing or influencing the policies which give them the ability to interpret the rules to suit themselves. i.e. they add their own information because of one rule, and delete yours because of different one. They can also accuse you of breaking a rule, and then get one of their friends or associates to delete information for that reason.
The outside public therefore needs to study what is happening there.
For example, when I was contributing with the ID of Posturewriter, to an article about "Da Costa's syndrome", I had one critic, named WhatamIdoing who was dictating the content, and her constant tag-teamer, named Gordonofcartoon, who was always agreeing with her. The main individual would be telling the other editors and administrators what to think and what to do.
You can see evidence of that on the Da Costa's topic and talk page here, and here, and on the Conflict of interest pages, e.g. here, and on the POV/Civil/Pushing page here, and on the RFC discussion here, and on the Arbitration page, which you can see by scrolling down from here.
She also appeared to be co-operating with three other anonymous editors in transferring information whIch I provided to the Da Costa's page, to another page called "Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome" here, and the anonymous editors may have been herself, using another computer in her house, or her local library, or her friends houses, or may have been her email friends interstate or overseas. "Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome" is one of the main alternative modern labels for Da Costa's syndrome. The treatment section is dominated by medications, and with 200 million patients consuming prescriptions drugs which cost up to $150 per week, the industry is lucrative, and could be paying her to promote pills, and delete information about side-effects. She is also one of the main contributors to the topic of "Orthostatic Intolerance" (another alternative modern label for Da Costa's syndrome).
WhatamIdoing is also the main contributor to the topic of "Hyperventilation Syndrome" here, and in the early discussion about Da Costa's syndrome she argued that habitual hyperventilation "explains all of the symptoms" here. However, she lost that argument and you will notice that it isn't mentioned on the current Da Costa's page here
Gordonofcartoon is the main contributor to the link page about "Soldier's heart" here, which was an alternative label for Da Costa's syndrome in the early 20th century. There was originally only one novel on that page, until he added six poems, plays, and television shows etc, to make it appear to be 'a regular disambiguation page'.
WhatamIdoing also has more than 2000 people or topics on her "watchlist" which included me, and Da Costa's syndrome. Whenever anyone makes any changes to those 2000 articles she checks them, and if she disagrees with anything she deletes it or argues about it.
Other topics which she is the main contributor include "Fatigue (medical) here. She was given a prize for that before I started on the Da Costa's page (where fatigue is the main symptom), so she has an extensive background of interest, and an entrenched set of opinions in the general area. That, in turn, gives her a personal POV (point of view), and conflict of interest (COI) in protecting her own personal opinions about such things. However, she is extremely secretive about her background and is determined to remain anonymous, and when asked to write an essay about herself and her interests she put on a pompous display of indignation and refused. She argued that she was a trusted editor because of her impartial neutrality, and had contributed to a wide range of topics, which proved she had no particular interest in any subject area. (That is the equivalent of a thief who robs a bank and hides the evidence from the police, and then protests his innocence).
She is also the controlling influence on the topic of "Premenstrual Syndrome" e.g. here and here
She also did a massive rewrite, and completely changed the essay called . . . "The difference between essays, guidelines, and policies" which enables her to pick and choose any one of those "rules" to use as an excuse for controlling pages by deleting or adding anything she wants. See here
She is also the top contributor to the External Links Guideline, with 110 edits here, and the External Links Noticeboard, with 409 edits (since August 2009), compared to the MiszaBot 11, of 178, and the third placegetter of 117 (as of 23-12-11) here, where she could obviously make sure that no-one linked to my website, or any other website which she, or perhaps her unidentified vested interest group or sponsor, didn't want linked to Wikipedia articles.
She is also a significant contributor to the Notability Guideline. I was banned in January 2009, and began criticising my two critics on my own website. I probably started commenting on the 'Notability' issue about six months later, by starting a section about where my own theories and research have been published. Since October 2009, she has added 44 amendments to that guideline here, and 406 comments to the discussion about it (as of late December 2011) (at that stage MiszaBot 11 has made 403 edits?) here. You could assume that she wants 44 new ways to argue that my ideas are not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. Needless to say my website was often on the top 10 for the Google search engine topic of 'Posture' before I joined, and while I was involved with Wikipedia their relevant pages moved to number 1 (by using different words, and different sources, on different pages, or copying the same ideas which I have developed).
She had also completed more than 18,000 edits in four years, and regularly completed more than 100 edits in one day (including large essays), and on one occasion she did more than 300 edits in one day. I suspect that, on days when she only does 20 edits for Wikipedia, that she is also editing other websites anonymously to make it look as if other "independent" and "reliable" sites agree with her. She could also be transferring (plagiarising) the knowledge of new contributors to other sites such as "WhoNamedIt.com", "WrongDiagnosis.com", the "Rare Diseases Database", and the ICD-9 lists etc. etc. i.e. She could be a 'control freak' trying to dictate world knowledge, or s company could be paying her to control public opinion on particular topics.
For example, one of her methods of controlling the information about Da Costa's syndrome would be to discredit anyone who adds information which she personally disagrees with. In that regard, according to my theory poor posture is caused by poor nutrition etc. and can then be the physical cause of many health problems. However she described that idea as "fringy", "nonsense". She also deleted everything about it from the Da Costa's page within the first few weeks. She is obviously motivated to discredit that idea, so she may have sent an email to a friend who edits a foreign language version of Wikipedia and asked him to write an article which argues that poor posture is caused by psychological factors such as laziness or depression etc. After being advised that the essay had been completed, she may have then contacted a friend called Penbat, and asked him to translate if into English and make it the most prominent article about posture in the English version by placing it out of alphabetical order at the very top of Wikipedia's list of articles about posture. See here and here (note that according to my theory poor posture causes health problems by compressing the internal organs, and that tight waisted 19th century corsets had the same effect, and that the new Wikipedia article called Posture(psychology) includes pictures of men and women who are slouching or wearing corsets???
Penbat also appears to be searching around for psychiatric interpretations and labeling for every type of human behaviour, and when he finds a new one he starts a new page in Wikipedia with that label as the title?
He is the main contributor to the topics of "Control Freak" here, and "Management by fear" here and "Superficial Charm" here
Arcadian made ten edits to the Da Costa's page in one day, and is also the second top contributor to the page about Orthostatic Intolerance here and here
The dominant editors on the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome page are Ward20, RetroS1mone, Sciencewatcher, and Jfdwolff. See here
Ward20 and RetroS1mone are the dominant editors on the page called "History of chronic fatigue syndrome" here
You can check other pages that interest you or your family members to see similar dominance or control patterns. Of course, there is nothing wrong with that in itself. but I am pointing out the opportunity that exists for individuals or organisations to control world opinion in an encyclopedia which the public considers to be neutral, comprehensive, and reliable.
At one stage I suggested that a way of preventing article dictatorship would be to rotate the editing each year, where each dominant editor had to refrain from making changes for the next 12 months and give someone else a go. Naturally, my main critic rejected the idea, because she doesn't want to lose control of any of the subjects that interest her.
Something about the editor who calls himself Doc
who isn't a doctor
The information that Doc gives himself on his User talk page makes him sound like a reasonably intelligent and responsible adult, and he probably is. However he thinks he has the maturity and experience to judge the character of people he has never met, and a right to treat them as if they are 'vandals'.
According to the rules of good manners (WP:Civil) he has no such right unless he is very thorough and very careful to ensure that he isn't making a mistake before he does that.
I am old enough to be his father, and in my opinion he has got a lot to learn about people before he can consider himself a good judge of character, or honesty.
After making a complete fool of himself recently he has tried to produce a silly excuse by adding the following words to the top of his user Page
"[[WARNING]]: I don't take myself too seriously, most of the time" (end of quote) here. He has linked the word "Warning" to here.
If he doesn't take himself seriously, he should stop pretending to be administrator of great authority and experience.
However, I don't wish any thing personal, but he has joined forces with my main critic, and has said some quite ridiculous and offensive things about me, when he doesn't actually know what he is talking about.
I would therefore like to give him some advice which is as friendly as possible under the circumstances.
He should not mislead people into thinking that he has medical qualifications by calling himself Doc, and in so doing, he is probably breaking the rules of ID's. He has said that he doesn't need medical qualifications to make decisions on this matter, but if I am accusing WhatamIdoing of telling lies about a medical topic, it is necessary. See here
WhatamIdoing is a prolific liar but he is trusting her just because she has edited several thousand pages, and appears to be trusted by others here. In that regard he is foolish and naive, because many people strategically establish the pretence of honesty in order to break the rules or the law e.g. see here and my report here.
The reason she is still in Wikipedia is because she lies and cheats her way through arguments and harasses and blocks or bans everyone who argues with her. She does not win by merit, or within the rules.
If Doc wants to make decisions in Wikipedia he should, in future, only do so on topics where he has knowledge, and not pretend that he can judge honesty or behaviour on any other basis.
He should take some responsibility and check the evidence that I have provided, and when he has seen it, he should, if he wishes to be helpful, do what some other editors do.
While I am blocked he should set up an arbitration page and transfer the relevant discussions and evidence there, and follow through on it until she has been permanently banned.
He should not make any more excuses about this.
If he acts like an adult, and co-operates with my request, and considers the evidence, and has the maturity and confidence to challenge Whatamidoing on an arbitration page, and if he asks me for, and gets more evidence, and succeeds in banning her, and thereby improve the reliability of the editors and content of Wikipedia, I will thank him, and consider him to be a person who deserves to be treated with respect.
If he tries to ignore, obstruct, play dumb, hide, delete, or divert attention away from the evidence, I will consider him to be part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Who controls neutral point of view in Wikipedia
and who was doing the hostile complaining?
This is a quote from my main critics comments about me on the arbitration page
"Every single correction or discussion is met with a hostile litany of complaints." (end of quote) here.
However, if you check the facts you can see that the exact opposite was true. For example, I made most of the major improvements to the topic page, and had to respond to criticism 49 times on the Da Costa's syndrome talk page. By contrast my main critic with the Wikipedia ID of "WhatamIdoing" made 69, and her constant assistant "Gordonofcartoon" made 60 critical or dictatorial edits, almost three times as many as me. See here.
Another editor named Guido den Broeder made 51 edits, but he was only involved for a week, and my two crititcs arranged to get him banned. Since then he has changed his Wikipedia ID to Roadcreature.
Also two neutral and uninvolved editors each suggested separately that it would be a good idea for each of the people in the dispute to write a version of the article so that the uninvolved editors could merge them later. The objective of the neutral editors was to ensure that the final article complied with the policy which required a neutral and unbiased point of view.
I actually wrote an essay to meet all of those requirements, and my main critic didn't, and instead of allowing the neutral and uninvolved editors to decide what to do, she cut and pasted my version and subjected it to "a hostile litany of complaints" . e.g.
The CUPCAKE and MUFFIN argument
Is Da Costa's syndrome important
If there had been an argument about why she didn't write a separate version she would typically say that, in her opinion, it was a trivial topic, and that she had more important things to spend her time on.
This is a quote from one of her hostile arguments on a discussion that she set up about Da Costa's syndrome on a page called Civil POV pushing . . .
"This is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor case . . . (a vague 19th century syndrome) . . .
"It's overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia we can't justify investing several editors' time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article and discrediting his personal views. the goal for this article is to have it not actually be actively wrong while we deal with more important articles." (end of quote) here.
She is an arrogant person who deludes herself that her opinion has some value, as you can see by other articles which she edits, which she obviously sees as being more important than a very common illness which causes considerable problems for 2-4% of the population, which equates with 200 million people world wide.
As of the 4th October 2012 she was the major contributor to the page called "Cupcakes", with 71 edits here, and the second highest contributor to the page about "Muffins" with 25 edits here.
I have had this ailment for more than thirty years, and had to study it myself because none of my doctors were able to explain or relieve the symptoms, and I had to research and develop my own methods of treating it, which have been copied all around the world.
Although it has not had any effect on me emotionally, I am aware of how difficult it is to live with, and that 50% of patients become depressed within five years, and a considerable number go mad or commit suicide.
The public, and medical consumers organisations in particular, should know how offensive that editor is.
She would like to see patients with chronic illness silenced, and put on a ship of fools, and sailed off to nowhere.
If she has got enough time to edit articles about cupcakes and muffins, and yet claims that she hasn't got enough time to write a version of a medical article where she "pretends" to be an authority, then there is something seriously wrong with her attitude. She is an insolent, disrespectful, immature, and irresponsible fool.
The opinion of Harvard professor Oglesby Paul
While my main critic thinks that cup cakes and muffins are more important than Da Costa's syndrome, there are completely opposite opinions from intelliget people such as this statement by Harvard professor Oglesby Paul . . . .
"The first world war saw an amazing concern for the syndrome described by Da Costa. Some of the best medical brains in Britain were recruited to study the problem." See here, and one of my reports here.
My main critics assistant was a liar
On 23-3-2008 my two critics lost an argument against me, because one of them, Gordonofcartoon, didn't even bother to read past the first paragraph of a research paper. He also didn't bother to read the reference list at the end of the article, where two of the references included Sir Thomas Lewis, who gave Da Costa's syndrome the alternative label of the Effort Syndrome.
Despite losing that argument and making an utter fool of himself he didn't apologise, or admit that he was wrong, He just said . . . "I'll leave it for now - see what others think". See here
Also, despite the fact that nobody appeared to "think about it" or agree with him, he deleted the information about that article here. Also, despite losing that argument he set up another discussion to argue that I should be blocked for having a conflict of interest.
Despite the fact that he failed to get enough editors to form a consensus about that, a single administrator threatened to block me if I added any more information to the topic. Also despite the fact that Gordonofcartoon lost the argument and failed to get consensus he spent the next twelve months giving all of the other editors the false impression that he won, and that he had consensus to block me, and that I was being disruptive for arguing with him.
See him setting up a "conflict of interest" discussion, and failing to attract enough editors to get a consensus on 27-3-2008 here, and again on 13-5-2008 here.
All decisions in Wikipedia are supposed to be made by consensus, where, in practice, the consensus is determined by a clear majority, and not just by "one" administrator. See my report on how they faked consensus here
Their regular "pattern" of disruptive behaviour
You can also see one of their strategies. Namely, that whenever they lost one argument, they would start two or more new ones, so that when they lost the second, they could keep on complaining. The eventual result was that after they had lost six arguments they were accusing me of violating dozens of policies (e.g. see here). They were doing that to create the illusion that they had been winning all the time, and that, by not following their advice, I was exhibiting a regular pattern of disruptive behaviour?
Anonymous editors don't have a conflict of interest?
My main critic is an anonymous middle-aged woman who does not have enough courage to give her real identity, or the maturity to take responsibility for the things she writes, or sufficient self-respect to be held accountable for her own personal opinions.
When I asked her to tell the other editors her real name, and write an essay about her own "conflict of interest", to explain her "hostile attitude" toward me, she responded with her predictable display of "pompous indignation".
Da Costa's syndrome and physical evidence
This is what Jacob Mendez Da Costa wrote in 1871 on page 25 of his research paper . . .
"The pulse is always greatly and rapidly influenced by position. Thus in one case (Case 12), in which, in the standing posture, it was from 105-108, it became shortly after lying down rather less than 80".
Nowadays that problem can be diagnosed by placing the patient on a bed, and then measuring their pulse rate and blood pressure, and than asking them to stand up and doing the measurements again. A more detailed test is to place them on a tilt table, where the patients pulse rate and blood pressure can be measured as his body is being tilted at several different angles. The results show that patients with Da Costa's syndrome have different measurements to healthy people, so tilt table tests can now be used to diagnose the ailment.
This is what my main critic wrote in her version of the article about Da Costa's syndrome . . .
"a physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities" here
This is what she wrote on the Da Costa's syndrome talk page on 7th June 2008 . . .
"Some researchers will tell you privately that giving someone a DCS diagnosis before giving them a tilt-table test is malpractice." See here
The Wikipedia blackout and global control of information
The recent 24 hour protest and blackout of Wikipedia in response to SOPA (the stop online piracy act), and PIPA, shows how much control that organisation now has on World knowledge by the click of a switch or the tap on a keyboard. The affect on all knowledge indicates how easy it is for any group of anonymous editors to very easily control the type of information that the public gets to read about any one topic. While there are obviously some honest editors and administrators who have the best of intentions, the shortcomings need to be taken into consideration.
Experience versus "instant" knowledge
On 27th May 2008 my main critic tried to give another editor the impression of having vastly superior knowledge about Da Costa's syndrome by listing five other labels for it. I watched the discussion for a while and then, about a week later, decided to link to a medical consumers webpage which listed more than eighty.
She replied with these words about her small list of five (which she got from one website) . . . "Actually, I thought I'd just do redirects for the names in bold face at the top of this article. They seem be fairly well supported" (end of quote). In other words she hadn't read enough about the subject to know for sure - they just 'seemed' that way to her.
I also explained to her that not all of the labels meant exactly the same thing to every researcher, and gave her a quote from one of her own references which said "Not all patients with neurocirculatory asthenia have cardiac neurosis, and not all patients with cardiac neurosis have neurocirculatory asthenia" here, and she replied . . . "Thanks, Posturewriter. I've incorporated that information. Is there another example of this distinction being made explicit that you might like to include, or is this good enough for now?" (end of quote).
You can see that I had all of the knowledge and that she was asking for more information to improve the article, but then she would typically rush off to other discussions where she would always put a spin on everything to make me look like an ignorant fool, and herself look like the "expert".
For example, six months later, in January 2009, she set up a discussion on a page called the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (abbreviated as RSN), where she managed to convince a group of editors that the website which contained the list of 80 other labels was an unreliable source of information. .
Soon after that she wrote these words on the arbitration page . . . "Posturewriter's use of references frequently, perhaps even usually, does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards. For example, a recent RSN question produced 100% agreement that the personal webpage of a patient is not a reliable source for facts about diseases."
See here and here and here
Needless to say, that medical consumers webpage is a lot more reliable than my main critic who tells lies.
I invite you to be the "independent" judge
I would like you to consider the following facts and then read what my main critic told the arbitrators on the page where I was banned, where one admin ignored the principles of consensus and banned me on his own.
1. Da Costa wrote in 1871 that "undoubtedly" the waist belt and knapsack had something to do with the symptoms, and recommended that loose garments needed to be worn in order to assist with recovery.
2. Paul Dudley White started studying this topic in World War 1 when he was the assistant to Sir Thomas Lewis. He became the top authority on this topic in the U.S., and his book, which was published in 1951, contained a chapter on it.
3. I was writing the history section of the article where Wikipedia policy allows the use of 'older' references, for obvious reasons.
4. Sir James MacKenzie was Knighted for his contributions to medicine in 1915, and opened a meeting about the topic in 1916.
5. I told my main critic that it was not appropriate to give prominence to the label of "Soldier's heart" by having a children's fiction novel called "Soldier's heart" on the top line of a medical page. The dispute was eventually "resolved" when an independent editor deleted it from the top line about a month before the arbitration discussion. Another editor deleted the link to that novel a few days after I was banned. See here and here. (in other words she not only lost the argument against me, but was also told that she was wrong by at least two "neutral" editors on different occasions, and she didn't argue with them, but just obediently let them delete the links).
I would now like you to see how many lies she told to the independent arbitrators here
Some of the evidence to support my statements can be seen. here and here
Note also the issue of neutral point of view. She deleted all mention of my theory a year earlier, and it hasn't been mentioned since. I did however mention a variety of other concepts. For example, neurologists favor the neurological cause, virologists favor the idea of it being a post-viral syndrome, and of course, psychiatrists favor the anxiety cause. My main critic has a bias toward the anxiety cause, and was pushing her own point of view by deleting most of the reliable evidence of physical cause. e.g. see my report here. She also excluded one of my references on the grounds that it was written by a medical consumer. without regard for the fact that it was compiled from the work of four doctors.
Her lies about my contributions saturated every paragraph she wrote and were aimed at focusing your attention away from what she was doing, so I want you to judge her. Did she tell a lot of lies?
Do you think she is a reliable source of information, or should be trusted for the accuracy and reliability of her 'fact checking'. For example, was Paul Dudley White an unreliable source of information? did Sir James MacKenzie just join a society and then just show up at an ordinary meeting about nothing in particular? and is the link to the children's story still in the article now?
My main critic is a liar and a fool
My main critic is a liar who wants you to believe that Da Costa's syndrome is caused by laziness, the lack of exercise, the fear of exercise, and the fear of battle, which affects cowards who are anxious and timid about everything (e.g. see her notes in reference 13 here).
She also wants you to believe that my suggestions about the weight and tightness of the knapsack straps around the chest are stupid, and have nothing to do with it, and have been proven wrong by her references. e.g. See her lies and comments here.
Note also how she pretends to know about the topic of clothing and health, but actually didn't read about it until after I provided Da Costa's original research paper as a reference here. See also the fact that she mentioned tight chest straps as the cause in her version of the article, but she has not told the readers anything about her argument that it is wrong here).
This is a quote from page 33 of Da Costa's original research paper . . .
"Case 185, a man who had been in sixteen fights, and for two years had been off duty a day, though gradually more troubled with palpitation, and much distressed while carrying his knapsack on long marches".
On page 38 he states "Hard field service was the chief assignable cause in 38.5% of cases . . . these increased and became marked after forced marches (as in Case 110 after a march of twenty-six miles in one day)."
In his remarks on page 52 he concludes that his study "enforces the lessons" which include "that recruits, especially very young ones, be as far as practicable exercised and trained in marches and accustomed to fatigue before they are called upon to undergo the wear and tear of actual warfare; and it exhibits some of the dangers incident to the rapid and incessant maneuvering of troops . . . and . . . every commander should be made aware that in so using his men he is rendering some unfit for further duty". (end of quote)
He also concludes on the same page "that their equipments be such as will not unnecessarily constrict, and thus retard or prevent recovery". (end of quote).
As you can see my main critic is a liar and a fool who has provided Wikipedia with an article which contains lies, and misleading, unreliable, and poor quality information that misrepresents the study, findings, and conclusions of 1871.
The only part which is accurate was provided to the treatment and history sections by me here and here, and used in her version e.g. here
The Da Costa's syndrome debate
My main critic believed that the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome were imaginary and caused by anxiety, so her version of the article has it in the categories of "Somatoform" (imaginary) disorders, and "Anxiety" disorders.
However, she is just an "instant expert", so she didn't know any more than four lines of information until I started adding to the topic. For example, she didn't know that the condition was named after Jacob Mendez Da Costa because she gets all of her "instant expertise" from dictionaries which only give the label, and a small amount of information.
She also didn't know that he wrote a research paper in 1871, because she thinks that anything from two years ago is scientifically "old" " out-of-date" and "obsolete", and she ridicules and mocks anything older than fifty years by describing it as "from before most editors were born".
However, I added some information from Da Costa's original research paper, which she "suddenly" became aware of.
For example, Some of the soldiers were fit and healthy when they were carrying heavy sixty pound knapsacks up and down hills for days or weeks in the cold an wet, without sufficient food, rest or sleep, and when they contracted infections such as malaria or typhoid. When they felt faint and collapsed and fell out of line with exhaustion they were carted off to hospital where they spent several months recuperating. When they left hospital they had recovered from the fever, but were still suffering from faintness, fatigue and a type of breathlessness. Various surveys have since found that they continued to experience those symptoms ten or twenty years, or more later. In other words their condition is chronic.
This is what I suggest that you make the subject of your debates.
1. Are the symptoms real or imaginary.
2. Are the symptoms due to the fear of exercise - Yes, or No.
3. Are the symptoms due to the fear of battle - Yes, or No.
You can also consider debates about these questions . . .
a. If you tell the patient that his symptoms are imaginary will he believe it.
b. Were their symptoms caused by laziness. lack of exercise, and deconditioning.
c. Twenty years after the war, during peace time, while walking in a park, is the patients breathlessness due to laziness, the lack of exercise, the fear of exercise, and the fear of battle.
d. If a woman who has never been to war develops the same symptoms should she be diagnosed with "Soldier's heart", which, according to my main two critics should be the "chief alternative label".
e. Is the current article in Wikipedia likely to be considered reliable by patients and other people who actually know what they are talking about.
Three open questions to the administrators of Wikipedia
(I would like the public support on this)
I have been criticising my main critic, but in that process it has been quite difficult to do so without also implying that other editors or administrators are at fault, including all of Wikipedia. That has never been my intention but, I can assure you, that it is what my main critic wants, so that you will defend her actions.
However, I would like you to answer three questions.
1. On a page about Da Costa's syndrome I presented the idea that the symptoms of faintness and chronic fatigue were due to an effect on the blood vessels (i.e. it is a vascular disorder), and it is a major part of the solution to a mystery which took me five years to solve three decades ago. However, more recently, between 2007 and 2009, two editors told all of you that my ideas were"self-promoting nonsense" and crap. If that is so then why has another editor named "Arcadian" put the same type of fatigue in the category of "Vascular diseases" in 2011. See here and here and here
(The idea which took me five years to develop could have been stolen by someone else in five seconds, and then slightly modified and rewritten using different words or jargon).
2. When my main critic, named, "WhatamIdoing", asked me to provide some "modern" information, I responding by presenting some modern references which said that the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome were similar to those seen in the current descriptions of the chronic fatigue syndrome, but she told me that I would never convince her of that. Why then did she say the same thing in her version of the article, and why is it still there in 2011. See here and here and my report here
3. My main critic told other editors that Sir James MacKenzie was not important, but was just an ordinary man who walked in off the street and attended an ordinary meeting. Why then has she used the notes from his meeting as a reference number 17 in her very small list of 18, when there have been thousands of research articles to choose from in the past 150 years. See here and here and here
My main critic would respond to these questions by ignoring them as if they didn't matter, or by making silly excuses such as it wasn't exactly this or that, or it was a violation of policy A or Z. She is very devious and deceitful. I want your answers, and will make them public on my website.
A few other things to be considered
For your information: There are other theories about why the blood flow is inefficient but they attribute it to the affects of constant anxiety on the brain and nervous or adrenal systems (i.e. in the category of anxiety states or anxiety disorders). Some others attribute it to damage in the brain, nervous system, or adrenal system (i.e. in the category of neurological disorders, neurovascular disorders, autonomic disorders, or adrenal disorders) etc.,
However, note that the page about Da Costa's syndrome, which was written by my main critic, says that the "Orthostatic intolerance' observed by Da Costa (in 1871), is now, in the 21st century, classified as a 'Neurological disorder'.
Now go to the Wikipedia page called "Orthostatic Intolerance" and you can see that it has been edited in 2011 by Arcadian who changed the category from "Cardiology" to "Cardiovascular diseases" here, and from "Neurology" to "Neurological disorders" here, and from "Cardiovascular disorders" to "Vascular disorders" here
In other words he is changing the categories in a step by step process to include the idea which I told him about in December 2007.
The reference lists
Note also that my list of 61 references for the page about Da Costa's syndrome includes
No.. 38. Rowe, P.C. (April 2002). "Editorial: Orthostatic Intolerance and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: New Light On An Old Problem".(from the Journal of Pediatrics pages 387-389)
and No. 39. Stewart, Julian M.; Amy Weldon (May 24th 2000). "Vascular perturbations in the chronic orthostatic intolerance of the postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome." (from the Journal of Applied Physiology pages 1606-1512)
Now have a look at the small list of 9 references for the page about Orthostatic Intolerance and note that it includes research papers by the same two authors
No. 3 Julian M. Stewart. "Orthostatic Intolerance".(from a current website)
and No. 6 Peter C. Rowe. "General information brochure on Orthostatic Intolerance and its treatment". See here (from a website reprint of an article from 2003)
You can see the evidence that the orthostatic intolerance of Da Costa's syndrome and the Chronic fatigue syndrome are the same, and, in fact, that Da Costa's syndrome, Orthostatic Intolerance, and the Chronic fatigue syndrome are being used as different labels for the same ailment.
You can also see that the modern references are describing the same symptoms and some of the ideas that I was describing and developing thirty years ago. e.g. that the fatigue is due to abnormal blood flow and that the symptoms can be brought on by postural changes, and by being moved about while on a tilt table, and by strenuous exertion. Other factors which are not mentioned in the modern references include the influence of centrifugal forces, such as being spun in a swirling ride at a side show.
News paper articles as references
Note also that the reference number 9 on the Orthostatic intolerance page is an article from the newspaper called The Sydney Morning Herald. See here
However, when I used newspaper articles to verify that I had conducted a research programme about this ailment between 1982 and 1984, I was told that they weren't good enough for notability, because all information had to come from top quality, peer reviewed, secondary sources which had been published in top quality medical journals and books. e.g. See my report here and here
Note also that my two critics, and most other editors are anonymous, so it isn't possible for me or anyone else to determine if they are being paid to edit, or if they have conflicts of interest, or if they are using their own research papers as references etc.
A quote from the information about my research which I added to the Da Costa's syndrome article in December 2007, and was deleted within a few weeks
"According to the theory of research co-ordinator, Max Banfield, the four cardiac like symptoms of Da Costa's’s syndrome were caused by the postural compression of the chest which was related to abnormal spinal curvature, chest shape, and leaning forward . . .
(4) Pressure on the air and blood vessels in the chest impaired blood flow between the feet and the brain resulting in tiredness, and the resistance to blood flow affected the tone of the walls of the abdominal veins which weakened circulation and reduced exertional capacity.
The factors which contributed to the cause, as evident from the observations of Da Costa, Lewis, Wood, Wheeler. and other sources, included a stooped curvature of the upper spine kyphosis, a forward curve in the lower spine lordosis and sideways curvature of the spine scoliosis. Leaning forward or stooping added to the pressure, which would be more pronounced in a chest which was small, long, narrow, flat, or receding, e.g. pectus excavatum. Other factors included tight belts or corsets, or the enlarging womb of pregnancy, especially in the latter stages when it presses up against the diaphragm, heart, and lungs. Hence, another contributing feature may be visceroptosis. The mechanism for the affect on circulation is comparable with Valsalva Manoeuvre, and the chronic effect is evident in tilt table test." See here
In summary, chronic fatigue involves the tendency to tiredness, pulse rate and blood pressure changes and faintness when changing posture, and a reduced capacity for physical exertion, which disposes to ready fatigability.
I said, more than thirty years ago, and in Wikipedia in 2007, that the symptoms were due to a vascular disorder, and I have also recommended that it could be diagnosed by a tilt table test.
If you look at the current Wikipedia article about "Orthostatic Intolerance" you can see that Arcadian has just put it into the category of "Vascular disorders", and the following quotes are from that page . . .
"Symptoms of OI are triggered by the following: An upright posture for long periods of time (e.g. standing in line, standing in a shower, or even sitting at a desk)." and . . .
"OI is "notoriously difficult to diagnose." As a result, many patients have gone undiagnosed or misdiagnosed and either untreated or treated for other disorders. Current tests for OI (Tilt table test, autonomic assessment, and vascular integrity)"
See the Wikipedia article of 28-7-2011 here, and The Posture Theory diagram of a man sitting at a desk here, and my version of the Da Costa's syndrome article where I included a treatment section and mentioned that standing up slowly could prevent the faintness, and laying in a recliner chair could relieve the symptoms etc. here
This is a quote from the second sentence in the Wikipedia article about Orthostatic Intolerance . . . "OI can also be defined as "the development of symptoms during upright standing relieved by recumbency," or by sitting back down again" See here.
The main symptom of faintness can be seen further down the page See here
See my YouTube video on the cause and treatment of faintness here
When I added the statement that the faintness could be prevented by standing up slowly my man critic showed what a ridiculous nitpicking pest she was by accusing me of violating the "original research" policy here, and then using it in her own version of the article here
Leadership by bad example?
My main critic seems to know a lot of trivia, and to write a lot about how things should be done, but she doesn't comprehend the basic principles of social skill. For example . . .
1. She has bad manners so intelligent people will not treat her with respect. See here
2. She tells lies so intelligent people will not trust her. See here and here
3. She ignores all the rules, so intelligent people will not take her advice about policy seriously. See here
She is completely lacking in the skill of leadership by example, so has no choice but to impose her opinions on everyone else. She couldn't find anything within the thousands of pages of rules to ban me, so she arranged for someone else to ignore them, and then gloated about it by giving him an "Outlaw Halo Award". See here
Note also that 10 months after "ignoring the rules" to ban me, the editor who did that gave this advice to another editor named Pawel . . . "You can either play by the rules or get banned. And yes, I will be the one doing the banning. It's as simple as that." See here
As you can see, there are a lot of editors who ignore all the rules, but have the audacity to tell everyone else to obey them or be banned. It is truly ridiculous.
Is there Corruption in Wikipedia decision making procedures?
While I was in Wikipedia I had two critics who were always losing arguments against me and seeking revenge by setting up more than a dozen discussions to get me blocked or banned. I will give you three typical examples.
Firstly, they set up a discussion to get me blocked from an article on the grounds that I had a conflict of interest which was influencing it's neutrality. However, only one other editor joined the discussion and he told them that they were both wrong. There was also one administrator involved and he threatened to block me before I had the opportunity to defend myself from those accusations, and after that it was too late, because he was never going to embarrass himself by admitting that he was wrong for not hearing my defence first. See here.
The second example is a "Request for Comment"(FRC) discussion where my two critics essentially accused me of writing a biased article. I read the policy about "RFC" discussions and found that decisions could not be made while those involved were still actively trying to resolve the issue. The neutral editors said that I could solve the problem by writing an essay outside of Wikipedia, and presenting it to them to decide if it was biased or not, or for them to merge it with any versions produced by my two critics. I advised them that I would be happy to do that, but while I was away, and co-operating with a neutral editor on a subpage, an administrator threatened to block me if I added any more information to the topic, and my main critic rewarded him with a 'barnstar'. See the RFC page here and it's discussion page here and the barnstar mentioned here
The third example is where my second critic set up an Arbitration page to get me blocked or banned.
I told about 12 arbitration editors as politely as possible that I had two critics who had been losing arguments and ranting and raving for a year, and that they would continue to do so. However, I didn't object, so long as the arbitrators provided me with the courtesy of allowing me to defend myself from all of the criticism at the end of the week.
In the next few days my main critic joined the discussion and ranted and raved as usual, and then one administrator suddenly barged in on the discussion and banned me without giving me the opportunity to defend myself from the newer criticisms, and without giving any of the other 12 editors a vote. A few months later my main critic rewarded him with a barnstar for ignoring all the rules. See here, and one of my reports here.
According to Wikipedia policies all decisions are supposed to be based on consensus. See my report here
(My two critics were arguing that I was pushing my POV, which means pushing my "point of view", but they were not telling the arbitrators that their arguments contained many statements which were a contradiction to scientifcically proven facts. I think that all sensible people will agree, that if there is a dispute between my two critics (on one side), and me (on the other) that they should not be deciding what is "neutral" and what is not, but that the decision should be made by "independent" and "neutral" editors. I also think that sensible people will agree that any decision about "neutrality" should be made by a vote amongst 12 "independent" arbitrators, (after hearing both sides of the story), and not by one "dictator" who barges in on the discussion and tells everyone else what to do, and then gets rewarded by my main critic. In my opinion, he was just being paid a bribe that he had been promised before he banned me. i.e. he was told that if he banned me he would get a barnstar. See my report about the attempt to hide the reasons for that barnstar here)
Wikipedia the Nanny state?
My main critc is doing a lot of damage to Wikipedia's reputation
At the end of every discussion my two critics were busy inventing policies that I was supposedly violating, so I read some of them, and found that a new contributor who has made only one edit is considered to be just as valuable as someone who has been there for four years and made five thousand edits, however one of them violated that policy by trying to convince me that the other critic was very important because she had been doing edits for many years.
I then said that every person needed to be treated equally under the rules and found myself in another argument in which it was argued that "Wikipedia is not a democracy", and it is not a bureaucracy, or anything else, because, apparently, it is a brand new way of organising people that has never been done before in human history?
I also found myself in an argument about "consensus" where Wikipedia has a different meaning to the word than the one in English dictionaries, so the Wikipedia language is 'different' for the 'same words'?
I came to the conclusion that my main critic is treating Wikipedia as if it is a "Nanny state" where she is the mother goose in charge, and where in her case good manners don't matter, the English language doesn't matter, and the rules don't matter, unless she says so.
Her method of control could be more accurately described as as a "mothergoosery".
(My two critics don't seem to appreciate the fact that when I was only nineteen years old three Australian organisations offered me scholarships to study a course called "Group Work" at the South Australian Institute of Technology. It was a study of human groups, so I was taught how to assess group structure, and I know all about the differences between democracies, bureaucracies, and dictatorships, and I am fully aware of the concepts of decision making which include 'consensus'.
I have also published a vocabulary calendar for an international public speakers organisation, so I know all about medical jargon, and the proper use of the English language. In other words I know how to assess if a group is functioning properly, and if my two critics are using the English language properly, or improperly, and they can't deceive me by misrepresenting jargon).
They can however, deceive other people who have not had the good fortune of such an education.
Manners in Wikipedia?
My two critics were offensively arrogant, and took every opportunity to be insulting, sarcastic, and patronising, and told the other editors that my ideas were nonsense and crap (e.g. here), so I reminded them of a policy which required them to treat everyone else with courtesy and respect at all times. My main critic responded by arguing that it is not rude to tell someone that their ideas are nonsense, if in her personal opinion, they are nonsense. Later, when another editor told her to comply with the 'civility' policy, and show a bit more respect, she said that she found his "lectures" about 'civility' 'offensive' and suggested that he stop using policy as a bludgeon to stop her from writing the article the way she thought was best.
If the administrators don't enforce their policy about good manners onto my two critics, and if they ban me despite the fact that I maintained good manners most of the time, then they will end up with an organisation full of arrogant, and disrespectful individuals, and become known as an ill-mannered "garden variety" piggery.
I just used the words "garden variety' from the very first sentence by my main critic. See here
I have added only one from the farm yard collection.
My main critic is the Drama Queen of Wikipedia
My main critic was conducting a secret 'edit war' against me (see here), and admitted to using her 'attitude readjustment tools' to annoy me, and to incite and inflame other editors against me, and she exaggerated everything to insult me. When one person agreed with her she acted as if it was the entire Wikipedia community, and when she had a small number of editors refer to one of my references as unreliable, she gave other editors the false impression that they had all agreed that most of my 60 top quality references were unreliable. She also told others that she might have to act like the Wicked Witch of the West. e.g. see here, I thought that a lot of her comments were childish, but recently she claimed that her 'mildest criticism' of another editor was that "he had no more than the usual level of skill in defusing drama." See here.
She is trying to create the false impression that she is an intelligent person with lofty diplomatic ability, and that she is giving advice to someone who is immature and doesn't have such skills. However, she isn't telling that group of editors that she is a drama queen herself, who deliberately incites and inflames drama, which is of course an example of her extremely 'juvenile behaviour'. An example of the effects that her dramatic exaggerations have on other editors can be seen in the retracted comments here. See also here.
There should be a new policy to get her banned called . . .
'Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for adults, not an internet war game for children'.
My main critic can fool some of the people some of the time, but she can't fool all of them all of the time, and I hope she can't fool you.
One of the things that my main critic did was to use "attitude readjustment tools" to deliberately insult and annoy me, in an attempt to make me react in a very offensive way toward her, so that everyone else would hate me (see here). However, I continued to be reasonably polite while I was in Wikipedia, because their policies require it, but since I have been banned, I have been more forthright in my criticisms. Sometimes I think that she might be successful in having everyone hate me, but I still have faith in humanity.
(She thinks she is being clever by insulting me, but that is an extremely serious vilolation of Wikipedia's civility policy).
My main critic has a remarkable ability to tell lies and make other people believe her, so I will try to explain how she did that.
She would give her own personal opinions about a subject and try to create the impression that vast numbers of other editors had already agreed with her, and would choose her words to include you, the reader, as if you would also agree.
She would then appeal to prejudice against me by mixing a potion of insulting comments, nitpicking, fault finding, misrepresentations, and lies.
For example, she would choose words like this . . . "We" keep telling "him" that his sources of information do not even meet "our" basic standards of reliability, but he "refuses" to take "our" advice, and the "community" is losing it's patience, so "we" need your help to block and ban him."
She will then replace my sources of information with her own choice of articles which include different research papers by the same authors. (the reason she had to use the same authors as me is because they were among the best researchers in the history of the topic).
She is hoping that she can convince you that she is an honest and respectable "rule-abiding" person and that you will therefore think that it is sensible to automatically agree with her. She is also hoping that the prejudices which she has built up against me will make you trivialise and disregard the facts and evidence which I provide.
See my report on how she faked consensus here
She was able to convince an editor that he was doing something honorable and heroic by helping her here, and another editor had only participated in one previous discussion for a few minutes, and knew nothing about medical subjects, but she convinced him to ban me. See my report here, and see his comments here.
You can also see my report on how they were both ignoring all the rules here
How she deceives you, the readers
She also tries to give all of the other editors the impression that she is mature, intelligent, and competent, and that everyone who disagrees with her is a stupid, immature, and incompetent writer of nonsense, and that I fit into that category. If she is talking about children and teenagers she is possibly correct, but not everyone is younger than she is. See one of her argument about another editor here, which was posted a day after I wrote the words above.
When I was in Wikipedia I thought that her arguments were often childish, so I had a look at her Userpage to find some information. While I suspected that she was a woman there was nothing to say if she was male or female, until six months later, but she did say that she was 'generation X', which meant that she was younger than me. I therefore reminded her so she would get the hint that she was required by sensible social conventions to respect people who were older than herself, especially in a public forum, but she went off and did some routine edits on a page about dementia. She then came to my talk page and said that she was "middle aged bye the way" (end of quote).
Her objective was to give me an indirect insult, and other editors the impression that she was an older person giving advice to someone younger. I planned to deal with here manipulative trickery but, in the meantime, I was blocked from editing my own page, so I didn't have time to reply. See her userpage of 2007 here.
You have to be joking!
You have probably heard a joke about a nonchalant man, who never panics, which goes something like this . . . "I was walking through a country park on a sunny day, minding my own business, when all of a sudden I heard a strange rustling sound, and I turned around and was knocked to the ground and trampled by a herd of stampeding ten ton elephants. After they passed, I stood up and dusted myself off to tell you my story."
I will now tell what happened to me in Wikipedia.
I joined as a volunteer with the intention of adding about one paragraph of useful information per week, but when I started contributing to the topic of Da Costa's syndrome I was confronted by two editors named "Whatamidoing", and "Gordonofcartoon". As a general guide, whenever I added one paragraph, the first editor would make two paragraphs of criticism, and then the second one would write another two, with the total being four paragraphs of criticism for every one paragraph which I wrote. I found that they had been in Wikipedia for about four years, and together had made a total of 22,000 edits between them. I noticed that my main critic would often do more than one hundred edits per day, and on one occasion more than 300, which included several pages of comments in just one of those edits.
When I won an argument against them they sought revenge by starting three new arguments. The first was to try and get the name of the page changed, the second was to try and get help criticising me from a group of medical editors, and the third was to set up two successive "conflict of interest" accusations to get me blocked. See the thousands of words of criticism here
Some time later they set up a secret discussion and tried to get other editors to block me here
Soon after that I wrote an essay in which I described their policy violations in plain English, and they reacted by calling it "an attack essay", and then set up about ten discussions with ten different groups of editors to get their help in deleting that essay, and to get me banned. Those discussions were on the Da Costa's syndrome talk page, my own User page, my main critics Userpage, and on discussion pages called Wikiquettes Alert, Miscellany for deletion, Request for comment article, and talk pages, Reliable sources noticeboard, Disruptive editing, and two administrators noticeboards, and an arbitration page where they finally got me banned and the essay about their policy violations deleted. e.g. see here and here and here and here and here
I am only one person, and was new to Wikipedia, and they told the other editors that I was non-notable, not very valuable, and only a minor case discussing a vague nineteenth century ailment. They also managed to get one of them to describe me as the worst troll in Wikipedia history, and a troll is somebody who edits as if he is a big ugly hairy monster who lives in caves. See my report about trolling here
I am a very confident person, especially in arguments, and am independent and rely on my own skills because, in my experience, most people give up in the face of adversity. However, my two critics tried to get help from more than a dozen discussions which were seen by hundreds of other editors, especially their friends or those who shared their prejudices, so if you have any good ideas how to deal with them your assistance would be appreciated.
This is what to expect. When Guido den Broeder supported me he was banned. When an administrator named EdJohnston told them to take a break, they kept arguing until he threatened me with a block. When NapoliRoma decided to support me he knew he was 'putting his foot in it', and soon disappeared. When SmokeyJoe became involved he said that I appeared to be a very intelligent person with top quality references, but soon succumbed to the prejudices built up against me. Wizardman was a sports editor who appears to have known nothing about medical topics, and my main critic gave him a 'barnstar' when he threatened to block me. Avnjay said that my version of the article was 'a lot better' than my two critics, but was then subjected to a massive barrage of criticism which went on for months until he turned against me. e.g. see the relentless rant against me here. The editor who banned me was Moreschi, whose main interest was opera, and my main critic gave him an "Outlaw Halo Award" for banning me by ignoring 12 arbitrators and all of the rules of Wikipedia. See here
I would like to say that I can deal with those two shameless cheats on my own, but I am only human.
My main critic is stupid
(She want people to allow her to be rude to me, while I am not allowed to be rude to her?)
My main critic has written some comments into an article in Wikipedia where she argues that intelligent people use 'instrumental" or "strategic" "rudeness' to achieve power. See here. In fact, she had been rude to me for more than twelve months while I was being quite polite to her, and yet she had managed to get me banned while she remains an active member.
I will therefore do her the courtesy of testing her ideas by being instrumentally rude to her and describing her as stupid.
J.M. Da Costa studied a medical condition which was common during in the American Civil War. His paper was published eight years later, during which time he noticed that it was also common amongst civilians.
My main critic was stupid for using a website called the "Rare Disease Database" as a reference because it mentioned Da Costa's syndrome on one of it's lists. To see her reference list click here
She was also stupid because she moved the label of "Soldier's heart" to the top line to make it seem the most important, and she was also stupid for linking that label to an irrelevant children's fiction story, and she was also stupid because she tried to convince me that she had actually read it. e.g. see here
J.M. Da Costa described the typical soldier who was physically fit enough to join the army and carry heavy knapsacks for many days or weeks up and down hills in cold and wet weather while being poorly fed and suffering from infections illnesses. They collapsed several times due to faintness and fatigue until being carted off to hospital where they spent several months recovering from the fever, but continued to suffer from exhaustion. See here
However, my main critic was stupid for trying to argue that the illness was due to a lack of exercise and a bad breathing habit, where, as everyone knows, habits take many years to develop. She was also stupid for arguing that the "habit" could be "instantly" "triggered" by anxiety. e.g. see here
In 1956 Paul Wood described how an injection of a pain killing drug into a specific area in the lower left side of the chest could immediately relieve the chest pain, but my main critic was stupid for trying to give the impression that the symptoms were imaginary "somatoform" symptoms by linking to a World Health Organisation list called "Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction" which mentioned it. See here
Her version of the article contains a "Diagnosis" section which states that . . . "The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome". See here
She is therefore also stupid for telling me that I was never going to convince her that the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome were now seen in the chronic fatigue syndrome". see here
Orthostatic intolerance is the modern label for the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins which Sir James MacKenzie described as the cause of faintness and fatigue in 1916, so my main critic was also stupid for deleting MacKenzies comments from the history section here
Also "orthostatic intolerance is a physiological abnormality", so she was also being stupid when she wrote in the first sentence that physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities.
She is also stupid for arguing that there are no references to support the claim that Da Costa's syndrome is similar to CFS, but I used 7 different ones here, and she used only one which is a website called OMIM, as her reference number 11 here, which now, two and a half years later, states this . . .
"Orthostatic intolerance is a syndrome characterized by adrenergic symptoms that occur when an upright posture is assumed: the heart rate increases by at least 30 beats per minute, without orthostatic hypotension (Jacob et al., 1997). Most patients with orthostatic intolerance are women between the ages of 20 and 50 years (Low et al., 1995). This syndrome, first described by Da Costa (1871) has been called soldiers heart (Fraser and Wilson, 1918), neurocirculatory asthenia (Wooley, 1976), and mitral valve prolapse syndrome (Boudoulas et al., 1980). It is similar in many respects to chronic fatigue syndrome (Schondorf and Freeman, 1999.)." See here
There is, of course, a lot of other evidence that my main critic is stupid. but this should be enough "strategic" and "instrumental" "rudeness" to give me superior intellectual and social power in the argument now.
If you are a generally polite and friendly person I can understand why you would be offended by this type of argument, but I hope you have got enough sense of justice do something to get my main critic thrown out of Wikipedia before you criticise me. I assume that most people who read my website are intelligent.
She was really stupid
My main critic is stupid for thinking that she has a right to be rude to other people, but they don't have a right to be rude to her in return.
She also told another editor that she resented being "lectured" about the importance of having good manners, and that she didn't like him using the policies as a "bludgeon" to make her be polite. e.g. see here. However, my report about her offensive arrogance and her regular pattern of bad manners toward me and many editors can be seen here.
My theory is still in Wikipedia two years later
I was having many health problems in 1975, but my doctor was unable to diagnose or treat them effectively so I tried to solve the mystery myself.
I started by buying a small medical dictionary and looking at diagrams in books of anatomy to see what was inside the body behind the layer of skin, and I layed on my back on the lounge room carpet looking at the ceiling and asking myself why I had so many health problems when sitting at a desk to read and write. Over the next five years I gradually observed that leaning forward was compressing my stomach to cause stomach pain, and was compressing my lungs and respiratory muscles to cause breathing problems, and was compressing the air in my chest to cause faintness and fatigue. I also noticed that on days when I wore a tight belt or tight shirt I would have more problems with stomach pain or breathing, and that repeatedly leaning forward at a desk all day was also contributing to the symptoms. I also found that I had a very poor posture which was the basic factor which made everything worse. It was also obvious that I had a very reduced capacity for physical exertion, so I avoided strenuous activities and gained plenty of rest and regular light exercise such as walking or intermittent jogging, and had a very moderate lifestyle. I was then asked to design a research program for a medical institute and showed that other people with chronic fatigue could participate in the same type of exercise activities.
During that time I was also looking at other books and research journals to see if anyone else had made similar observations and conclusions so that I could ensure that my methods were on track, and would occasionally find such confirmation.
About thirty years later, in 2007, I joined Wikipedia where I was eventually confronted by two critics who were telling the other editors that my ideas were nonsense and crap, and deleting almost everything I wrote on the grounds that mentioning my own theories was a violation of the "original research" policy, and that I should be blocked for having a "conflict of interest". However, they also said that I could add information from top quality independent research books and journals if they were written by other people.
I therefore took the following matters into consideration. Firstly, Jacob Mendez Da Costa reported his observations in 1871 that the symptoms seemed to be associated with tight waist belts and chest straps which held heavy, fully laden knapsacks on the back. I also noted that between 1916 and 1920 several of the top researchers, such as Sir James MacKenzie and Sir Thomas Lewis, were describing the reduced capacity for exertion in their patients, and recommending rest and light exercise, and the avoidance of any strain in their lifestyle. Lewis had an assistant named Paul Dudley White, who knew all about those studies, and in the 1950's was reporting on many others which showed a variety of physiological abnormalities that were associated with physical exertion. Edmund Wheeler did a 20 year follow up study of the ailment, and Paul Wood wrote a book which included a full page photo of a patient who had the typical thin and stooped physique of Da Costa's patients, which had been described by many authors. He also provided evidence that the chest pain was between the lower ribs and suggested that it could be due to the long term affects of faulty posture.
Consequently, I could provide the same conclusions that I had determined, but using the publications of the top researchers in the history of the subject, so my treatment section contained these words and reference links . . .
"Treatment . . . The reports of Da Costa, White, Wheeler, and Wood show that patients recovered from the more severe symptoms when removed from strenuous activity, the stressful emotional situations, or the sustained lifestyle that caused them. In many cases relapses were prevented by determining the limits of exertion and lifestyle and keeping within them. The physical limitations were associated with the abnormalities in respiration and circulation. Other treatments evident from the previous studies were improving nutrition, physique and posture, appropriate levels of exercise where possible, using individually designed graded exercise regimes which have been proven to be effective in relieving symptoms and improving exercise tolerance in come cases Some symptoms such as faintness can be prevented or relieved by wearing loose clothing about the neck, chest, and waist, and standing up slowly can prevent the faintness associated with postural or orthostatic hypotension in some cases, and avoiding postural changes such as stooping, or lying on the left or right side, or the back relieved some of the palpitations and chest pains in some cases. Some of the symptoms can be relieved by laying in a recliner chair, and the chest pain can be temporarily relieved by intra muscular injection of novocain at the site of tenderness. Also, drinking more fluids, increasing salt intake, and sleeping with the head elevated can reduce the fatigue. (end of quote) see here
My two critics deleted most of the essay that I wrote, but kept the important section called "Treatment" with these words . . .
"Treatment . . . "The report of Da Costa shows that patients recovered from the more severe symptoms when removed from the strenuous activity or sustained lifestyle that caused them.
Other treatments evident from the previous studies were improving physique and posture, appropriate levels of exercise where possible, wearing loose clothing about the waist, and avoiding postural changes such as stooping, or lying on the left or right side, or the back in some cases, which relieved some of the palpitations and chest pains, and standing up slowly can prevent the faintness associated with postural or orthostatic hypotension in some cases." (end of quote) here
The information is virtually unchanged and still in Wikipedia in May 2011, two and a half years later here
You can see that the substance of my theory is still in Wikipedia, and has been supported by references from the top researchers in the history of the subject, but my actual theory and research is not mentioned now.
The information revolution
From George Orwell's "Big Brother" in 1984 to Wikipedia's "Aunt Gerty" in 2007
Most members of the public will not know that the information which they read in Wikipedia results from organised edit wars which are often conducted in secret by individuals who have hidden agendas, and highly paid agents of major corporations, political groups, or governments who use "attitude readjustment tools" and the "ignore all rules" policy to win disputes about what the readers get to see and what they don't. See here.
When Wikipedia started all you had to do to contribute was to join up and add information, but then the first ones to get there started writing the rules and filling them with loopholes, and nowadays you shouldn't waste your time unless you are prepared to learn them all, and then play a "geeky" internet "game" called "edit wars". You will be told, like I was told, that if you are not prepared to "buckle down" and "play the game", you will be "blocked" and "banned".
The conformity and creativity police
My main critic claims to have an annoyingly high IQ and university qualifications, and to be an "instant expert" who has the ability to learn everything about most subjects within a few minutes. That individual also edits and discusses the topic of intellectual giftedness, and acts as if they represent the intellectual upper class and has the self-appointed role of making sure that new contributors don't use Wikipedia to provide any information that is likely to change the social order.
That editor has more than 2000 article on their own personal watchlist and ensures that everything derived from official government websites or lists is kept, and systematically invents plausible policy reasons to delete everything from any other source which does not precisely conform with "modern" official dogma.
You can see that influence by looking at the current Da Costa's syndrome pages. The topic page has links to the ICD-9 and ICD-10 lists in the top right hand corner, and links to the categories of "somatoform disorders" and "anxiety disorders" at the end of the page. and mentions the World Health Organisations classification of Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction in the text, and the discussion page is now headed with windows indicating that the article has been put on the WikiProject Psychology, and WikiProject Medicine noticeboards and that everything must follow the "Manual of Style for medicine-related articles". See here and here
The topic page had only four lines of text and no references when I started, and for 12 months I had only one critic, who was always being assisted by an inept and contradictory assistant, and nothing significant has been added to the page since I was banned.
My main critic tries to act like a man of great knowledge, experience, wisdom and power, but is actually an anonymous middle aged woman who was always asking for help, losing her temper, and on the verge of tearing her hair out.
She also wants readers to believe that Da Costa's syndrome patients are emotionally delicate people who get upset reading her favorite children's fiction story called Soldier's heart . It depicts a scene where a horse is tripping over it's own entrails as it runs about the battlefield filling the valley with screams after it was hit by a canon ball from the front which passed through it's chest and abdomen and came out the back end.
She should spend more of her time editing pages where she actually has some real knowledge - about pretty flowers and butterflies.
Note that since I was banned on 29-1-2009 there have been some minor changes to the article such as . . .
1. The removal of the link to my main critics favorite childrens fiction story called Soldier's heart almost immediately on 2-2-09
2. The addition of a link to Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia syndrome on 1-1-2010, where anonymous editors transferred my information by stealth.
3. The addition of a "See also" link to Takatosubo cardiomyopathy on 31-3-2011, which is an entirely different, and generally temporary ailment.
I had been telling my two critics that the link to the children's story was inappropriate, but they wouldn't admit it. However it was deleted almost immediately after I was banned because it made them, and the article, and all of Wikipedia look utterly ridiculous.
If i had added those links to the article my two critics would have told me that it was childish to link to childrens's stories, and that links to Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia syndrome, and Takatosubo cardiomyopathy were a violation of their original research policy.
They say that you just can't please some people
When I added a link to my own theory they argued that it was non-notable and a violation to "notability guidelines" and the "conflict of interest" policy.
When I added information about the main symptom of breathlessness they argued that it was a violation of their "synthesis" policy.
When I added information about the discovery of the cause of the breathlessness by a different author in 1947 they argued that it was a violation of the "original research" policy.
When I added information about one persons research I was told that it violated the policy which required secondary, not primary sources, and that secondary articles were "reviews" of large studies by many researchers.
When I added information about the chronic fatigue syndrome they said it wasn't related.
When I added information from 1950's research papers they argued that they violated the policy for "up-to-date" articles.
However when I tried to add information which would make them happy I considered their statement that they appreciated the information that I provided to a section which they called "history".
I then checked the references to see if they had added anything useful, and found one which, given their arrogant opinion about the merits of their own editing, should have met all of the requirements for relevance, and brilliance. It was a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome by Harvard professor Oglesby Paul published in the British Heart Journal. It reported on about ten of the main theories and stated that they all had evidence in favor and against, and that none had been proven, with a conclusion that the cause was unknown, so I summarised all of the ideas to avoid being accused of violating the "neutral point of view" policy..
I then sat back to see what would happen and within five hours my main critics "assistant" argued that it was too long and had too much detail with these words . . . "This is an encyclopedia, not a treatise? - condense extensive Oglesby recap to overview" here.
That editor then replaced my summary with one sentence which gave the false impression that the author considered it to be an "anxiety state", or an "anxiety neuroses".
They continued to argue like that for 12 months until they managed to talk other editors into believing that I was being uncooperative and disruptive to their contributions.
Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction
Most people have a fear of public speaking, and many have a fear of flying, or a fear of the dark etc. during which time their heart rate increases in a manner that is similar to some types of heart disease. Consequently their symptoms may be labeled as "somatoform" which refers to conditions which seem to be due to disease of the body, but are actually caused by the mind.
Da Costa's syndrome involves chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, and fatigue, which are similar to the symptoms of fear, and are also similar to those of heart disease, but there was no evidence of heart disease, so in the early 20th century it was widely believed that they were due to a fear of exercise, or a fear of heart disease, or that when they occurred in soldiers they were due to the fear of battle.
My two critics therefore argued that it was most important to say that it was classified as a "Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction".
However they didn't want the readers to know the folllowing facts . . .
1. In the 1950's it was known that typical patient has a a long narrow chest and a thin and stooped physique.
2. Patients reported that the chest pains sometimes occurred when sitting in a chair and reading a newspaper.
3. The chest pains sometimes occurred intermittently when jogging along a sandy beach on a sunny day.
4. In the early 20th century it was known that the chest pain could be caused by bending at an awkward angle, such as when cranking a car engine.
5. The chest pains don't usually occur at the same time as the other symptoms.
6. In the 1950's it was discovered that the chest pains could be immediately relieved by injecting a pain killing drug in an area the size of a 20 cent piece in the lower left side of the chest between the ribs.
7. Relieving the chest pains doesn't have any effect on the other symptoms.
8. In world war 1 it was known that most soldiers had the minor symptoms before joining the army.
9. Some soldiers volunteered for service and experienced the symptoms when carrying a 60lb knapsack along an obstacle course at training camps during peace time. etc.
The article produced by my two critics is therefore a deliberately biased interpretation of the ailment and a serious violation of the "neutral point of view " policy. They want you to believe that the ailment is a mental illness which involves symptoms that are all in the mind, so they create that impression by systematically deleting everything which proves them wrong.
My version of the article includes sections with more physical differences that my main critic doesn't want you to know about. It can be seen here
The word "somatoform" is derived from the prefix "soma" which means "the body", and the suffix "form" which means "similar", or 'resembling'
Dictionary definition . . . "Somatoform disorder; any of a group of psychological disorders (as body dysmorphic disorder or hypochondriasis) marked by physical complaints for which no organic or physiological explanation is found and for which there is a strong likelihood that psychological factors are involved". Reference; Merriam Webster Online Dictionary. See here
My main critic would like readers to believe that the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome are entirely imaginary (somatoform), so when I added scientific proof that the chest pain could be relieved by placing a pain killing injection into the correct place, which proved that it is real and physical, she started arguing that she already knew that, and that the real pain was caused by anxiety, so it was psychosomatic.
When I provided evidence that the chest pain could be caused by bending to crank a car engine, which means that it is a physical pain with a physical cause, she deleted it.
When I provided evidence that, in 1916, the fatigue was known to be due to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins she deleted it and replaced it with more emphasis on jargon (orthostatic intolerance). She was trying to create the illusion that my contributions were unreliable and out-of-date, and that hers were different and modern (new discoveries).
When I provided scientific evidence of an abnormal breathing pattern, she argued that it was due to a bad habit (habitual hyperventilation).
When I provided evidence that it involved an abnormally low aerobic capacity she argued that it was due to a lack of exercise (deconditioning).
She deliberately put a psychological interpretation on every piece of physical evidence.
However in 1871, J.M.Da Costa described soldier's marching up and down hills while carrying heavy knapsacks for several weeks, sometimes at double quick pace, prior to becoming hospitalised with exhaustion, so the idea that the symptoms are due to a bad breathing "habit", or a "lack of exercise" are as ignorant and ridiculous as all of the others.
Her methods were often crafted arguments and indirect deletions by stealth, but you can see the outcome of her manipulation of facts by comparing my full version in the left colum, with the leftovers which remain in Wikipedia on the right column. here
Here is a quote from the Wikipedia article called "Habit (psychology) . . . "the associative learning underlying habits is characterized by the slow incremental accrual of information over time in procedural memory". See here
i.e. habit formation occurs in the opposite circumstances to the typical development of Da Costa's syndrome.
My muddle headed critic
My main critic told a group of arbitrators that she didn't know much about the subject until I started writing about it for Wikipedia, and yet in other discussions she was trying to act like a world authority handing out opinions as if they were pearls of wisdom based on great knowledge and experience.
For example, she claimed that the term Da Costa's syndrome has been replaced by more precise modern labels with better treatments, but she is actually a muddled headed fool who argues one minute that it is physical and the next that it is mental. If she actually knew precisely what she was talking about she would give the exact name of each researcher, and the exact date of each discovery, and the exact name and date and page numbers where the information can be found.
However, when two neutral editors offered her the opportunity to write a version of the article she conveniently ignored them, and at one stage earlier told a different group of editors that she was too busy editing other topics, and couldn't be bothered spending a few of hours turning the page about Da Costa's syndrome into a little gem of an article. Her excuse was that, in her opinion, the subject was "unimportant".
An example of her mish mash of ignorance, contradictions, misunderstandings, "mays and may nots", probabilities, and lies can be seen in her discussion with another editor here.
Researchers who think clearly and actually know what they are talking about do not rattle to and fro the way she does.
You can't trust what she tells you about the references
One of the small number of references provided by my main critic was Oglesby Paul's ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome in the British Heart Journal of 1987 which explains that, in World War 1, "Some of the best medical brains in Britain were recruited to study the problem", and that it is still a common condition affecting 2-4% of the population, which is easy to diagnose, and that although there were many theories on the topic, none had been proven and the cause was unknown.
She also provided a reference to a website called the "Rare Diseases Database".
She also set up a secret discussion without inviting me there, and told another group of editors that Da Costa's syndrome was . . . "a vague 19th century ailment, generally considered a psychosomatic anxiety disorder). It's overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia," (end of quote) see here
As you can see, if you check th facts, the ailment is not rare, it has actually been widely recognised as common.
It is not vague, it is easy to diagnose.
It is not unimportant, but has been regarded as one of the most important topics in medicine.
It is not just a nineteenth century ailment but was still common in the twentieth century - 1987.
Oglesby Paul did not consider it to be an anxiety disorder, he considered the cause to be unknown.
You can see that my main critic tells lies about almost everything in order to win arguments.
Unfortunately many people believe what they are told without bothering to read the reference, and my two critics believe their own opinions, which is another example of the blind leading the blind.
You can check the facts by reading the reference here.
Comparing treatment methods
My recommendations can be seen here
If you want to see what happens if my main critic provides information about treating this sort of ailment you can see that you will be taking pills until your head rattles here
See also here
My main critics lies about Orthostatic Intolerance in Da Costa's syndrome
My main critic told many lies to insult and discredit me, and defame my character.
For example, she said that I was a fringy kook who was interfering with her attempt to put accurate and reliable information into the article about Da Costa's syndrome.
However this is what she wrote in the first sentence.
"a physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities".
I will now tell you some facts.
One of the main symptoms is a type of faintness which most commonly occurs when moving from the laying to the standing position. It is associated with the fatigue, and the abnormal response to exertion, and is due to poor circulation.
If the patient tells the doctor about it he will do a physical examination by asking him to lay on a bed and then measure his pulse rate and blood pressure. He will then ask him to stand up and do those measurements again. The differences are called physiological changes, and if they are not normal, they are considered to be physiological abnormalities which are labeled as "orthostatic intolerance". If you have a look at the relevant literature nowadays there are several other ways of testing the same problem more accurately, such as the 'tilt table' tests, where the patients pulse rate and blood pressure are measured over various periods of time while he is strapped onto a bed and being tilted at different angles - in other words in various different physical situations.
If you have a look at the "Diagnosis" section of the Wikipedia article which was produced by my main critic, it states that the "orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome" (end of quote). See here,
Also, not all, but many Da Costa's syndrome patients have a thin and stooped physique, and slight or significant differences in their chest shhpe, and if you inject a pain killing drug called novacaine into a precise physical location between the lower ribs on the left size of the chest the pain will be relieved.
tthere are many other tests to determine the physical and physiological differences in patients with Da Costa's syndrome.
In other words a modern physical examination can and does reveal physiological abnormalities in the symptoms of orthostatic intolerance described by Da Costa.
The wrong information provided by my main critic was still in the article more than 2 years after I was banned. see here
She is actually a liar who was trying to stop me from adding the correct information.
Orthostatic intolerance and a quote from Da Costa's original research paper
The word Orthostatic comes from "ortho" which means straight or correct, and "statikos" which means 'causing to stand', and it refers to symptoms caused by moving from the laying to the standing position. Changes in pulse rate and blood pressure when moving from the laying to the standing position are seen in many cases of the chronic fatigue syndrome and are given the modern label of "Orthostatic intolerance".
This is a quote from J.M.Da Costa's original research paper of 1871, on page 24.
"The pulse is always greatly and rapidly influenced by position.Thus in one case (Case 12), in which, in the standing posture, it was from 105-108, it became shortly after lying down rather less than 80". He then gives several other similar cases and ends his paragraph with these words ""in all, the immediate affect of the exchange of position was most striking."
See also here and here and here
An example of my main critic trying to put on a big "act" about caring about the reliability of new or old references here
Bias in Wikipedia?
I have had a medical condition called Da Costa's syndrome for more than thirty years. My interest in the subject began because my doctor was unable to explain the cause of the symptoms or relieve them.
I made a detailed assessment of the symptoms and was eventually able to attribute them to poor posture, and in the course of time found a book written by Paul Wood who was Britain's top authority on the topic. He described how the chest pain could be relieved by injecting a pain killing drug into a specific area between the ribs on the lower left side of the chest, which scientifically proved that the symptom was real and not imaginary, and that it had a physical basis. He also suggested that it could be attributed to the long term affects of "faulty posture", and included a photo of a patient who was described as having the "typical" thin and stooped physique which is seen in that ailment, and which was exactly the same as my physique. See here
However, he also described how psychological factors could influence the autonomic nervous system to bring on cardiovascular symptoms, and mentioned that normal people are familiar with the pounding of their hearts during times of fear, and that fainting attacks can be brought on by the sight of something frightening, and suggested that Da Costa's syndrome was a disorder of that kind.
He also wrote these words . . . "They are timid children, far too dependent on maternal protection. At school kindly doctors and soft mothers protect them from the hazards of football, swimming, and gymnastics".(end of quote). He also suggested that the symptoms could be precipitated by the "fear of swimming" or of "not being able to shoulder responsibility".
Those ideas sound plausible, but when I was a teenager I was a gymnastics instructor and a good swimmer.
The anxiety theories became widely accepted, but the information about posture was ignored or forgotten.
The top authority in the United States was Paul Dudley White who described that the symptoms were not the same as the normal symptoms of exercise or fear, and that soldier's who had the problem were 'annoyed' at the fact that they could not keep up with the other men in marches, as they did before. He also explained that whenever the symptoms were studied they were all found to be associated with physical or physiological abnormalities. For example, when they tried to maintain any degree of effort, they quickly accumulated respiratory inefficiency and an excess of lactic acid. He also suggested that . . . "Abnormalities of central nerve cells induced by fatigue in experimental animals have been noted and may be possible". He concluded from all of the scientific studies that it was a "real" and not an "imaginary" ailment despite the fact that "at first glance" it "appeared to be" "imaginary", or just "malingering" in World War 1. He also stated that the "fundamental origin" of the ailment, and the mechanism for the symptoms, was "as yet unexplained".
I joined Wikipedia in the early months of 2007 and began contributing to that topic in December, but was soon confronted by two editors who described me as a fringy kook whose suggestions were stupid, and whose ideas were rubbish, and whose sources of information were unreliable because, in their opinion, they did not even meet Wikipedia's basic standards.
They deleted all of the evidence about the postural cause of the chest pains, and all of the details about physiological abnormalities, and ignored my recommendation to use the photo of the "typical" patient. They also told other editors that I was "pushing" my own "point of view" and needed to be stopped from adding any more information because I had a "conflict of interest".
They wanted readers to believe that the ailment was a mental illness which involved imaginary symptoms that were caused by anxiety and depression, so they asked other editors to help them set up a brand new page called "Somatoform autonomic dysfunction". They were then going to delete the entire page about Da Costa's syndrome and put their own choice of bits and pieces into the new one.
The combination of capital letters in that label gives the abbreviation of "SAD", and the word "Somatoform" means "imaginary", and they were trying to create the impression that "unhappiness" and a "miserable" state of mind was affecting the autonomic nervous system to cause the symptoms.
However, they failed to convince other editors to set up the new page.
They later moved the label of "Soldier's Heart" from the bottom of the Da Costa's page to the top line, and added the word "cowardice" in the notes for their reference number 13. They wanted to create the impression that the symptoms were caused by the fear of battle, and that the ailment was a "post-war syndrome" which was the equivalent of a "post-traumatic stress disorder". You can see their version of the article by scrolling down to the end of the deletions here
(There is no indication in the current article to show that important facts are missing, or how the interpretation of history has been deliberately falsified.)
See also here and here
The other editors can verify most of those facts in a few minutes by reading only two of my references which are number 1 and 16 on my list here. Similar facts can be verified in references 2 and 7, and many others from my list of 65.
Two sets of messages
If you read what my main critic has written, you will probably get the impression that she wants to leave, without noitcing what she was actually doing, so I will explain what happended.
She was actually seeding two sets of messages into the discussions.
The first was to let me know that she controlled everything, and was going to delete every word I wrote, regardles of how accurate the information was, and regardless of how good my references were, and that if I continued to add information to any medical topics she would get me banned.
The second was to give administrators the message that she was an honest editor who was trying to stop me from being disruptive to vast numbers of other editors.
Her message to me
1. She put my real name as a heading in bold print at the top of the article's talk page and made it clear that if I added any more information to the subject she would get personal, and proceed to criticise, insult, and defame me relentlessly. See here and here . . . here.
2. She told me that she had put me on a watchlist, and later proceeded to go to every topic where I had added information and made sure that every word was deleted. See here and here.
3. She made it perfectly clear to me, and actually told another group of editors that she had already, and would continue to hound, provoke, and harass me at every opportunity until she drove me out of Wikipedia. See here
4. She made it clear to me that she or her tag-team mate, could and would, set up discussions with other editors to get me banned, and that if she failed the first time the two of them would continue to set up an endless series of discussions until she achieved that objective.
5. She made it clear to me that she could tell as many lies as she wanted and get away with it, and break any and every rule in Wikipedia, and use the loopholes in the policies as excuses. See my report here
Her message to the other editors
1. She wanted the other editors to get the impression that she was an honest, trustworthy, courteous, helpful, co-operative and respectable member of the Wikipedia community, whose motives for criticising me were as innocent and proper as a new born lamb's.
2. She wanted them to believe that she wasn't interested in the subject, but found the discussions while casually doing routine checks, and had occasionally looked again after taking a little break and noticing it by sheer co-incidence, when she returned.
3. She wanted to give readers the impression that she was just trying to help vast numbers of other editors by stopping me from editing the topic, and that the only solution was to block me from every article that I had previously added to, or ban me. See the last sentence in her long and hostile tirade of criticism here
If any University professor wants to set up a course in pure bullshit they should give their students an assignment of studying the editing practices of my two critics.
They argued . . .
1. That describing the ideas of other editors as nonsense and rubbish wasn't being rude,
2,. That references to articles published from in the 1950's are unreliable sources of information for the history section of articles.
3. That their policies "demand" them to put links to a children fiction story on the top line of a medical topic.
4. That they can use "attitude readjustment tools" to punish editors in an organisation that has a 'civility' policy which requires all editors to treat each other with courtesy and respect
5. That links in the "Related" section of pages don't mean that they are actually related to them.
6. That the 'ignore all rules' policy should be the major rule for determining the outcome of disputes.
7. After they had been working together for many months I accused them of violating the tag-team guidelines and they argued that they were not tag-teaming, but when I started co-operating with neutral editors, who I had never met before, they called them my "friendly" editors.
8. When I provided evidence that they were not complying with the rules of Wikipedia they argued that I was violating the "Assume good faith" policy.
9. When I criticised them for telling lies they argued that they 'forgot' what they had previously said.
10. When I wrote a list of their policy violations they called it an "attack essay", and set up a discussion to have it deleted. When most of the other editors disagreed with them they argued that the discussion failed for technical and procedural reasons, and then set up another discussion with a new group of editors.
Examples of main critics self-defeating and contradictory bullshit
1. Paul Dudley White was the world authority on the topic of Da Costa's syndrome in the 1950's so I used Chapter 22 from his 1951 book to verify 18 statements that I added to the article for Wikipedia. My main critic started a hostile argument with a neutral editor named Avnjay and told him that I had used "the same thoroughly out-dated 1951 text book eighteen separate times". She later used an article by the same author from the same period as one of her own references.
2. One of the top authorities in Britain during the 1950's was Paul Wood, and I actually own a copy of his 1956 book in which there is a chapter where he provides the scientific proof of the physical cause of the chest pain, and attributes it to the stooped physique which he described as "typical" of Da Costa's patients, and he used a full page photograph of a painting of a patient with that physique. I therefore used that book as a reference and recommended that the photo be used in the Wikipedia article. However, my main critic told other editors that all of my references were unreliable, and that all of the details were rubbish, and deleted the reference, and all of those details, and didn't use the photo. She later used an article by the same author as one of her own references, and became entangled in a hostile argument with another editor named Guido den Broeder in which she protested in a most emphatic and indignant manner that the relevance and authority of the author was unquestionable.
e.g. The information that I provided about Paul Wood was deleted at 20:51 on 14-5-08 here and my main critic was telling Guido den Broeder how impeccably relevant that author was, only two weeks later, at 23:10 on the 28-5-2008 here (She was trying to act as if she knew what she was talking about, but didn't know anything about Da Costa's syndrome or Paul Wood until I started writing about the topic for Wikipedia.)
3. When I provided top quality medical references to verify all the statements that I was adding to the topic she told other editors that they were unreliable because they were old and from before most editors were born. When I added more recent references she told them that I didn't understand the policy which required all references to be up-to-date and from the most recent five years. When I provided her with half a dozen that were from that period she told the other editors that I had to be blocked for "disruptive behavior". (In fact she had told other editors that there weren't many modern references on the Medical indexes, and tried to disrupt my contributions by asking me to do something that she couldn't, and didn't think was possible).
4. When I politely complied with her requests to refrain from mentioning my own theory on the topic she tried to give other editors the false impression that she was a powerful individual who had forced a weaker person into submission, by arguing that I had . . . "given up" . . . getting my own name, website and book into the article.
5. She then proceeded to deliberately provoke, incite, and inflame an ill-mannered response from me, and when I eventually told her to stop acting like an ape swinging through trees she portrayed me as someone who had a "long" "pattern" of "uncivil and disruptive" "behaviour".
6. When she tried to impress other editors with her vast knowledge she mentioned five alternative labels for Da Costa's syndrome. I checked the internet and found that she had copeid them from one other website. I then provided a website which listed 80, and she then argued that it was unreliable because it was compiled by a medical consumer.
That individual has a deliberate, calculated and predictable scheme of arguments to find fault with any and every person who disagrees with her. The fact that she rewarded the administrator who used the' ignore all rules' policy to ban me, did not surprise me.
She obviously isn't intellectually or socially capable of editing within the rules, but expresses indignation when anyone questions her manners and behaviour, and wants everyone to believe that she is a respectable 'rule-abiding' member of the Wikipedia community.
She also wanted editors to believe that I 'needed' Wikipedia to promote my ideas, but I didn't.
I could have written that essay on my own website if I wanted, but I was more interested in solving the mysteries of the illness than writing the history, and when it was deleted from Wikipedia I put it on my own website anyway. However, without me, Wikipedia would still have a useless article edited by my main critic which had only four lines of text, and no references. There would also be the same group of anonymous vandals reading my books and website and plagiarising my ideas and putting them on the pages about the chronic fatigue syndrome and the postural orthostatic Tachycardia pages, and the variety of posture pages.
As for criticising my two critics, I can say that I have found it easy and amusing to participate in arguments since the age of fifteen when there were classroom discussions at school every week. By contrast my two critics told the other editors that they were losing their patience, and were using foul language, and on the verge of tearing their hair out.
The Euphamism of internet criminals
I was confident enough to abide by the rules, whereas my two critics were getting frustrated, telling lies, using their "ignoring the rules" policy, which is just their euphamistic way of saying that they were Wikipedia criminals who were breaking their own laws.
DISCRIMINATION in Wikipedia
When there are laws which one group of people has to obey, and the other group doesn't it is called discrimination
How to achieve power in Wikipedia, according to my main critic.
She justifies her own uncivil behaviour
The following quote comes from the Wikipedia policy called WP:Civll, which all contributors are required to comply with at all times.
"The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact. Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates" See here.
There is a section on how to identify incivility and the first sub-section is entitled 'Direct Rudeness" and example 1 (a) is "rudeness". See here
While I was providing evidence of the incessant ill-mannered behaviour of my main critic here, she added the following words to the Wikipedia page called "Rudeness" . . .
"most rudeness serves functional or instrumental purposes in communication, and skillfully choosing when and how to be rude may indicate a person's pragmatic competence.
'strategic rudeness, . . . ' a style of communication used by prosecutors and therapists to force their interlocutors (a courtroom defendant or patient) to talk or react in a certain way. Rudeness in everyday speech "is frequently instrumental, and is not merely pragmatic failure". Most rude speakers are attempting to accomplish one of two important instrumental functions: to vent negative feelings, and/or to get power." here
There is a word for people who argue like that but this is a summary of her attitude.
She thinks that she being intelligent, but she is actually just using a simple trick. She had been in Wikipedia for four years and had read and written many of the policies, and if you do something correctly she will find a policy that blocks it, but if she does something wrong she will find a policy to justify it.
For example, if she lost her patience and was being rude to me she would argue that it was because I was putting her under a lot of stress, but if I was to be rude to her she would immediately argue that my behaviour was a violation of WP:Civil.
The correct way to edit Wikipedia is to focus on the content, whether it is correct or not, whether the information is from a reliable source or not, and whether it can be verified or not. According to other policies editors are not supposed to mention anything at all about the other person, but she used my personal name as a section heading, and made offensive personal remarks about me on a regular basis.
The founder of Wikipedia is Jimbo Wales. He claims to be proud of his organisation, so I hold him personally accountable for her behaviour.
They were incompetent in arguments.
My main critic had an incompetent understanding of the topic of Da Costa's syndrome, and was incompetent in arguments, but tried to convince the other editors that she was an infallible expert on the subject.
However, she didn't know that the condition was named after Jacob Mendez Da Costa until I mentioned it.
She tried to argue that it was a hyperventilation syndrome caused by a bad breathing habit, but lost.
She tried to get a new page set up called Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction, and then merge the Da Costa's page into it, but failed.
She didn't know the difference between Da Costa's syndrome and cardiac neuroses until I told her.
She didn't know that most authorities rejected the label of Soldier's heart which was used in World War 1, because they all knew that the illness was also common in civilians, but she wanted to make it the most important alternative label.
She spent several months arguing about the value of links to a novel called Soldier's heart. It was a children's fiction story. The two links were deleted by two other editors for being inappropriate.
Paul Dudley White was the world authority on the subject in the 1950's but she told other editors that his book was an unreliable source of information.
Sir James MacKenzie was knighted for his contributions to medicine in 1915, but she told a group of arbitrators that he was just an ordinary doctor whose comments were published just because he walked in off the street and attended a meeting in 1916.
She argued that articles in top quality medical sources such as the Journal of the American Medical Association were just op-eds, routine reviews, or 'garbage'.
She argued that Da Costa's syndrome wasn't related to the chronic fatigue syndrome just because another editor put it into the "Related" section of the page.
She didn't stop writing nonsense, and didn't stop telling lies until the day I was banned.
Good manners and respect for other editors and readers?
Whenever you see professional doctors or academics discussing mental illness on television you can notice that they are very careful in the way they choose their words so as not to create offense or incite and inflame stigma and prejudice. They will report that anyone is likely to develop a mental illness such as depression if the circumstances are bad enough.
Regardless of whether Da Costa's syndrome is considered to be a physical or mental disorder, while I was in Wikipedia I had two critics, and one, if not both of them, were middle aged women who tried to act like men of great experience who spoke down to other editors in a manner that was theatrically patronising.
If they were well-mannered and professional they would have mentioned that some authors have expressed the opinion that at least 70% of the population are thought to be likely to develop Da Costa's syndrome if they were exposed to the conditions of war which were bad enough for long enough.
However, this is what my main critic chose to quote in the notes for reference number 14.
"Being able to attribute soldier’s heart to a physical cause provided an “honorable solution” to all vested parties, as it left the self-respect of the soldier intact and it kept military authorities from having to explain the “psychological breakdowns in previously brave soldiers” or to account for “such troublesome issues as cowardice, low unit morale, poor leadership, or the meaning of the war effort itself”" See here
She wants the readers to believe that the soldier's were cowards and that the dicussion of physical cause was just a kindly after thought to pamper their dignity. However she also deleted the scientific evidence of a physical cause for each of the main symptoms which were found in the 1940's and 50's, so she obviously doesn't really care about the dignity of patients, or the fact that she is discussing them in a public forum. She also doesn't understand the difference between a medical or psychiatric journal and Wikipedia. The former are read by your average doctor, and the latter is read by members of the public which include the people being discussed.
Incidentally, most of those soldiers already had the minor symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome before enlisting and some of them were later awarded with bravery medals while being treated for exhaustion in hospital. They collapsed several times on long marches or while fighting in their third or fourth battle, until they couldn't get up again. Some people called those instances of exhaustion a series of psychological or mental breakdowns, and they refer to chronic exhaustion as an anxiety state and a mental illness?
The Posture Theory
According to my theory the postural problems of the man on the right are due to vitamin D deficiency, or other nutritional problems in childhood, which occur as a consequence of any viral or bacterial infection which results in poor appetite for significant periods of time. His poor posture would put strain on his back to cause backaches, and compress his chest and abdomen to produce dozens of aches and pains and illnesses.
.The theories of my critics
Other people have written theories which attribute poor posture to laziness, lack of exercise, bad habits, anxiety, unhappiness, (depression), and stress. They want you to believe that the symptoms are trivial and imaginary (somatoform), or psychosomatic.
In order to make their own ideas look good they will try their hardest to make you believe that my ideas are wrong, and will use every devious trick in the book to convince you.
My two critics in Wikipedia
When information about my ideas was added to Wikipedia I had two critics who were telling all of the other editors that it was all nonsense and rubbish, and they put me on a watchlist and tried to ensure that every word I wrote was deleted. They also deleted all of the posture information in an article about Da Costa's syndrome and replaced it with dozens of psychological labels, links, and references, and then arranged for me to be banned. Since then they have indirectly arranged for a new article called "Posture (psychology)" to be written and placed in a position of prominence at the top of the list of topics related to Posture.
They want to give their readers the false impression that that psychological problems are the cause of poor posture and all of the symptoms. See here
They also wanted other editors to believe that I had to be banned because I had a "conflict of interest" which was giving bias to my contributions, and that they didn't have a "conflict of interest" in giving unchallenged emphasis on their opinions. This is a quote from another editor . . .
"I am now quickly getting the idea that this COI complaint against Posturewriter has one reason only: to get the opposition against your own pov out of the way." Guido den Broeder 07:23, 21 May 2008 here
The difference between real research and criticism
When I researched the medical literature my objective was to find facts and evidence in order to understand the cause, and how to manage and treat health problems effectively. My two critics were telling lies and cheating with the objective of winning disputes to gain status and power in Wikipedia. If they tried to do medical research their methods would be useless.
They criticised my ideas and used them on other pages
In the 1970's I read an article which reported that researchers around the world were having difficulty getting scientific data about the effects of exercise training on chronic fatigue. It was widely believed that it was because the patients were just lazy or afraid of exercise. However, I explained that many of the patients probably had physical limits, and that if they exceeded them they would experience distressing symptoms which would make them drop out of the course, and in 1982 I designed a programme which involved them doing regular exercise within their limits, and it was successful.
When I mentioned such things in Wikipedia my two critics were telling everyone my real name, the name of my book, and giving links to my website, and criticising and deleting everything, including my exercise programme, and calling it all nonsense and rubbish.
When I mentioned that another editor had put the chronic fatigue syndrome in the "Related to" section of the Da Costa's page they argued that . . . "just because someone added CFS to the "Related to" section didn't mean that it was actually related to anything".
However here is a quote from the current article about the chronic fatigue syndrome . . .
"Patients are advised to set manageable daily activity/exercise goals and balance activity and rest to avoid over-exertion which may worsen symptoms. Those able to function within their individual limits are encouraged to gradually increase activity and exercise levels while maintaining established energy management techniques. The goal is to gradually increase the level of routine functioning of the individual. A small randomised controlled trial concluded that pacing had statistically better results than relaxation/flexibility therapy. A 2009 survey of 828 Norwegian CFS patients found that pacing was evaluated as useful by 96% of the participants." See here
They used a 2008 reference to support that statement.
See the details of my exercise research here
and my comments on exercising within limits here
and my report on their arguments about the chronic fatigue syndrome here
See my report on how they stole other information here
My two critics were extremely arrogant and pompous, and conveyed their attitude of superiority and their opinion that most of the other editors and administrators, and the public, were as easily led as sheep and cattle, and just as easily fooled and controlled.
They thought that most of them gained all of their knowledge of topics after having a quick look at dictionaries and lists on official websites, and that their knowledge of history was based on what they read in this mornings newspaper. and that most administrators made their decisions about disputes based on what they read in the last few paragraphs of discussions without bothering to read all of the previous arguments and responses.
They referred to other editors as ignorant pests, their ideas as "pet views", and their research as "hobbies" and their references from top quality research journals as "garbage", and they tried to deceive the readers by using jargon which is incomprehensible to the average person.
My main critic has been writing policies, and filling them with loopholes to win arguments for four years, and told lies to jurors and bribed the judge who banned me, and expects to continue using those methods to win indefinitely.
A fuller report about my main critics arrogance and contempt for any individual or group who disagreed with them can be be seen here
"Justice will only exist where those not affected by injustice are filled with the same amount of indignation as those offended". ~ Plato
They told a massive number of lies
While I was involved with Wikipedia I had to deal with two individuals who were telling so many lies, and breaking so many rules that I didn't think it would be long before an experienced administrator would stop them, but they didn't, so I spent some time compiling evidence and proof of their rule-violations, but no-one bothered to consider the evidence against them, and there is so much evidence of their lies and rule violations that most people won't bother reading it, and most people won't believe that anyone could tell such lies and get away with it, but so far they have.
Wikipedia has an editor of 20,000 articles who is a prolific liar
My main critic claims to have edited more than 20,000 articles in Wikipedia, and yet is a prolific liar. I will give you an example of how that individual tells many lies in one small paragraph on an arbitration page which was set up by my other critic for the purpose of getting me blocked or banned.
I checked the statistics again recently, and, the total number of edits added by that person in the six years between 3-5-2007 and 4-8-2013, was 69,490. See here and my full report here.
That individual is a thoroughly disgraceful & disgusting person who, instead of making Wikipedia fair, pleasant, and co-operative, brags about "lurking" over pages about "etiquette"? and 20,000 other topics, and hounds and harasses editors and administrators with strategic rudeness, attitude readjustment tools, and the "ignore all rules" policy, until getting the final say from weak willed, timid and cowardly administrators, who cave into their wishes, or agree as a means of crawling and groveling, or conceding, to get a reprieve from the relentless rants, and to get gifts of bribes and rewards of barnstars.
She was an anonymous middle aged woman who spent at least six months pretending to be a man, but was being utterly childish by using words like "oops" and "whoops" and barking like a dog with the word "Aaarrgh" to express her anger.
Some of the editors who caved into her wishes had absolutely no knowledge of medical articles, and were barely older than teenagers who acted like empty headed juvenile delinquents.
I just checked the page about Wikiquette's assistance and noticed that it has been made inactive, and it is obvious to me that if anyone set up such a page with the evidence that I have since provided she would be banned immediately. One of the main editors of that page was Jaysweet who made false and misleading statements about me, because he, or she believed the lies told by my main critic instead of checking the facts first here. When I gave proof he, or she retracted her comments.
The decision on the next discussion shows that I won the dispute here, but my two critics just kept hounding and harassing me by setting up a series of about 10 discussions, some in secret, and didn't stop until they got me banned.
Wikipedia requires contributors to use top quality references as a source of information about it's medical topics, and I was writing about Da Costa's syndrome, so I chose a series of talks that were published in the "Therapeutical and Pharmacological Section" of
the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine" in 1916.
Sir James Mackenzie was at that meeting. However, he did not just "attend", but was it's chairman, and he was not just an ordinary doctor, but was someone who was knighted for his contributions to medicine the year before, and he did not just "join" the "Royal Society of Medicine", but was 'elected' to it, and it was not just a meeting about the general medical issues of the day, but was specifically about "Soldier's heart", which was the name used by the military for a condition that was also common in civilians, and was also called Da Costa's syndrome after a researcher who's study of the condition was published in 1871. This is a quote from that meeting . . . "the best known contribution to the subject was that of J.M.Da Costa".
The paragraph in which my main critic told a massive number of lies (this is just one of many examples)
This is what that editor wrote about me, and the reference . . . "his text is full of statements like "In 1916 Sir
James MacKenzie chaired a major medical conference aimed at gaining
a better understanding of the condition", when in fact it wasn't a "major" medical conference, and it wasn't
"aimed at" anything in particular: it was just another
normal meeting of the Therapeutics subsection of the Royal Society of Medicine. MacKenzie read a
paper. (Back in the day, that's how all scientific papers were
published: you joined a society, showed up at a meeting, read
your paper to the assembled members, and answered their questions.
If you did this, your paper was then printed in the society's Proceedings.) Posturewriter's entire statement could,
and IMO should,
be handled in the footnote. An
enormous amount of cruft crawls into his writing this way." WhatamIdoing 04:42, 28 January 2009" See here and more evidence here.
Experienced editors are required to treat new contributors with courtesy and respect?
Experienced editors know that they are required by Wikipedia policy to treat every other contributor with consideration and respect at all times, even if they disagree with them, and even during heated arguments - See here. However, my main critic was always deliberately offensive, and incited and then fueled contempt against me by choosing words of disdain. For example, the word 'cruft' has the dual meanings of 'detail' and 'rubbish' See here. Notice how that editor told about fourteen arbitrators that "An enormous amount of rubbish crawled into the article (in relation to my paragraph about - Sir James Mackenzie).
I have provided evidence and absolute PROOF that my main critic is a prolific liar who regularly violates most of Wikipedia's main policies, but I have no control over what Wikipedia does about it. I can only advise respectable members of the rule-abiding-public what to expect before they decide to join that organisation.
My main critics response - an ambigous co-incidence?
Within a few hours of me adding the comments to my website above my main critic wrote this on a page called . . . "Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, not truth".
"More accurately, Wikipedia accepts material that can be verified in published reliable sources, not whatever some editor personally believes is The Truth™. This includes verifiable material that our dear editor personally believes is true and also material that our dear editor personally believes is false. WhatamIdoing 20:07, 24 August 2011 here
My comment: My critic is trying to say that Wikipedia includes all points of view providing that the information is verifiable, but in practice, is using that 'guideline' to argue that 'the truth doesn't matter', and that information must be verifiable, and is using other policies to argue that it must come from modern sources, and then using the combination of policies to delete verifiable facts from history to produce a false impression of the 'truth'.
This is a quote from Wikipedia's official policy on Civility
"Other uncivil behaviors . . . (d) lying". here
As you can appreciate, according to that individuals interpretation of policy, one minute the truth matters and the next it doesn't, then courtesty matters and then intelligent people use instrumental rudeness to achieve power over others, and one minute everyone must be a rule-abiding editor and the next they use the 'ignore all rules' policy.
In other words that individual is 'gaming the system' . . . This is a quote from a Wikipedia article . . . "Gaming the system (or bending the rules or abusing the system) can be defined as "[using] the rules and procedures meant to protect a system in order, instead, to manipulate the system for [a] desired outcome" See here
and . . . "An editor gaming the system is seeking to use policies in bad faith, by finding within their wording apparent justification for disruptive actions and stances that policy is clearly not at all intended to support." here.
One anonymous editor has 2000 articles on a watchlist
Wikipedia readers are led to believe that the encyclopedia has many thousands of contributors who put together articles which represent the neutral point of view. They are not aware that the 'selective' choice of content in the final version of the Da Costa's syndrome article was dictated by my main critic, and no-one else was allowed to make any decisions about it. Even the neutral editors were bludgeoned with incessant arguments until they 'caved in' and submissively agreed with that individual. There are now only 90,000 contributors to Wikipedia articles but that editor has 2000 articles on a watchlist and would be using exactly the same tactics to control the content of all of them. See my report and evidence here
The information in Wikipedia therefore probably represents the personal opinion of a very small group of individuals. The public are not allowed to know who they are or what their motives are.
Recently, on 28-1-12, she has tried to act as if she is a pompous and respectable person who is worried about other editors using watchlists to hound and stalk other editors. She is a shameless hipocrite who would annoy anyone who studied her behaiour and took her seriously. here, and the definition of Wikihounding here, and my report on how she stalked and harrassed me here
Wikipedia's child and teenager editing policy
According to an article in the Adelaide Advertiser on Saturday 6-8-11, the typical Wikipedian is a 26 year old computer geek, but the number of active contributors is only 90,000 and declining, so they are asking university professors to encourage their students to write articles for Wikipedia.
Those teenagers need to understand that some of the so called 'volunteers' of Wikipedia are actually being paid to control content, or are the employees of large corporations and are being paid to control articles related to their commercial or other interests (See here). Some of those individuals consider themselves to be edit 'warlords' who roam about searching for help against any new contributors who add content that is against their own interests. They put such new contributors on watchlists, and describe them as 'bastards', 'jerks', 'little shits', 'trolls', and 'prey', and use 'lusers attitude readjustment tools' and the rules as weapons, and edit as if Wikipedia is a children's video game. (They use the 'ignore all their own rules' policy as their major rule)
You will just be a drone, so stay out of Wikipedia and make the paid editors fix their own spelling errors.
According to the Times of India Website - "Editing Wiki is now part of CoEP's syllabi"
Vishwas Kothari, TNN Aug 18, 2011, 05.02am IST here
This is a quote . . . "Over 800 students from seven engineering disciplines of the College of Engineering Pune (CoEP) will now engage in editing Wikipedia pages, as a mandatory activity for first semester of their B.Tech programme.
"Articles written by students for the web-based free content encyclopaedia, will carry weightage in terms of internal evaluation at the end of semester," said CoEP director Anil Sahasrabudhe on Wednesday. "The exercise is aimed at developing research, writing and review skills, critical thinking and collaborative work ethics among students," he said." (end of quote)
My polite suggestion to the CoEP director is that the "anonymous" editors of Wikipedia will try to tell your students what to think, not how to think. I can also advise you that if your students collaborate on a research project with anyone else in Wikipedia they will be violating their "original research" policy. Also if you want to teach them how to think "critically" about an article they should do so in an environment which encourages different points of view, not Wikipedia, which is essentially "modern" and "mainstream", or "nothing".
If you want to know about "ethics" in Wikipedia you can see my report on how they treat their "civility" policy with utter contempt here.
How desperate can they get: The average first year university student is only fifteen years old with and IQ of 110, and some are only able to gain an education because their parents are wealthy. When will the founders of Wikipedia become so desperate that they invite primary school teachers to compel eight year old children to fix spelling errors in Wikipedia where failure to do so will result in them failing their exams and being deprived of advancement from grade 3 to grade 4, and will that be a violation of child labour laws in civilised countries.
Also, when will primary school teachers be invited into Wikipedia to give their middle aged administrators advice on the importance of good manners, and the unacceptability of their "ignore all rules policy" which is setting a bad example for future generations of children and teenagers.
Age appropriate ID's
Since Wikipedia currently has such appallingly low standards of conduct I would like to ask this open question. Is it appropriate for nineteen year old teenagers to be giving themselves names like "Arbiteroftruth", and will anonymous five year old children be able to call themselves "WisdomOfSolomon", and hand out the "harshest punishment possible" to adults who are old enough to be their fathers? just because they claim to have consensus from their anonymous "colleagues".
How can anyone determine the age of editors who use such words as "many, many, many, and very, very, very, and much, much, much, and Ooops, and Whoops, and Yep, and Yup, and Aarrgh? Here is a tip, in Wikipedia it is "middle aged" adults who think they are mature.
Wikipedia versus community standards and 'rules'
In my opinion the standard of behaviour in Wikipedia is determined by their "lowest common denominator" which is their infamous "ignore all rules" policy, which would not be tolerated by the boy scouts, sporting groups, the education system, the general public, or governments, so I would describe it as an unruly mob of amateurs and paid agents who are anonymous and unaccountable for their actions, and recommend that the legal profession and governments pass laws to make it a criminal offence for schools or universities to force their students to contribute to Wikipedia, or to use it as a reference in their homework or exams.
I call on responsible members of the public to support me in whatever way you can.
Wikipedia has become a part of society, but it should never be allowed to be 'above' society, or to dominate what people think.
Schools and Universities ban Wikipedia as a reference
Recently my main critic has been making excuses for the fact that Universities are banning their students from using Wikipedia as a reference for their essays and exam papers, on the grounds that it is unreliable, and they are requiring them to get the information from scholarly research articles and books. See here. However, I assume that the real reason is that people like her are filling it with so many lies that it is easy to recognise how unreliable it is. the fact that most of the contributors are anonymous and unnaccountable, and that many of them are childishly engaging in edit wars in their attempt to 'control' content, rather than add to it, would also be a reason.
Wikipedia - The Wild West of the Internet - controlled by Outlaws?
Is Wikipedia the Wild West of the internet where the outlaws arrived before the law, and wrote the rules to suit themselves, and set the course in concrete with their infamous 'ignore ALL their own rules' policy?
The top three articles on the Google search engine for "Wikipedia criticism" on 17-7-11 (see here), and to some extent for the previous few years are articles about, or on Wikipedia by it's own editors (see here), which is linked to an article called the 'Reliability of Wikipedia' (see here) which is edited by it's own members. (see the list here). There may or may not be anything wrong with that in itself, but by having those on the top three list of the Google search engine, or providing links which give them those positions, they are
directly or indirectly violating the 'Conflict of Interest' policy which requires editors to refrain from contributing to articles which they are involved in because of the perception or risk of them apparently having a strong passionate bias which makes it impossible to edit objectively.
The fourth article on Google is called 'Wikipedia criticism, and why it fails to matter', which is the rough equivalent of arguing . . . 'Robbery, rape, and murder in society, does it really matter'.
I am number five on the Google search engine in the Australian version, and number eight on the international version, on 17-1-11, with the page you are reading, about their Lies, damned lies, and statistics". and I am only discussing two individuals out of more than a million.
One of them is the sixth highest contributor to policy pages and claims to have edited (make that controlled) 20,000 articles, and also insists on remaining anonymous (and unaccountable - isn't that interesting), and able to become an 'instant expert' on everything (isn't that truly amazing to ignorant fools who would believe such tripe), and who wants the 'ignore all rules' policy to be the major policy (another surprise?).
Here is a quote from the Wikipedia page about conflicts of interest amongst it's own policy makers . . .
"Conflicts involving Wikipedia policy makers . . . In short, Wikipedia is a cult. Or at least, the inner circle is a cult. We aren't the first to make this observation . . .
On the inside, they reinforce each other's beliefs. And if anyone on the outside questions those beliefs, they circle the wagons. They deny the facts. They attack the attacker . . .
Articles of particular interest to an editor or group of editors are sometimes commandeered and sanitized to continually reflect a point of view that sheds a favorable light on the subject or group. Editors essentially "squat" on pages, watching for negative entries, then immediately revert them." (end of quote). See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reliability_of_Wikipedia&diff=
The human condition according to Alexander Pope
My two critics have such an over inflated opinion of themselves that they think anyone with a different point of view to their own can be treated with scorn as cattle. Hence, they have turned Wikipedia, which was set up to include all information from all sources, into a pseudo-elitists opportunity to use trumped up interpretations of the 'conflict of interest' policy to be deletionist's.
However, here is a paraphrase from Alexander Pope . . .
"Some academics are so contemptibly arrogant, that when the public goes right, they deliberately go wrong."
This is another paraphrase from him . . .
"Those with new ideas will have many hostile enemies with vested interests who will attack them at the slightest sign of weakness, and a few luke warm friends who will abandon them at the slightest sign of trouble".
The two hostiles in my case were editors named WhatamIdoing, and a rather insignificant assistant called Gordonofcartoon.
An editor who supported me was Guido den Broeder, but the main 'hostile editor' lobbied to make sure that he was soon banned. A neutral editor named EdJohnston, made decisions against me after massive relentless criticism from the two hostile individuals (see here), and NapoliRoma, who joined in the discussions knowing that he was 'putting his foot in it', was supporting my suggestions but soon left after the criticism continued incessantly (see here), and SmokeyJoe (here) and Avnjay were initially supporting me, but came under hostile and relentless criticism (see here).until they left me on my own where an individual named Moreschi used the 'ignore all rules' policy to ban me, and was later rewarded with an 'outlaw halo' award by the 'hostile' individual for being the only admin who was willing to use the 'ignore all the rules' policy to get me out of Wikipedia. (see here)
There was essentially only one editor who was acting like a self-appointed dictator of the page content by telling everyone else what to think and what to do.
There are supposedly several million editors in Wikipedia but no-one else made any significant contributions to the topic which had only four lines of text when I started improving it.
What would you do if this happened to you?
Suppose that you had provided some information to Wikipedia and two editors told you that it had to be removed because it was related to your own research and was a violation of their original research policy. They then advised you that the information must come from top quality medical references and independent peer-reviewed medical journals. Supposing you then provided information about the history of the topic from a 1951 medical reference book by the top expert in the subject at that time (Paul Dudley White), and that had been distributed to medical specialists and universities around the world. Supposing you also provided references by the same author who collaborated with other authors on a research paper published in the Journal of the Medical Association of America (JAMA) in 1951, and other references involving that individual from 1946, 1947, 1950, and 1951, together with a total of 61 good quality references which included authors who had been knighted for their contributions to medicine, or had played important roles in the research. See here
What would you do if they then set up discussions and told other editors that it was just a 'text book', or just a 1951 book, and then told other editors that it was 'old', or 'out-of-date', and told other groups that it was 'from before most editors were born', and then told another group that most, if not all of your references didn't meet Wikipedia's basic standards.
What would you do if they replaced your article with their version which was supported by only 18 references, and their reference number 6 included the same author, from one of the same years - 1951, and if they used several other authors from your list.
Supposing those two individuals placed an item which they referred to as a 'novel' in the 'See also' section at the end of the page, and later moved it up to the top line to give emphasis on which, in their personal opinion, was the chief alternative label for the ailment. See here. Supposing that you decided to read it to check on it's quality and relevance, and supposing you found that it was a 'children's' 'fiction' 'story', and then told them that you wanted it removed because Wikipedia readers would see it on the top line and assume that it was relevant and waste their time reading it.
What would you do if they accused you of violating their 'original research' policy by giving your assessment of the 'children's' 'story' which they introduced to the page.
What would you do if they argued about it incessantly and said that they put it there because the 'disambiguation' or 'hatnote' policy 'demanded' it.
What would you do if they then argued that they could put a flowering plant on the top line if they wanted to? See some of their arguments here.
What would you do if they lost the argument when a neutral editor deleted the link to the 'children's' 'story' and it hasn't been put back in the two years since (see here), and yet they misled another group of editors into believing that they won that argument convincingly. See here, and see my full report here
Some more questions
What would you do if two editors described your contributions as 'fringy' 'nonsense' and 'crap', and then argued that they were not violating the civility policy which required all editors to treat everyone else with courtesy and respect at all times.
What would you do if two editors told everyone else that everything you wrote was nonsense and crap, and deleted it because, in their opinion it did not deserve any space in Wikipedia, and then they or their friends rewrote major aspects of the information in their own words, and put it in their own version of the article, or on other topic pages, and then argued that they were not breaching your copyright because you had given the information to them, and that merciless editing was a normal thing to expect. See here.
What would you do if you provided evidence of an editors bad manners, and they then added information to the page called 'Rudeness' which argued that 'instrumental rudeness' is an indication of social competence used by intelligent people to achieve status and power over others. See here
What would you do if two editors always worked together against you to gain an advantage in disputes, and you advised them to stop tag-teaming, and then they took turns changing the same paragraph in the tag-teaming essay to produce a loop-hole so that they could argue that just because two people always worked together against some one else it was not necessarily tag-teaming.
What would you do if two editors were deliberately and persistently offensive and disruptive, and then told a new groups of editors that you need to be blocked because you are not able to edit constructively in an forum which requires the ability to co-operate with the entire Wikipedia community.
What would you do if two editors always told you that you must obey all of the rules of Wikipedia like all of the other respectable 'rule-abiding' editors, such as themselves, and then they ambushed you on an arbitration dispute by getting one of their friends to ban you by using the 'ignore all rules' policy.
It is all very well to sit back and do nothing about this - but what would you do, if it happened to you, or any new person who joins Wikipedia, and has to deal with those two individuals.
On a recent TV show, world renown, Dr. Phil described how the lies that some people tell about others can cause extreme distress, hurt, and humiliation. While I don't get upset by the lies told about me by fools, nevertheless my main critic was a prolific liar, and that was the objective. I have provided the evidence for that, and explained that it is a bannable offence according to Wikipedia policy. I don't know why the other editors and administrators tolerate an individual like that. Perhaps it is because that individual has the calculated and remarkable ability to create diversions away from the fact that telling lies is unacceptable behaviour in an intellectual and open public forum where the reliability of information is being espoused.
First a quote from Socrates "An honest man is always a child" (end of quote)Everything is subject to interpretation. For example . . .
You can be honest to gain a reputation for reliability and integrity, but you can't stop someone else from describing honesty as naive and stupid.
You can have the best intentions, but can't stop someone else for describing them as the worst.
I could use a reference from Sir James MacKenzie who was knighted for his contributions to medicine, and my main critic can glibly tell everyone else that he was just an ordinary guy who walked in off the street and joined a society, and had an insignificant chat to a meeting about nothing in particular. See my report here
If you are an honest editor or administrator in Wikipedia, and if you actually spend a few minutes reading the research papers (instead of instantly assuming things) then you will be able to see that my main critic told numerous lies in that one edit - on an arbitration page.
At 3:23 on 19-6-11 that individual claims to have edited "more than 20,000 different pages" . . . "fairly often . . . despite having zero interest in or prior knowledge of the subject".
How many lies must that editor have told in 20,000 pages, and how is Wikipedia going to get a reputation for reliable information if individuals like that are not permanently banned.
Are you all just ineffectual 'Yes men' - afraid to ban that individual?
I recently heard a comment about politics . "The moment you lose the trust of the people you are finished"
"No legacy is so rich as honesty". William Shakespeare
For evidence that my two critics were systematically telling lies and violating the rules of Wikipedia see here
Their lies about the quality of my references here
How they faked consensus for their opinions, see here
However none of the administrators has taken the responsibility of banning them for violating the policies.
This is a quote from Wikipedia . . . "due to the nature of the wiki software, what you do and say here on wikipedia stays forever.' See here
The evidence of my two critics lies can be seen in Wikipedia forever, or so you are supposed to think?
However, the Da Costa's essay that I wrote for them was described by a neutral editor as 'a lot better than theirs', and yet has been deleted.
They accused me of being non-neutral and uncooperative, and yet the associated talk page which demonstrates my co-operation with a neutral editor has been deleted. My own User talk page which includes my essay about their policy violations has been deleted. That page also gives general evidence of their arrogant and ill-mannered behaviour, and their trollish intrusion of my Userpage with inappropriate topic discussions. My main critic who was trying to act like a man, has changed their user page to show that she is a woman. One of the young editors who tried to act like a mature adult, believed all of that individuals lies and demanded the harshest punishment of me, but has since retracted the comments, and changed his User name so that his embarrassing and shameful mistake is effectively hidden. The editor who banned me has completely rewritten his own Userpage to remove his opinion that the Civility editors were stupid, and that he could write a better policy on good manners. The barnstar that was given to him for behaving like an 'Outlaw" and 'ignoring all the rules' to ban me has been removed and all that remains is the Barnstar of Diligence.
My second critic appears to have left Wikipedia, and may be editing under a different Username anonymously, pseudonymous, or slyly.
In other words while Wikipedia has a policy on keeping everything on the permanent record the actual fact is that the experienced editors can pick and choose which information to keep to make themselves look good, no matter how ridiculous they were. They can have the last say to create the illusion that they won every argument despite the fact that they only won the final dispute, and they can hide the fact that they did it by cheating. There is nothing clever about cheats. They are just cheats who ignore the rules because they don't have the brains or ability to win within the rules.
If an athlete cheated he would be banned from the Olympics, and his medal would be awarded to the indidual who won the race properly, so the Olympic standard of reliablility is much higher than Wikipedia's. The Olympic committees would not accept the excuse that 'we had to cheat, because of special reasons according to an 'Ignore all rules' policy'. See more here
Secrecy in Wikipedia
While it may be claimed that everything is on the permanent record, that principle is subverted by the fact that Wikipedia is full of secrets which are enabled and encouraged by a variety of other policies. For example all individuals can edit anonymously, with an ID of choice that deliberately misrepresents or hides their true identity. They can refuse to tell you who they are, or who is paying them to edit, or how much. They can be teenagers pretending to be adults, and women pretending to be men. They can hold secret meetings with other discussion groups or administrators without telling you. They can hide their messages to each other in edit codes, and can coordinate secret edit wars against individuals by communicating with friends by email outside of Wikipedia. If they become administrators they can use additional computer tools and privileges to control other editors and content. They can keep what they have done a secret, and deny that they are keeping secrets. They can deny that they were telling lies, or give excuses for their lies, and can pretend to be honest.
They can make people believe that I am at fault for providing the evidence which proves how many lies they told.
Perhaps I would be better off if I acted like the three wise monkeys - See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?
In the real law abiding world where I came from there is a legal system and courts where a person is required to take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the whole truth.
However, I spent twelve months in Wikipedia where two editors would argue as if the truth doesn't matter, and secretly used a policy which allowed them to ignore all the rules. They also told a massive number of lies. e.g. See two of my reports about their lies here and here
If, before I joined Wikipedia, I had been told that it was possible for two editors to tell a massive number of lies and get away with it, I would not have believed them. However, since then I have come to believe that they might just get away with it because the founders and administrators don't seem to care.
My main critic often astonished me by quite casually telling outrageous bald-faced lies.
For example, that editor described my references as unreliable, and used the example of Sir James Mackenzie.
Here are some facts . . . Sir James MacKenzie was Knighted for his contributions to medicine in 1915, and chaired a meeting of The Royal Society of Medicine in 1916".
This is what my main critic told other editors in order to make them think that he was just an ordinary doctor who had no significant value to the study of the topic . . .
"Back in the day, that's how all scientific papers were published: you joined a society, showed up at a meeting, read your paper to the assembled members, and answered their questions. If you did this, your paper was then printed in the Society's Proceedings." See more details here
How they treat new contributors
While I was involved I spent 12 months of that time contributing to one of their articles, but two editors were incessantly badgering me with criticism and devising a never ending series of policy reasons for deleting every word I wrote, and were telling lies about me, the references, and the authors and content of the research papers. They were also telling lies about the Wikipedia policies, and they were violating most of the policies themselves, and using foul language.
If you wish to learn about, or write essays or reports, you can find specific information by clicking on the links to various aspects in the index in the sidebar to the right of this page. For example, you may be interested in the fact that they told lies, and how they got away with it, so you can scroll down the index to click on the links to various types of their lies, or, you many be interested in bias, spin, or censorship etc.
If you are thinking of joining Wikipedia you may scroll down the index to "New Wikipedians: what they should all know" to find out that they are called "Newbies", and put in the same category as "bastards", "jerks", and "prey". You might like to know how they can get your real identity, and put it at the top of talk pages in bold print, and then you might wish to check the links to "invasion of privacy" and "Defamation of character" to see how they do those things. You may also be interested in the fact that they conduct organised "Edit wars", and follow the index or links to pages about "Lusers", "Trolls", Targets", and Wicked witches".
If you are already in Wikipedia you may be interested in how they faked "Consensus", or how they want to make the "Ignore all rules" policy their main policy, and how they secretly reward other editors for ignoring the rules, or you may be interested in how they encourage "Paid editing", and how they have extreme "Double standards" in the way they interpret and apply all policies.
One of my two critics is fond of quoting "TLDR" . . . This is a quote from a Wikipedia page by that name . . .
"Too long; didn't read" (abbreviated "TLDR", "tl;dr") . . . The term indicates that the reader did not actually read the statement due to its undue length." See here
Here is a quote from another editor to someone else . . . "TLDR . . . is a trollish response . . . and . . . is not an acceptable response on the Ref Desk. It is uncivil." --Mr.98 19:18, 28 March 2010 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Reisio#TLDR
Also, consider this; if they didn't tell so many lies, and violate so many policies, and leave such a massive trail of evidence and proof, then I would have had nothing to criticise. Furthermore, they could seed ten lies into one paragraph, and it would take me up to a week to find the evidence and proof of each deceit, and in the meantime they would write another ten lies, so I chose to wait until after I was banned and then document them.
Nevertheless, I don't think it is practical to you to focus on everything, so just use the index to find information that interests you. For example you could write an essay or a report about their standard edit war practices.
My Wikipedia ID was Posturewriter, and the two editors who told lies incessantly had the ID's of WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon.They set up a discussion page with my real name in bold print at the top, and several pages with the heading "Requests for comment Posturewriter", so, in my defence, I have set up two pages about them.
See their pages about my contributions . . .
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter
See their deliberately lengthy and disproportionate arguments against me while I was in Wikipedia here
The Sly and Toxic writer of policies
At 2:38 on 28 March 2010 my main critic wrote an instant and massive change to a minor page called "Wikipedia:The difference between policies, guidelines and essays".
Since then that person has linked back to it and created the false impression that it has been gradually developed and accepted by a consensus of hundreds of editors over many years.
If you look carefully you can see how that extremely sly individual was writing an instruction sheet, outside of the official policy pages, about how the rules should be interpreted, and essentially overlaid them with loopholes that will enable any editor to do anything they want under any circumstances.
Some exact quotes from the new version
WP:Ignore all rules is a major policy".
"The difference between policies, guidelines, and essays on Wikipedia is obscure."
There are a remarkable number of exceptions and limitations embedded within Wikipedia's policies"
"violating . . . of policies, such as WP:Verifiability, is done constantly, by thousands of editors each year, without anyone getting blocked."
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:The_difference_between_policies,_
How they used those policies
During the twelve months that I was in Wikipedia, I described many of the instances in which my two critics were violating policies, but each and every time they found an exception in the rules, and when they ran out of ideas they arranged for another editor to ignore all the rules and ban me. They could do that to any new contributor, for any reason that suited any hidden agenda.
See examples of their spin here
(These were the previous words . . . "The difference between policies, guidelines and essays are: You must follow policies (except for the common exception); You should follow guidelines: It's a good idea to follow essays; Don't ignore guidelines and essays just because they aren't policy.") here and here
See how one of them blocked a new policy aimed at prohibiting "paid" editing here
The outlaw halo award
A few months after I was banned my main critic gave the person responsible an Outlaw Halo award for being the only admin who was prepared to ignore all the rules to ban me. It is a badge of shame.
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661
Anyone, or any group inside or outside of Wikipedia, who assists me in any way to get that editor permanently banned from Wikipedia and the internet can give themselves a badge of honor called . . .
The law enforcer award
and my sincere gratitude.
Some clues about how to achieve that objective are described here
"Normal society" versus the infiltrators of Wikipedia
Normal society has principles and rules that need to be complied with, and one of the major principles is freedom of speech. By stark contrast some of the worst elements of society have infiltrated Wikipedia to undermine those principles. They have written policies to restrict which information the public gets to see, and an ignore all rules policy that allows them to do it with consumate ease. The respectable editors of Wikipedia need to solve that problem.
See also here
The Five Evils of Wikipedia
If you join Wikipedia you may soon be directed to a page called the "Five pillars" which explains the fundamental principles required. In particular, that you don't need to be deterred by a lot of rules, because the main requirements are that you contribute to discussions politely and provide factual information that is independently verifiable.
However I spent 12 months contributing so I am in a position to define the 'Five evils" of Wikipedia.
1. There is a page in Wikipedia which advises that the truth does not matter, with these words . . . "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia already has been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=388243179
2. There is an "Ignore all rules" policy which is a magnet for all types of individuals who would like to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising and propaganda. They can be anonymous, covert, volunteer or highly paid professionals who seed the encyclopedia with bias while pretending that it is "neutral" and "objective" information.
3. I had two critics who were prolific liars, and who cheated, violated the rules, and "falsified history". When I reported their behaviour to experienced editors none of them did anything about it.
4. Those same two individuals, but one in particular, would participate in policy discussions to influence, or actually rewrite them, and there are now hundreds, if not thousands of pages of policies, guidelines, and essays that are riddled with exceptions or loopholes that enable the experienced editors to ignore the spirit of those policies. The absence of a policy on double standards is related to that problem
5. When I wrote an essay that described the tactics used by my two critics, and provided links to evidence and proof of their behaviour, they called it an "attack essay" and arranged for it to be deleted. However, Wikipedia already had an attack essay which has been kept on the devious grounds that it is obvious satire and humor, but it essentially defines, or brands "newbies" as "bastards", "jerks", "little shits", and "easy prey". When the experienced editor favors a person they call them a "new contributor" or politely use their ID, but when they oppose them they refer to them as a "newbie". There are now thousands of insults that have been embedded in the brand name of "newbie". For example, "newbies" are portrayed as being "inexperienced" and "immature", and so contemptibly "stupid" that they don't understand simple concepts such as the 'placebo' effect, and so ignoratnt that they don't know that stress makes the heart rate increase, and so incompetent in their ability to assess evidence that they don't take into account the difference between one off pesonal experiences and reproducible experimental facts, and that they are so emotional that they incapable of objectivity. That label is obvious ad hominem and can be, and is applied to anyone new regardless of their age, qualifications or experience.
For more information about bad manners see here
For more deltails see here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da Costa'sSynd Wikiwebpa2.html#FinalSay
There is an existing page in Wikipedia called "Wikipedia:Five pillars of evil" which has a slightly different critical view.
For example, the actual policies advise that everyone is considered equal, and that all contributors should assume good faith in everyone else and be polite. However that Wikipedia page advises that it applies to new contributors only, but administrators can assume bad faith and be as ill-mannered as they want."
It has these words at the top to justify the fact that it hasn't been deleted . . . "This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous." See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w"/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Five_pillars_of_evil&diff=335596936&oldid=
Your assistance would be appreciated
My two critics (WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon) teamed up and wrote massive amounts of criticism of my contributions so that other readers would get the false impression that the entire Wikipedia community of thousands of editors were arguing against me. See how they argued incessantly against Guido den Broeder and EdJonston here, and how they teamed up on their secret Civil POV pushing accusations here, See also how my main critic argued relentlessly against a neutral editor named Avnjay here, and in that process used her sandbox here. They also teamed up on the RFC discussions here, and the arbitration discussion here. They kept arguing for 12 months until I was banned, and it has taken me several years to gather the evidence and proof that much of what they wrote was lies and bullshit. (See also my report on how the tag-teamed to write a loophole into the rule against tag-teaming here, and how they faked consensus here, and ignored all the rules anyway here). Your assistance in banning those two cheats, or driving them out of Wikipedia would be appreciated.
Threats and intimidation in Wikipedia
Most of the editors and administrators are afraid to start an arbitration page to ban my main critic, because they know that she typically launches into a relentless response of revenge that involves putting them on a watchlist, launching a covert edit war, telling them that they are incompetent in front of others, accusing them of breaking the rules, criticising everything they write, and never shutting up until they either concede to her wishes or are banned. For example, EdJonston read the massive amount of criticism which she and her team mate wrote, and gained the false impression that everyone in Wikipedia was arguing against me, and then knew that the only way to shut her up was to agree with her here. Guido den Broeder agreed with me and was banned, and she left a comment with the clear message that if I didn't toe the line that I would be next. SmokeyJoe told her that my contributions appeared to him to be that of a top quality academic, and she defamed my character until he deferred to her judgment, without any regard for the merit of the additions. A neutral editor named Avnjay told her to try and reach a consensus by going 'gently, gently' (instead of responding in her typical hostile manner), and when he told her that my version of the article was a lot better than hers she told him that he was incompetent and launched into a relentless onslaught of nitpicking which didn't stop until he realised that the only way to end the dispute was to concede to her wishes e.g. here. She had to get me banned because I wasn't prepared to tolerate her lies and bullshit about other editors, the content, and the rules.
Somebody has to look at her behaviour and ask themselves how Wikipedia is ever supposed to get a reputation for being respectable with people like her in it.
The Two Snottiest Grubs in Wikipedia History
which haven't metamorphosed into mature creatures
My main critic has the immature mentality of a teenager who has suddenly learnt that they can use 'double meanings' to their advantage.
For example, there are two pages related to Wikipedia called "Troll". The first describes a 'troll' as a 'disruptive editor', and the second as a 'large, ugly, slow and dim-witted, disgusting and hairy monster who lives in a cave and comes out at night to make a pest of itself'.
By using that double meaning she can then encourage or provoke her friends into describing me, or anyone who has different opinions to hers, as a troll, and then claim that she is not insulting me, or defaming my character, or ignoring the rules of courtesy, because a troll is just a disruptive person, not an ugly pest.
I would therefore like to add two new pages to Wikipedia to define the words 'Snotty grub". The first defines it as an arrogant editor', and the second as a filthy foul-mouthed form of low-life that slides and slithers about in the slime and muck, and cow shit of a garden variety compost heap. She and her team mate are the "Snottiest grubs in Wikipedia history". See the definitions of trolls here and here and her use of 'attitude readjustment tools' here and here, and see here.
If they want me to be courteous to them they should have been polite to me while I was there. In the meantime I will say anything I want about them until such time as the administrators force them to apologise for their offensive behaviour towards me, and in particular that they permanently ban them for breaking the rules of Wikipedia by using "attitude readjustment tools". See also the worst type of trolls of them all called the Troll makers here and here, and their juvenile methods of internet harassment here
The two fools were all talk and no action
and completely and utterly unreliable sources of information
My main critic is a snotty grub who is trying to convince the younger editors of the importance of providing verifiable information from reliable top quality sources, but she doesn't take her own advice. For example, she and her stupid team mate didn't bother to read past the cover of a book called Soldier's heart, or the first paragraph of Rosen's research paper, and she didn't even bother to read Oglesby Pauls history of the topic which she provided as a reference herself. See more about her unreliability here. The two of them just invented things and told lies about them because they arrogantly thought that I was a fool who didn't bother to check the facts either. e.g. See here and here and my reports here and here and here. If you study the way they do things you can see that they impulsively 'leap to ignorant conclusions' and if you study my methods you will see that I check facts over and over again, and refine my conclusions, to make sure that they are accurate.
Given that my main critic has 2000 pages on her watchlist, which she controls, it means that Wikipedia itself is an unreliable source of information, particularly about public health. It will continue to be unreliable about such things until the administrators permanently ban her, and if she has medical qualifications her state and international authorities should make sure that she is never allowed to earn a living in any sector of the health care industry.
The deletion of my comments
I have been interested in health topics and medical history for more than 30 years, and have written some theories, and have had more than 100 letters or articles published in newspapers and magazines, and published a 1000 page book. I have therefore had enough knowledge and experience to be able to recognise which information is missing from Wikipedia, and at one stage had added comments to five different topics. However, I found out later that each of those contributions had been deleted by five different editors, and when I checked, I found that some of the reasons for those deletions were petty and pedantic. For example, if I use a 1951 book called "The Specialties in General Practice" published by W.B. Saunders as a reference, and it is deleted on the grounds that it is 'unreliable' or 'old', then the editor is being disruptive, because it is ridiculous to call such a book unreliable, and that editor is breaking the rules because they are supposed to be co-operative and helpful by finding modern references themselves, rather than deleting obvious and useful facts. See here and here. An example of offensive double standards can be seen from my main critic who used several 'old' articles and books as references in her version of Da Costa's syndrome here
However, my main critic tried to give another group the impression that I was a young, ignorant, and inexperienced person who was making a pest of himself by adding worthless information which had to be removed, and that I had to be blocked or banned. You can consider my report and judge the matter for yourself here. You can then read her extremely childish ranting and raving about it here.
She lost the other arguments on the page where she made that statement, because the consensus went against her here, but she just kept on ranting and raving, and ignoring consensus and all of the rules, and telling lies until she managed to get me banned.
You may believe what they want you to believe that I was being disruptive to the Wikipedia community, but I can assure you that I was contributing constructively, and was mainly arguing with two prolific liars, which is what I was supposed to do . . . to help "improve" Wikipedia.
that my critics tell lies and break the rules
of Wikipedia and
were Deliberately Disruptive
I spent 12 months contributing to Wikipedia,
during which time I was not interested in responding instantly
to all of the incessant lies and nonsense that were written about
me by two editors, so I took notes and have spent some time since responding, but the volume of information is getting so
large that it would be difficult for the casual reader to follow.
Some correspondents have argued that I
am unfairly criticizing some respectable editors,
as if all of them are supposed to be respectable,
and as if I am criticising Wikipedia itself. My critics would
like that idea because they would want everyone else in that organisation
to defend them.
However, I actually started contributing
because I thought it was a good idea to have the principle of
getting ALL information from ALL sources, not just from scientific
experts from one tobacco company, or politicians from one party,
or official websites of one government, or comments from one
class of people, or one culture, or from only modern opinion
(as if everything published in this mornings edition of their
favorite journal or book is correct, and as if every statement
made by everyone else now or in the past was wrong???? etc.)
To follow the evidence that my critics
were being disruptive I recommend that you look at one window,
or one section at a time, and if you have any doubts about what
I say, I recommend that you read the links, and the references
which confirm everything I have said. However, please note that
when I first joined Wikipedia I saw general common sense advice
to be courteous, and to support comments with reliable references,
and to avoid criticising other editors unless you could provide
strong evidence, because every word you write will be on the
permanent record, so don't say anything that you might regret
later. Hence, you will notice other editors describing me
as polite and my two critics complaining about that support.
Nevertheless, they were being arrogant, condescending, and generally
offensive in their manner, and were frequently violating the
policies, but surprisingly, since I have been banned, my own
Usertalk page where they went to annoy me has been deleted, my
subpage where I provided an essay that another editor described
as better than the one provided by my critics has been removed,
and the talk page where I was co-operating with a neutral editor
has been deleted.
If you are curious about why they would
violate all of Wikipedia policies the answer is simple. They
had their own ideas about Da Costa's syndrome and it's history,
and were going to impose their own personal opinion on that page
no matter what. They therefore told me that I must obey every
policy in Wikipedia as if they were as rigidly enforced as rules
carved in rock, but they had four years of previous experience
to learn all the details of policies, and dozens of ways of interpreting,
twisting, or evading them to argue that everything they did was
correct, and when they couldn't get their way they flagrantly
and boastfully ignored them as if the ability to ignore the rules
was a badge of honor and a confirmation of their power. When
applied to themselves they would treat the rules as if they were
as flexible as a rubber band, and they would argue such things
as 'we were not violating policy A because an overlap with policies
B,C, and D, and a section of policy G makes their actions an exception' etc', or they would use their their prettiest 'hatnote' policy which
allowed them to link medical articles to children's stories or 'flowering plants' if
they wanted to, and, of course, they NEVER told me about their
most favorite 'ignore all rules' policy WP:IAR.
In order to
view the evidence start here:
That my two critics use foul language see here
That they were working as a tag
team here, and taking turns against me on virtually all discussion
pages (like runners changing batons in a relay race), and that
they started an edit war against me - see here.
That they were arrogantly and deliberately
breaking the rules of Wikipedia and rewarding other editors for
breaking them see here
That they were rewriting, or altering
history to suit themselves see here and here and here
That they were deleting information
to make their own opinions seem credible see here
That they were telling lies about
the relationship between Da Costa's Syndrome and Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome see here
That they were telling lies about
the subpage process for resolving neural point of view issues
That they were lying when they say
I am not co-operative see here
That they were doing everything they
could to annoy me see the section on their trolling by scrolling
down almost to the end of the page you are now reading here
They have told a lot of lies,
and broken a lot of rules, and been hostile and disruptive, and
I have all the evidence to prove that for anyone who is interested,
and who is willing to look at it without bias. It is not practical
to assume that my critics are honest and respectable just because
they are editors in Wikipedia. That is the equivalent to believing
that all politicians are honest and beyond reproach.
People who spend their time being critical
of others don't develop problem solving skills. People who spend
their time trying to solve problems can very easily become superior
critics if their critics become a problem. The practice might
even be useful in dealing with 'the two fastest mudslingers in
Banning my two critics: Here is a quote from my main critic. . . "Whether the community calls a page a "policy" or a "guideline" does not determine whether violations of that page produce blocks. What makes a difference is the nature of the activity: violating "behavioral" pages will get you blocked; violating stylistic pages will not get you blocked." WhatamIdoing 06:32, 4 April 2010
If that is true, my two critics should be permanently banned.
My assessment of their tactics before I was banned, and some information that I found twenty months later can be seen here
When I joined Wikipedia there was a standard instruction that if you aren't prepared to deal with merciless editing then don't bother. See how to copy their 'merciless editing' and edit warring methods here
Honesty, integrity, lies, and bullshit according to Wikipedia
First a quote from another website called "The Straight Dope . . . Fighting ignorance since 1973". . .
"The question isn’t whether Wikipedia is reliable. No one with a grasp of the situation contends it is, including co-founder Jimmy Wales. Wales justly observes that serious researchers would be foolish to rely on any encyclopedia . . . Many Wikipedia articles are now wisely prefaced with warnings about dubious aspects of what lies below. Probably it would be helpful if all popularizers, including Wikipedia, Britannica, and us at the Straight Dope, permanently emblazoned at the top of our pages BELIEVE NOTHING YOU READ HERE. IT MAY ALL BE LIES - Cecil Adams" here.
Wikipedia is a public encyclopedia - not a Machiavellian society
Now for an explanation of the behaviour of my two critics; They are both aware of Wikipedia's most important social policy which requires all editors to be courteous cooperative, honest, friendly and polite at all times, and to obey the rules. However they acted the exact opposite, as if they were "special" and as if Wikipedia was their own personal serfdom where they could treat other editors like disposable human trash.
In fact they acted as if they were a couple of silly drama queens performing the script of a Machiavelli play. Here is a quote from Wikipedia . .
"Machiavelli believed that public and private morality had to be understood as two different things in order to rule well. As a result,a ruler must be concerned not only with reputation, but also positively willing to act immorally at the right times. As a political scientist, Machiavelli emphasizes the occasional need for the methodical exercise of brute force, deceit, and so on . . . and that . . . "the ends justify the means" here.
See also my report here.
I can understand how my main critic can tell a massive number of lies to deceive the public, but I find it a little bit more difficult to explain why the other editors and administrators, and the founder Jimmy Wales would not do something to ban them, if for no other reason as to preserve the reputation of Wikipedia as a source of reliable information. The fact that the readers and the public do nothing about it does not surprise me, because, throughout history they have been recognised as individually being intelligent and disapproving of lies, but as a group they are not organised, or are intimidated by the difficulty of making changes, or don't bother. They generally don't object until the lies affect themselves personally, and then they are in a hopeless situation of having to deal with it all on their own. As the saying goes, the public are treated like mushrooms . . . kept in the dark and fed on bullshit.
Honesty: This is a quote from Wikipedia's page called "Honesty" . . . "Honesty refers to a facet of moral character and denotes positive, virtuous attributes such as integrity, truthfulnes, and straightforwardness along with the absence of lying, cheating, or theft. "Honesty is the best policy." -- William Shakespeare, Mark Twain, Steve Landesberg and Tony Farrugia. all said this saying." here
Integrity: This is a quote from it's page called "Integrity" . . . "Integrity is a concept of consistency of actions, values, methods, measures, principles, expectations, and outcomes. In ethics, integrity is regarded as the honesty and truthfulness or accuracy of one's actions. Integrity can be regarded as the opposite of hypocrisy, in that it regards internal consistency as a virtue, and suggests that parties holding apparently conflicting values should account for the discrepancy or alter their beliefs." here
Lies: This is a quote from it's page called "Lie" . . . "To lie is to hold something which one knows is not the whole truth to be the whole truth, intentionally." here
Bullshit: This is a quote from it's page called "Bullshit" . . . "something which is "bullshit" is said to be false or intentionally deceptive." here
They were calculated liars
Jimmy Wales had the very respectable intention of setting up an online encyclopedia which contained all of the information from all sources in the world so that it was conveniently and readily available for free to anyone who wanted to use it. Similarly most people would like to have the warm and cozy feeling that they could get all of the information they needed so easily, and that it would be "trustworthy" and "pure", and checked and corrected by many honest and independent eyes, to make sure that it was reliable.
However information has always been controlled by corporate or political organisations who want to control the public mind, and public opinion, and they would have seen the opportunity to do that through Wikipedia. Their anonymous agents, or individuals who have some sort of motivation or allegiance with those organisations would also be part of the process of deceiving the public.
My two Wikipedia critics were not just ordinary liars, but were "calculated" liars insofar as they told lies for very deliberate reasons. They deleted specific items of verifiable information with great care and precision, sometimes days, weeks, or months apart, and they would alter or misrepresent facts to deceive the readers and administrators.
Furthermore, when I provided proof that they were liars they would try to give the impression that they were just "little white lies" for the benefit of readers. or that they simply forgot major statements from previous discussions, or that their lies were just innocent mistakes of such a minor nature that they didn't need to apologise, or even corrects their obvious errors.
One example of how they used precise deletions to create false impressions can be seen in my report here, but further reports on their countless other lies can be seen in the list below.
I can provide the evidence, but I can't force the Wikipedia administrators, or the public to check and verify it or to ban the liars, and I can't stop people from lying to the public, and I can't stop some people from being naive and gullible. It is up to each individual to decide for themselves.
Introduction to the lies and bad manners of my two Wikipedia critics
My main critic often expresses her disgust at the behaviour and tactics of other editors, but in that process it became obvious that she was using exactly the same tactics herself. The following quote comes from a discussion on the page about her awards, in relation to one of them .
"I conclude, for the sociologically minded, that the editor in question comes from a shame culture instead of a sin culture: therefore . . . it's better to steal and endlessly lie about it than to steal and confess when you're faced with embarrassingly incontrovertible evidence of your crime" (end of quote) signed by WhatamIdoing 06:10, 16 May 2009 here.
She is an extremely two faced hypocrite because while she criticised that editor she tells massive lies endlessly herself, and always denies it, plays dumb, ignores the accusation, or uses every other trick in the book or divert attention away from the evidence and proof that she is a liar.
The evidence and proof that they are both liars
When I joined Wikipedia my two critics had already been there for several years and had learned all of the rules, and one of them had written and sewn more loopholes into them than there is in a lace tablecloth. They both completely ignored all the rules, and told lies at every opportunity in their clumsy attempts to win disputes, but they also had 'watchlists' and other softwear tools which enabled them to follow me around, and criticise, and delete everything I did. However, they did it in devious ways to make gullible editors and readers believe them.
For example, if they were rude to me a thousand times, and if I responded to that provocation three times, they would put my responses on a private "list". They would then post it in one slab of three criticisms in one discussion, to make me look bad, as if I had been rude to them 3 times, and they had never been rude to me at all. In fact, in order to fake innocence they would set up a new discussions and tell other editors that my comments were unprovoked, or unspecified etc. They would then try to get me blocked on the grounds of uncivil behaviour. e.g. here.
However, since I have been banned I have been reporting the evidence of their ill-mannered behaviour etc. and putting it on lists for the public to see, and the public to judge.
The predictable editing style and tactics used by my two critics can be seen in the YouTube comedy by John Cleese below . . .
Your power and ability to win arguments increases in proportion to the number of lies your opponent tells. They are the holes in their Titanic.
Facts and evidence cut through lies like a hot knife through butter
A brief index to the lies told by my two critics
People tell lies when they can't win arguments with their brains or the truth.
Some of the evidence is contained in the links provided below . . .
Their lies about being rule-abiding editors here,
and their lies about the civility policy here,
and their lies about consensus here,
and their lies about the reliability of my references here and here,
and their lies about their own reliability here,
and their lies about Paul Dudley White here, and here,
and the lies they told to the Arbitration editors here,
and their lies to the Arbitration editors about Sir James MacKenzie here,
and their motives for telling lies here
Their lies about Da Costa's syndrome here and here and how they tell lies by omission (by deleting important facts) here.
and their lies about the history of the topic here and here,
and their lies about the relationship to the chronic fatigue syndrome here,
and their lies about the discussions relating to MVP here
and this is only the introduction to their much larger mass of lies.
A brief index to their bad manners
WhatamIdoing (my main critic)
Examples of her ill-mannered behaviour are provided here
Her lies about the Civility policy here
Her strategic rudeness here and here
Her deliberately ill-mannered iguana comments here, and here and here and here and here and here and here
Her childishness here and here
Pretending to be a man here
Forecasting her intentions to act like he Wicked Witch of the West here
Her behaviour as a Wicked Witch mirrored here
Her hounding and harassment activities and her watchlist
Gordonofcartoon (her constant editing companion)
An introduction to examples of his bad manners here
His ill-mannered "TLDR" comment ("Too Long Didn't Read" the discussion or the evidence) here
His devious threat to Up the ante
His Opposite speak here
The two of them (Always reinforcing each others ill-mannered and disrespectful attitude).
Their double standards here
Their breaking the rules of the Civility policy here
Ban them here
Moreschi (the administrator who banned me)
He called the Wikipedia Civility policy "Junk" here
According to Wikipedia's Civility policy telling lies is a blockable offense here.
However, it doesn't specify how many lies an editor tells for the rule to be enforced, or for habitual liars to be permanently banned???
An Index to their rule-breaking behaviour (They are cheats)
Their inappropriate use of Wikipedia's "Ignore all rules" policy here
The "Outlaw Halo" award - a barnstar given by my main critic to the administrator who banned me for doing it by "ignoring All the rules" here
My main critic is an idiot and a liar
I have been interested in Da Costa's syndrome for more than 30 years, and started adding information to the Wikipedia page on that subject in December 2007. My main critic admitted that at that stage she didn't know much about the topic. See here
Eight months later, on 7th July 2008, she was acting like a world authority on the subject. See here. However, I provided the reference to Da Costa's original research paper because she didn't even know that it existed and didn't put it there, and she later read it and said that he had rejected the idea that tight strapping was the cause of symptoms. He didn't. he just said that based on some of his other observations it couldn't be the main cause. My main critic is an idiot who tells a lot of lies when she is trying to convince everyone else that she is intelligent.
If she wants to convince me that she is intelligent she will have to stop telling lies about articles that I have read and given to Wikipedia as reliable, independent, top quality, verifiable references, from the best and widest sources available.
She can only get away with telling those lies if the other editors and administrators are willing to tell the same lies, or are negligent in their responsibility to check the references before making any decisions about the discussions, and I suggest that readers and the public take into account that my main critic has 2000 pages on her watchlist to control them, so the entire encyclopedia must be regarded as a substandard and unreliable source of information until she is permanently banned. In the meantime the only way of determining if you are reading the truth or not is to read all of the references, including those which have been deleted, and independent references from print or Google.
My main critic told lies at an astonishing pace
and should be banned for that alone, without any other reason being necessary
I nominate her for the Guinness Book of Records and the most prolific liar in Wikipedia history.
The following quotes come from Wikipedia pages
"We do not expect you to trust us. It is in the nature of an ever-changing work like Wikipedia that, while some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. We are fully aware of this. We work hard to keep the ratio of the greatest to the worst as high as possible, of course, and to find helpful ways to tell you in what state an article currently is. Even at its best, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, with all the limitations that entails. It is not a primary source. We ask you not to criticize Wikipedia indiscriminately for its content model but to use it with an informed understanding of what it is and what it isn't. Also, because some articles may contain errors, please do not use Wikipedia to make critical decisions. See here
and . . .
"Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by people with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information." See here.
and . . . "Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales occasionally acts as a final arbiter on the English Wikipedia" See here.
How my two critics deceived other editors
People who don't check the facts for themselves can be easily fooled
My main critic has used devious forms of argument to mix up a brew of toxic lies and truths to convince other editors that it was all believable. However, the only real truth in one of her lengthy rants was in the second sentence here. Note that she has admitted that initially she didn't know much about the topic of a medical ailment called Da Costa's syndrome.
It is impossible for any individual to know everything, so even the most intelligent person is usually only able to develop expertise in one area of knowledge. They generally become known as authorities on the subject and their opinions are trusted on the grounds of the general understanding that they have checked all the facts and can be relied upon to tell the truth.
My main critic exploited that aspect by creating the impression of being a person of authority who had been in Wikipedia for four years, and knew all the rules, and was always giving instructions as if she was a representative of the rule-abiding Wikipedia community.
Typically, other editors and administrators would participate in a discussion and read a dictionary to check the basic facts, and then, after a session of arguments, would agree with whatever they had been told by that "experienced" editor.
Another method used by that individual was to include the jargon of Wikipedia rules to sound impressive to other editors, and the jargon of science or medicine to deceive the readers.
As you can see from the following description, she told a massive number of lies and got away with it because most editors or readers believe what they are told, or believe what they read without bothering to check the facts for themselves.
She also spent a lot of time trying to convince the other editors that I was a fringy kook who was an unreliable source of information.
I can provide facts, evidence, and proof that my main critic is a liar, but I can't force anyone to check them. I also can't force Wikipedia to ban her to make their encyclopedia a more reliable source of information.
A list of her lies can be seen below
A brief list of my main critics lies in the discussions about a medical condition called Da Costa's syndrome
She told lies about Paul Dudley White's book by telling other editors that it was just a 1951 book, or just a 1951 text book, when in fact it was a reference book which contained a chapter on the topic and White was the world's top authority on the subject at that time, and it was distributed to University and medical school libraries internationally. See my report here.
She told lies about the information in White's book by telling several groups of editors that it was unreliable because it was old, out-of-date and obsolete, but in fact the scientific evidence that he provided was proven and is as reliable today as it was then.
She told lies about Oglesby Paul by telling another editor that he was just "this guy", when in fact he was a researcher who had actually met Paul Dudley White and written his biography, as well as a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome, which she also used in her version of the article.
She told lies about Oglesby Paul's conclusion by telling other editors that he said that Da Costa's Syndrome was an anxiety disorder, when in fact he had concluded that none of the many theories on the topic had been proven, and that the cause was unknown. See one of my reports here.
She told lies about my theory by telling other editors that according to me you could fix nerves by lifting weights. I have never said such a thing. In fact, she was deliberately misrepresenting my theory to make me look ridiculous.
See my research project where I designed an Instructors information sheet with an exercise section in which I recommend , .. . "no heavy lifting" here.
She told lies about my research by telling another editor that my involvement in a research project was as a coach or physical therapy technician on a single exercise-related study, when in fact I was invited to design and co-ordinate the project by the head of a research institute, and the members included the head of the institute, two research cardiologists, a doctor, a psychiatrist, and a field instructor. The project from design to completion went for more than a year and involved a study of 80 patients and was so successful that I was invited to continue the study to include 200 assessments, but I declined. See my research paper here, and one of many newspaper reports of that project here.
She told lies about Jacob Mendes Da Costa by telling other editors that he had rejected his own ideas that tight waist belts and chest straps were the cause of the ailment that he was studying, when in fact he observed that tight strapping was aggravating the symptoms, but concluded that they couldn't be the main cause.
She told lies about the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome by stating that they were considered to be the manifestation of anxiety disorder, without mentioning the fact that many other possibilities have been researched and she had systematically deleted most of the evidence of physical causes. See my report here.
She told lies about Sir James MacKenzie by telling other editors that he was just an ordinary man, when in fact he was knighted for his contributions to medicine. See my report here.
She told lies about how MacKenzie came to be a member of the Royal Society of Medicine by telling a group of editors that he just walked into a meeting and joined up, when in fact he was elected to the society.
She told lies about MacKenzie's meeting by telling other editors that it was an ordinary meeting about nothing in particular when in fact it was about the medical condition called "Soldier's heart" which is another label for Da Costa's syndrome.
She told lies about a medical consumers webpage. One of my references was a webpage by a medical consumer which was specifically about the many alternative labels used for Da Costa's syndrome. However she tried to discredit that reference by telling several groups of editors that it was a website about iguana lizards. See my report here.
She told lies by using the Rare disease database as a reference, when in fact she knows that most reliable experts on the subject, from Da Costa in 1871, through to Oglesby Paul in 1987, have clearly described it as a common ailment. See my report here.
She told lies about the discussion relating to her use of a novel called Soldier's Heart by giving a group of editors the impression that she had won a lengthy and drawn out argument about it, when in fact she had already lost. See my report here.
She told lies about the label of Soldier's heart by giving it undue emphasis. She wants readers to believe that Da Costa's syndrome is caused by the fear of battle, so she deleted all the evidence that it can also affect children, civilians and pregnant women.
She told lies about the Wikipedia policy for medical references by saying that most of my references were not acceptable in Wikipedia article because they were too old. However that policy makes it perfectly clear that older references are acceptable when writing about the history of the subject, which is what I was doing. See my report here.
She told lies about my reasons for writing about the research history by saying that it was because the modern research proves my ideas were wrong. Firstly the modern ideas do not prove that any of my ideas are wrong, and secondly she had been "acting" like an expert on the modern understanding of the condition, so I left that section for her to write if she wanted to. She didn't do anything useful to explain how those ideas came about, so I eventually wrote it for her.
She told lies when she said that Da Costa's syndrome was not related to the chronic fatigue syndrome because, for example, it was already in a section called "Related" before I started editing the article here, and because my other critic, who was always assisting her, had argued that "Da Costa's syndrome is a historical ME-type disorder" in the very first statement here. (Nowadays CFS is commonly referred to CFS/ME -Chronic fatigue syndrome / Myalgic encephalomyelits) .
Note that most of her lies were successful because I went into Wikipedia to add useful information, not to nitter and natter with editors who could do 100 edits a day, and include as many lies as she wanted. Also many of her discussions were conducted in secret (without me being told about them. e.g. here), and many of the decisions that other editors made against me were after she had told her lies, and I had not been given the opportunity or the right of reply. e.g. here. She knows that she can tell believable lies, but is not capable of winning a dispute against me properly. See here.
More evidence for all of my statements can be found below and via my indexes to her lies.
My main critic always had an assistant with the ID of Gordonofcartoon was also a habitual liar
He told lies about the "Original research" policy by saying that I couldn't use references from my own filing cabinet. However, he knew that all of those articles complied with the requirements because they were from top quality independent sources.
He told lies about the "Original research" policy again when he said that I was breaking the rules by reading a book that was linked to the page. I actually read it to check if it was appropriate and found that it was a children's fiction novel and told them to remove it. Two other neutral editors have since removed all mention of that book, and the link to it. See my report here.
He told lies about why I put a copy of a newspaper article on my website. He said that it was proof that I had a conflict of interest and that I was using Wikipedia to promote my own research by linking to it. However, he knew that the real reason I put it there was that other editors had asked me to provide proof that I had actually been involved in a research project, and that they wanted online evidence to make it easy for them to verify.
He told lies when he said that I was focusing on the symptoms of breathlessness because it was related to my own theory, and therefore I needed to be blocked for having a "conflict of interest". However I actually mentioned it because more than 90% of Da Costa's patients were reported as having that symptom, and it would be impossible to discuss the subject properly without mentioning the research findings related to it.
He told lies when he said that I had broken the rules of good manners by making an "unspecified threat". However he had said "Do we want to up the ante", and I replied "By way of gratitude would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won’t forget in a hurry." He tried to hide his threat by placing it in the edit notes at the top of the page where it would only be seen by other editors for that day and I replied in that manner because I had been reasonably polite for many months but it was not effective, and they were never going to stop being ill-mannered toward me. See my full report here.
He told lies when he said that I had failed to accept the rules which say that I can't use "original research". In fact those rules are very easy to understand, and I had no trouble accepting them. He gave the example of me referring to my own research as the proof that some patients were obviously not afraid of exercise. However that comment was made by me on a disussion page, not the topic page, where I had already provided other "independent" proof. For example, Da Costa's research paper of 1871 described soldiers marching up and down hills with heavy knapsacks on their backs prior to developing the ailment. The argument that their problems were caused by the fear of exercise is utterly ridiculous. I also used many other top quality, independent, and reliable references which verify that fact. Furthermore, Gordonofcartoon knew that I have this syndrome, and that I was previously a gymnastics instructor, and that the idea of the symptoms being due to a fear of exercise is obviously wrong. You can read Da Costa's original research paper at any good university library, and my comments on my own experience with sport here, and my research project here, and my version of the article where I use independent references here, and Gordonofcartoons comments in item number 13 here,
I joined Wikipedia to add a paragraph or two of useful information about once a week, so I wasn't interested in nittering and nattering with a couple of fools every five minutes of every day, especially when it was obvious that they were telling me and all of the other editors blatant lies. I also didn't have access to the administrators editing tools that enabled me to follow them around and find instant evidence and proof that they were telling lies. I advised the arbitration panel that I would respond to any comments at the end of the week on a Sunday, but my main critic immediately wrote a massive number of lies, and had me banned by a friend on the Thursday.
Since then I have become more efficient at finding evidence and proof of their deliberate lies, and a summary of their blatant lies about the reliability of five of my references can be seen below.
The references that I used
What my main critic wrote about them
The references used by my main critic
The total number was 61 See here
"Posturewriter's use of references frequently, perhaps even usually, does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards" WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009 See here
That editor had a very small list of 18 See here
My reference number 4 was Paul Dudley White's reference book of 1951
I also used another reference by the same author from the same year as my number 14, and from 1946 as my number 30, and from 1947, as number 32.
However, my main critic wrote these words . . . "Posturewriter, the place to convince people that a 1951 book conforms with WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence for current medical and scientific information . . . is at WP:RSN, not here. WhatamIdoing 23:04, 11 January 2009 See here
That person used a reference which included the same author, Paul Dudley White, and a research paper from exactly the same year, 1951, as their reference number 6.
My reference number 5 was Oglesby Paul's history of Da Costa's syndrome in the British Heart Journal of 1987
My main critic wrote this about me . . . "We don't blather on about a '1987 prominent Harvard researcher Oglesby Paul (who) presented a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome in the British Heart Journal' . . . This is an effort to tell the reader 'You have to believe everything this guy said. He's important. You should know his name. He published in a decent journal. Paul's paper was a routine review" WhatamIdoing 17:27, 6 October 2008 . . . See 16:15 on 5th October 2008 and 17:27, 6 October 2008 here
That individual used exactly the same author, and exactly the same journal article, as their reference number 7.
My reference number 11 was J.M. Da Costa's research paper of 1871
My main critic wrote these words a about me . . . " Posturewriter dedicates an inordinate amount of attention to concepts that were rapidly discarded (restrictive clothing causes DCS: rejected by J.M. Da Costa himself and not seriously entertained by anyone except Posturewriter himself for a century now)" WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009 See here
and . . . "I see that he also "forgot" to mention that DCS appeared in cavalry (with their non-restrictive clothing and gear) just as much as infantry (who complained about their belts), and that the British Army did a massive redesign of their gear specifically to prevent DCS -- and that it did not work. see 17:27 on 6-10-08 here
My main critic used the same research paper by J.M.Da Costa, from exactly the same year, 1871, as their reference number 8, and also kept the information about heavy knapsacks being tightly strapped to the chest, and did not say whether it had or had not been disproven, and kept loose clothing in the treatment section.
(I told her that Da Costa did not reject the idea, he just said it was not the main cause.)(
My reference number 23 was Sir James MacKenzie's meeting of 1916
My main critic wrote these words on the arbitration page to get me banned . . ."his text is full of statements like "In 1916 Sir
James MacKenzie chaired a major medical conference aimed at gaining
a better understanding of the condition", when in fact it wasn't a "major" medical conference, and it wasn't
"aimed at" anything in particular: it was just another
normal meeting of the Therapeutics
subsection of the Royal Society of Medicine." WhatamIdoing 04:42, 28 January 2009" See here
That editor used exactly the same author, Sir James MacKenzie, and exactly the same minutes, of exactly the same meeting of 1916, as their reference number 17.
My reference number 33 was a chapter and illustration from Paul Wood's reference book of 1956
My main critic often argued that my references were old, out-of-date, or from before most editors were born, and repeatedly made those complaints despite myself and another editor citing the policy which states that you can use older references in the history section of articles for obvious reasons. e.g. See here
That individual used a research lecture by the same author, Paul Wood, from fifteen years earlier, 1941, as their reference number 5.
I was banned from Wikipedia in January 2009, but those five references, and the treatment section, and the comments in the history section came from information that I provided, and were still in Wikipedia almost unchanged two years later. The most recent edit at 14:48 on 6-10-10 can be seen here
The resentful and spiteful behaviour of my two critics
(and - were there 140 years of harmonious and co-operative tranquility, or heated arguments in the history of research into Da Costa's syndrome?)
I became aware that there were a lot of hostile, bitter, resentful, and spiteful arguments about Da Costa's syndrome many years before I saw research papers or books which actually mentioned that there had been "many heated arguments" throughout the history of research into the topic.
The main arguments were whether the symptoms were real or imaginary, and physical or mental.
There were more than 100 different ideas and labels about the cause with many research papers including five or more in their title or first paragraph, and it has been said that typically the neurologist will see it as a disorder of the nervous system, the immunologist will see it as a disorder of the immune system, and the gynaecologist would see it as a disorder of the womb, and a psychologist will see mental factors as the cause, and in fact there have been more than 100 different suggestions about psychological causes alone, such as anxiety, depression, and the "mysteries" of the mind.
When I started adding information to that topic in Wikipedia I was made aware that I was not allowed to mention my own ideas, but had to produce an article which represented "neutral point of view" so I said that there had been many heated arguments and gave an account of what ideas had been presented throughout history and why they changed.
However, I had two critics who were constantly amusing me with their claims to being respectable editors who wanted to provide the readers with a neutral point of view, and that I was "cherry picking" information from "selective" research papers to focus on my own "bias".
They deleted all scientific evidence of physical cause and argued that the only thing that was allowed in Wikipedia was the opinions from history which were consistent with "official" "modern" "mainstream" research journals and books.
In essence they were saying that it was now considered to be an "anxiety disorder" in dictionaries, and that it had previously been put in the category of "somatoform (or imaginary) disorders" by the "World Health Organisation" etc, and they would argue that I was only allowed to use references which said that it was considered to be an anxiety disorder in 1970, and an anxiety disorder in 1950, and an anxiety disorder in 1920 etc.
They wanted the readers to believe that the history of reasearch proceeded with all of the experts always agreeing with each other.
They also wanted the other editors to believe that they themselves were calm, sensible, experts and authorities on the topic, and deleted all of the scientific evidence of physical cause. By contrasts they described me as a stupid, worthless, non-notable, fringy kook who was filling the article with nonsense and crap because I was an ignorant, uneducated, biased, disruptive, and uncooperative person, and they provoked other editors into calling me a troll, which in their double talk is an insult which refers to me as a big ugly hairy monster who lives in caves and comes out an night to make a pest of itself.
They were the most bitter, resentful, spiteful, offensive, and hostile people I have ever encountered in any argument in my entire life.
Wikipedia's rules about good manners
(Note that I was in my mid 50's and had been studying the subject for thirty years. They were in their late thirties or early forties and had not read anything about it before)
Wikipedia has a set of rules which requires all editors to be constructive and polite in the way they add information to it's topic pages, so if you added a factual statement you might expect someone to thank you. However, if you made a mistake, or added a statement that was wrong, you would expect someone to delete it and explain why, with some sort of reference which gave proof that it was wrong.
However, while I was editing the page called Da Costa's syndrome I was being criticised by two editors who would remove the information and insult me like this . . . "We have deleted that rubbish because you are just an ignorant, worthless, non-notable fringy kook, and we are important editors who have been in Wikipedia for four long years, and we don't like nonsense and crap.
Essentially they couldn't prove that anything I said was wrong, so they were trying to convince other editors that I was being disruptive and needed to be blocked.
The Wikipedia rule about the good manners is called the Civility policy
It gives examples of the the type of ill-mannered behaviours which will not be tolerated, and they include
Judgemental tone such as saying "snipped rambling crap", or "that's the stupidest thing I have ever seen".
Taunting and baiting by pushing others to the point of reacting in an ill-mannered way. (attitude readjustment tools are used for the purpose of annoying, inciting, and provoking people)
Making personal attacks
Using derogatory language. See here.
In the essay below I will just report the type of words which two editors used to insult and discredit me and my contributions, but you will need to see them in the context of the massive number of lies they told about me which I have identified in an index to many of them here.
Also, although they spent more than twelve months insulting me on a regular basis, I didn't do anything about it, partly because I am thick skinned and thought that they were both being foolish, and partly because I didn't know the full details of the rules, or what procedure to use to stop them, and I wasn't particularly interested in responding to their snide remarks because I had also been told that there were administrators who checked the discussions on a regular basis and would deal with anyone who was not obeying the rules. Nevertheless, nobody ever came to stop them so eventually I dealt with them myself by returning their insults, but they soon started accusing me of being ill-mannered and had me banned.
In the meantime they made the following insults about me . . .
Count the number of rude, judgemental, derogatory, taunting personal attacks and insults below
A quick summary of the choice of words which they used to insult me and the information I provided
Garden variety, pet theory, hobby, stuck, the article is a dumping ground, stubborn, sticking it back there, a blow-by-blow description, stop drowning this article, we keep removing rubbish, slanting the picture, liposuction time, players, made up names, spins, funnily enough, de-crufting to the last (removing rubbish), pruning the article, SOAP, soap boxing, stupid, bloated, unreadable dumps, cut this readable length, a minor case, some of the damage, a vague nineteenth century syndrome, an unimportant article, can't justify spending time on it, a little gem of an article, entirely superseded, from before most editors were born, this stuff, gasp, a second go-round, I expect no practical improvement, why bother, the same cruft (rubbish), no longer willing to put up with, self-promoting nonsense, other disgusted editors, bad behaviour, pet topic, trundled on, continual griping, nitpicking, lying, and misquotation, crap, WP:SOUP, and so on and so on, obfuscating verbage thrown onto the topic, jerked around, wikilawyering, arguing the toss, fed up, the article is a disaster, the style is horrible, blow by blow summary, obsessively naming the year, we don't blather on, the civility policy didn't mean agreeing with nonsense, the source of information is unbelievably weak, we don't need to spell out every rule, a hostile litany of complaints, he failed to grasp Wikipedia's conventions, peacock'd out of recognition, and, a lot of cruft crawls into his writing this way.
The choice of words of a neutral editor
Note that while two editors were insulting almost every word I wrote, a neutral editor who read my version and compared it with theirs, said that mine was a lot better, more detailed, well sourced, and with no signs of bias or conflict of interest. See here.
Two editors started the Da Costa's syndrome discussion page on 21st December 2007, by adding my real name as the first section heading in bold print (which is cosidered to be a personal attack, and is against the rules - they are supposed to discuss the topic and not the person).
In their very first sentence they said that I was just writing about "garden variety" orthostatic intolerance, and that I was trying to "reinvent the wheel" and that there was "nothing in the "real" medical literature", and that comments about my own research took up too much space and then argued that my pet theory was not notable enough to justify any space at all in this article.
They removed everything about my research and I didn't put it back after January 2009, but started providing information about the history of the topic from independent sources.
They then set up a new discussion to get me blocked on the grounds of having a "Conflict of Interest".
They accused me of being "self-identified" and of "focusing on the main symptom of breathlessness because it agreed with my theory".
Within a short time they set up a second page to get me blocked for the same purpose where they accused me of editing the page because I was a "single purpose account", and that it was my only reason for joining Wikipedia.
They talked about my "pet theory" where I was using the Da Costa's syndrome page to "hanging my peg on", and that it was my "hobby" which I "believed" was accurate and that my objective were "noble" but Wikipedia was not the place for my contributions which were a violation of their policy which prohibits "Original Research". They then added that my theory had been deleted some months earlier by other editors who had been deleted as being "non-notable", and "one man's theory" and "not recognised by health scientists in general" and that the discussion about it was "stuck". They continued to argue that I was using the page as a "dumping ground" for my own ideas, as if I was still mentioning my own theories when I hadn't been for several months.
They also described me as a "stubborn" editor who kept on "sticking it back there" and that I had deliberately deleted the comments about "anxiety disorders" from the first sentence, when in fact I had just written the article differently to their version, and I had mentioned anxiety disorders further down the page, and they said I added my "blow-by-blow" description of "practically every paper" that mentions the general subject which does not contradict my view and that every word from other editors being a request to "stop drowning this article" in references that tend to promote my ideas, and that they don't know how long they will have to keep on "de-crufting to the last" (which means how long they will have to keep removing rubbish). The administrator finally decided to block me.
Mean while back at the Da Costa's syndrome discussion page they implied that I I was focusing on the three main symptoms of chest compression, breathing, breathlessness, and the diaphragm because it "smells" of "synthesis" by "slanting the whole picture" toward my theory and that Wikipedia was supposed to be an encyclopedia not an "exhaustive academic literature treatise", and added that it was "Liposuction time" to imply that I was adding useless fat to the article instead of meat. They then said that they should only include three small paragraphs for the major "players" and their "own made-up names" in the history section.
After losing an argument about a research paper they changed the subject and said that everything I added "spins" toward the main symptoms of breathlessness and the diaphragm "funnily enough" coinciding with the "Banfield theory", and that the article needs "pruning". They then accused me of trying to "own" the article, and of breaking the rules about "SOAP" or soap boxing, and that they thought I would be "happy" about their suggestion of setting up a new page with a jargonistic title that none of the general readers would understand or read.
They then said that one of my suggestions was "stupid" and said the right name was "Da Costa's syndrome" according to me, and not other authors, when in fact that was the name the page was called before I started editing it. They then said that the article was becoming more "bloated" with "unreadable dumps".
I then decided to find evidence and proof of their ill-mannered and rule breaking behaviour and wrote an essay of a couple of thousands of words, which was less than the total number they had used against me, and one of them completely ignored the evidence and didn't admit that it was all true or deny it, or try to prove any of it was wrong but just snidely said "Please cut this readable length". Another editor told them to read it and respond but they said that it was not their job to make an effort to defend themselves, and described my criticism of them "looked like classic WP:SOUP"
They later continued their insulting remarks on another page called CIVIL/POVpushing which proceeded without me being told about it or given the opportunity to defend myself here,
WhatamIdoing used the following words (in red) to describe me within her text . . .The issue was "a minor case, but it may illustrate some of the damage: "We have identified a single-purpose account run by an identifiable individual who "just happens" to have a non-mainstream take on a particular set of symptoms. He is non-notable and decided to hang his idea on the peg of "Da Costa's syndrome" (a vague 19th century syndrome, generally considered a psychosomatic anxiety disorder).
It's overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia . . . and . . . we can't justify investing several editors' time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article or spend time discrediting his personal views . . . the goal for this article is to have it not actually be actively wrong while we deal with more important articles
The SPA editor is no more frustrated with the NPOV-oriented editors than we are with him. He's (finally) mostly given up on getting his name and his website (with his expensive self-published book for sale) in the article.
He comes by every week or two and adds bona fide medical publications on the subject -- but always and only those articles which support his particular views.
Of course, the condition is entirely superseded so most of the refs are from before most editors were born.
No editor has ever supported his view . . . and . . . Five editors have directly told him that using Wikipedia to promote his personal ideas is not accepted.
We've been at this for more than six months . . . but . . . he's undeterred in his overall goal.
"You could just keep removing the stuff he adds . . . it's not like your time and energy is worth anything.
His adding of original research (*gasp*) violates Wikipedia's policy."
Yes, of course all of this violates a variety of policies, guidelines, and cultural conventions -- notably WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:TRUTH and WP:COPYVIO, in this case . . . But my existing attitude readjustment tools apparently don't reach as far as Australia, and the editor remains unscathed
It's back at WP:COI/N for a second go-round . . . I expect no practical improvement: he's not particularly rude . . . so why bother blocking him? . . . I'll probably still be removing the same cruft and leaving the same explanations and warnings on talk pages at the end of the year.
When I am no longer willing to put up with this self-promoting nonsense . . . I can team up with other disgusted editors.
It's not just the good editors who can be driven away by bad behavior . . . We need another solution." signed by WhatamIdoing 02:25, 18 May 2008
Gordonofcartoon added these comments to the CIVIL/POV pushing page . . .
"Seconded . . . The issue has been finally settled (I hope) by an indefinite block . . . It went to an RFC (which had a strong consensus, to no effect, that the editor concerned should edit articles away from pet topic).
The problem trundled on with continual griping (invariably lengthy) . . . while the editor wrote a personal new draft of the article (critics unwelcome) . . . Then he chose to put it back against consensus into mainspace.
At one level, I don't blame anyone . . . it could argued that any particular report (e.g. at WP:ANI) only sees a snapshot of the situation and it doesn't look to bad . . . But on the other hand the user hasn't been remotely civil.
For six months, he has openly flouted WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL . . . with an extended userspace attack on two editors called The Motivations, Strategies, and Tactics of my Critic . . . And that's not even factoring in the exhausting effect of long-term contact with procedural nitpicking, obfuscation, lying by misquotation etc . . . other editors saying it was crap . . . so you say so, and get back 1500 words of WPSOUP . . . because Bilbo von Booger who you got banned because he supported my case said at diff D that
and so on and on and on and f***ing f***ing on.
As WhatamIdoing says, we need another solution. signed by Gordonofcartoon 16:57, 3 February 2009 See both of their typical rants of insulting remarks here.
Some time later they were losing an argument back on the Da Costa's syndrome talk page about the relevance of their link to a childrens fiction"novel" called "Soldier's heart" and tried to give the impression that I needed an apology because they wanted other editors to believe that I was the sort of person who became emotionally distressed when reading a story about the war which was upsetting to school children. They then archived the page so that it was the last comment which was intended to leave a lasting impression, and started a new page. See here.
Their arguing continued until two neutral editors suggested that we each write a version of the article for them to merge, but Gordonofcartoon said that he "wasn't aware of the invitation", and when I accused him of telling lies he said that I was breaking the rules which require me to "Assume Good Faith" in his honesty. The remainder of that page is full of their lies, and they eventually lost when two neutral editors deleted every link to that fiction "novel".
They then set up a page called Wikiquettes Alert where they described my "obfuscating verbage thrown at the topic", and when I asked the other editors how many days or weeks I had to defend myself against their accusations Gordonofcartoon said he was "of the strong opinion" that they were being "jerked around" and "wikilawyering". He also said that the entire edit history was devoted to "arguing the toss about a single article". See here
They then set up another discussion called "Miscellany for Deletion" and lost.
They continued by setting up another discussion to get me blocked called "Request for Comment/Posturewriter", and accused me of "a pretty textbook example of disruptive editing" as if to imply that I had been arguing against dozens of other editors and had been losing by saying that I was "toward the end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles". They also said that they had tried to settle the dispute by "giving me advice on etiquette".
They continued their arguments on the talk page associated with that accusation and told other editors that that they were "fed up" with the dispute.
My main critic also set up a discussion on her own Usertalk page in a section which she also called "Request for Comment/Posturewriter".
In the third comment a neutral editor told her that my version was a lot better than hers, and that mine had more detail and that he could not see anything which was not properly supported with references, and that there was no evidence of conflict of interest.
However my main critic had not co-operated with the previous suggestion by two neutral editors, and didn't want any neutral editor making decisions, so she told him that he was not competent in the topic, and began arguing that my article was a disaster, and that there was " too much detail", and that the style was "horrible", and that I had made a "blow-by-blow summary of selected papers", that I was "obsessively naming the year" of each discovery, and that we are not supposed to "blather on" about researchers by describing why they are important. Further down the page she argued that being civil according to to rules about good manners didn't mean "agreeing with nonsense" and then said that she had never taunted me of impugned my character. She also argued that I didn't seem to understand Wikipedia's conventions, and that my sources of information were "unbelievably weak". See here,
Gordonofcartoon then set up an Arbitration page to get me banned where he told other editors that he had given me advice on etiquette and told me to "assume good faith" in his opinion. and he accused me of disruption and harassment and of "exhausting the patience" of other editors by pushing my own point of view.
After making a brief defence against those accusations my other critic joined in with a lengthy and insulting argument where she claimed that most if not all of my references were unreliable and that "we don't need to spell out every single possible characteristic of a good source over one mistake", and that "Every single correction or discussion is met with a hostile litany of complaints" and that I "failed to grasp Wikipedia's conventions", and that my comments about the qualifications of researchers were "peacock'd out of recognition" and that "An enormous amount of cruft crawls into (my) writing", and that she was "running short on the patience to continually explain basic issues". See here.
They portrayed me as having disruptive behaviour in Wikipedia to fit in with their biased version of the Da Costa's syndrome patient as someone with psychological and behavioural problems
You may be deceived by all the lies thet tell, but it is obvious that they were breaking Wikipedia's rules which require courtesy and respect to all editors at all times, and that their comments were not strictly about the topic, but were more about me, and that they were being deliberately offensive.
They know that I have this disorder and they want the readers to believe that it is caused by anxiety, depression and all sorts of other mental illnesses, so in an attempt to make all that sound believable, they were trying their hardest to portray me as a stupid, ignorant, unco-opartavite person with all sorts of behavioural problems.
However, I am not an anxious person, I don't get depressed, and don't have any mentall illnesses.
Their big act of "losing their patience with me"
If you have a look at the very first comments that Gordonofcartoon made on the discussion about Da Costa's syndrome, you can see that he said that my description of my own research took up too much space. You can also see that I then co-operated with him by agreeing. and deciding to abbreviate that aspect, and put it back in a reduced form. I also explained what I had done in the two weeks between December 29th and 14th January 2008.
However, my other critic, whose ID was WhatamIdoing, then put on a big show by "acting" as if I had been deliberately unco-operative, and that she was losing her patience with me, as if she was in charge of Wikipedia, and as if I had put it back repeatedly against her orders??? She exaggerated her "act" of frustration by telling me that she had taken the extreme action of putting me on a watchlist, to create the impression that I was the type of person who needed to be sternly forced to stop. See here.
I had no intention of putting it back if they objected to the abbreviation, and my perfectly reasonable explanation, and in fact I didn't, but a few months later, in May 2008, she again "acted" as if I had been continuing to put it back every week for several months until I had finally given up. See here.
Several more months passed when two neutral editors suggested that we each prepare our own version of the article outside of Wikipedia, making a total of three, and put them back for them to independently merge into one neutral version. WhatamIdoing ignored the idea, and played dumb, by acting as if she didn't know about the offer, and Gordonofcartoon refused to co-operate.
When I put my version back into Wikipedia, based on independent references, they again protested by putting on a big act to convince other editors that after some sort of enormous struggle for 12 long months they were finally "running short of patience" explaining the rules to me, and that my version did not represent neutral point of view. See here.
If you read the discussions closely enough you could see that while WhatamIdoing was trying to give some editors the impression that she was on the verge of running out of patience, she would be routinely cherry picking facts, and inventing excuses for deleting them one day, or a week, or several weeks apart.
How long do you turn the other cheek
I joined Wikipedia for the purpose of adding about one paragraph of useful information per week.
However, I soon found that there were quite a large number of guidelines and rules which including one called WP:Civil, which contained the following statement . . .
"In order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates." here.
I thought that it was a perfectly standard, common sense, and reasonable requirement, but on December 21st two editors set up a discussion page about the topic of Da Costa's syndrome, and they wrote as if they were arrogant first year university students trying to impress their professors with jargon by saying . . . This is just "garden variety" orthostatic intolerance . . . and said that . . . there was "nothing" in the "real" medical literature about my research.
As you can appreciate the rules required me to ignore their foolish arrogance so I did, and retained a polite approach to the discussions.
They argued about some rules which meant that I wasn't allowed to add my own research, and I couldn't be bothered arguing with them so they deleted all of it within a couple of weeks and I didn't bother to put it back.
When I added information from different sources they argued that every one of my references had something wrong with it, so I looked through the list of their references and found one by Oglesby Paul. I thought that they couldn't argue that their own contributions were stupid so I decided to use it.
I was familiar with that article which was a ten page history of the topic by a Harvard Professor and was published in a top quality research journal, so I abbreviated it down to one page to briefly mention the same things that he had, such as ten of the different theories on the cause of the illness.
I thought that it would be an excellent way of presenting the history quickly, and that I could use smaller, more specific references to improve that section later.
However, they kept on setting up new discussions relentlessly, one after another, to criticise me, and one thing that Gordonofcartoon said to other editors to get me banned from the page was "look at the way he is dumping great wads of information onto the page.
Remember, they provided that reference, and I reviewed it because they didn't, and the author was a Harvard professor, and it was a top quality and accurate article, and I abbreviated it to improve the standard of information in Wikipedia.
I continued to be polite, but they kept on insulting me, and telling other editors lies about me, and the quality of my references, so I wrote an essay about all the rules which they had broken, and Gordonofcartoon rudely snubbed it by saying "Cut this readable length", and didn't even attempt to prove that any of my accusations were wrong, but just changed the subject.
I continued to be polite, but they continued in their arrogant manner, and set up more pages to get me blocked, and came to my own Userpage to criticise me, so I decided to write an essay about their tactics, where I provided proof that they were breaking the principles of Wikipedia, but they called it an "attack essay", and accused me of being disrespectful and uncivil.
I continued to be polite, in the hope that an administrator would come along and tell them, at the very least, to improve their manners, but they always had an excuse for their disrespectful behaviour, and would argue that "beng civil didn't mean that they had to agree with nonsense".
As time went by it was becoming evident that the other editors were treating them as if they were mighty powerful editors and that I was just a polite pushover, so they started treating me in a patronising and belittling manner. It was actually obvious to me that those two editors were hoping that would happen.
At that stage Gordonofcartoon left a sly message on the top of an edit page with the words "Do we want to up the ante", and I decided that they had gone too far, and if I backed down they would portray me as a weak person who could easily bossed around. They were doing too much damage to my reputation so I replied with the words "Would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry".
Gordonofcartoon then set up a discussion on an Administrators Noticeboard and reported me for bad manners, and then another one called and RFC, where he described my reply as "an unspecified threat", to give the impression that I had made that statement without good reason.
He also managed to convince entirely new groups of editors that I had been rude to the entire Wikipedia community of rule-abidng editors for 12 months, and other editors were treating me as if they had the right to treat me like a piece of human trash who they called a troll.
Most of them didn't know anything about the topic, and much less about the history, and didn't read any more than half hour of the previous discussions, but simply believed what those two editors told them.
Fortunately I am able to observe, evaluate, and document their tactics objectively.
How Gordonofcatroon tried to deceive administrators into thinking that I was the ill-mannered troll
After continuously insulting me for 12 months Gordonofcartoon left a comment at the top of an edit page where he knew that it would only be obvious for one day and would then disappear. His plan was that I would not be able to find it, and that none of the other editors or administrators would see it.
He said "Do we want to up the ante",
i replied "By way of gratitude would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry"
As you can appreciate, he had succeeded in eventually making me write an ill-mannered reply.
He then set up a discussion called an RFC and tried to give other editors the impression that my comment was unwarranted by calling it an " unspecified threat", in item 5 here.
He was so desperate to get me banned that he rushed off to set up another page a few minutes later.
It was called an Administrators noticeboard, and he tried to act prim and proper by giving the impression that he had been unjustly threatened. He wrote the following words.
"Could someone uninvolved have a glance at this situation? Long-term tendentious editing by SPA, situation escalating with his creation of a user page section that appears in breach of WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:UP#NOT. And now the threat "would you like me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry" See here. See also my other report on this matter here.
Both of my critics were extremely sly in the way they tried to deceive me and the other editors and administrators.
How WhatamIdoing deceived the administrators
When neutral editors asked all three of us to write essays outside of Wikipedia and post them back for them to independently merge into one truly neutral article, I was the only one to co-operate.
When I posted it into Wikipedia my main critic childishly copied it onto her own subpage and subjected it to 80 separate items criticism, such as requests, or demands, for references to prove many of the facts.
My version already had about 24 references, and when I responded to the criticism by providing a a total of 60 there were between one and ten references to prove almost every statement I made.
Her requests for proof of the trivial, or the obvious, or for statements that had already been referenced, were deliberately intended as harassment, but she wanted to convince the other editors that I was the troll, so she later told them that people who provided more than one reference per sentence were stupid.
See her criticism of my article here, and my final version here.
How they both deceived the readers of Wikipedia
While I was editing the page about Da Costa's syndrome I added factual information which was supported by top quality references which included these . . .
It can be genetic and some people appear to be born with it, or have had it ever since they can remember. In other cases it is gradual in onset, sometimes where they can't notice or identify any obvious cause. It is more common in women, and can occur or start during pregnancy, and most soldiers who developed the condition during the war were found to have had the minor symptoms before enlisting. See here.
My two critics want to impose their bias that it is an anxiety disorder, so they deleted each and everyone of those facts and replaced it with a version which contained these words. .
"The syndrome is also frequently interpreted as one of a number of imprecisely characterized postwar syndromes" here
Strategic rudeness is inferior tactics and defamation of character
My main critic wants the other editors to think that she is intelligent, polite, and respectable, so when I provided evidence and proof of her ill-mannered behaviour on my website, she added some comments to Wikipedia's page about rudeness, to argue that intelligent people use strategic, instrumental, or indirect rudeness to achieve power over others. See my report here
However she is wrong.
Intelligent people achieve status and power in the community by having, or achieving superior abilities which set a high standard for others to respect and aspire to.
Stupid people who are incapable of achieving high standards compared to their peers will tend to use snide, sarcastic, and indirect rudeness to put other people down below their own level. Hence their comments are called 'put downs'.
99.99% of people know that, so her comments are the opinion of an extreme minority group, and are a violation of the 'neutral point of view' policy, and WP:UndueWeight, which prohibits the inclusion of information which is out of proportion to actual world opinion.
Another reason that people like her don't use direct rudeness is because they are afraid of the consequences.
A man would risk being punched in the face, and a woman like her would be banned from Wikipedia.
You are probably aware that the best way to deal with 'put downs' is to ignore it, but I tried that for 12 months, by remaining polite despite her arrogant attitude. However, at one stage she responded by accusing me of 'politely' pushing my own opinion?, and argued that I was breaking the rules of "WP:CivilPOVpushing".
You probably also know that if you react with counter offense, it makes you look as bad as the other person, and it tends to give that fool a sense of power. If you don't respond in an assertive manner other people start treating you the same way, and that is what happened.
However, I joined Wikipedia to add useful information, and not to deal with that sort of grubby nonsense. I expected the administrators to enforce their rules about civility against her, but none of them did.
She lost almost every argument against me for a year, and thinks that she is superior because she managed to get me banned by encouraging another editor to use the 'ignore all rules' policy, but all she did was convince me that she is an ill-mannered idiot, and a cheat.
My Snivelling Critic thinks that her opinions are important, sensible, and neutral
Da Costa's syndrome has been consistently, conservatively, and reliably estimated as affecting at least 2-4% of the population, or more than 200 million people. You can read an excellent, sensible, balanced, and neutral article about it by Oglesby Paul here (See also my report here).
The closest modern label for it is the "chronic fatigue syndrome".
When I started improving Wikipedia's article about Da Costa's Syndrome on 9-12-2007, there were only four lines of text and no references. Nine days later an anonymous person who would continue to hound and harass me for 12 months, until I was banned, put the following words at the top of the discussion page for that topic . . .
"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine . . . and . . . has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale" See here.
She argued that the symptoms were due to anxiety, and somatoform, trivial or imaginary concerns, which is the opposite of most of the top quality research papers that regard it as a major problem which has prompted governments to recruit and fund some of the top medical researchers in the world to study it. (See my report here)
She also made some ridiculous and deliberately offensive remarks in her opening paragraph here, where she described the ailment as . . . "a vague 19th century syndrome".
She has recently edited the discussion page about the topic called Sniffle, and added these words . . .
"This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine . . . and . . . has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale". here
This is a quote from the topic page . . . "Sniffling is not necessarily related to illness. In addition to allergies and colds, it can be a result of being in cold temperatures, and a way to hold back tears." See here.
She obviously wants the readers to believe that the sniffles (mid importance) is more important than Da Costa's syndrome (low importance).
She is also the type of person who prefers to hide behind her anonymous skirt, rather than tell everyone her real name.
How they tried to defame and trivialise my character
I had cancer for 8 years which included an operation to remove a 5cm diameter tumor from my neck, which was followed by six months of CHOP chemotherapy, and the side effects of nausea, and vomiting. The cancer returned 18 months later when I had an operation to remove a 10cm diameter tumor which was blocking my left kidney and causing it to engorge and enlarge, and which was followed by three months of DHAP chemotherapy to eliminate the residue of that tumor, and the cancers which were damming up fluid below my right lung and making it painful for me to breath. The side effect of DHAP was dry reaching, and that was followed by a recovery period of about two months and then six weeks in hospital for a stem cell transplant, followed by six months of vomiting and four years of other side effects, after which I made a complete recovery.
I therefore know a lot more about disease than my two critics. Only a pampered idiot would classify the sniffles as 'mid' importance. In the overall scheme of life it is 'nothing'. It is not even an illness, but just an occasional and trivial feature of normal health.
Within a day or two of me adding the section above to my website, my main critic added these words to the Wikipedia page about "Chemotherapy" . . . "Finally, chemotherapy is unnecessary for some forms of cancer, notably the non-invasive, non-melanoma skin cancers, which is the most common form of cancer."
She obviously reads my website closely for any changes, and tries her hardest to trivialise everything I said and did.
However, the type of cancer which affected me was called Non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. At the outset I had a blood test, followed by a CAT scan, and then a bone marrow biopsy, and then a small gland was surgically removed and inspected. A cancer specialist then advised me that every test confirmed that my body was riddled with cancer, and that I had a life-expectancy of two months with no hope of a cure. The cancer remained stable for about six years, and then became aggressive.
According to the page which my main critic edited, only 13% of patients with cytological chemotherapy for lymphoma's are still alive after five years. See here
I was diagnosed in 1993, started treatment in 1998, had a relapse 18 months later, and a stem cell transplant in 2000 and am still alive 12 years later in 2012, or a total of 19 years since being told that my condition was hopeless. (I live near one of the world's top cancer research organisations called the Hanson Institute, which was established two years before I was diagnosed. The treatment which I received was, for the most part, despite the side effects, necessary, objective, scientifically based, accurate, precise, methodical, and successful).
My main critic is still trying to trivialise that experience, whereas pop singers, athletes, or movie stars who live longer than 1 year are called national hero's.
She knows that I have Da Costa's syndrome, and she wants readers to believe that it affects mentally ill people who are just whinging about trivial symptoms, so she doesn't want anyone to know that i responded to cancer and chemotherapy better than most people.
She spent 12 months setting up discussions and trying to get me blocked from the topic on the grounds of "Conflict of interest" (WP:COI), so she repeatedly told other editors my real name, and linked to my website, and made sure that the topic page for Da Costa's syndrome was linked to hundreds of psychiatric labels about anxiety, fear, and trivial illness etc., and she was always describing me as a worthless and disruptive and unimportant editor.
In that process another editor asked me to tell them more about myself to deal with the 'conflict of interest' question.
I had already told them everything relevant, about my books, website, and research experience, with names and dates of newspaper and magazine articles etc.
I didn't have any idea what else they wanted to know, so I told them that I wrote my thousand page book called "The Posture Theory" (everything about posture and health), at the rate of 100 pages a year while I had cancer, and stopped when it was cured.
He accused me of being a liar, and left the impression that I never had cancer, and was just saying that to get sympathy?.
They banned me before I had the chance to reply.
They want people to believe that I am a mentally weak person who whinges about trivia, and that I would not be able to cope with a 'real', and 'serious' illness. See also here and here.
My two 'anonymous' critics???
Over the past thirty years I have occasionally discussed an idea which I developed called The Posture Theory. I discussed it with people who included university students, graduates, and professors, and they almost always say that it is a good idea, which is logical, and makes sense, and is interesting.
However, while I was in Wikipedia, two anonymous individuals spent much of that time telling everyone else that I was a non-notable fringy kook whose ideas were nonsense, and they made those comments regardless of what I wrote about, or where I got the information from.
One of them was called "WhatamIdoing", which sounds ridiculous in a sentence. It can be abbreviated to WAID which sounds like a mans name, but in fact, she is a woman. She always had another editor named Gordonofcartoon assisting her, so I called them "my two critics", or "my main critic and her team mate".
They obviously like the sense of power that they get in Wikipedia, but they don't have enough courage to reveal their real names.
The reliability of my ideas
In 1975 I was experiencing many health problems which were not responding to any form of treatment, so i began reading the medical literature.
Within a few months I found that my ailment was called Da Costa's syndrome.
I also started exercising at very low levels at a fitness research institute, and soon established that the symptoms became much worse as the level of exercise increased, so I stayed within my limits.
It took me four more years of careful and detailed observation to determine that I could prevent prolonged periods of fatigue by reducing my lifestyle to basic levels as well, and ensuring that I had ample opportunity for rest, much more so than usual.
In 1982 I discussed my ideas with the head of that research organisation and he invited me to design a programme to make it possible for other people with the same symptoms to exercise, and to gain scientific data about it, and I was able to confirm the exercise principles. See some of the newspaper reports about it here and here.
Twenty five years later, in 2007, I joined Wikipedia and started writing about that topic when two anonymous individuals began criticising me almost immediately.
They argued that I was a non-notable fringy kook whose ideas were nonsense, and deleted almost everything I wrote, and eventually managed to get me banned on the grounds that I was disrupting their attempts to write a good article.
They replaced my version with their own and wrote the following words in the first paragraph to describe the treatment which involves . . .
"modifications to lifestyle and daily exertion."
(You can see their words by scrolling down past the deletions here).
Their comments about treatment are exactly the same as the methods which I developed and described between 1975 and 1984.
My ideas are obviously good, but most people don't know who I am, or how or why I developed them, and it is my critics who are talking nonsense about me.
My main critic always invented ways to discredit me
The symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome include left-sided chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, faintness, and fatigue. Consequently, many of the patients worry about the possibility of it being due to heart disease, so the general medical opinion is that it is best not to discuss anything about the heart because it might make that anxiety worse, or start anxiety where it didn't already exist.
Naturally, when I was writing the article for Wikipedia, I took into account that it was read by the general public, which would include some of those patients, so I decided to discuss about ten of the main theories of cause, and was reluctant to mention mitral valve prolapse (MVP), but I did discuss it in the appropriate context where some people with Da Costa's have that problem, and some don't, and I used a references to Oglesby Paul from 1987, and Charles Wooley from 1976, who discussed it in their articles.
However, my main critic was always trying to invent ways of making my motives look bad, and me look ignorant and stupid. She wanted other editors to think that I had focused on research from the 1950's because the topic of MVP was developed later, and that I didn't mention it because it proved my theory wrong etc.
I hadn't even mentioned my own theory for 12 months, but this is what she told one of them during one of her ranting and raving tirades of criticism . . .
"he's chosen the 1950s with care, because mitral valve prolapse was finally figured out in the 1960s.
You can now check my version of the article at 8:20 on 10-2-2008 where I did mention MVP here
At 13:10 on 10-2-2008 her team mate deleted it here
Eight months later my main critic told lies and said that I deliberately failed to mention it. See her comments at 17:27 on 6-10-2008 here
Is Wikipedia's goal to provide the sum of all knowledge?
Wikipedia's article about Da Costa's syndrome is substandard, and inferior to mine, because it fails to provide basic information. For example, I would like you to read it here, and then see if you can answer the following questions.
1. Is the symptom of chest pain in the top left, top right, or lower left, or lower right side of the chest?
2. Is the pain located in the surface of the skin, between two of the ribs, or deep within the lungs, or somewhere else?
3. How can the pain be relieved immediately?
The answers to those questions can be found in my version here and here, which has been deleted by two anonymous control freaks because they want you to believe that the symptoms are imaginary, and caused by fear and anxiety, and are part of a mental illness.