Criticism of Two of Wikipedia's editors
(Part 1) Da Costa's syndrome

Da Costa's syndrome was named after Jacob Mendez Da Costa who studied 300 cases during the American Civil War. His research report was published 8 years later, in 1871, after he had found that it was also common in his civilian practice. It has since been recognised as a common condition which can affect children, and women, and most soldier's who developed the condition during war time already had the minor symptoms many years before enlisting in the army.

While I was in Wikipedia to add the correct information two editors were constantly deleting it, and eventually arranged for an administrator to "ignore all their rules" and ban me.

 

This page reports on the lies, damned lies, and statistics by by those two editors- and provides an independent study and review of their bias, and censorship of verifiable content - for sociology, history, and media studies students here

 

The complete history of Da Costa's Syndrome can be seen here

See also "Straight from the horses mouth" here

My report on the small gang of anonymous copyright thieves who are stealing my ideas for Wikipedia can be seen here

 

What my two critics don't want Wikipedia readers to know

Throughout history there have been many people involved in "heated arguments" about whether or not the symptoms of Da Costa's Syndrome were real or imaginary, but the scientific proof of a physical basis for most of them had been discovered by the 1940's.

My two critics don't want Wikipedia readers to know that so they deleted the entire history section from 1876 to 2008 and replaced it with these words . . .

"Since then, a variety of similar or partly similar conditions have been described" here.

 

They argued that my version of the history was violating the "Neutral Point of View" policy, and eventually managed to get me banned. See here, and my report on the lies they told to get me banned here.

 

The entire text of Da Costa's syndrome before I started

An article about Da Costa's syndrome had been in Wikipedia for eighteen months from 15-5-2006 here. My main critic had already contributed to it and the very small version of 17-10-2007, which had no references at all, can be seen in the window below and verified here.

"Da Costa's Syndrome is a type of anxiety disorder first observed in soldiers in the American Civil War. It causes symptoms similar to heart disease but, upon examination, nothing is found to be physically wrong with the patient. The symptoms usually consist of fatigue upon exertion, combined with shortness of breath, palpitations, sweating, chest pain, shaking, and, less commonly, fainting. The symptoms may increase whilst exercising, and it is thought to be caused partly by hyperventilation.

Related: Neurasthenia, Orthostatic intolerance, Hyperventilation syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Soldier's heart.

 

This disease article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

I began adding to it on 8-12-2007 here.

During the next 12 months she argued that all of the symptoms were due to hyperventilation and lost, which is why it wasn't mentioned in her version of the article. She also spent a lot of time arguing that it wasn't related to the chronic fatigue syndrome. As you can see, she didn't argue about it before I started on the page, but she did afterwards because she knew that my research involved the study of the affects of exercise on patients with chronic fatigue, and she was trying to convince the other editors that it wasn't important or relevant. See my report here

In Wikipedia's version my two critics deleted all of the history of research discoveries between 1900 and 2009, and it still isn't there as of 20-5-11 here

 

The text that I provided, including

 

The complete history of
Da Costa's Syndrome

Da Costa's Syndrome is a disorder of unknown origin[1][2][3] which involves a set of symptoms that include left-sided chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, faintness, dizziness and fatigue occurring exclusively in respnse to physical exertion in some patients,[4] but in most cases the symptoms occur to a lesser degree at other times. The tendency to excessive tiredness during the day, and a reduced capacity for exertion[5][6], are the most prominent complaints.


The condition was first identified by J.M.DaCosta who observed it in soldiers during the American Civil War and later studied 300 patients to distinguish it from heart disease which has similar symptoms.[7] Since then there have been many heated disputes and controversies[1][8][2][9][10] about it being heart disease or not[1], real or imaginary[1][11], genuine or malingering[12], and physical or mental[13], and more than 80 different theories and labels have been proposed and scientifically investigated[14][15]. Da Costa called it "irritable heart" but the most appropriate label according to Harvard professor Paul Dudley White, who studied the subject for more than 50 years, was neurocirculatory asthenia.[1] Other authors have regarded Da Costa's syndrome as the best name because it does not give any attribution to hypothesised cause and is therefore the most objective term.[11]


The typical patient is a sedentary worker with a long, thin, flat, or narrow chest, and a stooped spine, as depicted in a life sized portrait which was previously displayed in the Museum of the Post-Graduate Medical School of London[16]. Notable medical authority Oglesby Paul summarised many of the Da Costa controversies in a 1987 edition of the British Heart Journal[2] and since then the use of the term has become rare and, although the ailment is still a common and easily diagnosed problem, it has been absorbed into other modern categories of labeling. The abnormal response to effort is consistent with the modern equivalent of effort intolerance which is a symptom of a type of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome which is a sub-type of the chronic fatigue syndrome[17] [1] [18]. Other popularly used labels included soldier's heart, effort syndrome, anxiety neurosis,[1][2] and post-viral fatigue syndrome.[15] All modern ideas about cause and labeling have their strong adherents and opponents, however, none have yet been scientifically proven or universally accepted.

The following "History" section of the article has been described by my two critics as unreliable information which violates Medically Reliable Sourcing policy because the references were "old", "entirely superseded", "from more than a century ago", and "from before most editors were born". As another example the words "seriously outdated", were used on the arbitration page where I was banned. See here

 

The following quote is an extract from the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources for medical articles . . . "History sections often cite older work, for obvious reasons", and can be seen here

 

Note also that my two critics used references from 1871, 1916, 1917, 1919, 1941, and 1951, in their small list of 18 See here. See the complete list of 61 old and modern references that I used here

History

1864-1899
Da Costa's syndrome is named after the surgeon Jacob Mendes Da Costa, who first observed it in soldiers during the American Civil War. The typical case was the civilian who enlisted in the army and was sent on long hours of marching, often up to twenty miles in one day, sometimes at double quick pace, with poor food and water, and in bad weather. They developed a viral infection and diarhoea and became exhausted and fell out of line and were hospitalised for treatment. After several months they recovered from the infection but when they returned to marching they were unable to keep up the pace as before and were again hospitalised, and although making a partial recovery they continued to suffer from abnormal palpitations, breathlessness and fatigue in response to mild exertion and were unfit for full military duty. Da Costa also noted that the pulse was always greatly and rapidly influenced by position, such as stooping or reclining.[7]
Another physician, Earl de Grey, had previously presented four reports on British soldiers with these symptoms between 1864 and 1868, and attributed them to the heavy weight of military equipment being carried in knapsacks which were tightly strapped to the chest in a manner which constricted the action of the heart. Also in 1864, Henry Harthorme observed soldiers in the American Civil War who had similar symptoms which were attributed to "long-continued overexertion, with deficiency of rest and often nourishment", and indefinite heart complaints were attributed to lack of sleep and bad food[19]. In 1870 Arthur Bowen Myers of the Coldstream Guards also regarded the accoutrements as the cause of the trouble, which he called neurocirculatory asthenia and cardiovascular neurosis[20][21][22][23].

My two critics deleted everything from Wikipedia about the history below.

They want the public to believe that the information is wrong, and from unreliable sources, but the fact is they don't want you to read it and find out what actually happened.

1900-1919
In 1916 Sir James MacKenzie chaired an influential medical conference aimed at determining the future course of research for the subject in England, in order to gain a better understanding of the condition [12]. He attributed the fatigue to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins during exertion, which reduced blood flow to the brain. He also observed that the soldiers were fit and well at the start of the war, but after becoming severely exhausted by long marching or viral infections they recovered partially but with a reduced capacity for effort. They experienced abnormal palpitations and breathlessness which impaired their capacity to run fast, or to run up and down stairs, or to keep up with their comrades in marches as before.[23]
Between 1916 and 1919 several synonyms were used to describe Da Costa's syndrome in World War 1, including soldier's heart and neurocirculatory asthenia. Sir Thomas Lewis gave it the title of the effort syndrome [24]because he observed that in some cases the symptoms occurred exclusively in response to physical exertion. Many of these patients had poor physiques with narrow or flat chests and a history of minor symptoms of the condition prior to enlisting in the army, and they often came from sedentary occupations which they chose because of difficulties in doing strenuous work. They had also avoided vigorous sports for similar reasons[4]. Some of them enlisted several times and were repeatedly rejected but persisted until they were finally accepted, and then their symptoms were aggravated or caused by strenuous exertion at training camps, or while on long marches where they contracted viral infections, and after recovering from the fever they found that they could not sustain their former levels of activity. Graded exercise testing was used to gauge the severity of their condition, and both Lewis and Osler used it as a treatment[25][4][26] which enabled some of the soldiers to return to full military duty, but others were put on light duties or discharged. After the war they generally changed to lighter occupations than they had before the war, and some were chronically incapacitated by their fatigue[4].

1920-1949
In 1939 J.L. Caughey Jnr. reviewed the literature of internal medicine on the subject of cardiovascular neurosis which referred to cases that involved symptoms similar to those of heart disease occurring where there was no apparent disease of the heart or blood vessels. The typical patient had his tonsils and appendix removed as a child, as well as many infectious illnesses and colds. He had a thin physique, and a weak stomach, and his kidneys had been damaged by Scarlet fever, and there were frequent fluctuations in the color and volume of his urine. His blood pressure was unstable, and his peripheral circulation was poor, with pale fingers and toes in cold weather. He had difficulty with concentrating and thinking clearly and had a poor memory. They had a respiratory infection three years prior to suffering from pain in his heart, shortness of breath, dizziness, faintness and weakness. All of his symptoms were "made worse by exertion or nervous strain". They often felt breathless and would complain of not being able to expand their chest far enough to get a full breath. Caughey also noted previous exercise tests which indicated "a physiological abnormality in the patient as compared to the normal person", but he believed that it was due to their fear that exercise would cause a heart attack. In describing the lack of stamina he suggested that there were two groups of patients, the first who never developed the ability to persevere against the challenges and adversities of life, and those who tried but gave up.[27]
In the 1940's there were several studies aimed at determining the physical basis of these conditions[11][28] and in 1947 S.Wolf studied the "respiratory distress characterized by inability to get a full breath" and found that the thoracic diaphragm function was abnormal, and when the diaphragms contractile state during inspiration was such that adequate inspiration was no longer possible, breathlessness occurred with a feeling of inability to take a full breath. The spasm of the diaphragm was often accompanied by pains in the chest and shoulder, occlusion of the lower end of the esophagus, and difficulty swallowing.[29] Also in 1947 a report by Cohen and White noted that the complete mechanism of Da Costa syndrome symptoms was unknown but when respiration was investigated objective abnormalities were found, "just as when other symptoms of N.C.A. are investigated with objective methods, which demonstrates that the abnormalities are not all in the subjective sphere". The respiratory abnormalities at rest were few but during exercise the abnormalities became more pronounced and the deviations from the normal became greater as the rate and amount of exercise increased.[30]

1950-1979
In 1950 Edmund Wheeler presented the results of a 20-year longitudinal study of 173 patients with "effort syndrome" and found that the condition involved varying degrees of disability but all patients tended to improve with a low-stress lifestyle. He concluded that, although they all had what was called 'anxiety', they did not develop a higher frequency of illnesses such as peptic ulcers, diabetes, or asthma etc, "which have recently been said to be caused by anxiety" and that "there is no evidence that anxiety causes these diseases".[13]

In 1951 the fourth edition of Paul Dudley White's book "Heart Disease" contained a chapter on "Neurocirculatory Asthenia", because, as he explains, the symptoms are similar to heart disease, but are not the same, and he adds, that they are also similar to, but can occur in the absence of anxiety, and are not exactly like those produced by effort in a normal healthy person, and therefore need to be discussed separately.
He describes the typical group of symptoms which are precipitated by excitement or effort, and stated that "it constitutes a kind of fatigue syndrome" and in some cases "it is more or less a chronic condition," and that regardless of it's pathogenesis it was a real illness. In some patients the neurocirculatory symptoms were most prominent, but for some unknown reason there were other cases where the main symptoms were gastrointestinal or cerebral. The general causes of the condition appear to include such strains as worry over business, social, or family matters, emotional conflicts, physical or nervous fatigue, and exhaustion from acute infections or illnesses. The organic basis was not known although the possibilities which had been considered in the previous 25 years, included thyrotoxicosis, low-grade infection, adrenal hyperactivity, hyperventilation resulting in alkalosis, and lack of salt, but none have been confirmed. Many of the patients had thin physiques with an "unusually vertical position of the heart", and "abnormality of shape of the capillary loops at the base of the nail" . . . "It is common to find that close relatives have had similar problems, and recent studies indicated that it was one of the Mendelian dominant group of inherited disorders." It was common in World War 1, occurred in civilians as well as soldiers, and it is generally seen in young adults, but can occur at any age, and is more common in women than men. The frequent sighing distinguishes the condition from heart disease, and the fatigue sometimes produces more incapacity, and even complete disability. It is a real and not an imaginary incapacity, even though at first glance it may have appeared imaginary in World War 1 (1914-1918) when it was sometimes labeled "malingering", and even though in civilian practice it has frequently been diagnosed as "mere nervousness". It is milder in civilian life than in war and it is so commonly associated with psycho-neurosis of the anxiety type "that the two conditions have sometimes been confused one for the other or considered to be synonymous, the term anxiety neurosis having come to mean for many the same collection of symptoms which identify neurocirculatory asthenia."
Treatment involves rest for days or months or as long as required, and elaborate psychotherapy is generally not needed. "The condition must be discussed seriously, not lightly as if it was of no importance", and it is equally wrong to dismiss it as negligible or imaginary, as it is to to regard it as dangerous or serious and a threat to life which demands bed rest. Management of the symptoms involves normal but quiet work and play and the avoidance of long working hours or burdensome tasks. Like most people these patients usually try to keep up with their friends in strenuous living in the business, professional, or social world but with clear medical advice they soon learn the benefits limiting their activities and gradually adjust them to suit their symptoms, and are surprised at recapturing a feeling of well being."[1]
In 1956 Paul Wood's 2nd edition of Diseases of the Heart and Circulation included a chapter on the effort syndrome. He described how it "is characterised by a group of symptoms which unduly limit the subject's capacity for effort" and recorded that "The cardinal symptoms" of irritable heart, soldier's heart, disordered action of the heart (D.A.H.), etc. are "breathlessness (93%), palpitations (89%), fatigue (88%), left inframammary pain (78%), and dizziness (78%), or syncope (fainting) (35%)". He also suggested a variety of methods for diagnosing the difference between the symptoms and those of heart disease. For example the chest pain usually involved a sharp stabbing sensation in the lower ribs caused by prolonged poor posture. He noted that the location of the pain was so near the heart that "it seems to convince the patient that his heart is diseased", especially because of the palpitations that occur at other times. It was natural to draw that conclusion but some patients developed a morbid fear of heart disease and death, however, although the exact mechanism was not known, it could be "immediately abolished by the intramuscular injection of 2 ml. of novocaine at the site of maximum intensity and tenderness", indicating that it was in the muscle between the ribs and was related to fibrositis. The breathlessness involved frequent deep sighs brought on by exercise, but were also common at other times, and the patients will say they are not able to obtain a full and satisfying breath. This can also occur at night when it "may be confused with asthma. "A simple test" for the symptom involves forced hyperventilation where "The patient is asked to breath deeply and rapidly for one minute." When a healthy person is asked to stop he feels breathless for about 20 seconds, but a patient with Da Costa's syndrome "continues forced breathing, explaining later that he felt breathless." i.e. there is an abnormal breathing pattern - "Dyspnoea" instead of insufficient breathing - "apnoea". Also "Normal subjects have no difficulty holding the breath for at least 30 seconds, but patients with Da Costa's syndrome usually give up very quickly. With regard to the fatigue the patients often do not feel refreshed when they wake up in the morning, and they may "feel tired and listless during the day". The other type of fatigue which is related to effort involves a delay in the return of pulse rate after exertion.[16]. In considering the influence of psychological factors he noted that the similarity of the symptoms to heart disorders may be the cause of a fear of heart disease (cardiophobia), which contributes to the reluctance to exercise (i.e. resulting in exercise phobia), and that all of the symptoms may have originated from a general anxiety neurosis resulting from genetic or familial factors, or poor health during childhood, and the consequent lack of exercise and the avoidance of sport during childhood.
In 1976 Charles Wooley presented an article about the history of Da Costa's syndrome in the journal called 'Circulation'. He reported that Da Costa originally called it 'irritable heart' when he noticed the condition amongst soldiers during the American Civil War. However he added that a later study by Thomas Lewis revealed that most of the soldiers who had the problem came from sedentary occupations and "a large percentage" were "affected by the condition in civil life many years before joining the Army" and that it was not particularly a soldiers malady, and that it also affected some athletes. A further study in 1941 by Paul Wood reported that it was commoner in women[11].
The author also noted that possibly several distinct, but similar conditions were causing confusion in diagnosis, and concluded that many of Da Costa's original patients had been described as having occasional cardiac sounds and murmurs that could now be included in the newly evolving category of mitral valve prolapse syndrome. He then recommended deferred judgment about the nature of the other cases, where advances in technology were likely to provide a more precise understanding of the relationship between the various causes [31].

1980-1999

In 1980 Soviet researcher V.S.Volkov studied the physical fitness levels of patients with angina heart disease, and compared them to those with neurocirculatory dystony (Da Costa's syndrome). He divided heart disease patients into three groups with heart pain at rest, heart pain every day, and heart pain occasionally. He also divided NCD patients into three stages of mild, moderate, and severe. 80% of Da Costa's syndrome patients were fitter than heart disease patients, but 20% were not, and had to stop the exercise because of changes in their heart rate, or overwhelming and radiating chest pain, general fatigue, and fear for their hearts.[32]

 

 

Information that I provided when I started on the topic between the 9th and 18th December 2007

My two critics invented policy reasons for deleting most of the information about the research history of the topic, and deleting my own theories and research, but their real motive was to hide the fact that I had proven that the symptoms had a physical basis, and changed medical attitudes towards the condition.

After my studies the name of Da Costa's syndrome fell into disuse, and was replaced by statements in the media about a new condition called the "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome". However, it wasn't a new ailment, just a new label. The main symptoms of faintness and fatigue are part of CFS and are now called "Orthostatic intolerance", and the reduced capacity for exertion is now called 'Exercise intolerance', and the method of training within limits is now called PACING, which is regarded by patients throughout the world as the best treatment available today.

While my two critics were inventing reasons for deleting much of the history of the topic, they were also adding psychiatric labels and interpretations at every opportunity, and were very busy on talk pages trying to discredit me, my theory, and my research.

They talked a lot about 'conflict of interest', but here is theirs . . . Some academics see themselves as having the sole right to do research, and resent non-academics who make significant discoveries . . . and. . . Some doctors may resent an individual who has this disorder who makes such discoveries . . . and . . . some psychologists etc, may resent such individuals who prove their ailments are physical . . . and some organisations prefer to hide the reality of existence, and costs of health problems. Those factors are the source of hostile criticism. Such heated arguments between one group of researchers and another has existed for the entire history of this topic, and is not new or unusual. However I have never seen anyone as bad as my two critics who were telling lies, cheating, swearing, and ' on the verge of tearing their hair out'.

 

From 1982-83, researchers at the South Australian Institute For Fitness Research and Training examined more than 80 volunteers with persistnat fatigue and found similar results, and a training programme was designed on the basis that they would participate if they kept within their own limits and improved at their own rate. Eleven who didn’t train were examined 6 months later with no significant change. Ten completed three months training of 2 hours per night twice per week, and six completed six months or more. Three cases improved but plateaud after three months below 600 kgm/min, and 3 ot those who were initially recorded as below 400 kgm/min showed significant improvement. Twelve months after starting the training programme one of the participants entered a six mile marathon and completed it. Although the results were not published in medical journals the general findings were reported in several Australian newspapers. According to the theory of research co-ordinator, Max Banfield, the four cardiac like symptoms of DaCosta’s syndrome were caused by the postural compression of the chest which was related to abnormal spiinal curvture, chest shape, and leaning forward.
(1) The postural compression of the ribs placed strain on the structures between them resulting in occasional brief sharp stabbing pains in the lower left side of the chest.
(2) Pressure on the diaphragm impeded it’s upward movement and impaired it’s function and respiratory efficiency to cause an occasional sense of not being able to get a full breath, particularly during exercise, where two to four deep breaths in quick succession may be required every twenty yards or so.
(3) Pressure on the heart pushed it toward the anterior chest wall where changes in pulse were more readily perceived as palpitations.
(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 DaCosta, 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 Maneuver, and the chronic effect is evident in tilt table test.
DaCosta’s Syndrome is a type of chronic fatigue, and posture is one of many other possible causes which have been confusing the link between cause and effect.


In 1987 prominent Harvard researcher Oglesby Paul presented a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome in the British Heart Journal, in which he outlined all of the controversies of the previous hundred years. He reported that many theories and labels had been proposed, but for each one which had supporting evidence, there were other studies which contradicted the findings. For example, if one study presents anxiety as a cause, another study will find patients who are not anxious, another study will report hyperventilation as a cause, yet there will also be studies which show patients who don't hyperventilate, and for each study that shows a relationship to mitral valve prolapse syndrome there will be others that show no evidence of MVP. He concluded that the condition still existed, and was easy to diagnose, effecting 4% of the population, but that there were newer more popular labels, such as 'anxiety state', where he added that such labels would do no harm as long as the important history of the subject was not forgotten.[2]

 

I would have been quite happy to end my report on the history of Da Costa's syndrome here (in 1987), but my two critics were deceiving other editors into believing that I was avoiding it because, in their bizarre opinions, it proved my ideas wrong. It didn't prove any such thing, and I had to write an explanation of the modern history myself because my two critics refused to co-operate, and did absolutely nothing constructive themselves. They had about ten months of opportunity, but just picked fault with everything I wrote.

Their replacement text says something like this - after 1876 a few things happened and now,132 years later, in 2008, we have modern opinions but nobody cares how or where they came from.

 

In a previous version, on March 10th 2008, I responded to my two critics who were discussing the aspect of abnormal breathing patterns so I added this information here, but did not mention it in the latest version that I added to Wikipedia (Hence, the link numbers won't match the current reference list)

 

In 1990 S.D. Rosen and his colleagues from the Department of Cardiology in the Charing Cross Hospital, London conducted a study of patients who had been diagnosed with the chronic fatigue syndrome, myalgic encephalomyelitis, and postviral syndrome, which they referred to as the modern terms for the effort syndrome. Their objective was to determine the role of emotional factors and chronic habitual hyperventilation in producing the symptoms by testing the levels of CO2 in the lungs during, and after 3 minutes of deliberate rapid and deep breathing, and then again while the patients were thinking about prior personal experiences which involved anger or fear. The results showed that 93 of the 100 patients had evidence characteristic of chronic habitual hyperventilation.[19] However other studies have found that the breathlessness of the effort syndrome or Da Costa's syndrome was once regarded as just subjective, or imaginary until 1947 when it was found to be due to abnormal function of the thoracic diaphragm - the main breathing muscle.[20][21] Rosen and his colleagues also noted "It has long been recognized that hyperventilation-related illness can appear after or be aggravated by injury or infection”, so they studied that aspect and found evidence of chronic hyperventilation symptoms before the viral infection, and suggested that the infective illness simply made the fatigue worse. Their final paragraph mentioned the opinions of three authors who regarded normal health as being maintained by leading a moderate lifestyle and staying within reasonable boundaries, and that leading an excessively demanding lifestyle beyond those limits may be the cause of the effort syndrome.[22]
In 1984 S.G, Saish and his colleagues from The College of Thoracic Medicine, Kings College School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, U.K. studied 31 patients with chronic fatigue and found that 71% “had no evidence of hyperventilation during any aspect of the test” and that “There is only a weak association between hyperventilation and chronic fatigue syndrome”.[23]
In 1997 E. Bazelmans and his research colleagues from the Department of Medical Psychology of the University Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands shed doubt on the role of hyperventilation in causing the chronic fatigue syndrome with their evidence that it is not related to the number or severity of symptoms and is probably a consequence rather than a cause of the condition[24]

 


In 1998 David Streeten presented an article in JAMA[3], 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. He stated that "as a working hypothesis", the fatigue was due to abnormal pooling of blood in the lower limbs which delayed and reduced the flow of blood and oxygen supply to the brain. That effect was compounded by a reduced circulating red blood cell mass. He then emphasised that it is essential to identify these physical abnormalities by repeatedly measuring the patients blood pressure in recumbency and after standing for ten minutes or tilt testing, and that "it is inappropriate to consider that CFS is a manifestation of mental disorder" unless those physical causes are excluded. He added that the expense of these tests was not unreasonable considering that almost every type of work or lifestyle required a person to stand for six hours per day without experiencing the symptoms associated with reduced blood pressure. He then concluded that the instigating cause remains unknown, and that effective and safe treatments for the debilitating symptoms are still not available and that further research is required.[3]

The relevance to modern labeling terminology between 2000-2008
The use of the term Da Costa's syndrome has fallen out of fashion and is rarely used nowadays,[2] however to put it into context with modern labels there are some relevant descriptions from the history of research. In that regard, in 1916 Thomas Lewis noted that in some cases the condition was exclusively related to exertion,[33] [5][4] and in 1956 Paul Wood O.B.E. described it as a syndrome of six clearly identifiable symptoms which had previously been called "primary"[12] "typical" [34] "characteristic"[35] "chief"[24][36] , or "classic"[1] and which he called "cardinal" symptoms[16]. Harvard professor Paul Dudley White described it as a definite malady which was a type of fatigue syndrome that is more or less chronic.[1] Nowadays those typical, distinct, or characteristic features can be seen in conditions which include the symptom with the misnomer of effort intolerance (which should be effort limitations) due to exercise induced postural hypotension.[23][16][37] For example, it is seen in one type of the Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, which is in turn one of the many types of chronic fatigue syndrome[17] [3][37][38][10] [39][18]. However, there are still many different ideas about cause, and the condition has been virtually lost in a sea of other labels[5][2][40] and although there is a vast amount of direct and indirect research evidence for physical cause[29][30][34], none have been universally accepted[14]. The topic remains the subject of ongoing controversy amongst imprecisely defined anxiety disorders, poorly characterised post-war syndromes[41][42][43], and the complex CFS group of ailments[41][44][45][46][38][37][37][38], Opinions differ from one medical specialist to another[17][10][18], from one medical authority to another, and from one medical consumer group to another, and change regularly[44][15][18]. Dictionary definitions and label priorities also alter with the changes in opinion, however the Merriam Webster online Medical Dictionary [2] includes a definition of neurocirculatory asthenia, with the typical symptoms occurring in relation to exertion and in the absence of heart disease, and provides the synonyms of "cardiac neurosis, effort syndrome, irritable heart, and soldier's heart" [47], which were the most frequently used synonyms for Da Costa's syndrome.[1][2] Indeed Dorland's medical dictionary lists Da Costa's syndrome and neurocirculatory asthenia as direct synonyms[48] and the current 2008 edition of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine describes the symptoms of the modern term chronic fatigue syndrome as being "not new" with the comment that in the past it may have been diagnosed as the "effort syndrome"[17] defined in 1919 by Lewis[25][4].

Symptoms
The typical symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome are palpitations, breathlessness, chest pains, and or fatigue[16][34][49][12] occurring exclusively in response to physical exertion in some cases[4][16][6], and occasionally to changes in posture[33][50][12], but in many patients they are also associated with some viral infections or nervous strains.[1][27]

* The palpitations occur as a more forceful and rapid beating of the heart than usual and are generally associated with stress or exertion[4][1].

*The breathlessness is related to spasm and inefficient function of the thoracic diaphragm[29][11][28][30] which is the primary breathing muscle, and it features occasional slow, forced, deep breaths - abnormal sighs or yawns[27][50][14][30][1][5][11][34].The person often feels as if they cannot get a full breath, and they tend to avoid crowded buses, trains and theatres, and they prefer to sit near open windows to get fresh air, or in aisle seats so that they can leave the room quickly if necessary, and in some cases they avoid open spaces where there are crowds. This was due to an abnormal build up of CO2 exhaled by the crowd in a confined space, which tended to increase the frequency of sighs and ultimately cause all of the physical symptoms of the condition, and sometimes a sense of suffocation and a sense of fear that resembled anxiety attacks[14].

* The most common chest pain is a dull ache or tenderness in the lower left side of the chest[24][36] with occasional brief, sharp and stabbing sensations in that area[4][1][5][14][11][16][2][34], and there may sometimes be cramping pains in the muscles on the far left or right side of the chest brought on by muscular efforts [11][16][1]such as the strain of "lifting a heavy weight", especially at awkward angles - "in such actions as cranking an engine" [11][16].

* The fatigue involves two distinct types. Firstly an abnormal pattern of tiredness with the person often waking up tired in the morning[8], and feeling tired at various times throughout the day[35], and secondly, an increased frequency of sighing, or gasping breathlessness and exhaustion as the level of physical exertion increases[24], and it is unlike normal fatigue insofar as it tends to persist abnormally despite rest[5]. It is related to abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins which reduces blood flow to the heart and brain[4][38] , especially during exertion, which explains why faintness and dizziness are often additional features, and why most patients have a reduced capacity for exertion.[23][16][3][17]

* The faintness or dizziness can often occur when standing up quickly, especially when getting out of bed in the morning[33], or after a large meal[33], or when standing still for many hours on a hot day, or sometimes by bending or stooping[7][24], or by being moved on a swingboard[24] or tilt table[37], and is related to the abnormal distribution and movement of blood throughout the body[24][33].

Predisposing factors
 The condition may be genetic or familial[11][35][30][16][13][27][34][2] and is more likely to affect individuals who had multiple infectious illnesses and surgical procedures during childhood[4][27], and who had thin[23][51][1][52] and stooped physiques[24][53][11] [31][1][34], and sedentary workers[4][33][54] who avoided or never played sport[4][27][1][16][31], and it is more common in women[4][14][13][11][1][34][2][39][18], and often occurs or starts during a pregnancy[13][14][55]. Most soldiers who developed the condition were former sedentary workers[24][33] who had minor indications of the typical symptoms prior to the war[7][4][33][54][51][14][35][31], and were volunteers rather than conscripts[33][36], and it was more common in the army where strenuous marching was required, and less common in the navy and air force[36].

Onset of symptoms
In some cases the condition appears to have been present since birth, or ever since the patient can remember[27][51][30][13][35], but it is often gradual in onset without the patient noticing it or being able to identify an obvious cause[14], or it may start and recur or persist after a viral infection[7][23][4][14][16][2], or after an excessive or prolonged period of physical[7][4][14][54][41] or emotional stress[19][13][1]. The average age of onset is 25 years[35][14][34].

Causes
According to J.M.Da Costa in his original paper of 1871 the causes were "Fevers" 17%, "Diarrhoea" 30.5%, "Hard field service, particularly excessive marching" 34.5%, and finally, "Wounds, injuries, rheumatism, scurvy, ordinary duties of soldier life, and doubtful causes" 18%.[7][12]
Since Da Costa's initial report several authors have proposed that bad work posture[12], compression of the chest with tight straps[12], work involving severe muscular exertion[12], anxiety[1][2][48] related to personal or business stress[13][16][1], pregnancy[13][14] and malnutrition[19][1][14][41] can be added to the list of causes.

General Physical Characteristics
Da Costa's syndrome can affect individuals of any type of physique, but they are generally thin[23][25][33][35][51][1][52], with various chest wall deformities and stooped or scoliotic spines[24][4][33][31][11][16][34]. They are generally, but have not always been poor athletes and swimmers[33][30][14], and have an abnormally functioning thoracic diaphragm which results in inefficient breathing and the tendency to sigh more often than usual. They also have a reduced capacity to hold their breath[4], and an intolerance to carbon dioxide where deliberately overbreathing, or breathing CO2 enriched air brings on their symptoms[14][56][2], as does wearing a gas mask[31][11][30] and the infusion of sodium lactate[34]. Other common distinguishing features are abnormalities in the shape of their fingernail capillaries,[1][11][34] and it is very common to find dermatographia[24] where running a finger nail lightly down the chest will leave a trailing red mark and hence the ability to write on the skin.

Physiological Abnormalities related to exertion
Da Costa's syndrome has been called "the physiological syndrome of effort"[33][54] and the patients have a poor aerobic capacity or low level of fitness which is not related to the lack of exercise[25][4], and they have breathing patterns and other symptoms which are not the normal response to effort[50][14][30][1][5][11][2]. They have poor diaphragm movement and reduced chest expansion at rest[27][11], and during exercise training such as walking, jogging, or running "they have an easily induced oxygen debt"[1], their breathing become disproportionately shallow, oxygen consumption is lower, and blood lactate levels are higher than normal[14][30][34][12], in some cases more than double[14], and as the intensity and duration of the exercise increases the physiological abnormalities increase[24][14][30] which is consistent with the histories and claimed disabilities of these patients[50][14]. There is also an abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins[23][25][3][38] , and a slow return of pulse rate to normal after exertion[24][33][54][16].

Treatment
The reports of Da Costa, White, Wheeler, and Wood etc. show that patients recovered from the more severe symptoms when removed from the strenuous activity, the stressful emotional situations, or the sustained lifestyle that caused them[19][33][13][1]. In many cases relapses were prevented by determining the limits of exertion and lifestyle and keeping within them[24][13][1][57][44]. The physical limitations were associated with the abnormalities in respiration and circulation, and exercise testing and blood CO2 measurements can be used to accurately estimate the degree of disability for up to 20 years later[50]. The treatments evident from the previous studies included appropriate levels of exercise where possible[23][26][1][2][58], using individually designed graded exercise regimes[24][50][33][59][41][9][6][34][49] which have been proven to be effective in relieving symptoms and improving exercise tolerance in come cases[50][12][17]. Some symptoms such as faintness can be prevented or relieved by wearing loose clothing about the neck, chest, and waist[7][20][12], and standing up slowly can prevent the faintness associated with postural or orthostatic hypotension in some cases[16][17], and avoiding postural changes such as stooping, or lying on the left or right side[7][24][33][11][12], or the back relieved some of the palpitations, chest pains, or giddiness in some cases. Some of the symptoms can be relieved by laying in a recliner chair[59], and the chest pain can be temporarily relieved by intramuscular injection of novocaine at the site of tenderness[16]. Other treatments were improving nutrition[19][33], physique and posture,[7], and drinking more fluids, increasing salt intake, and sleeping with the head elevated which can reduce the fatigue[60][61][38]. It is also useful to reassure the patient that the condition is not due to heart disease and that many individuals manage the symptoms successfully by making appropriate modification to their exercise levels and lifestyle, and generally have a normal lifespan[33].

Prevention
In his original paper J.M. Da Costa suggested that the condition tended to become chronic after a prolonged and exhausting viral infection where the person was sent back to full and demanding activity too soon. He therefore recommended that the person should be provided with sufficient rest, nourishment, and gradual physical training to achieve full strength before resuming former duties[7][2][33]. Various other authors have suggested that the adoption of a moderate lifestyle and avoidance of the extremes can prevent this type of condition from developing[33][13][1][57], and that this general principle applies regardless of other causes and pathogenesis[62]. As the result of research in World War 1, the World War 2 army recruits with evidence of symptoms in civilian life were excluded from joining, and the incidence during the war decreased significantly[8].

Alternative names for Da Costa's syndrome
The name of Da Costa's syndrome has changed so often[36] from one specialist[5][14][34], or from one country[32][44] [12][18], or one year to another[14][44][18] that it has created confusion in the definition, diagnosis, and study of the condition,[33][31] as is evident from many research articles which mention four or five in their introduction, [27][50][30][14][1][16][56][34][31][63][61][6][12][41][45][18][17] and from a recent website which lists what it claims are more than eighty synonyms.[15] However the title of Da Costa's syndrome has been regarded as the preferred label by several authors because of its non-attribution and unchallengeable aspect.[11] By contrast, the labels such as irritable heart or cardiac asthenia are inappropriate because the ailment is not a form of heart disease[1]. Similarly labels such as Soldier's heart or Combat fatigue are too specific[36][2] and can be challenged because the vast majority of patients have never been soldiers,[1] and it is inappropriate when the symptoms occur in pregnant civilian women[64][11]. Relating it to Post-viral fatigue syndrome[17] can be disputed because, in many cases the patient could not recall having a viral infection, and the label of Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can be challenged because many patients have not experienced preceding trauma,[13][2]and the symptoms are not the same as those caused by stress[14] and can have a genetic[35][30] [34][31][2][45], or gradual onset unrelated to stress [30]. Somatoform disorder refers to symptoms occurring in the absence of physical or physiological evidence to account for them [3], yet Da Costa's symptoms have actually been called "the physiological syndrome of effort"[33], and have been associated with multiple physical, physiological and biochemical abnormalities[24][33][50][54][51][30][16][32][2][12][45][18], and the term dysautonomia implies a fault in the autonomic nervous system which, whilst it may be an effect, and has not been proven as a cause[1][11][16][2][39]. There are also discrepancies associated with the label of Hyperventilation syndrome [1][16][2][65] with some evidence that the abnormal breathing patterns, which may include hyperventilation, are secondary to the other symptoms and physiological abnormalities[8][56]. Similarly, some patients with MVP have none of the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome and vice versa[2][57]. The term anxiety state implies that the patient is in a constant state of anxiety, yet many patients appear calm and are rarely affected by anxiety[30][57][38], and the term anxiety disorder can be disputed[57] because the symptoms are not the same as those produced by anxiety[33][14][1]and they don't develop any abnormal incidence of other diseases such as peptic ulcers or asthma which have been previously, and erroneously attributed to anxiety[13][2]and labeled as psychosomatic[34]. Similarly the condition cannot be regarded as an exercise phobia because many patients were capable of strenuous marching prior to developing the condition [7] or were formerly good athletes[24][51], and in fact, it has previously been called "Athlete's Heart"[33]. However, by referring to the ailment as Da Costa's syndrome it can be said that it may be related to anxiety, excessive physical or emotional stress, post-viral causes, and unknown causes etc. The symptoms can include orthostatic hypotension and postural tachycardia[38][18] but those terms are not appropriate as labels because they don't account for the other symptoms. Da Costa's could be referred to as a type of Chronic fatigue syndrome,[1][62][3][44][45][39][10][18][17] because chronic fatigue is the main symptom, but the other five typical symptoms distinguish it from the general term [4], and from other types of CFS[44].

Differential Diagnosis
The condition needs to be distinguished from angina heart disease (angina pectoris), mitral valve prolapse syndrome[9], hyperventilation syndrome, hyperkinetic heart, cardiophobia[2], normal tiredness[5][35] the normal symptoms of exertion[33][5][30][1], normal nervousness[1], exercise phobia, panic attacks, anxiety state, and depression, and other similar syndromes such as the the post-traumatic stress disorders and the numerous post-war syndromes.[2]. It also needs to be distinguished from other types of orthostatic hypotension [38][39][18] or chronic fatigue syndromes[10] , which involve separate or different, or additional symptoms. However many patients with Da Costa's syndrome also have such problems as a coincidence or as a result of the ailment. For example patients who have symptoms similar to heart disease, often develop a fear of heart disease (cardiophobia)[16][2] Also note that Da Costa's syndrome involves a set of six classic symptoms, and needs to be distinguished from conditions that involve only one or two symptoms[34]. For example hyperkinetic heart may occur on its own as a single symptom, or it may be part of the set of six in a Da Costa's patient[63][2]. Similarly a person who only has a dual combination of the left-sided chest pain and palpitations does not necessarily have Da Costa's syndrome. Also, characteristically Da Costa's syndrome involves fatigue which includes both an impaired capacity for exertion[24][26][17], and secondly, an abnormal pattern of tiredness[5]. Therefore, if patients do not have difficulty with exertion they do not have Da Costa's syndrome,[7] e.g. a person who complains of abnormal tiredness but participates in vigorous sport does not have Da Costa's syndrome.
The history of this condition clearly and precisely defines the "primary" [12] and "typical" [34]symptoms as "Da Costa's" "chronic" "fatigue" "syndrome"[1], which distinguishes it from many other definitions or types of CFS.

Related Conditions
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome [37]
Soldier's Heart
Chest Wall Syndrome
Costochondritis - left-sided chest pain
Sigh Syndrome
Exercise Intolerance
Mitral Valve Prolapse Syndrome

 

Portrait of a typical Da Costa's syndrome patient

[16] click here (I asked the editors to put a copy of this photo on the page in Wikipedia but it wasn't, so I have linked it to the same photo on my website)
DaCostasPortrait

A note about the criticism of my references

My main critic, named WhatamIdoing, made the following two ridiculous and offensive comments about the reliability of the sixty five references that I provided in the list below. The suggestion to discuss them one at a time was made for the sole purpose of annoying me by being petty and wasting my time, and the comment about an Iguana website was a deliberately misleading statement about the only one from a medical consumer, named Meliss Kaplan (ref no.15) here. . .

Here are the words that WhatamIdoing addressed to me. . . "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?" WhatamIdoing 01:32, 26 January 2009 . . . and . . . "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". WhatamIdoing 02:19, 26 January 2009 here

This is my response: Criticising one of my references in order to argue that they are all unreliable is petulant and childish.

 

References
1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao White, Paul Dudley (1951). Heart Disease. New York, New York: MacMillan. pp. 578-591.
2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac Paul O (1987). "Da Costa's syndrome or neurocirculatory asthenia". Br Heart J 58 (4): 306­15. PMID 3314950.
3. ^ a b c d e f g Streeten, David H.P. (September 1996). "The Nature of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)". J.A.M.A. 280 (12): Editorial. Retrieved on 4 October 2008.
4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Lewis T. (1919) The soldier's heart and the effort syndrome, Paul B. Hoeber, New York.
5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Baker, Doris M. (1955. Cardiac Symptoms In The Neuroses. London: H.K.Lewis & Co.,Ltd.. pp. 50.
6. ^ a b c d Wooley M.D., Charles F. (2004). "Early Hospitals Devoted to Heart Disease: Military Heart Hospital at Hampstead, England: World War 1". American Heart Hospital Journal 2: 175-177. Retrieved on 8 November 2008.
7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Da Costa, Jacob Medes (January 1871). "On Irritable Heart". The American Journal of the Medical Sciences: p.18-52.
8. ^ a b c d [|White, Paul Dudley]; Helen Donovan (1967). Hearts Their Long Follow-up. Philadelphia and London: W.B.Saunders Company. pp. 300-308.
9. ^ a b c Wooley, Charles F.; J.M.Stang (August 1990). "Samuel A Levine's first world war encounters with Mackenzie and Lewis". British Heart Journal 64 (2): 166-170. PMID PMC1024362. Retrieved on 8 November 2008.
10. ^ a b c d e Wooley, Charles F. (2002). The Irritable Heart of Soldiers and the Origins of Anglo American Cardiology: the U.S. Civil War (1861) to World War 1 (1918). Aldershot U.K.: Ashgate Publishing. pp. 321 pp.. ISBN 0-7546-0595-7 (h/b).
11. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u Wood, Paul (24 May 1941). "Da Costa's Syndrome (or Effort Syndrome)". British Medical Journal 1(4194): 767­772.
12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Howell, Joel (1985). ""Soldier's heart": the redefinition of heart disease and speciality formation in early twentieth-century Great Britain.". Medical History: Supplement No. 5:34-52.
13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Wheeler E.O. (1950), Neurocirculatory Asthenia et.al. - A Twenty Year Follow-Up Study of One Hundred and Seventy-Three Patients., Journal of the American Medical Association, 25th March 1950, p.870-889 (Contributors to the study: Edwin O.Wheeler, M.D., Paul Dudley White, M.D., Eleanor W.Reed, and Mandel E.Cohen, M.D.)
14. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z Cohen ME, White PD (1951). "Life situations, emotions, and neurocirculatory asthenia (anxiety neurosis, neurasthenia, effort syndrome)". Psychosom Med 13 (6): 335­57. PMID 14892184. Retrieved on 28 May 2008.
15. ^ a b c d "The disease of a thousand names". Retrieved on 2008-10-02.
16. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Wood, Paul (1956). Diseases of the Heart and Circulation 2nd. revised edition. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. pp. 937-947.
17. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Fauci, Anthony S.; et al. (February 2008). Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine 17th edition. New York U.S.A.: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.. pp. 2703=2704.
18. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Lu, Chih-Cherng; et.al (2004). "Orthostatic Intolerance: Potential Pathophysiology and Therapy". Chinese Journal of Physiology 47 (3): 102. Retrieved on 3 November 2008.
19. ^ a b c d e Hartshorne, Henry (3 June 1863). "On heart disease in the army". College of Physicians, Philadelphia.
20. ^ a b Myers, Arthur (1870). On the etiology and prevalence ofdiseases ofthe heart among soldiers,. London: Churchill.
21. ^ Goetz, C.G.; Turner C.M. and Aminoff M.J. editors (1993). Handbook of Clinical Neurology. B.V.: Elsevier Science Publishers. pp. 429-447.
22. ^ Goetz, C.G.; Turner C.M. and Aminoff M.J. editors (1993). Handbook of Clinical Neurology. B.V.: Elsevier Science Publishers. pp. 429-447.
23. ^ a b c d e f g h i Mackenzie, Sir James; R.M.Wilson, Philip Hamill, Alexander Morrison, O.Leyton, & Florence A.Stoney (1916-01-18). "Discussions On The Soldier's Heart". Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Therapeutical and Pharmacological Section 9: 27-60.
24. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s [|Lewis, Thomas] (1918). The Soldier's Heart And The Effort Syndrome. London: Shaw & Sons. pp. 144 pages.
25. ^ a b c d e Lewis, T. (1918). "Observations upon prognosis, with special reference to a condition described as the "irritable heart of soldiers"". Lancet i (181-3).
26. ^ a b c Osler, Sir William (1918). "Graduated exercise in prognosis. Letter.". Lancet (1): 231.
27. ^ a b c d e f g h i Caughey, J.L. Jnr. (April 1939). "Cardiovascular Neurosis; A Review". Psychosomatic Medicine 1 (3): 311-324.
28. ^ a b Cohen, Mandel E.; R.E. Johnson, F.C. Consolazio, P.D. White (1946 Nov.). "Low oxygen consumption and low ventilatory efficiency during exhausting work in patients with neurocirculatory asthenia, effort syndrome, anxiety neurosis". Journal of Clinical Investigation 25 (6): 920.
29. ^ a b c Wolf, S. (1947 November). "Sustained Contraction of the Diaphragm, the Mechanism or a Common Type of Dyspnoea and Precordial Pain". Journal of Clinical Investigation 26: 1201. Retrieved on 23 March 2008.
30. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Cohen, Mandel E., Paul D. White, (May 1947). "Studies of Breathing, Pulmonary Ventilation and Subjective Awareness of Shortness of Breath (Dyspnea) in Neurocirculatory Asthenia, Effort Syndrome, Anxiety Neurosis". The Journal of Clinical Investigation 26 (3): 520-529. Retrieved on 4 February 2008.
31. ^ a b c d e f g h i Wooley M.D., Charles F. (May 1976). "Where are the Diseases of Yesteryear?". Circulation (the official journal of the American Heart Association 53 (No. 5): 749-751. Retrieved on 24 September 2008.
32. ^ a b c Volkov, V.S. (1980). "Psychosomatic Interrelations and their importance in patients with cardiac type type NCD" (English abstract). Soviet Medicine (11): 9-15.
33. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa [|Lewis, Sir Thomas] (1937). Diseases of the Heart 2nd edition. London: MacMillan and Co., Limited. pp. 96-99 & 159-164 & 280-287.
34. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Hurst, J.W.; R.B.Logue, R.C.Schlant, N.K.Wenber (1974). The Heart 3rd. edition. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.,. pp. 1552-1555.
35. ^ a b c d e f g h i Cohen, Mandel E.; Daniel W.Badal, Alice Kilpatrick, W.Reed, and Paul D.White (June 1951). "The high familial prevalence of neurocirculatory asthenia, anxiety neurosis, effort syndrome". American Journal of Human Genetics 3 (2): 126-158. PMID PMCID: PMC1716324. Retrieved on 2 December 2008.
36. ^ a b c d e f Gordon, Keith (April 1944). "Effort Syndrome - Editorial". Canadian Medical Association Journal 50 (4): 362-363. PMID PMCID: PMC1581613. Retrieved on 14 December 2008.
37. ^ a b c d e f Raj, Satish R. (2006). "The Postural Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS): Pathophysiology, Diagnosis & Management". Indian Pacing Electrophysiology. Journal 6 (2): 84-99. Retrieved on 28 October 2008.
38. ^ a b c d e f g h i Rowe, P.C. (April 2002). "Editorial: Orthostatic Intolerance and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: New Light On An Old Problem". Journal of Pediatrics 140 (4): 387-389. PMID 12006948. Retrieved on 31 October 2008.
39. ^ a b c d e Stewart, Julian M.; Amy Weldon (May 24th 2000). "Vascular perturbations in the chronic orthostatic intolerance of the postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome.". Journal of Applied Physiology 89: 1505-1512. Retrieved on 8 November 2008.
40. ^ Nixon, G.F. (June 1994). "Effort syndrome: Hyperventilation and reduction of anaerobic threshold". Journal of Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback 19 (2): 155-169. doi:10.1007/BF01776488.
41. ^ a b c d e f C.Hyams, M.D., Kenneth; et.al (September 1996). "War Syndromes and Their Evaluation: From the U.S. Civil War to the Persian Gulf War". Annals of Internal Medicine 125 (5): 398-405. Retrieved on 2 December 2008.
42. ^ Engel CC (2004). "Post-war syndromes: illustrating the impact of the social psyche on notions of risk, responsibility, reason, and remedy". J Am Acad Psychoanal Dyn Psychiatry 32 (2): 321­34; discussion 335­43. PMID 15274499.
43. ^ Clark MR, Treisman GL (eds.) (2004). Pain And Depression: An Interdisciplinary Patient-centered Approach (Series: Advances in Psychosomatic Medicine, vol. 25). Basel: Karger. pp. 176. ISBN 3-8055-7742-7.
44. ^ a b c d e f g Ware, Norma C. (1998). "Sociomatics and Illness Course in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome". Psychosomatic Medicine 60: 394-401. Retrieved on 28 November 2008.
45. ^ a b c d e Online 'Mendelian Inheritance in Man' (OMIM) Orthostatic Intolerance -604715
46. ^ Schondorf, R.; R.Freeman (1999). "The importance of orthostatic intolerance in the chronic fatigue syndrome". Am.J.Med.Sci. 317: 117-123. PMID 10037115.
47. ^ "Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary". Retrieved on 2008-06-10.
48. ^ a b "Dorlands Medical Dictionary:Da Costa syndrome". Retrieved on 2008-10-06.
49. ^ a b Fleming, P.R. (1997). A Short History of Cardiology. Amsterdam and Atlanta: Clio Medica, Wellcome Institute. pp. 159.
50. ^ a b c d e f g h i Whishaw, R. (December 16th 1939). "A Review of the Physical Condition of Returned Soldiers Suffering from the Effort Syndrome". The Medical Journal of Australia: 891-893.
51. ^ a b c d e f Jones, Maxwell; R.Scarisbrick (1946). "The effect of Exercise on Soldiers with Neuro-circulatory asthenia". Psychosomatic Medicine (8): 188-192. Retrieved on 2 December 2008.
52. ^ a b Linford Rees, W. (1945). "Physique and Effort Syndrome". Journal of Mental Science 91: 89-92. doi:10.1192/bjp.91.382.89. Retrieved on 14 November 2008.
53. ^ Lewis, Sir Thomas (1940). The soldier's heart and the effort syndrome 2nd. edition. London: Shaw.
54. ^ a b c d e f Wittkower, E.; J.P. Spillane (Feb. 1940). "Medical Problems in War - Neuroses in War (The Effort Syndrome)". The British Medical Journal: 266 & 308-310.
55. ^ Reid, D.E.; M.E.Cohen (1950). "Evaluation of present day trends in obstetrics". J.A.M.A. 142: 615.
56. ^ a b c Morgan, W.P. (Sept. 1983). "Hyperventilation syndrome: a review". American Indian Hygiene association Journal 44 (9): 685-689. Retrieved on 5 November 2008.
57. ^ a b c d e Lewis, R.P.; C.F.Wooley, A.J.Kolibash and H.Boudoulas (1987). "The mitral valve prolapse epidemic: fact or fiction". Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association 98: 222-236. Retrieved on 17 November 2008.
58. ^ Goudsmit EM, Howes S. "Pacing: A strategy to improve energy management in chronic fatigue syndrome", Health Psychology Update (BPS), 2008, 17, 1, 46-52
59. ^ a b Selian, Neuhoff (1917). "XX". Clinical Cardiology. New York: MacMillan. pp. 255.; cited on "Da Costa's Syndrome". vlib.us. Retrieved on 2007-12-18.
60. ^ MacLean, A.R.; Allen E.V. (1940). "Orthostatic hypotension and orthostatic tachycardia: treatment with the "head-up" bed". J.A.M.A. 115: 2162-7.
61. ^ a b MacLean, A.R.; Allen E.V., Magath T.B. (1944). "Orthostatic hypotension and orthostatic tachycardia: defects in the return of venous blood to the heart". American Heart Journal 27: 145-163.
62. ^ a b Rosen, S.D.; J.C. King, J.B. Wilkinson, & P.G.F. Nixon (December 1990). "Is chronic fatigue syndrome synonymous with effort syndrome?". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 83: 761-764.
63. ^ a b "The Hyperkinetic Heart". The Lancet 318: 967. October 31st. 1981.
64. ^ Hamilton, B.E.; K.J.Thomson (1941). The Heart in Pregnancy and the Childbearing Age. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
65. ^ Saish, S.G.; A. Deale, W.N. Gardner, & S. Wessely (June 1994). "Hyperventilation and chronic fatigue syndrome". The Quarterly Journal of Medicine 87 (6): 373-374. Retrieved on 22 March 2008.

 

Some brief notes on the authors of the references

1. J.M.Da Costa: Da Costa was a physician during the American Civil War who noticed that some soldiers had symptoms that seemed to be similar to heart disease, but there was no evidence of actual heart disease. He wrote a research paper in 1871 which became so influential that the ailment became known as Da Costa's syndrome. It had many other names including 'Soldier's Heart'.

2. Sir James MacKenzie: MacKenzie was Knighted for his contributions to medicine in 1915. He was also appointed to take charge of research into Soldier's Heart.

3. Sir Thomas Lewis: Lewis noticed that the symptoms were related to physical exertion and gave the condition another label of the "Effort Syndrome". He wrote a book called "The Soldier's Heart and the Effort Syndrome" and was Knighted for his contributions to that study. "One of his assistants was Paul Dudley White.

4.Paul Dudley White: White studied the condition during World War 1, and before and after World War 2. He became a professor emeritus of Harvard Medical School, and a founding member of the American Heart Association, and several international heart societies. He preferred to call Da Costa's syndrome "Neurocirculatory Asthenia", and his 1951 reference book contains a chapter on that subject.

5. Paul Wood O.B.E.: Wood studied and lectured on this subject while he was working in "The Effort Syndrome Unit" at the National Hospital for Diseases of the Heart in London. He was appointed O.B.E. in 1945, and later wrote two editions of a cardiology reference book between 1950 and 1956, which contained a chapter on this subject. It included a photo of a life-sized portrait of the physique of a typical Da Costa's syndrome patient.

6. Oglesby Paul: Paul was a Harvard professor of medicine. He met and wrote a biography of Paul Dudley White, and in 1987 wrote a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome in the British Heart Journal.

 

The Da Costa's syndrome article prepared for Wikipedia by M.A.Banfield© : Wikipedia ID - Posturewriter

Notes about copyright: My initial contributions to Wikipedia were provided to that online encyclopedia for free. However, since then, two critics kept on deleting most of what I wrote so instead of wasting it I put it on my website. Later, when I was offered the opportunity to do a separate subpage I decided to write it on my own computer first so that I could do it without their constant interference which was making it impossible to complete. I then posted it onto the Wikipedia subpage to give neutral editors the opportunity to discuss it, and eventually transferred it to the topic page where my two critics immediately deleted it and then arranged for me to be banned.

The ultimate result is that it was published on my website first so it is subject to my copyright, but because I posted it to Wikipedia it is available to anyone to use under a GDFL license. Here is an extract from Wikipedia about that license . . . "Conditions . . . Material licensed under the current version of the license can be used for any purpose, as long as the use meets certain conditions . . All previous authors of the work must be attributed" etc. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GNU_Free_Documentation_License&diff=297524086&oldid=
297523183#Conditions

The first two sections of the subpage were rewritten by another editor using the same information but with slightly different sources, but that subpage and it's associated talk page has been deleted. I have therefore replaced the rewritten sections with my version, so I claim authorship for the original full version that was used as the basis for other versions. M.B.

Some Comments on the improvements that I made to the article

My contributions to the Wikipedia Da Costa's syndrome page started smoothly, but after I added information about my own research my contributions were continually disrupted by the same two editors, namely WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon. I was initially told that I had taken up too much space with that research so I abbreviated it, but that attempt to comply with advice and policy was completely ignored and the information was deleted again, so I haven't put it back since.

I then began adding to the history section of the topic, but each time I did my critics accused me of violating a never ending series of policies. However, I checked the Wikipedia guidelines and found that most of what I added from independent peer-reviewed journals was exactly what policy required, but that didn't stop my two critics from finding fault with them. They just found newer policies or sub-clauses of policies as their excuse for deleting anything that didn't agree with their point of view. In particular, they systematically deleted the most important scientific discoveries of the physical causes of each of the four main symptoms. To read some of the discussions related to these deletions you can scroll down the Da Costa's syndrome talk page here and the User talk page here, and the recently deleted section here..The disruptions continued from December 2007 to May 2008 when I was topic banned, and then until January 2009 when I was banned from Wikipedia.

During that time I was being criticised on a "Request for Comments" page where it was suggested that the dispute could be resolved if all interested editors wrote a separate page of information so that neutral editors could later combine them to provide one unbiased article. My two critics refused to co-operate with that process, but I notified the other editors that I would need a few weeks to prepare an article, and ultimately posted it onto the subpage in Wikipedia.

The initial response of a neutral editor named Avnjay was that it complied with all of the policies, and there was no bias, and that it was already "a lot better" than the existing one. I then began co-operating with Avnjay on improving it and continued until he advised me that he would be busy on other private activities for awhile. see here

I responded to the outstanding requests for comments or references and completed the essay a few months later. As it was the only one written I used it to replace the Wikipedia topic page that readers see. I did that four times between 25-1-09 and 27-1-09. On the first occasion it was deleted within eight hours by one of my critics so I replaced it and he deleted it again, and it was reverted the third and fourth times by the other critic, and each time they replaced it with a few paragraphs that were consistent with their own bias.

The article that I transferred to the topic page can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266713530&oldid=266577085

My critics replaced it with a reduced and edited version e.g. on 27-1-09 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214

The article that I wrote can also be seen where I placed it on the website of another internet encyclopedia called Wikisage here http://en.wikisage.org/wiki/Da_Costa%27s_syndrome. M.B

 

Corrupt editing

How my main critic Deliberately deceives the readers of Wikipedia

My main critic claims to know a lot about Da Costa's syndrome, when in fact, her understanding is "simple", "shallow", and "dumb", but she has read enough to know that is a common medical condition. At least two of the references on her own 'cherrypicked' selection say it. e.g. Da Costa's original article of 1871, and Oglesby Paul's essay of 1987.

However, she is a prolific liar, and in this instance wants to deceive the readers of Wikipedia into believing the it is "RARE".

Step 1. Consequently, when I mentioned that it was 'common', she invented various excuses to delete it.

Step 2. She added the "Rare Disease Database" to her reference list.

Step 3. She knows that the only thing the readers get to see is that the condition is 'rare'.

She knows that most people who read Wikipedia want instant, shallow knowledge, and that they will only believe what they see. They will naively assume that the editors who put it there were honest and reliable, and won't bother to read or check the actual references.

Most adults just want quick information, like having junk food instead of a real meal, and many students just want instant information for their homework, and don't want to put in the time required to get the information from a variety of scientific journals or books.

It would not surprise me if she had actually edited the "Rare disease database" herself, and added the information so that she could give a false impression in Wikipedia. i.e. by using it as a reference to make it look as if it was a scientific fact from an 'independent' and 'reliable' source.

 

The complete and utter Unreliability of my two critics

My two critics were always telling other editors that my references were unreliable sources of information, but my man critics was a prolific liar. (i.e. she herself was a completely unreliable source of information about everything, so absolutely nothing that she wrote would be trusted by an honest person unless they checked the facts. She lied about the references, the contents, and the authors of those articles. For example, she said that Sir James MacKenzie was just an ordinary person, and that a review in J.A.M.A. was just an op-ed written by a non-expert, and that references for history sections had to be published in the past two years. She deleted nine of the theories discussed by Oglesby Paul, and left only the one she favored, and called it 'neutral point of view'. My two critics also lied about the discussions. For example, they set up a page to discuss whether or not I should be blocked for having a conflict of interest. Only one neutral editor came to the discussion and he told them that they were both wrong, but because one administrator, and only one, decided in their favor, they spent the next twelve months telling everyone else that I was going against the 'consensus' of the entire Wikipedia community of rule-abiding editors. She always put on a big "act" about obeying the rules, but she was always trying to change the rules to make the "ignore all rules" policy the major policy, and telling her friends to use it, and giving them barnstars as a reward. At the same time she was telling her friends to keep it a secret from everyone who disagreed with her. I find it very difficult to understand why any of the administrators tolerate her ridiculous and offensive cheating

The attitude of my two critics in disputes about references

I have previously written an essay on the tactics used by my two critics, but they arranged for me to be banned and then get it deleted so I have posted it on my website here
About 20 months later, at 00:53 on 11 September 2010, my main critic edited a page called 'The Last Word', which they appeared to have been using as an instruction sheet, including how to win disputes about the reliability of references. The following words are quoted from that page . . .

 

"This page is an essay attempting to critique certain actions. It is intended to show a serious opinion about editorial concepts — by means of a style that may or may not be described as humorous . . .

In Wikipedia, sometimes debates get heated . . . even more than in real life . . .

We recommend the following tried and tested tactics . . . Debates are like boxing matches. Try to make your opponent do the footwork so they get exhausted while you preserve your energy for the final blow . . .

If they bring any arguments you cannot immediately refute, play dumb and ask for clarification . . .

Ask for more sources and better source (ideally in that order). If they insolently keep providing answers . . .

Be sure to post on their user talk page, so they have additional opportunities for frustration thoughtful response . . .

Cheat, if you think you can get away with it . . .

Call in your friends uninvolved users to keep the other party busy and distract from the original debate . . .

Exploit the headstart you have over impudent newbies. Most of them walk into debates like knifers into a gunfight: Easy prey . . .

Remind the little shits your opponents that they should abide by Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you are, why shouldn't they? . . .

Block the jerk or get him blocked . . . and protect his talk page — then post your comment". (end of quotes)

 

That page can be seen by scrolling up and down here.

The editors who contributed to it can be see here.

The term TLW appears to include a trade mark symbol that was added by my critic, so I have acknowledged that fact and the source.

 

Most of my comments on this webpage will have been written prior to me reading those 'recommendations' so you will now be able to confirm the accuracy of my assessment of the tactics that were used by my two critics.

 

This is a quote from the Wikipedia policy about Verifiability WP:Verify . . .

"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can verify that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." see here.

 

This is a quote from another editor . . . "In my experience, WP:V often is used as a hammer to drive out ideas that aren't popular with some editors." Brews ohare 16:03, 15 October 2010. See here.

You can see how my two critics could use those policies to make me leave Wikipedia so that they could fill it full of their lies.

This is what my two critics said about the type of sources that were required for Wikipedia articles

At 13:19 on 23-11-09, ten months after I was banned, Gordonofcartoon wrote these words of advice . . . "Ideal sources for biomedical material include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, such as reputable medical journals, widely recognized standard textbooks written by experts in a field or medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies." (end of quote) . . . Note that my list of 65 references easily surpasses those requirements.

At 18:17 on 27-1-09, the day before I was banned, WhatamIdoing left these rather melodramatic words about me on the talk page of another editor named Avnjay . . ."I've started dealing with the worst of his sources at RSN"(end of quote). Two hours later, at 20:25 on 27-1-09, WhatamIdoing told these lies to the arbitrators . . . "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." (end of quote) . . .

Note that the RSN discussion had not been completed, and that I had made changes that WhatamIdoing knew about and did not tell the other editors, and that I was not arguing about neutrality, but had been discussing the reasonable use of a medical consumer's webpage as a matter of common sense, given that her page (reference number 15) had a list of 80 alternative labels for the chronic fatigue syndrome which included Da Costa's syndrome, and had been compiled from the work of four doctors (Dr. Gordon Parish, Dr. David S. Bell, Dr. Henri Rubenstein, and Dr. Byron Hyde), and that I provided more than 60 medical references and only one from a medical consumer.

By contrast Gordonofcartoon provided the topic page with a link to a children's fiction novel, and WhatamIdoing moved it up to the top line, and then at 14:10 on 28-6-09 Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "For the purposes of the hatnote, it doesn't matter what the book says; for all I care, it could say soldier's heart is a kind of small flowering plant" (end of quote).Their links to the irrelevant children's fiction novel were deleted by two independent editors a month before, and shortly after I was banned. I am sure that the independent and uninvolved editors removed it because they did not want the article to look ridiculous because it would reflect badly on Wikipedia's reputation.

Also many of the very small list of 17 references that my critics used were provided by me, and their others included links to only one word, or one paragraph of information in lists, dictionaries or websites such as W.H.O. lists, a Rare Diseases data base list (Da Costa's syndrome is common), Dorland's medical dictionary, the OMIM website, WhoNamedIt.com ( which has a medical disclaimer), and WrongDiagnosis.com. They only actually added six of their own independent references which were research papers, but they were "highly selective and biased" and included reference number 1 about "mental factors", number 2 about post-war syndromes, number 4 about pain and depression, number 7 from 1917, number 13 about Veteran's compensation and Posttraumatic Stress Disorders, and number 14 about health and disease concepts. Note that it is common in civilians (so it is not rare), and less than 1% of patients were soldiers, and most had the symptoms prior to enlistment (so it is not just a post-war syndrome), and the majority of patients are not depressed, and according to my critics any report older than five years is "unreliable" (their opinion).

Note also that at 3:41 on 27 May 2008, WhatamIdoing added the reference about Veterans compensation which had more than 200 pages of information, and cherrypicked the following very small quotes to favor their own personal "opinion" and prejudiced point of view. These are the words that WhatamIdoing added to the reference notes . . . "Being able to attribute soldiers 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" (end of quote). WhatamIdoing also included a link to a specific page, number 27 in that book, which had it's first heading as "Disability Compensation", specifically about post-traumatic stress disorders, with the second heading "Early Compensation for Mental Disabilities". Also when the independent editor named Avnjay described my subpage about Da Costa's and said that it was a lot better than the one produced by my two critics, WhatamIdoing replied with these words about me at 20:05 on 19-10-09 . . . "He has rejected actual works of history in developing his section (and they exist: search for Da Costa in this book)". (end of quote). Note that the words "this book" were linked to the same page in the reference about compensation. Note also that WhatamIdoing was "inventing the idea" that I had deliberately "rejected" that book, when, in fact, I did not even know about it, and had never read it., and that I had written the history on the basis of 60 independently verifiable references, including about ten other "reviews" of DCS "history" that were excellent quality. Also, while my two critics "deleted" about ten of the "reviews" of the history that I provided, they were complaining to the other editors that I "rejected"??? one of theirs.

The other problem that my two critics have is that they have had to put a slant on a lot of descriptions to make their point of view believable. For example the typical soldier described by Da Costa was carrying a 60 lb. knapsack for 20 miles while suffering from typhoid, and fell out of line because of dehydration, faintness, and exhaustion . My two critics want readers to believe that the physical exhaustionis due to a 'psychological breakdown'??????

When they say that they deleted my article because it was biased and replaced it with theirs which is neutral they were actually doing the opposite. For example, they were filling the page with their choice of references and information about anxiety, depression, and mental factors, and posttraumatic, and postwar syndromes, and deliberately and precisely deleting a lot of other information, including the fact that there is proven scientific evidence of physiological abnormalities that occur out of proportion as the level of exercise increases, and that the symptoms are not the same as the normal response to effort, or the normal affects of anxiety, and that some of the symptoms sometimes occur in other instances or for no apparent reason when the person is perfectly relaxed.

Wikipedia was set up so that all people could contribute all information to cover all points of view, but my two critics were deliberately using their interpretation of policy to control the content so that it reflected their own personal opinions and extremely biased view, and they did it in a manner that was aimed at fuelling and inflaming the most prejudice possible in other editors and the readers. That is not what Wikipedia was intended to do so they should be permanently banned.

My two critics tried to disrupt my contributions by applying standards of referencing that were so high that that they thought nobody could meet them, and they were not able to meet those standards themselves. This is a comment that WhatamIdoing made in relation to another editor? . . . "You won't be surprised to hear that he only applied this standard to facts he didn't like" signed WhatamIdoing 00:52 16th January 2010.

The Ridiculous Nitpicking by one of my critics

There is a type of disruptive editing which involves a deliberately overly strict or contrived interpretation of the letter of policy, and it is related to pettifogging. Wikipedia defines the word 'pettifogger' as . . . "Someone who quibbles over trivia, and raises petty, annoying objections."

 

After I spent a few weeks completing the Da Costa's article outside of Wikipedia, and free from the constant disruptions by my two critics, WhatamIdoing spent a couple of hours cutting and pasting it onto a sandbox page and subjecting it to more than 80 critical comments which included 7 "out-of-dates", 8 "unreliable sources", more than a dozen "citations needed", and more than 20 windows of criticism See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880

There is a page called "Wikipedia: Tag bombing" which describes a type of editing that involves "the edition of multiple tags to an article . . . and . . . tag bombing can be used as a way to promote a point of view . . . and . . . has been thought of as a form of disruptive editing. Editors who engage in tag bombing after being asked to stop may be blocked from editing Wikipedia'.

The same editor claims to be an expert on Wikipedia policy and the topic of Da Costa's syndrome, and yet told deliberate lies about the references being out-of-=date because that criticism does not apply to the policy about 'history' sections, and some of the 'citation needed' comments were ridiculous requests for the "obvious" that WhatamIdoing apparently couldn't find?????. According to policy, editors do not have to provide references for "obvious" facts, but because of the criticism I did a search and sometimes found several references within a few minutes.

WhatamIdoing is a hypocrite who made a minor change to the Verifiability policy at 20:53 on 9th February 2010, with the addition of two words (in red) . . . "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but whether, and how quickly, that should happen depends of the material and the overall state of the article". The last part of that paragraph states this . . . "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them".

However, that individual had no intention of doing anything useful, co-operative, or good practice, and that included the refusal to provide citations that were easy for a knowledgeable person to find, which is bad practice.

WhatamIdoing also deliberately misrepresented the MEDRS policy about the use of older references and yet gave the following pompous and self-righteous advice to another editor . . . "Policies should not be misrepresented, ever." signed WhatamIdoing 3:31, 14th February 2010.

See the relevant MEDRS policies here.

Regarding how quickly the article had to be improved and how soon references should be provided: I can say that anyone is invited into Wikipedia to improve it, and no-one has to produce the perfect article in one edit. They generally add small amounts of content and discuss it with others over a period of time until the topic is complete. My two critics tried to convince all of the other editors that I was biased because I added some independent verifiable evidence from the 1940's and 1950's. They also told the other editors that I was deliberately ignoring modern references before I even had time to get that far. I wasn't able to until a few months later when two neutral editors suggested that I do the complete article outside of Wikipedia. Gordonofcartoon then insultingly referred to that situation as a walled garden.

Regarding my provision of references: When I was asked to provide citations I generally did so within a few days, but it didn't make even the slightest difference because my two critics would completely ignore them and immediately find fault with something else.

See also Filibusters here . . . where you will find this quote . . . "you go through with the tedious task of responding to every single trivial point they make and click save page. Five minutes later, you look at the talkpage to see another 10-page essay. Again, the cycle continues". See here

WhatamIdoing's Nitpicking and lies about the Reliability of my References

During a Requests for comments discussion two neutral editors recommended that all editors involved in the Da Costa's dispute should do a separate page of their own, so that the independent editors could later combine them to ensure neutral point of view. My two critics flatly refused to co-operate with that intelligent way of removing bias from the article. However I did produce a page and a neutral editor wrote these words to one of my critics whose Wikipedia code name was WhatamIdoing

"Hello WhatamIdoing! . . . 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 (97 different sources quoted!!), or biased" at 10:51, 5 October 2008 here . . .

In other words the neutral editor was saying that the page that I produced was "a lot better", in all respects, than the version preferred by my two critics.

Within 6 hours WhatamIdoing started criticising every detail and cut and pasted the page and subjected it to more than 80 critical comments, and prompted Avnjay to try and resolve the issue by asking me to supply more references, so I did. In particular I provided more modern ones, and many to show that there was widespread agreement in the medical community that Da Costa's syndrome was an early name for the chronic fatigue syndrome. Note that I was not giving my opinion anywhere, but providing references from many independent, reliable, and verifiable sources that complied with the requests that were made, and Wikipedia sourcing policy.

However, WhatamIdoing was so biased and prejudiced that the criticisms simply became more hostile and finicky with everything I added, and was misrepresenting the facts on the arbitration page. Ultimately, one of WhatamIdoing's friends interrupted the arbitration process and broke all the rules to ban me.

The following paragraph is a direct quote from original subpage that I prepared, and WhatamIdoing's criticisms were added at 21:21, 5 October 2008, so I have highlighted them in red . . .

"Harvard[Unimportant detail added to push POV] professor Paul Dudley White described it as a definite malady which was a type of fatigue syndrome[Formatting wrong] that is more or less chronic[Formatting wrong] .[1] Nowadays those typical, distinct, or characteristic features can be seen in conditions which include the symptom with the misnomer of effort intolerance (which should be effort limitations) due to exercise induced postural hypotension.[11] For example, it is seen in one type of the Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, which is in turn one of the many types of chronic fatigue syndrome.[3]" . . .
"Da Costa's can however be referred o as a type of chronic fatigue syndrome,[1][verification needed][original research?][18] because chronic fatigue is the main symptom, but the other five typical symptoms distinguish it from the general term, and from other types of CFS.

Reference number 1 was White, Paul Dudley (1951). Heart Disease. New York, New York: MacMillan. pp. 578-591, and reference number 18 was Rosen, S.D.; J.C. King, J.B. Wilkinson, & P.G.F. Nixon (December 1990). "Is chronic fatigue syndrome synonymous with effort syndrome?". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 83: 761-764. see here

Note that I provided two references to verify the information, but WhatamIdoing ignored that and added "verification needed" anyway, and that the research was done by Harvard professor Paul Dudley White who studied the subject for fifty years and reviewed the history of it in his book, so it was not "original research" because I didn't do the research, and Paul Dudley White was not doing original research but was commenting on the general findings of many researchers, but WhatamIdoing called it "original research" anyway.

Also I added at least 8 references to show that there were many researchers who regarded Da Costa's syndrome as a type of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and I found a comment by Gordonofcartoon which referred to it as a historical version of ME, which is an abbreviation for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/CFS, which is widely regarded as the main type of CFS. see item 63 here

In response to all of the criticism I only used references which complied with Wikipedia policy which requires that a person should always verify their text with references from top quality journals and it gives the "Journal of the American Medical Association" as an example. The guidelines also suggest avoiding original research, and prefers "secondary sources" which are reviews of multiple studies. The basic reason is that the people who administer those journals are top quality editors who ensure that the information is as accurate and reliable as possible before puBlishing it.

Here are the details of one of the references that I used; The Nature of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS); Editorial / Journal of the American Medical Association v.280, n.12, 23sep98. David H. P. Streeten, MB, DPhil, Department of Medicine, State University of New York Health Science Center, 750 E Adams St, Syracuse, NY 13210

Here is the quote from that reference, and note that it is supported by other references which give a direct link to Da Costa's syndrome . . ."Fatigue is a prominent accompaniment of a wide range of disorders, including acute or chronic infections, end-stage neoplasia, renal insufficiency, congestive heart failure, and some psychiatric illnesses. 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.3 The common experience of severe fatigue after prolonged, exhausting physical labor or exercise and the muscular symptoms that sometimes accompany chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) have stimulated research on the possible role of muscular disorders in its causation, but with unconvincing results. And, of course, a viral origin has been commonly considered to be a likely cause of chronic fatigue for many years."

Further down the page these words were written . . . "In 1992, Streeten and Anderson reported that the most common and most distressing symptom associated in 6 of 7 patients with a newly recognized form of orthostatic hypotension delayed form evident only after standing for more than 10 minutes was sever fatigue that improved by reducing orthostatic hypotension with fludrocortisone acetate"

Toward the end the following words were written . . . "These finding suggested, as a working hypothesis, that the combination of delayed orthostatic hypotension (caused by demonstrably excessive orthostatic pooling of blood in the lower limbs) associated with reduced circulating erythrocyte mass was causing fatigue in some patients by reducing cerebral oxygenation".

 

The first three of ten references used by Streeten to support those statements

1. Da Costa JM. On irritable heart: a clinical study of a form of functional cardiac disorder and its consequences. Am J Med Sci. 1871;61:17-52.

2. Lewis T. The Soldier's Heart and the Effort Syndrome. London, England: Shaw & Sons; 1919.

3. Streeten DHP. Orthostatic Disorders of the Circulation. New York, NY: Plenum; 1987.

That article can be seen in full here

Here is a quote from the subpage that I provided with a comment on the research of Sir James MacKenzie in 1919, and WhatamIdoing's critical remarks added in red . . . "In 1916[Formatting wrong]Sir James MacKenzie chaired [citation needed] a major [neutrality disputed] medical conference[citation needed] aimed at [citation needed] gaining a better understanding of the condition. He attributed the fatigue to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins during exertion, which reduced blood flow to the brain". here

In his actual research paper, on page 33, MacKenzie refers to the reduced blood flow to the brain as causing anemia of the brain. and that "It is because of this anemia of the brain that the sense of exhaustion and syndrome are provoked", and he adds "I do not enter here into all the facts which support this explanation of the sense of exhaustion, as many observers besides myself have fully dealt with the subject".

Note that in 1998 Streeten was describing the same features that MacKenzie discussed in 1919. In particular that the fatigue was associated with abnormal pooling of blood in the peripheral veins and reduced blood flow to the brain.

The following quote comes from WhatamIdoing on the Requests for Arbitration page at 20:25, 27 January 2009, which was an attempt to convince the arbitrators that I was misrepresenting the reference in J.A.M.A. Note again that I added at least eight more to verify the information, but WhatamIdoing doesn't mention that. Here are WhatamIdoing's exact words . . .

"By "misrepresenting", I mean, for example, that an op-ed piece[30] 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[16], 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."" here

You can see that WhatamIdoing was trying extremely hard to convince the arbitrators that I was using unreliable references about the link between Da Costa's syndrome, Orthostatic hypotension, and a type of chronic fatigue syndrome, however, in fact, I was simply responding to the requests for some references that linked Da Costa's syndrome to the modern era, and I was not misrepresenting anything, but simply using a modern reference that complied with Wikipedia sourcing policy.

Summary

WhatamIdoing was insulting me, and calling my references unreliable, and criticising me relentlessly, and was being hostile, vindictive and eristic (arguing for the sake of arguing), and being disruptive, and showed no intentions of being co-operative or useful to the development of the page, but just dictated content which is highly selective and biased, and violates Wikipedia policy by deleting verifiable information.

Another example of WhatamIdoing's ridiculous criticism of my sources

(about the link between Da Costa's syndrome and the Chronic fatigue syndrome)

WhatamIdoing was trying to convince the other editors of being intellectually superior, and that I was just another ignorant new contributor who had nothing of value to offer. However, at one stage that critic tried to impress the other editors by adding a list of only five alterantive labels for Da Costa's syndrome (they all came from only one website!!!!). I thought that if I mentioned a medical consumer who had a list of 80 on their website that WhatamIdoing would be humiliated, but it seemed an appropriate thing to do under the circumstances.

Some time after that WhatamIdoing wrote these words at 00:01 on 3-1-09 . . . "The sources that you use to "prove" that DCS and CFS are the same disorder are unbelievably weak. You are relying on a personal website about iguanas to "prove" that CFS and DCS -- and, I add, Multiple chemical sensitivity, Fibromyalgia, Lyme disease, Brucellosis, and Poliomyelitis - - are the same thing" (end of quote).

Note that WhatamIdoing was trying to misrepresent my report of research articles as an attempt to "prove" something???, and kept on relentlessly referring to the medical consumer's webpage as a website about iguana lizards to make it look irrelevant, but the actual page about CFS was compiled from the work of four doctors. See here. Also, I supported the list with eight other references including the latest (2008) edition of one of the most respected medical text books in the world called "Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine". In it's opening paragraph about the Chronic fatigue syndrome it states "(CFS) is the current name for a disorder characterized by debilitating fatigue and several associated physical, constitutional, and neuropsychological complaints. This syndrome is not new; in the past, patients diagnosed with . . . effort syndrome, chronic brucellosis . . . multiple chemical sensitivity syndrome . . . post viral fatigue syndrome etc may have had what is now called CFS. . . The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has developed diagnostic criteria for CFS based upon symptoms and the exclusion of other illnesses." (end of quote)

This is a quote from the OMIM website which was on their very small list references: "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

Note also that OMIM was on the very small list used by my two critics as reference number 11 at 18:57 on 26-1-2009 here
It was still on the page 17 months after I was banned, as reference number 12 here

The Repeated Pattern of Lies used by my critics about reliable sources

Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) . . . Use up-to-date evidence:

The exact words from the policy relating to medical articles are . . . "Here are some rules of thumb for keeping an article up-to-date while maintaining the more-important goal of reliability . . . Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, hhhpreferably in the last two or three years. The range of reviews examined should be wide enough to catch at least one full review cycle, containing newer reviews written and published in the light of older ones and of more-recent primary studies.
These are just rules of thumb. There are exceptions . . . History sections often cite older work, for obvious reasons" here

15-5-08 WhatamIdoing wrote this . . . "N.B. . . . PubMed lists only 12 papers since 1951 that actually mention "Da Costa's syndrome" by name - and some of those merely mention it in passing (e.g. PMID15274499), or only to claim that it is really some other disease (e.g. PMID 339533 for hyperventilation) - so available evidence for any side of this story is rather thin" signed WhatamIdoing 19:30, 15th May 2008.

Note that when WhatamIdoing later insisted that all of my references were out-of-date, and that I must comply with the policy which states I should only use references from reliable sources that have been published in the most recent five years - it was said, because it wasn't supposed to be possible, and was meant to be a devious way of disrupting me from writing the history of the research.

5-10-08 WhatamIdoing wrote this deliberate misinterpretation of sourcing policy to an editor name Avnjay . . . "Avnjay, I realize that you're not competent in the subject matter . . . he (Posturewriter) lists the same thoroughly outdated (1951) textbook eighteen separate times The most recent source is eleven years old (see WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence -- and it is about Chronic fatigue syndrome, not Da Costa's.
Would you like a detailed response?" (end of quote from WhatamIdoing) 16:15, 5 October 2008 in the fourth paragraph here

(Note that the 1951 text book was written by Paul Dudley White who was the most prominent expert in the history of the subject. Also note that WhatamIdoing was supposed to be co-operating by providing modern references if required, but did nothing but criticise and disrupt the process, so I had to do it myself and the final list of references totaled 65, and more than a dozen were from the period 1998 to 2009).

5-10-08 WhatamIdoing wrote these deliberately misleading words on a Sandbox page . . . "This article explains, in excessive detail, the opinions of carefully selected researchers from half a century ago. It should not be mistaken for the modern medical understanding of this condition". here

Note that the early history of the article was never meant to explain the modern view, and that I did explain the modern ideas later in the same article - and WhatamIdoing knew that.

6-10-08 The independent and neutral editor named Avnjay replied with these honest and accurate words of advice . . . A large part of his (Posturewriter's) article is on the history of the syndrome hence all the old sources (an exception in WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence). Avnjay 15:26, 6 October 2008 here

18 April 2010 WhatamIdoing wrote this criticism of other editors behaviour? . . . "We cannot reasonably expect them to read the entire page to discover the exceptions; they're going to stop reading when they get to the first sentence that appears to support their position. WhatamIdoing 22:00, 19 April 2010 here

You can see from that example that WhatamIdoing was misrepresenting policy to push a point of view, and then advising 'other' editors that it was inappropriate behaviour.

11-1-09 WhatamIdoing wrote these deliberately misleading words on the Disruptive Editing page . . . "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 here and here

12-1-09 I then posted this reply the following day . . . "WhatamIdoing; Avnjay is already aware that Paul Dudley White's book is relevant here[17], so I don't have to convince him of anything. This page is about disruptive editing" Posturewriter 07:01, 12 January 2009

27-1-09 WhatamIdoing continued to misrepresent the book, and the way I used it in the history section with these words . . . "seriously outdated materials (a 1951 textbook is cited thirty-four times in his preferred draft." WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009 here

Note 1. WhatamIdoing was also being ridiculous by referring to the subpage as my preferred draft, because the whole purpose was to get everyone involved, including WhatamIdoing. That individual was invited to do a draft as well, so that neutral editors could then merge them to represent a "neutral point of view" instead of their dictatorship. However, that individual was deliberately refusing to co-operate with that process by deliberately not doing a draft, and then deliberately disrupting mine, and deliberately interfering with the neutral editing process. That deliberate and calculated interference included referring to the neutral editor as "incompetent", and then spending months making insulting remarks about me, and then relentlessly nitpicking every word I wrote to persuade him to stop co-operating with me. See here

Note 2. Avnjay started in Wikipedia in July 2007 (see here) and had almost a full year of editing and policy experience before making comments as a neutral editor on the Request for comments page on 21-7-08. He participated in discussions for a month until 30-8-08 and later started co-operating with me on the sub-page text on 2-10-08, and described my text as being much better than the existing article. In fact, he gave the same opinion again on WhatamIdoing's own talk page on 5-10-08 here.

Note that it was not until after Avnjay described my article as the best, that WhatamIdoing decided to say that he was incompetent.

It is perfectly clear that WhatamIdoing was reacting out of spite, and that if it wasn't for the incessant petty criticism that followed, the article described by an independent and neutral editor as "a lot better" would have been used as a replacement for the existing text. At that stage sensible unbiased editors could have added to it or modified it in an appropriate manner. They could have discussed, abbreviated, or improved various sections without needing to vandalise the page with the massive slab deletion of important, relevant, and independently verifiable facts.

Note 3. WhatamIdoing has a record of more than 18000 edits in more than 4 years, and acts with the tone and manner of a dictator when discussing medical topics and referencing policy, however, when I mentioned that that person was not a health care professional Gordonofcartoon gave this pompous and sanctimonious defence . . .

"not a healthcare professional . . . Did I say anything about being a healthcare professional? I said "medical editor" - one who routinely edits on medical topics here, and hence is thoroughly conversant with aspects such as WP:MEDRS." Gordonofcartoon 10:25, 27 January 2009". See here.

It is obvious to me that WhatamIdoing was fully conversant with Wikipedia medical referencing policy, so Gordonofcartoon was being insolent and offensive by trying to create the ridiculous impression that I didn't know that. It is equally obvious that WhatamIdoing had been deliberately deceitful in interpreting that policy.

When I mentioned the correct, relevant interpretation of policy WhatamIdoing DELIBERATELY ignored me and went to more pages to repeat the same lies to other editors who hadn't seen my explanation. In fact WhatamIdoing told so many lies at such a rapid rate, that I wasn't able to respond to them before discussions were closed, or until I was banned, and I can still find evidence of more lies six months later.

References preferred from the last two or three years?

I would now like you to look at a topic that WhatamIdoing edited at 2:36 on 12 May 2010 called Chagas Disease. It contains 61 references and section headings suited to the topic, and references to articles that could be labeled as 'old', or 'primary source", or as ''original research', or as violating all of the policies that I was accused of violating, but nothing was done about it. That editor is a liar, and an extremely offensive hypocrite with extreme double standards. See that article here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chagas_disease&diff=361603293&oldid=361592626

Note that the reference list contains about 30 which were published more than 10 years ago, and 3 were from 1909 -1914 here.

For comparison see the relentless criticism of similar quality contributions from me here.

Criticism of the reliability of my sources

Here are some of the lies and misrepresentation of facts that WhatamIdoing posted on the Administrators Noticeboard on 11-1-09 . . .

"all the editor has done this month is complain that he's not getting his way because I don't agree that a 1951 book or www.anapsid.org are reliable sources for current medical information. His last mainspace edits were in July 2008 (and nearly all of them were reverted as biased, incorrect and/or outdated), so we're not talking about a particularly valuable editor." WhatamIdoing 02:42, 11 January 2009 see item number 52 here

Note that when my two critics insult me they call it "editing" or "advising", and when I explain the reasons that I used particular references and discussed their reliability they put a deliberately insulting spin on it by calling it "complaining". Note also that they often advertise, or boast about their own value to Wikipedia by making remarks about the 5000 edits that they do each year etc, and have the cheek to say that I am not a "particularly valuable editor". However, intelligent and mature people discuss things on the basis of facts and evidence, and do not lower themselves to personal comments. (For example an experienced sportsman does not go up to a new player and call him stupid, or clumsy just because he doesn't mark the ball every time it is kicked to him - he generally gives words of encouragement about the advantages of practice and perseverance).

Also note that I had previously told WhatamIdoing that the 1951 text book was by Harvard professor emeritus Paul Dudley White who was a world authority on the subject, and that the reference was to a chapter in his book which dealt with a review of the topic which a complies with the policy for top quality, and reliable secondary sources in the history sections of topic pages. This is a comment from a website which discusses the biography of Harvard professor Oglesby Paul . . . "He completed his residency at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he met the famed cardiologist Paul Dudley White." - in the fifth paragraph here

When they said that I should not be adding my own theory to the topic I modified it once and then they deleted it again so I stopped adding it, and when they said that my references were old or out-dated I simply complied with their request to find modern ones which had similar, or exactly the same information, except, in some cases, for the change in jargon.

Incidentally, all of the information that I provided was "correct", and the only editors who said it wasn't were my two critics who are both shameless liars.

The criticism of my use of a medical consumers website as one of my 61 references

I had also used one page on a medical consumers website as a reference, but my main critic argued that it wasn't reliable because the other pages were about her hobby of keeping iguana lizards.

On 27-1-09 that editor misrepresented the facts to a group of arbitration editors by writing these words . . .

"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". See here.

 

This is what the same editor wrote about Melissa Kaplans website on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard on 26-1-09 . . .

"Her website is clearly self-published under Wikipedia's rules. Kaplan has no medical or veterinary qualifications, and she has not published anything except her website. She is simply a person interested in the subject because it affects her own daily life. She is therefore not a recognized expert in the relevant field. The following four statements are sourced to a webpage titled "The disease of a thousand names" on Kaplan's website: "... (one of the statements is) more than 80 different theories and labels have been proposed and scientifically investigated." WhatamIdoing, 02:17, 26 January 2009 (end of quote) here.

 

However, that editor deliberately "failed" to mention that the medical consumer had compiled the list on the basis of the work of four doctors, and "failed" to mention that I used it as only one reference from my list of 61 which can be seen here.

Note also that there were an additional seventeen references which have four or five synonyms in the introduction, and up to ten in their lists or text, and that I used them to support the statement about the large number of labels, and to show the general trace of terminology throughout the history.

 

I added the information to Wikipedia several times between January 25th and up to 8:50 on 27-1-09 but it was deleted twice each by my two critics, first by Gordonofcartoon, and then by WhatamIdoing, who reverted it at 13:06 on 26-1-09, and 18:12 on 27-1-09 here and herewith these words . . . "Rv (reverted) POV version by COI-blocked editor using RSN-banned sources such as the personal webpage of a patient"

 

Fourteen minutes later that same editor returned to the Reliable Sources noticeboard and made the following statement . . . "Posturewriter, this source (Kaplan's) 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 . . . WhatamIdoing, 18:26, 27 January 2009

At that time WhatamIdoing was fully aware of the additional references that had been on my subpage for several months, but deliberately "failed" to mention them.

This is a quote from the policy pages about the type of references that are preferred by Wikipedia . . .

"In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers". See here

 

The complete list of references that I provided in January 2009 can be seen here.

I have extracted those which contained four or more lables in their introduction, and presented them below.

Some have up to ten in their lists o text.

 

1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao White, Paul Dudley (1951). Heart Disease. New York, New York: MacMillan. pp. 578-591.
6. ^ a b c d Wooley M.D., Charles F. (2004). "Early Hospitals Devoted to Heart Disease: Military Heart Hospital at Hampstead, England: World War 1". American Heart Hospital Journal 2: 175-177. Retrieved on 8 November 2008.
12. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Howell, Joel (1985). ""Soldier's heart": the redefinition of heart disease and speciality formation in early twentieth-century Great Britain.". Medical History: Supplement No. 5:34-52.
14. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z Cohen ME, White PD (1951). "Life situations, emotions, and neurocirculatory asthenia (anxiety neurosis, neurasthenia, effort syndrome)". Psychosom Med 13 (6): 335­57. PMID 14892184. Retrieved on 28 May 2008.
15. ^ a b c d "The disease of a thousand names". Retrieved on 2008-10-02 - The kaplan webpage
16. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x Wood, Paul (1956). Diseases of the Heart and Circulation 2nd. revised edition. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. pp. 937-947.
17. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Fauci, Anthony S.; et al. (February 2008). Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine 17th edition. New York U.S.A.: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.. pp. 2703=2704.
18. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Lu, Chih-Cherng; et.al (2004). "Orthostatic Intolerance: Potential Pathophysiology and Therapy". Chinese Journal of Physiology 47 (3): 102. Retrieved on 3 November 2008.
25. ^ a b c d e Lewis, T. (1918). "Observations upon prognosis, with special reference to a condition described as the "irritable heart of soldiers"". Lancet i (181-3).
30. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q Cohen, Mandel; Paul D. White (May 1947). "Studies of Breathing, Pulmonary Ventilation and Subjective Awareness of Shortness of Breath (Dyspnea) in Neurocirculatory Asthenia, Effort Syndrome, Anxiety Neurosis". The Journal of Clinical Investigation 26 (3): 520-529. Retrieved on 4 February 2008.
31. ^ a b c d e f g h i Wooley M.D., Charles F. (May 1976). "Where are the Diseases of Yesteryear?". Circulation (the official journal of the American Heart Association 53 (No. 5): 749-751. Retrieved on 24 September 2008.
34. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Hurst, J.W.; R.B.Logue, R.C.Schlant, N.K.Wenber (1974). The Heart 3rd. edition. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co.,. pp. 1552-1555.
41. ^ a b c d e f C.Hyams, M.D., Kenneth; et.al (September 1996). "War Syndromes and Their Evaluation: From the U.S. Civil War to the Persian Gulf War". Annals of Internal Medicine 125 (5): 398-405. Retrieved on 2 December 2008.
45. ^ a b c d e Online 'Mendelian Inheritance in Man' (OMIM) Orthostatic Intolerance -604715
50. ^ a b c d e f g h i Whishaw, R. (December 16th 1939). "A Review of the Physical Condition of Returned Soldiers Suffering from the Effort Syndrome". The Medical Journal of Australia: 891-893.
56. ^ a b c Morgan, W.P. (Sept. 1983). "Hyperventilation syndrome: a review". American Indian Hygiene association Journal 44 (9): 685-689. Retrieved on 5 November 2008.61.
61. ^ a b MacLean, A.R.; Allen E.V., Magath T.B. (1944). "Orthostatic hypotension and orthostatic tachycardia: defects in the return of venous blood to the heart". American Heart Journal 27: 145-163.
63. ^ a b "The Hyperkinetic Heart". The Lancet 318: 967. October 31st. 1981.
WhatamIdoing ALSO Ignored the fact that I had started removing the medical consumers reference

I added more than 60 references to verify the information that I provided about Da Costa's syndrome. Only one was by a medical consumer, but WhatamIdoing tried to argue that it was unreliable and that it needed to be removed. However, it was obvious to me that WhatamIdoing was just looking for excuses to waste my time in discussion, but then started telling all of the other editors that it was a reason for deleting it. I therefore decided to give a full explanation to the neutral editors at the reliable sources noticeboard about how I backed it with other references and why I was using it. I also explained that if they still wanted it removed I would delete it, and that it wasn't a significant issue for me because a dozen other references would still show that a large number of labels had been substituted for DCS during it's history, and that was all Mellisa Kaplan was essentially saying as evident from the title of here page "Disease of a thousand names", which contained a list of eighty. However, WhatamIdoing kept referring to it as a website about lizards, and that it was a poor quality source, and that it represented the quality of all of my other refs, and that it should be deleted and I should be blocked for using it. Here is part of the discussions from that time frame where I started deleting the link.

At 13:06, 27-1-09 . . . The following words were in the first sentence of the Alternative Names section of the DCS page with a link to the medical consumers website which was reference number 15 at 13:06 on 26 January 2009 . . .

"and from a recent website which lists what it claims are more than eighty synonyms.[15]" here

At 8:50, 27-1-09 . . . Note that I started responding to requests from the Reliable Sources editors by removing that phrase at 8:50 on 27 January 2009 here.

18:12, 27-1-09 . . . Note also that WhatamIdoing would have seen that change but deleted the whole page again anyway nine hours later at 18:12 on 27 January 2009 with these deceitful words of explanation "Rv POV version by COI-blocked editor using RSN-banned sources such as the personal webpage of a patient"here

I then tried to add an explanation to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to inform the RSN editors that I had already started deleting the link and would continue to remove it if they wished. However, I couldn't post it there because I had been blocked from all content and discussion pages so I added the following new section to my own UserTalk page and then asked other editors to inform the RSN editors of it's location.

At At 18:26 on 27-1-09 I added the section "Response to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and Kaplan's webpage"

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Sourcing editors from here[133]; Did you notice that I removed the text related to Kaplan's 80 synonyms in the first sentence here[134], to show good faith in you, while you considered the matter further. Also, please note that I could happily remove the other three links to Kaplan because there are another dozen WP:MEDRS refs earlier in the sentence which each have five synonyms in their introduction, and one of them has 10 on it's own, and the combined total probably amounts to more than 20. Could you please also take into account that I was giving support to a medical consumer who made a genuine contribution, but that the article didn't really need it. The 12 references that I use to support one statement in one sentence, exceed the total number that WhatamIdoing has added to the existing page in 12 months. Also, notice that WhatamIdoing is criticising me without reading the diff or noticing that I deleted the main problem text before replacing it to the article page at 18:26 on 27-1-09 here[135]

18:12, 27-1-09 . . . One minute later WhatamIdoing wrote these words on the Da Costa's talk page with these words "I note that Posturewriter declined to remove the unreliable source after being informed that (despite his arguments) every editor at RSN opposed the use of a personal webpage in this article" here

 

(The deceitful nature of WhatamIdoing's words relate to the fact that reliable sources guidelines do not ban medical consumers websites but recommends that some in particular, such as medical journals, are preferred, and that any references may be used if they are appropriate or reliable. Also, the editors on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard were discussing the reference and had not banned it. Note also that I was blocked from adding my explanations to that noticeboard before I had time to give my response to WhatamIdoing's incessant criticism so any discussion after that was "ONE SIDED" BIASED and UNBALANCED, which is typical of WhatamIdoing's ways of manipulating the impressions that other editors get and RIGGING the outcome of discussions).

15:36, 28-1-09 . . . WhatamIdoing then contacted several editors by email and one of them named Moreschi interrupted the arbitration page and banned me at 15:36, 28 January 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397

At 8:24 on 2-2-09 I tried to post the following words on the Reliable Sources Noitceboard for the Sourcing editors to see but found that I was still blocked, so I placed them on my Usertalk page with a request to let the RSN editors know about it. These were the words to the RSN editors . . .

"WhatamIdoing was editing the Da Costa's syndrome page a year ago when it had only four lines of text and no references here[136], and is currently editing this one about Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [137], and here is the Da Costa page of 27-1-09 [138], and here is my subpage text which I used to replace the article page on 27-1-09[139] for you to make sourcing quality comparisons. Now that I have explained the matter, would you still like me to remove the other three links to Kaplans page?" Posturewriter 08:24, 2 February 2009

You can see what I did to reach compromises with other editors, or resolve disputes, but WhatamIdoing did not give a dam about discussion or policy and was just being as disruptive as possible, and kept on relentlessly inventing excuses to ignore everything explanation I gave, and delete everything I wrote, and get me blocked.

The offensively two-faced editor named WhatamIdoing gave this advice to another individual more than a year after I was banned . . . "After all, why should 500 bad links be kept for weeks and weeks while you carry on an argument about one of them"? signed WhatamIdoing 21:14, 14 April 2010

Obviously the same principle applies . . . 'Why should WhatamIdoing be able to carry on for page after page, and week after week, with an argumente about one reference (Kaplans), and use it as an excuse to delete 60'. Essentially that editor was violating another policy which advises against giving undue weight to any argument. WP:UNDUE.

 

Another reference: Keith Gordon (1944), Effort syndrome, Canadian Medical Association Journal, Vol.50, p.362-363. The following words are a quote from this editorial . . . "The multiplicity of titles which have been applied to this symptom-complex is an indication of the difference of opinion which exists regarding its true nature, and they are all open to criticism from the standpoint of descriptive terminology. Any term which suggests that it is a syndrome peculiar to soldiers is faulty, for the reason that it also appears in civilians when one learns to recognize it." (end of quote)

 

More Counter Criticism

My main critic supplied a reference to Oglesby Paul's 1987 article on the history of Da Costa's syndrome so I reviewed it. That reference was number 7 on the Da Costa's page at 18:12 on 27-1-09 here and it was still there in early June 2009. These words can be seen in the first paragraph . . . "Originally identified in men in wartime, it has been widely recognised as a common chronic condition in both sexes in civilian life".

At 3:38 on 29-5-08 WhatamIdoing supplied reference number 4 to a website??? that includes a "RARE Disease Database" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=215582534

Note that the database includes Da Costa's syndrome in it's list. However the label may be rarely used nowadays but THE RELEVANT FACT is that the condition is still common and the contradiction is OBVIOUS.

My critics also provided links to a book called Soldier's Heart, which I reviewed and found to be a children's fiction novel that did not contain any descriptions of the typical DCS symptoms.

My critics also only supplied about 12 of the current 18 references compared to my 60.

My crtics were trying to focus attention on some supposed faults in a small number of my references, because they didn't want anyone to notice faults in their own, or the fact that I supplied a better quality and quantity and range of references.

*******

According to my two critics contributors are not allowed to add their my own research to wikipedia because it violates WP:MEDRS (is not an acceptable reliable source for medical articles). They later said that the items had to be references involving reviews of many researchers, not just an article on one persons research, and then it had to be from a top quality peer reviewed research journal, not just an ordinary journal or an article by a non-expert researcher, and then it couldn't be old but had to be published in the past two years.

Here is an example of Gordonofcartoons attempt to argue with me on the basis of his "reliable source" . It is a reference to a newsmagazine article about a children's fiction novel, written by a children's fiction author and published ten years ago in 1998 . . . here were his words

"Incidentally, a reliable source - the New York Times review cited from Soldier's Heart (novel), [86] (you'll need a Bugmenot login) - says of the book that Goddard's ... life is shattered by what we now call post-traumatic stress disorder and what was then known as soldier's heart. Gordonofcartoon 14:10, 28 June 2008

Moving the goalposts

A comic example of being more and more annoying . . . I can recall a humorous television show in which British comedian Ronnie Barker did a skit in which he was playing the part of the owner of a grocery shop. It went something like this - A woman walked into the shop and Ronnie was standing behind the counter. She asked for a loaf of bread, and Ronnie said 'Certainly madam we're here to help, 'would that be one loaf or two?' The woman said 'one thankyou'. Ronnie replied 'certainly madam, we're here to help, 'will that be a full loaf or just a half?' and the woman replied 'a full loaf thankyou'. Ronnie then said 'certainly madam we're here to help, 'will that be brown or white?' and the woman replied 'white thankyou'. Ronnie then said; 'certainly madam we're here to help, do you want it with sesame seeds sprinked on top or without?' The woman was becoming agitated with frustration because all she wanted was a loaf of bread and she didn't want to waste all day getting it so she said 'just give me a loaf of bread, any type, I don't care', and Ronnied replied 'certainly madam we're here to help, 'will that be with or without crusts?' The woman stormed out of the shop without any bread, and Ronnie stood there with a puzzled look on his face, as if the say, 'I wonder what is wrong with her?'

Although that example was meant to be comical, that method can also be used to be deliberately annoying, as it was by my two critics - perhaps - the two silly clowns of Wikipedia, as you can see from a description of their editing tactics below.

When I wrote an essay about the tactics being used by my two critics I included a paragraph about their "wild goose chase" in which they would delete a reference about my own research, and insist that I provide one from an independent source. When I provided one from an independent source they would delete it on the grounds that it was an original research paper and that i needed to provide information from review articles. When I provided a review article they would delete it on the grounds that it as just a review by a non-expert, and when I provided a review from a known authority on the topic they would delete it on the grounds that it was 'out-of-date' and insist that I provide references from reviews that had been written in the past two years. It was obvious that my two critics were just being pests who were going to keep on changing the policy requirements until I couldn't meet them, and when I started providing modern references they told other editors that I was being disruptive and persuaded one of them to ban me.

 

Wikipedia has a topic page called "moving the goalposts" which many other editors refer to in disputes. It is the simple tactic of relentlessly requiring a higher standard after the original requirements have been met, where the person asking the questions has already decided from the start that none of the answers will ever be accepted, no matter how good they are.

 

This is a quote from a page called The Final Word which accurately describes their style

"Debates are like boxing matches. Try to make your opponent do the footwork so they get exhausted while you preserve your energy for the final blow Last Word. If they bring any arguments you cannot immediately refute, play dumb and ask for clarification, it helps wear off the adversary's patience. Ask for more sources and better sources (ideally in that order). If they insolently keep providing answers, arbitrarily stop replying for a while. Better yet, point out that their answer dodges the real question, which is something tangentially (if at all) related to your original point. See here

One of the consequences of that style of criticism was that I would provide up to ten references for some of the sentences that I wrote which would include expert opinion from 1919, a text book from 1951, a review article from 1987, and a quote from the current edition of a modern text book.

Only a complete and utter pest could find fault with that, but of course my two critics were both complete and utter pests, and one of them added the words in red to a section of the Wikipedia essay called 'Citation overkill' at 21:30 on 12-10-10, eighteen months after I was banned . . .

It is abbreviated as WP:Citekill or WP:Clutter
"Citation overkill clutters pages, making them unreadable. The purpose of any article is first and foremost to be not only readable, but more importantly, verifiable. Sure an article might sound great, but if it isn't cited, how do we know that the article isn't just made up? A good rule of thumb is that one footnote after a sentence is almost always sufficient, two or three may be a good way of preventing linkrot for online sources or providing a range of sources that support the fact, and more than three should be avoided as clutter."

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Citation_overkill&diff=prev&oldid=390375342

 

If you have a look at the final version of the essay I wrote you can see multiple numbered links at the end of many sentences which does make the article look cluttered and more difficult to read. However, I didn't want to write it that way, but it just became more cluttered each time the two pests asked for more, or different references, and they continued to be pests for the entire 12 months.

 

The last word on this matter is not that my version of the article was cluttered with too many references, but that I was giving two pests what they had been asking for.

 

The final version of my version of the article can be seen here

My essay about their tactics can be seen here

An example of the relentless demands for references can be seen here

 

Policy shopping

Wikipedia has an essay which describes a tactic called 'Policy Shopping'. The following words are a quote from it . . . "Usually it starts off as a violation of maintaining a neutral point of view. You source the statements proving it isn't a violation, and suddenly it's a violation of WP:Reliable sources. You double check your sources, find additional sources, and ensure they are all within WP:RS, and suddenly it's a violation of WP:WEASEL, WP:NOT, or something as ridiculous as a WikiProject's style guides. If all else fails, the user making the object resorts to simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments".

For more information about 'policy shopping' see here

For other reports about how my two critics kept on policy shopping to move the goalposts see here and here

Aso see how they changed the policies from the start by reading the secions called "Banfield", "i'm going to rgo read WP:CIVIL now', WP:SYNTH?', 'Proposed page move', and 'cruft'. here

Another example of my critics claiming that I am wrong while their own references support the information that I provide from different and varied sources

In December 2007 I added some information about my own theory and research to the DaCosta's syndrome page. The research involved a programme of exercising within limits to improve the general fitness levels of the volunteers. Since then all of the information has been deleted by my two critics and all of my contributions have been described as non-notable, original research, nonsense, and crap.

At 18:25 on 30-5-08 Gordonofcartoon wrote this explanation on the Da Costa's talk page . . . "I think it's worth going to more secondary and tertiary souces, since selecting primary sources always raises issues of the fairness of choice. There are a couple of overviews in Oxford Companion to Medicine(reliable, yes?"

He followed it with this quote from that book . . .
"During the American Civil War J. M. DaCosta described a syndrome in soldiers who had what were apparently cardiac symptoms such as chest pain and palpitation but who in fact had normal hearts. This condition, often called 'irritable heart' or 'soldiers' heart', caused so much invalidism among British soldiers in World War I that a special heart hospital, directed by Thomas Lewis, had to be set up to deal with it. Lewis re-named it the 'effort syndrome' because the symptoms occurred on exertion and he devised a remedial system of physical exercises which enabled over 35 000 men to be returned to active service. . . . Arthur H. Crisp "cardiology - history" The Oxford Companion to Medicine. Stephen Lock, John M. Last, and George Dunea. Oxford University Press 2001". Gordonofcartoon 18:25, 30 May 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Names_for_this_phenomenon

At 21:21 on 5-10-08 WhatamIdoing cut and pasted the account of Da Costa's syndrome that I prepared on my subpage, and subjected it to 80 nitpicking criticisms such as this one where my text is highlighted in black, and WhatamIdoin's request for a citation is shown in red. . . "Other treatments evident from the previous studies were . . . appropriate levels of exercise where possible,[citation needed][original research?] here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880#Treatment

In the following months I added three citations to support that statement on my subpage text (references numbers 12, 17 and 50, - J.Howell 1985, Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine 2008, and still the current edition, and R.Whishaw 1939) here

 WhatamIdoing deliberately and repeatedly tried to make my theory look ridiculous by oversimplifying it.

On 6-10-08 WhatamIdong made these comments to Avnjay about the early drafts of my subpage text . . ."Perhaps more importantly, this draft seriously overemphasizes the body posture aspects (you remember that Posturewriter has self-published a thousand-page book on his personal theory that people with heart palpitations and fatigue would feel better if they exercised and stood up straight, right? and it ignores or downplays all the DCS-related people that don't agree with him . . . but you can't fix nerves by lifting weights" WhatamIdoing 17:27, 6 October 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2

On 11-1-09 WhatamIdoing made these ridiculous statements about my references . . . "The editor is an agenda editor (standing up straight cures disease, and now Da Costa's syndrome is a type of Chronic fatigue syndrome because someone that runs an iguana website said so" . . . That quote can be seen in item number 52 of the Administrators Noticeboard here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive506#Personal_attacks

Note that I was not an "agenda editor", and WhatamIdoing ensured that everything that I wrote in Wikipedia was deleted, not just the Da Costa information, so it was not worth my while to waste time on other topics.

Also note that WhatamIdoing is being deliberately insulting by saying that, according to my theory, all you have to do to cure disease is stand up straight and lift weights - which is not only a ridiculous oversimplification, but is also the wrong type of exercise.

Also note that Harvard Professor Paul Dudley White, who studied this subject for more than fifty years, described Da Costa's syndrome as "a kind of fatigue syndrome . . . and . . . in some cases it is more or less a chronic condition".

I also provided about a dozen other top quality references for that statement, and only one from a medical consumers specific webpage about Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and not because there was other material on other pages on that website.

On 25-1-09 I transferred the text of my subpage to the DCS page and the whole lot was deleted by Gordonofcartoon. After that, each time I reverted it back my two critics took turns deleting it agaiin, with a total of twice by Gordonofcartoon and once by WhatamIdoing. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&action=history

On 26-1-09 WhatamIdoing has also written a series of ridiculous lies about my sources on the Da Costa's talk page e.g. "Posturewriter has instead relied on his own interpretation of primary sources instead of basing the history section around good secondary sources that directly address the relevant history. WhatamIdoing 19:14, 26 January 2009 etc. herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Da_Costa_Article_page_text_replaced_with_the_text_
from_the_Posturewriter.2FDaCostaDraft

On 27-1-09 an orderly arbitration process involving 12 editors was suddenly interrupted by Moreschi who banned me.

Gordonofcartoon thanked him on his talk page soon after, and has since referred to Moreschi as "the cavalry" (one of his members of an edit war), and WhatamIdoing provided him with an outlaw halo award for the same reason some months later.

 

Summary: On 30-5-08 Gordonofcartoon used a reference (which he emphasised is a reliable secondary source) to support an earlier argument about synonyms, and it also INADVERTENTLY contained information about the effectiveness of an exercise programme. Eight months later WhatamIdoing, who tries to give the impression of having authoritative knowledge of the subject, played dumb about the benefits of exercise, misrepresented the type of exercise that I recommended (which does not include strenuous activity such as "lifing weights"), and argued against the value of exercise. I then provided three citations to verify the statement, and WhatamIdoing just kept on finding faults and telling ridiculous lies about the reliability of my references until I was banned.

Double standards in the criticism of the Reliability of the References that I used

A discussion was started on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard with the heading "Sources appropriate for medical and health-related articles", and then a sub-section was established to comment specifically on one of Khiefet's reviews.

At 16:38 on 18-8-09 Garrondo wrote . . . "I have created an specific subsection for the question on weather the author can or cannot be considered an expert to ease commentaries. I have asked for specific input in the medicine project."

At 17:14 on 18-8-09 WhatamIdoing gave this reply with an edit note . . . "Usability of Keiffets review: Obviously an expert" . . . and these words . . .
'''Definitely an expert'''. She was the head of the radiation program for the [[World Health Organization]], and she's now a professor of epidemiology at UCLA, and there's still some question about whether she's an expert on the epidemiology of radiation? She was on the radiation standards safety committee for the [[IAEA]]], and we're asking whether she might know a thing or two about the harmful effects of radiation? She's been on the International Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP)'s Standing Committee on Epidemiology since 2001, and we're wondering if she might know something about the epidemiology of non-ionizing radiation? She's published dozens of papers, including papers about this specific risk factor in several different diseases. ''Of course she's an expert on the epidemiology of radiation.'' Khiefets is ''exactly'' the kind of person that Wikipedia should be using as a source. I can't even imagine a more appropriate source.(Having said that, her status as an expert still doesn't authorize editors to exceed the usual conservative, "obvious "reading of her paper.)"WhatamIdoing 17:14, 18 August 2009 here

Note that WhatamIdoing is determining the reliability of the information by referring to Khiefets personal background and experience with regard to the number of committees she has been on or headed, the number of articles she has published, and the number of years that she has been involved - since 2001

I will end this introduction by highlighting WhatamIdoing's words . . . "I can't even imagine a more appropriate source"

 

Here are some authors who have had much more experience in their field of study

WhatamIdoing has been highly critical of my sources of information so I would like to help the other editors on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard by solving WhatamIdoing's mystery about who is a more appropriate source of reliable information for medical topics.

The topic in this example is the history of Da Costa's syndrome. Here are some much more reliable

Firstly, J.M. DaCosta, whose 1871 paper was responsible for 150 years of research that followed, secondly Sir James MacKenzie, Sir William Osler, and Sir Thomas Lewis, who were knighted for their contributions to medicine, and who all had a major influence on the early study of Da Costa's syndrome. MacKenzie was described as one of the giants of the British school of cardiology who played a pivotal role in this research, and Lewis gave it the lable of "Effort Syndrome" which became one of the most commonly used diagnostic names for the condition in the U.K., and he was knighted in 1921 for his studies in that subject. Another source was Paul Wood O.B.E. who studied and lectured on this subject, and became the Director of the Institute of Cardiology at the National Hospital for Diseases of the Heart, London, and Paul Dudley White who studied the subject for fifty years and was also an emeritus professor of Harvard, and a founder and a president of the American Heart Association, and Harvard professor Oglesby Paul, who was also a president of the American Heart Association, and who published a biography of Paul Dudley White. I also provided Charles Wooly from1976, 1990, 2002, and 2004. They are just seven authors that I provided.

According to WhatamIdoing Sir James MacKenzie was just an ordinary doctor who walked in off the street and attended an ordinary meeting, Paul Dudley White's 1951 book was old and out-of-date, and Oglesby Paul was just some guy who wrote a routine review about Da Costa's syndrome, and all of those authors were unimportant in the history of the topic, and all of my references

Note that WhatamIdoing was misrepresenting the facts about those authors in order to discredit them, but I am not going to do the same to Khiefet. I am merely

See more information about MacKenzie here and the list of more than 60 here

One of the major problems that I had to deal with was the extreme Double standards that my two critics applied to content and policy so in May 2008 I suggested that there should be a specific policy for Double Standards editing called DSE. At 11:41 on 5th August Gordonofcartoonresponded with these words. . . Those changes "are not going to happen".

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles) Discussion

When writing articles for Wikipedia their policy recommends that "secondary sources" of information which are 'reviews' of the literature, are preferred to "primary sources" which are articles about original research, and "tertiary sources" which are text-books and encyclopedia's see here

Consequently, after a few months of experience I learned of that policy and so started using reviews of the literature as references to verify the information that I provided to the topic pages.

Note also . . . On 23 August 2009 WhatamIdoing gave the following opinion to other editors on the Wikipedia Reliable Sources talk page where decisions about the type of references to be used are discussed and decided upon.

These were WhatamIdoing's words about another medical topic . . . "It's true that basic physiological processes aren't usually the subject of recent [[literature review]]s, but there are other excellent [[secondary source]]s available, such as college and medical school textbooks. 
It's also worth remembering that [[WP:PSTS| the preference for secondary sources]] isn't something dreamed up on this page: it is a Wikipedia-wide standard that all articles should comply with, regardless of subject matter." WhatamIdoing 23:50, 23 August 2009 here

However, seven months earlier, WhatamIdoing deleted the article that I provided for this reason "Rv POV version by COI-blocked editor using RSN-banned sources such as the personal webpage of a patient" here on 27-1-09, here, and implied, or referred to all of my sources as unreliable on many pages, including the Arbitration page where I was banned. These were some of the comments . . . "Posturewriter's use of references frequently, perhaps even usually, does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards" and "The article's history is full of edit wars as he tries to force unreliable and misrepresented sources into it."

Note that I used the following books as references for the history of the Da Costa's syndrome. . . "The Soldier's Heart and the Effort Syndrome" (1919) and a second edition of it (1940), and "Diseases of the Heart", 2nd edition (1937). All three were written by Sir Thomas Lewis. I also included "Heart Disease" (1951) by Paul Dudley White, "Diseases of the Heart and Circulation" 2nd edition (1956), by Paul Wood, and "The Irritable Heart of Soldier's and the Origin's of Anglo American Cardiology" (2002) by Charles Wooley etc. Note also that Paul Dudley White's, and Paul Wood's books were university textbooks for medical students and internationally distributed reference books for cardiologists, and contain chapters that review the topic of Da Costa's syndrome, and are therefore "secondary sources", and the other books contain reviews of the literature on the topic, and also met the standards of policy that requires"secondary sources"and that all of the books are available in Universities internationally and can be easily obtained and read to verify the information.

Note that WhatamIdoing was never interested in discussing anything, but simply mouthed empty words of intention and used a whole range of policies as excuses to delete everything I wrote on every page e.g. see here

Note also this quote from the policy pages which indicates that I was providing relevant references . . . "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers". See here

Extreme Double Standards in the interpretation of reliable sources policy

They replaced my Paul Dudley White (1951) reference with their Paul Dudley White 1951 (reference)???

When I wrote a subpage text for Da Costa's syndrome it contained more than 60 reliable references, which included Paul Dudley White's 1951 reference book for cardiologists which was distributed to medical universities throughout the world. In chapter 22 he reviewed all aspects of the research. My two critics described it as a unreliable source of information because, in their "opinion", it was just an ordinary book that was "old" and "published before most editors were born".

However, when they deleted my subpage text they replaced it with a much smaller article which they supported by only 18 references, and one theirs was written by the same author, Paul Dudley White and his regular collaborator, Mandel E.Cohen and was published in the same year.

Here are the details . . .

My reference (which I cited 35 times to verify 35 statements in my text ) Number 4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w< x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah White, Paul Dudley (1951). Heart Disease. New York, New York: MacMillan. pp. 578-591. see here 8:50 on 27-1-09 here

Their reference (which they cited only once to verify only one of the statements in their text) Cohen ME, White PD (1951). "Life situations, emotions, and neurocirculatory asthenia (anxiety neurosis, neurasthenia, effort syndrome)". Psychosom Med 13 (6): 335­57. PMID 14892184. See 18:12 on 27-1-09 here

Essentially what they were doing was going through my 60 references and saying "we" like this one so "we" will keep it, but "we" don't like those ten so "we" will delete them etc, until they had an article that supported "their" point of view, and then they accused "me" of cherry picking information to push my point of view????

By contrast, when they "occasionally" provided different references I added them to my list of 60 to include "all" points of view, even though I didn't agree with theirs, and I did it because it was an article for Wikipedia which had policies that required "Neural point of view". re: when in Rome do as the Romans do!

My two critics were extremely unreliable in their use of references

A common condition is not rare!

When another editor criticised my main critic for using the Rare Diseases Database as a reference for Da Costa's syndrome, he received this response . . .
"Please explain why you believe that the National Organization for Rare Diseases -- the preeminent organization for rare diseases, which is considered the most authoritative and comprehensive organization in the entire world for rare diseases, and whose work is cited with approval by several governments, including, for example, the US and Canada -- is "unreliable" WhatamIdoing 23:10, 28 May 2008 here

This is some of the reasons

When I first saw the Da Costa's page in Wikipedia it had no references - NONE, so I started adding some until the total exceeded sixty, and my critics were falsely and incessantly referring to them as unreliable according to their deliberate misinterpretation of MEDRS policy. They spent most of their time focusing attention on a medical consumers site which I added for NPOV, and Paul White's, who studied the subject for 50 years, and they said his evidence (which I put in the history section) were an unreliable source - of modern opinion????. I was actually reporting the facts and evidence that he described, not his opinion, and established facts never change.

Another one of the sixty references that I added was J.M.Da Costa's original 1871 research paper which is ESSENTIAL to understanding the subject. (my critics didn't put it there before me because their idea about reliable references for history sections are the paragraphs they get from dictionaries and website's, and the history articles that have been written in their favorite modern journals)

The following words come from J.M.Da Costa's first paragraph, which were the first words ever written in relation to "Da Costa's syndrome".

"In this paper I propose to consider a form of cardiac malady COMMON among soldiers . . . Much of what I am about to say I could duplicate from the experience of PRIVATE PRACTICE."

One of the small number of references that was provided by my critics was by Oglesby Paul in 1987, which I was familiar with, so I reviewed it for Wikipedia. The following words come from the first paragraph.

"The syndrome variously called Da Costa's syndrome . . . has been studied for more than 100 years by many distinguished physicians. Originally identified in men in wartime, it has been widely recognised as a COMMON chronic condition in both sexes in civilian life"

Paul also wrote on page 311 . . . "Cohen and White reported that 2-4% of the population had this disorder".

Note also that Oglesby Paul, Cohen, and White, were prominent U.S. researchers, and that 2-4% of the U.S. population of 200 million would be four to eight million.

One of the references used by my critics was the RARE DISEASES DATA BASE on an internet webpage: see reference number 4 here

This is Wikipedia's definition from it's "Rare Disease" topic page . . . "A rare disease . . . is any disease that is not common. Typically, a rare disease has such a low prevalence in a population that a physician in a busy general practice would not expect to see more than one case a year" . . . and . . . "In the United States of America, the Rare Disease Act of 2002 defines rare disease strictly according to prevalence, as "any disease or condition that affects less than 200,000 persons in the United States, "[2] or about 1 in 1,500 people.(end of quote) here

i.e. less than one tenth of 1 per cent.

My critics use of a reference to the RARE DISEASES DATA BASE for Da Costa's syndrome is RIDICULOUS

 

Summary: My critics have a track record of starting arguments with me after they have only read the title of a book (Soldier's Heart), or the first paragraph of a research paper (Rosen's), and thinking that it makes them experts on the subject. In this example they have not even bothered to read the first sentence of the most relevant and reliable reference in the 130 years of history of the topic (J.M. Da Costa's original paper published in 1871).

Here is my response to their false inference that their own sources are reliable.

Harvard professor Oglesby Paul's words of 1987 . . . "WIDELY RECOGNISED" AS "COMMON" . . . DO NOT MEAN "RARE".

They appear to lack the intelligence required to determine the difference between the condition of Da Costa's syndrome, which is still common, and the label of Da Costa's syndrome, which is rarely used nowadays re: if you can't find the term Da Costa's syndrome in modern text books, it doesn't mean that the common condition has ceased to exist.

 

More evidence of the Unreliability of the References used by my critics?

Note that my two critics did not give a reference to verify the first sentence on the Da Costa's page, or even the entire first section, and they used reference number nine (relating to Selhein Neuhof) to support the statement in the "Symptoms" section. They have falsely accused me of only using references that were "old", but in their own case, Neuhof's article was first published in 1917. Some of the information that he provided about exercise was contradictory, and other statements were made while failing to distinguish several different conditions, and are ACTUALLY WRONG. Neuhof also stated that there was no evidence of cardiovascular disease, which is a lot different to saying that there is no physical abnormalities at all. He also states that there is no flouroscopic evidence of abnormalities in the heart, but it has since been established that there is flouroscopic evidence of faulty function of the thoracic diaphragm. He also states that "reassurance about the heart is the mainstay of treatment". Needless to say that if a person has chest pain, he is unlikely to believe a doctor who advises him that there is nothing wrong with his heart - just because a doctor says so, unless he has a credible explanation, such as telling him that it is due to strain on the muscles between the ribs. e.g. see here

Note also that my critics try to justify the reliability of their references by emphasising that they use medical dictionaries. Dictionaries contain up to 2000 pages of definitions that are mostly only one sentence, or one paragraph for each, and they change from one edition to the next, and are different from the definitions found in other medical dictionaries for copyright reasons, and can, and often do contain misleading wording. My critics also used the World Health Organisation as an example of reliability, however they are only one of many official organisations and need to be taken in that context.

They also don't seem to understand that the words as defined by physicians do not mean the same as they are understood by patients. For example when a doctor says there is nothing organically, or physically wrong with them, the patient thinks that there is no way of explaining their symptoms, when in fact there are dozens of physical signs, and a lot of physical evidence to explain them.

My two critics also don't seem to understand the fundamental principle of Wikipedia of gaining information from all sources, not just medical journals. The authors of journals articles have their own views and are often influenced by the organisations that fund their research, which is why some journals, for ethical reasons, require their contributors to declare the source of their funds.

Wikipedia is supposed to overcome all of those problems by deriving all knowledge from all sources, but when you look at the policies you can see where that neutrality is diminished. A good example is where I provided a link to a medical consumer's webpage that was compiled in collaboration with four doctors, to give some NPOV input, and my critics not only criticised it for being unreliable according to MEDRS policy, but also tried to discredit that person by making irrelevant comments about other sections of their website, and by repeatedly implying that all medical consumers were an unreliable source, regardless of the merit and independent verifiability of their information e.g. At 23:04, 11 January 2009 here here

Note also that it was only one of my 65 references, but my critics were trying to imply that because it was from a consumer, all the others were unreliable.

My two critics do not appear to understand the difference between a reliable reference, a reliable dictionary, reliable wording, a reliable organisation, a reliable history, and a reliable encyclopedia, and a properly balanced representation of all reliable points of view. They just think that their own "opinion" about reliability, or their own "interpretation" of Wikipedia reliability policy, or a specific sub-clause, is reliable, if it suits their own bias at the time. If it doesn't they make changes, or add ambiguities to the policy so that it can be more easily interpreted to suit anything they want in the future. . . . Hence, allowing "editorial judgment" to over-ride policy helps them to get their way, AND, their fallback "ignore all rules" policy gives them the capacity to justify the bad judgment that they think gives them the right to tell lies and cheat. They DID NOT DISCUSS anything unless it suited them - they just nittered and nattered to create the illusion of discussion while THEY DICTATED content.

A few words about their references, one of which was a dictionary

Dorland's illustrated medical dictionary was originally published as the American medical dictionary in 1890. I purchased a new copy of the 25th edition in 1976, and own the latest 31st edition which is still current in 2010. In the meantime I have used more than thirty different types of medical dictionary as sources of information because they change their definitions from one edition to the next, or from one decade to another, and emphasis varies from one editor to another.

 

The following words are a quote from an article called "Comparison of American Medical Dictionaries", by Joanne C. Callard, in the Bulletin of the Medical Library Association 66 (3) July 1978 p.327-330. . .

"The hospital medical librarian should be especially aware of the differences in the dictionaries and the deletions and changes that occur with each new edition.

"MEDICAL dictionaries are basic tools in ever medical library, and a comparison of the four major American medical dictionaries, with the hospital library and its clientele in mind, shows that there is no one dictionary that can supply the needs of all health professionals served in this setting.
Samuel Johnson observed that "dictionaries are like watches; the worst is better than none, and the best cannot be expected to go quite true [1]. Even with computer revision, included by all four dictionary publishers discussed, and extensive authoritative editing, any one of these reference works may in some instances be in error, as is pointed out by Vernon [2]. However, each has features valuable to the hospital medical library and its patrons; owning all four ensures an adequate reference collection." (end of quote)

The article continues to describe Dorland's definitions as being based on the origin of words and that Stedman's Blakiston's and Gould's definitions are based on the actual usage of the words.

See here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC199491/pdf/mlab00127-0070.pdf

 

My main critic claims to have university qualifications and an annoyingly high IQ, but admitted to not knowing much about Da Costa's syndrome until I started writing about it for Wikipedia. However that individual responded to a question from another editor by claiming to be an instant expert who is capable of learning a lot about subjects in a short space of time.

At one stage that individual was doing so much criticising that I decided to stay away from Wikipedia for awhile and take some notes on how they argued with other editors. The following words were obviously intended to sound intelligent and impressive, and were used to start an argument that involved three other editors for 2 days.

"Dorland's medical dictionary is used by students and professors at every single English-language medical school in the world. Thousands of physicians reference it. As a flagship publication from the world's largest scientific publishing house, Elsevier, it clearly meets the WP:V description of "books published by respected publishing houses," and in fact it is used as a reference in hundreds of Wikipedia articles. WhatamIdoing 13:55, 25 May 2008. See the full discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Dorlands_as_a_reliable_source

 

There are many problems that result from relying on dictionaries for information. For example, the 1976 edition of Dorland's redirects Da Costa's syndrome to 'neurocirculatory asthenia' in the sub-headings for asthenia, and states that it is chiefly seen in soldier's, but doesn't mention that most of those soldier's already had the minor symptoms before they enlisted in the army. The current edition mentions that the symptoms are brought on by exercise, but that has been known for more than 100 years and wasn't mentioned in the 1976 edition etc.

Also, I told my two critics that neurocirculatory asthenia was the most widely used alternative label but they wanted to change the emphasis to Soldier's heart, so they used a different reference to support that particular argument. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Names_in_the_lead

 

The article that is currently available in Wikipedia represents the opinion of those two editors, and their choice of references, and their personal version of history, and people who are not aware of all of the facts and all of the scientific evidence will be misled into believing that it is a reliable source of information.

Note also that one of the editors who supported me in Wikipedia was Guido den Broeder who also has a website called Wikisage, so I posted my version there and it hasn't been changed in nearly two years. See here

Instant and shallow versus thoughtful and thorough

This is a quote from Sir James MacKenzie which is appropriate as a criticism of 'instant experts'. . . "examinations are specially contrived for the purposes of discriminating those with the best memories, and to them all the honours and prizes are given. . . the individuals who, on the contrary possess more of the power of reasoning than their fellows, receive no consideration .' Mackenzie had a 'reflector' learning style since he preferred to think about data thoroughly before coming to a conclusion." See the top of the second page here

 

Question;

how do you become an instant expert

Answer;

step 1. find information that has been compiled by someone else for thirty years

step 2. steal it.

 Reliable Sources in Wikipedia?

including Oglesby Paul's paper

Would you believe anything that my two critics wrote in Wikipedia? (and would you call their information and advice reliable???)

From the early time in the dispute they revealed their pompous "know all" attitude when they described Da Costa's syndrome as "garden variety" orthostatic intolerance and hyperventilation syndrome. When they discussed Rosen's research paper on hyperventilation syndrome one of them said that it was the same as the effort syndrome and the other said it wasn't. Gordonofcartoon didn't read past the first paragraph to find a sentence which included a link to a reference by Thomas Lewis who gave Da Costa's syndrome the new label of effort syndrome.

When I read Oglesby Paul's history of DCS I saw his statement in the second paragraph that, in 1987, it probably still existed much the same as in the past "but is more often identified and labelled as 'anxiety state' or 'anxiety neurosis'". However, in the third paragraph he stated "For the purposes of this discussion . . . Da costa's syndrome is . . . a disorder of unknown origin". I therefore mentioned that fact in the Wikipedia article but my two critics deleted it and replaced it with a statement that it still existed in the medical literature - "labelled as "anxiety state" or "anxiety neurosis". They didn't read or care about the actual, objective, unbiased fact that the cause was unknown, but simply wanted to force their own opinion into the topic by deliberately choosing their words to misrepresent the authors actual conclusion. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=190379699&oldid=190352656

When I included information about the history of DCS from references published between 1863 to 1980 my critics told me that Wikipedia policy requires up to date evidence from the most recent five years, but when I read the policy I found a section further down the page which stated that older references are acceptable in the history sections of articles for 'obvious' reasons.

When they moved a link for a novel called Soldier's Heart to the top of the DCS page I asked them to give me page numbers from the book where the symptoms of DCS were mentioned and they changed the subject and didn't answer the question.

When I told them that it was inappropriate to give that label undue prominence by placing it at the top of the page they argued that it belonged their because of hatnote policy. An independent editor deleted the hatnote. They therefore lost that argument but they told the editors on the arbitration page that they won.

During an RFC process one of my critics encouraged other editors to act as if they had authority which they didn't actually have.

Finally, while they were criticising my contributions they were claiming to be rule-abiding members of the Wikipedia community, but four months later my main critic thanked an editor for breaking the rules of to get me banned.

If my two critics add information, and control content in Wikipedia, and break the rules of Wikipedia, would you regard Wikipedia as a reliable source of information?

 

Here is an example of my main critic giving advice to another editor about the importance of actually reading articles before you use them as references

"I'm sorry to say that there is no simple solution, because we can't compel the other people to read and think about the sources, no matter how much good it would do us or the world. You must keep on doing what is good and right, and being as polite as (in)humanly possible. Eventually, your current opponents will exhaust the (very, very large) patience of the community, and make pests of themselves"

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=prev&oldid=399452403

My two critics should take their own advice and read and represent their own references properly instead of acting like two-faced pests. One of them should stop being an 'instant expert' by reading the first paragraph of everything, and start becoming a real expert who actually reads the whole article and the whole policy.

 

Other contradictions

When I provided evidence that one my two critics was the anonymous vandal who deleted the entire page of Da Costa's syndrome text, another editor supposedly read the discussion and recommended that I should be banned for being that anonymous person. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Outside_View_by_user:Arbiteroftruth

An essay on their truth twisting Spin

My main critic is so devious that if she robbed a bank in broad daylight and was arrested on the way out in front of 150 eye witnesses, she would find a way to have the police officer put in jail for violating clause 3762, paragraph 84b, section 7, of the 1859 Mongolian Donkey Act, or whatever real equivalent of that hypothetical law exists.

 

They are trolls who use 'attitude readjustment tools' to annoy and harass other editors until they react with hostility, and then accuse them of being the trolls who started the trouble and need to be banned. They also start edit wars and if the other person defends themselves they accuse them of edit warring. When they complained about their methods failing against me here, it was because I didn't even know about such "tools" or "edit wars". I just thought that they were being childish, melodramatic, and stupid, so I continued editing, within the rules, and as politely as possible.

 

My main critic was an expert at using spin to make other editors despise me

If you study the behaviour of my main critic you will find that whenever I accused her of doing something wrong, she would tell the other editors that I did something wrong, and whenever she did something stupid, she would tell them that I did something stupid, and when I said that she broke a rule, she would accuse me of breaking the rules, and whenever she lost an argument, she would tell the other editors that I lost.

I will give one set of examples of how she did that.

I criticised her for using a children's fiction book to push her own point of view about Da Costa's syndrome. She had done something childish, but she responded to my comments by trying to give other editors the impression that I had a childish personality by apologising for making me read a book about the war which contained some horrible descriptions that must be upsetting for school children. She also archived the discussion page so that it was the last comment at the end, which would leave the most effective 'lasting impression', even though it was completely false. See here

When I provided evidence that she didn't even bother to read the book before using it as a link, she said that she had read ten of the authors children's adventure novels.

That book is an unreliable source of information about medical subjects, but she then accused me of using unreliable references by picking on one of mine, and arguing that it was written by a medical consumer who she described as a non-expert, and then said that it was typical of my other sixty.

It was a stupid thing for her to use that book on a medical page, but she argued that I was stupid for not understanding the difference between a link and a reference (when, in fact, I did know the difference).

It was unnecessary for her to use it, or to give it prominence by moving it to the top line, but she said that I didn't understand the rules about 'hatnotes' and 'disambiguation pages'.

She lost the arguments because a neutral editor told her that it was inappropriate and deleted the link, but she later told a group of arbitrators that I lost.

She also gave them the false impression that I was at fault by telling them that my 'interactions' with 'anyone who doesn't agree with me rapidly devolve into hostile sniping', and that I needed to be banned for 'edit warring'.

She certainly knows how to deceive the other editors and readers of Wikipedia. Her methods include those used by public relations agents and propagandists, and are designed to fool most people. They are similar to the tactics of political candidates who always invent ways of arguing that there is something wrong with anything and everything that their opposition says or does.

See here, and here, and my reports here and here

Her age, immaturity, deviousness, and disrespectful behaviour

When I told her that she should show some respect to me because I was older than her, she left a comment on my talk page to influence the other editors. She said "I'm middle-aged by the way", but she had been able to able to get me blocked, so that I couldn't reply by saying . . . "You are still younger than me, and you know it, so stop trying to fool the other editors". Her objective was to maintain the illusion that she was an older, middle-aged man (when in fact, she is an anonymous woman), and that I was a young person being disrespectful to an older man of authority). I can't show you that because my entire User page has been blocked from view, on the grounds that I was attacking her????

She was able to do that because she could tell lies at a much faster rate than i could respond, and she was using all of the rules, and loopholes, as tricks to gain and maintain the illusion of power and success.

I only joined Wikipedia to make about one contribution a week, not to argue with liars ten times a day, but she was doing up to 100 edits a day regularly, or more than 4000 per year (see here), and was writing loopholes into every rule. It became obvious that other editors and administrators would end up agreeing with her, just to shut her up. e.g. see here. See one of my other reports on her spin tactics here

Another essay on their truth twisting Spin

I was often astonished by the way my two critics would spin the truth around their grubby little fingers and turn it into plausible nonsense that other editors would believe. However, I noticed that they would tell their lies on new talk pages where the new group of editors may have been experts in such things as sport, but knew nothing about medical topics, so they wouldn't know the actual facts, or that they were being lied to.

An example is where Sir James Mackenzie was knighted for his contributions to medicine in 1915, and my two critics told the other editors that he was just an ordinary doctor, who walked in off the street, and joined an ordinary meeting, and that the only reason for his comments being published is that they were included in the minutes of that meeting, in 1916. See more details here

Another example is where they moved the label of "Soldier's heart" from the "Related" section at the bottom of the page to the top line. That label had a link to a novel called "Soldier's heart" so I read it, and found it to be a children's story that was irrelevant to the topic. It also occurred to me that they didn't know what the book was about because they had made a wrong assumption based on the books title, without bothering to read it.

My two critics spun that around to make it look as if I was stupid. For example, this is a quote from Gordonofcartoons' argument on 3rd July 2008. . . "Sorry, but a) your personal comparison of a book and article is clear-cut original research" See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=223295298&oldid=223268288

The following words are part of a discussion between myself and Gordonofcartoon later that month. . .

On 24th July 2008 Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "your personal gloss of the content of a book - analysing the lead character's symptoms in the light of your own views about Da Costa's syndrome - was also original research." Gordonofcartoon 11:21, 24 July 2008
This was my reply on 27th July . . . Gordonofcartoon; " the lead character in Paulsen's book didn't have any of the symptoms as described in Da Costa's original research paper, and his post-war ailments were most likely due to the complications of bullet wounds which included infections etc which have nothing to do with my views about Da Costa's syndrome. Posturewriter 11:23, 27 July 2008

They also argued that . . . they put a link to the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in the "Related" section of the topic but that didn't mean that it was actually "related to" the topic.

They spun and weaved such silly yarns everywhere they went, but the final Arbitration page is a good example.

See here

An earlier example can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1

My two critics should read the research papers and books before they use them as links or references.

An example of my main critic giving advice on the importance of reading the books they use can be seen at 21:32 on 16-10-10 here

They should take their own advice, but they don't.

Another example is where I used Paul Wood's internationally respected 1956 text book as a reference. My two critics described it as a violation of the policy which insists on references from the most recent five years, and then they used one of Paul Wood's research papers of 1941 to support their replacement version of the article, because he was the head of the Effort Syndrome Unit itself,

 

They invited me to put the information on my own website

Gordonofcartoon stated that the information that I provided took up "undue space", and WhatamIdoing wrote "Posturewriter, why don't you put all this up on your own website?" See 20:34 on 8-2-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#WP:SYNTH.3F

I complied with their suggestions by setting up a new page on my own website and put everything they deleted onto it, and continued to prepare material for the article. I then abbreviated the best of it and loaded it onto Wikipedia. A few months later Gordonofcartoon told the other editors that I was using Wikipedia as an annexe for my own webiste by dumping large slabs of direct quotes from it.

e.g. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=190030514

For more details see here

 

Some quotes from the Wikipedia page called "Spin"

"spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through providing an interpretation of an event or campaign to persuade public opinion in favor or against a certain organization or public figure".

""spin" often, though not always, implies disingenuous, deceptive and/or highly manipulative tactics."
"Politicians are often accused by their opponents of claiming to be honest and seek the truth while using spin tactics to manipulate public opinion".
"Because of the frequent association between "spin" and press conferences . . . the room in which these take place is sometimes described as a spin room"

"A group of people who develop spin may be referred to as "spin doctors" who engage in "spin doctoring" for the . . . group who hired them"

The techniques of spin include . . . Selectively presenting facts and quotes that support one's position . . . Non-denial denial . . . Phrasing in a way that assumes unproven truths . . . Euphemisms to disguise or promote one's agenda".

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spin_(public_relations)&diff=382313223&oldid=382309755

 

My comment: When two editors act together to spin silly yarns in Wikipedia they could be called "spin twins", and a group that collaborates in spinning an intricate web of lies could be called a "spin gang".

I was somewhat curious about how anyone could possibly act like that, but perhaps this quote form Wikipedia gives a clue . . .

"Edward Bernays has been called the "Father of Spin" . . . he . . . was proud of his work as a propagandist".

 

If anyone wants to learn about 'spin' methods in order to protect themselves from such tactics, they could do so by studying the behaviour of my two critics. They used some remarkable, quintessential, classic, or text-book perfect examples of it.

See here

Unfortunately when you try to educate the public about spin, most of them don't understand how important it is, and the propagandist take notes on how to be more effective in fooling people, and the pedestrians of life just sit back and watch without getting involved - like the three wise monkeys - They see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil, until they become the victims of evil, by which time it will be too late.

Spinning the fault 180 degrees

I spent some time searching for, and providing evidence that my main critic is an ill-mannered and prolific liar to get them blocked or banned. The method was to gather evidence, and the objective was sound. However, that individual must have spent a lot of time learning "spin" and writes about other editors motives like this . . .

"I suspect that what most people want from WQA is some empathy and validation of their feelings: "I'm sure that was unpleasant for you, and I'm sure you're a good person, even though it wasn't bad enough to actually break our policies or trigger any sort of punishment. Just make sure you keep setting a good example, and everything will be fine." WhatamIdoing 01:09, 22 January 2011

The game show spinning wheel

I recently saw a TV comedy skit about spin which can be adapted as follows . . .

My two critics would be sitting at their computer next to a game show spinning wheel. The wheel is divided into 20 sections. Number one would be 'original research policy', number two would be 'out-of-date', number three would be 'disruptive editing', number four would be 'conflict of interest', and number fifteen would be 'assume good faith policy' etc.

I would add something to the topic page, so they would see it and spin the wheel. If it stopped at section number fifteen for 'assume good faith policy' ' they would accuse me of not assuming good faith in them and delete the information. If it landed on number three they would accuse me of violating the disruptive editing policy, and then revert the article to their version.

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Evidence_of_disputed_behavior

i.e. they didn't care what the reason they used to delete the information, they just invented one as routinely as if it came from the turn of a spinning wheel.

 

See another editor commenting on my main critics spin here

A few basic facts about Da Costa's syndrome and the Wikipedia article

Every statement that I made in Wikipedia about Da Costa's syndrome was supported by a reference and can be verified by reading them. However I had two critics who didn't want their readers to see those facts so they used dozens of policies as their excuses for deleting the information, and to get me banned so that I couldn't put it back. For example, I provided Wikipedia with 7 references that Da Costa's syndrome could be genetic or run in families, and 2 that it was evident in childhood, and five that it affected individuals who had never played sport, and 6 references that it was more common in women, and 3 that it occurred during pregnancy, and 4 references that showed that most soldiers who developed the condition during war were formerly sedentary workers who already had minor symptoms prior to volunteering or enlisting.

According to J.M.DaCosta's original research the cause was excessive physical exertion, particularly excessive marching in 34.5% of cases, which was the largest group. It was more likely to develop if the person was marching long distances while carrying a heavy knapsack on their backs which were strapped tightly to their chest, and while they were being poorly fed and suffering from a viral infection. My two critics were trying to portray it is a 'post-war syndrome', but less than 1% of the patients would have been to war which makes their article irrelevant to 99% of patients, and misleading to 100% of readers, and a very serious violation of Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' policy (WP:NPOV).

I also provided about 20 references which showed the physical basis for the five main symptoms that were mostly discovered in the 1940's, and my two critics deleted that information and wrote these words on their version . . . "Physical examination reveals no physical abnormalities causing the symptoms."

However, according to policy editors are not allowed to delete verifiable information, but my two critics always found a second policy to use as their excuse for violating the first one.

*******

Some individuals are born with Da Costa's syndrome (also called effort syndrome), which becomes evident from the age of two, as a reduced capacity to sustain effort, and during their youth they typically tire easily, and become dizzy when working in the garden, and would be able to ride a bicycle for two miles downhill but get palpitations when riding uphill, and they prefer to be spectators of sporting events, rather than active participants in them, and when they volunteer for the army they soon become exhausted by the arduous requirements of military life such as "drill, hikes, and other exertion". In the absence of any evidence of disease the reduced capacity for exertion was attributed to their 'constitution'. Reference: Kerley C.G., (January/Dec. 1920), The Effort Syndrome in Children, Archives of Pediatrics, Vol. XXXV11, p.449-454 . . . See here http://www.archive.org/stream/archivesofpediat37newyuoft/archives
ofpediat37newyuoft_djvu.txt

History according to my two critics?

a collection of comments

When I first saw a page about Da Costa's Syndrome in Wikipedia, it had only four lines of text and an invitation for members of the public to improve it, and at 7:39 on 9 December 2007, I began adding information here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=176729513&oldid=165216444
It had no references, so one of the first that I added was J.M.Da Costa's original research paper of 1871.

Nine days later, at 21:33 on 18 December 2007, my main critic, named Whatamidoing, set up a section with the sub-title of "History" to include the main paragraphs of my contributions here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=178801481

I eventually provided the article with more than 60 references to describe the history from 1864 to 2008 but that same editor deleted most of them on the grounds that they were"old", "seriously outdated", "entirely superseded", or "from nearly a century ago" or, "from before most editors were born"???, and kept the description from 1863 to 1876 but deleted everyting from 1876 to 2008 (132 years of research here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214#History

The history of criticism

While I was involved in Wikipedia all information about my own research had been deleted from the Da Costa's page in January 2008 so I started writing the history of the subject and putting the dates of publications in bold, and as I added more reviews I placed them in chronological order to show how the ideas and labels were changing from 1871 through to 2008. I provided 65 top quality references as sources for verification.

I was banned a year later because the same two critics were always complaining about my edits like this . . .

"he listed the same thoroughly outdated (1951) text book 18 separate times . . . The most recent reference is eleven years old . . . and it is about Chronic fatigue syndrome not Da Costa's . . . Medicine-related articles do not obsessively name the year, publisher, and authors when discussing research work . . . 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 . . . We can't even get him to quite bolding the years (to conform with WP:MOSBOLD), despite repeated efforts on that single, small point . . . The few modern references frequently have nothing to do with DCS. One person - a person that does not represent the scientific or medical consensus on this point . . . publishes his personal theory (in an editorial, not a peer reviewed article) that DCS is kinda sorta an early description of chronic fatigue syndrome." (end of extracts - for examples see WhatamIdoing's edits starting at 16:15 on 5th October 2008)

Note that the supposedly "outdated" "1951" "text book" was written by Harvard Professor Paul Dudley White, and it contained a chapter which is one of the best sources of information on the topic, and I linked to it eighteen times because it was a very efficient way of summarising thirty years of his experience, and several hundred of the research articles that he wrote, and the thousands that he read. Oglesby Paul was a graduate in history and medicine, and a Harvard professor, and a president of the American Heart Association, who wrote a history of the topic in 1987. Also, the last editorial mentioned was a review by David Streeten, and was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1996. You will therefore see that my two critics were going to extremes to find fault with every contribution I made, and that their manner was "kinda sorta" ridiculous.

This is a comment from a website which discusses the biography of Harvard professor Oglesby Paul . . . "He completed his residency at Massachusetts General Hospital, where he met the famed cardiologist Paul Dudley White." - in the fifth paragraph here

Here is a typical paragraph of derisive criticism

WhatamIdoing wrote thison 6-10-08

"The style is horrible. Medicine-related articles do not obsessively name the year, publisher, and authors when discussing research work. That's what your citation is for. He doesn't even have complete names for some of these people. 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 paperProper style skips this sort of stuff and gets to the actual point (which PW's summary seriously downplays because he's having trouble remembering that anxiety disorder is a functional disease of the nervous system, not a character flaw). PW isn't interested in fixing things like this, because they promote his POV. We can't even get him to quit bolding the years (to conform with WP:MOSBOLD) despite repeated efforts on that single, small point." . . . that criticism is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter

***

This is a quote from Wikipedia's policy page on Layout . . . "Headings and sections . . . Sections and subsections are introduced by headers. Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibits the flow of the prose. These headings clarify articles by breaking up text, organizing content, and populating the table of contents that users can choose to view (the default) or not to view (by changing their Preferences)" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Layout&diff=297686880&oldid=297638774#Headings_and_sections.

Here is WhatamIdoing's advice on the layout talk page on 21-6-09 . . . "Change suggested section order to recommend a "logical" order, and name alphabetical, chronological, and geographical as examples of potentially logical orders" . . . WhatamIdoing 00:03, 21 June 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Layout&diff=297634748&oldid=297625565

Note that on 6-1-08 WhatamIdoing was saying that it was not appropriate to list the history of research information in chronological order, and eight months later suggests that such a style is logical, and an improvement that should be added to existing style guidelines for future articles.

 

Hyping up the credentials of researchers - or just describing the facts of history?

When WhatamIdoing was nitpicking the references that I used I would see comments like this . . . 'that reference is 'old', or 'that researcher wasn't important', or 'that review is just and op-ed', or 'that article isn't mainstream' etc. so I would easily meet those objections by providing an account of such things as information from 'a chapter in Harvard professor Paul Dudley White's book'. Of course, it was possible to predict that the same nitpicker would respond by saying 'we don't blather on about how important the author is, we just write the facts'.

However, in order to impress me and other editors WhatamIdoing would often try to hype up the importance of their own choice of authorities with words like this addressed to Guido den Broeder . . .

"Please explain why a report by Paul Wood, MD, FRCP, published in BMJ, is "unreliable". 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?" signed WhatamIdoing 23:10 28th May 2008.

You can see how much WhatamIdoing has 'hyped up' that reference to make it sound 'most, most, most' important', but later has the cheek to give this advice to another editor . . .

what must be avoided is a long description of the author's credentials, as if famous people are infallible, I've seen things that look very much like this: 'The largest clinical trial in the history of this disease was conducted in 2008 and 2009 by the Nobel-nominated Prof. IM Portant,. MD, FACP, TLA at the oldest continuously operating medical school in the world' . . . Such hype is always undesirable, and almost always indicates other problems, including cherry-picking and over-reliance on primary sources". signed WhatamIdoing 19:35, 22 February 2010

Needless to say, when I was writing the history of Da Costa's syndrome, I was not blathering on about anything, and was not hyping up anything, but was simply using references that met the standards that I was advised to find, and mentioning facts that I thought would be relevant and interesting to the readers.

Summary of that particular double standard: When I used references which had the quality of Paul Wood's 1956 book WhatamIdoing ridiculed them as being . . . 'from before most editors were born' . . . and . . . 'not even meeting Wikipedia's basic standards of reliablility', but when WhatamIdoing used one of his research papers from 1941 he all of a sudden became so relevant and prestigious that it was seen as extremely ignorant and offensive to question it???

 

An example of WhatamIdoing's attempts to mislead other editors about the history - regarding SIR JAMES MACKENZIE

 

The manipulative deviousness of my main critic (who always argued with the help of my other critic)

My main critic would deliberately make statements and ask me questions that were sarcastic and stupid, because she wasn't trying to fool me, but was trying to give everyone else who read the comments, the false impression that she was a respectable person asking sensible questions.

For example, she knows that my references included the top authors in the history of the subject, so, in an attempt to create the illusion that all of mine were unreliable she didn't pick on my top ten, or my top sixty, but chose one by a medical consumer to take to a group of editors involved in the "Reliable Sources Noticeboard".

She therefore wrote this . . .

"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?" WhatamIdoing 01:32, 26 January 2009 here

After getting some of those editors to agree that the one reference was unreliable, she tried to use that decision as evidence that all of my others were unreliable.

She would then tell other editors who specialised in mathematics or sport, and who knew nothing about medicine, that all my others were unreliable, and would pick on one or two other them and tell absolute lies about them to create the illusion that they were all unreliable. See below.

 

A clear example of WhatamIdoing's attempts to mislead other editors can be described when I reviewed some articles about Sir James MacKenzie and found that he was a major researcher into the topic of Da Costa's syndrome. He was Knighted for his contributions to medicine in 1915, and in 1916 "was asked to take charge of the inquiry into the disorders of the heart for the Medical History of the War". He opened a meeting on this subject, and gave the main speech (ten pages), which was followed by talks by Dr. R.M.Wilson, Dr. F.J.Poynton, Captain (temporary) R.W.Mitchell R.A.M.C., Dr. Philip Hamill, Dr. Alexander Morison, Dr. O.Leyton, Dr. Florence A.Stoney, Dr. T.R. Bradshaw (Major, R.A.M.C.,T.), and Dr. Bezly Thorne. The title of the conference was "Discussion of the Soldier's Heart", and 'Soldier's Heart' was one of the earlier alternative labels for Da Costa's syndrome, and Wilson said "a careful study of upwards of 200 cases of the condition has brought me to the same conclusion" (as MacKenzie) . . . he then discussed the conclusions of three earlier researchers, Earl de Grey, Henry Harthorne, and Dr.Arthur Myers, and then added . . . "but the best known contribution to the subject was that of J.M.Da Costa who made the same observations from 300 cases" . . . and . . . "Sir James Mackenzie concluded the meeting with the hope of getting a hospital devoted exclusively to the study of this ailment which attracted medical researchers who were specially qualified 'to investigate this subject thoroughly' and that . . . the lines of study had been established and would lead to more definite findings in the future".

Those quotes are from an article that was published in the Therapeutical and Pharmacological section in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine which is now I used it as a reference.

 

However, in the first sentence of my review, which contained only 19 words, WhatamIdoing made five critical comments which you can see in red in the following extract . . .

"In 1916[Formatting wrong] Sir James MacKenzie chaired[citation needed] a major[neutrality disputed] medical conferenc[citation needed] aimed at[citation needed] gaining a better understanding of the condition" here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880#1900-1919

The same sort of comments were made on the Da Costa's talk page e.g. where WhatamIdoing was trying to mislead another group of editors with the following words . . .

"My primary concern is not the history section, but since you've asked, the biggest problem with the history section is a WP:DUE issue: Posturewriter seriously overemphasizes and even misrepresents much of the history. For example, "In 1916 Sir James MacKenzie chaired a major medical conference aimed at gaining a better understanding of the condition." Actually, MacKenzie gave a single, short presentation about this condition, at a normal medical that made no claim of being focused on this condition"WhatamIdoing 19:14, 26 January 2009 here

 

WhatamIdoing made the same criticisms and told the same lies to a third group of editors on the arbitration page where I was banned, with these words . . ."For another example, despite repeated requests, Posturewriter still seems to think that when he refers to a publication, the date needs to be bolded in the text, and the author's name and qualifications need to be peacock'd out of recognition. So 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" here


***

Note that Sir James MacKenzie was a major contributor to Costa's syndrome research who chaired an important meeting that made influential decisions about the course of Da Costa's syndrome research but WhatamIdoing misrepresented him as an ordinary doctor who simply "joined a society" and just "showed up at a meeting" that "wasn't aimed at anything in particular" and "made no claim of being focused on this condition".

 

This is a quote from one of the biographies of Sir James MacKenzie (1853-1925) . . ." In 1915, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society; a knighthood followed later that year . . . It is worth noting that three university chairs of general practice in Britain are named in his honour". See here http://www.rcgp.org.uk/default.aspx?page=108

 

Here is a quote from by J.D.Howell (1985) (reference number 12) who wrote an article about the history of cardiology in the United Kingdom . . . "In 1908, James MacKenzie, who would eventually play a pivotal role in developing ideas about soldier's heart, included the disease in the first edition of his Diseases of the heart in the section on "increased frequency of the heart's action". The disease was found not only in soldiers, Mackenzie claimed, but also in "workpeople subject to severe muscular ".

One of the references on the Da Costa's page was to Oglesby Paul's 1987 research paper. It was placed on the page by another editor (not me), and was still there after I was banned . . . Here is an extract from it . . . "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 . . . As early as 1915, the British Medical Research Committee had arranged for study of "disorders of the soldier's heart" under the general direction of Sir James MacKenzie at University College Hospital in London." See here

 

Here is another quote about the history of DCS from an article by Charles Wooley (1990) (reference number 9) . . . "one of the giants of the British school of cardiology of that era was SirJames MacKenzie"

 

Here is another quote from James L. Fanu in the March 2003 edition of The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine pages 151-152 . . . "The US medical officers posted to the hospital—all of whom subsequently would become leaders in their field—included Samuel Levine, Marcus Rothschild and Frank Wilson while the British consulting staff included (amazingly) Sir William Osler, Sir James MacKenzie, John Parkinson, Sir Clifford Allbutt and Thomas Lewis. It is difficulat to imagine a more distinguished roll call or a more stimulating environment, heightened by the intellectual challenge posed by the condition for which the hospital had been established—the enigma of ‘soldier's heart". here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539429/

 


Also note that after giving all of the other editors the false impression that James MacKenzie was an ordinary doctor, who walked in off the street and joined a an ordinary meeting, that editor deleted 61 of my top quality references which included this one as number 23 . . . "^ a b c d e f g h Mackenzie, Sir James; R.M.Wilson, Philip Hamill, Alexander Morrison, O.Leyton, & Florence A.Stoney (1916-01-18). "Discussions On The Soldier's Heart". Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Therapeutical and Pharmacological Section 9: 27-60."

My main critic claimed to be so fussy that they only used the best quality references that complied with all of the rules of Wikipedia, and replaced my list of 61 with their very small list of 18, which included the same MacKenzie reference as number 17. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=266514750#References
and it was still on the reference list unchallenged a year after I was banned. e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=337045882&oldid=3370454688

For more information see here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa'sSyndWikiwebpagel.html#LiesaboutMedrsOutofDateEvidence

 

A timeframe to prove that my man critic lied about MacKenzie

(another essay)

My two critics claimed to be rule-abiding editors, and that articles should be supported by references that comply with Wikipedia's sourcing policies.

Between 25th and 27th January 2009 I posted my version of the Da Costa's article three times because on each occasion they took turns deleting it and replacing it with their biased version.

For example, I posted it for the third time at 8:50 on 27-1-09 supported by 61 references which included MacKenzie as number 23.

My main critic deleted it about nine hours later, at 18:12 on 27-1-09, and replaced their small version, and a very small list of 18 references, which included the same reference as number 17.

Only two hours later at 20:25 on the same day that editor told the following lies to the arbitrators on the page where I was banned . . .

Posturewriter's "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." (end of quote)

 

I assume that anyone who reads my website and sees this evidence is intelligent, so I would like you to consider this . . . There have been thousands of articles written about Da Costa's syndrome - if MacKenzie's conference wasn't important why did my two critics choose to use it as a reference, and if it wasn't about Da Costa's syndrome why did they use it as a reference on that topic, and if it is irrelevant why hasn't it been deleted, and if it wasn't important why couldn't my two critics find a better one, and why is it still kept as a reference almost two years later,.

If that editor told such a lie in front of 12 judges in a real court they would be charged with perjury, which is a criminal offence, and then be put in jail.

 

See my reference list here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266713530&oldid=266577085#References

See their list of references here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214#References

See WhatamIdoing's lie about the MacKenzie conference by reading the second section of their statement here

To verify that the MacKenzie meeting is still being used as a reference (number 18) more than a year and a half later at 14:48 on 6-10-10 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=389110761&oldid=389110449#References

 

Another time frame for that editors lies

At 13:14 on 25th January 2009 the Wikipedia article about the biography of Sir James MacKenzie stated . . . "In 1915 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society and he was knighted."

This is a quote from the words used by my main critic on the arbitration page at 20:25 on 27th January 2009 . . .

"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.)"

To read the Wikipedia biography of MacKenzie See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Mackenzie_(cardiologist)&diff=266307571&oldid=248413355

To read my main critics lies on the arbitration page See here

 

As a relevant aside, I also used an excellent chapter in the 1956 book by Paul Wood O.B.E. (my reference number 33), but my main critic deleted it on the grounds that it was original research, and argued that anything from the 1950's was old, out-of-date, and therefore unreliable, but then used one of his lectures from 1941, ten years earlier, (their reference number 5), on the grounds that he was a most prestigious expert who worked in the hospital, in the department which specialised in the treatment of that very condition.

 

Shortly before I was banned, my other critic, Gordonofcartoon, sent me a sly threat - 'Do we want to up the ante', and I gave an equivalent reply - 'Do you want me to teach you a lesson that you won't forget in a hurry'

He called my response an "unspecified threat' and managed to get me banned for being uncivil? before I had the opportunity to teach them a lesson.

Here is a lesson - If you don't know what you are talking about - keep our silly trap shut, or somebody who does know what they are talking about will shut it for you.

 

 

Pathological liars

A pathological liar is someone who characteristically tells so many lies that they lose track of them all and end up contradicting themselves. My two critics would tell lies, and when I provided evidence that they weren't telling the truth they would tell a bigger lie. On other occasions they would completely ignore the evidence and set up a new discussion page and tell a new group of editors the same lie. Another example is where they would change the subject and tell a set of lies about something completely different until they were accusing me of violating almost every policy in Wikipedia. They would argue that I was blathering on about Harvard professors AND then argue that I was using unreliable sources of information, and then they would add a link to a children's story and later argue that I was stupid for criticising them, and they would lose the argument about that novel and tell another group of editors that they won it. They would work together against me on virtually every discussion for 12 months and then tell the other editors that they were not tag-teaming against me. They would claim to be rule-abiding editors and then give an outlaw halo award to a friend of theirs for using the "ignore all rules" policy.

The following words are a quote from a website about The Pathological Liar Syndrome . . .

"Pathological liars are often defined as people who lie continually to get their way, with little or no concern for other people. Although the term is not an official clinical diagnosis for a mental disorder, many researchers believe that chronic lying in adults represents an antisocial personality disorder . . . People who actually have pathological liar syndrome might be described as sociopaths, who act in deceitful and manipulative ways, with no regard for the rights and feelings of others . . . Pathological liars will change their story all the time when questioned about certain details. They will begin contradicting the things they have said, because they lose track of the lies they have told . . . There are many reasons people become pathological liars. They might have a low self-esteem and feel they have to prove that they are better than everyone else. They might be depressed about their lack of accomplishments in life. Or they could be bordering on a criminal mentality, lying just to get what they want."

See here http://www.ehow.com/about_4865966_pathological-liar-syndrome.html

 

I was truly astonished by the massive number of lies that my two critics told for 12 months, and as a matter of curiosity I wondered what made them think that they could get away with it. I am just the messenger here, and am describing each of their lies one at a time, and providing the evidence and proof. As I have said to several friends of mine, it is like watching a couple of clown fish in an aquarium. They have got nowhere to run and nowhere to hide, and their attempts are a source of amusement.

 

I have often heard the saying - "they don't want the facts to get in the way of their stories", but I have never seen an example in real life that comes even close to being as appropriate as it is to the yarns that have been spun by my two critics.

 

A comment on Rewriting history by the editor who banned me from Wikipedia

The name of the editor who banned me was Moreschi as per his words on the Requests for Arbitration page on 28-1-09 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397 . . . and followed up on 29-1-09here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=267259599

You can also see that Moreschi has not made any contributions to Wikipedia in the ten weeks since 11-2-09 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moreschi

His general criticism of contributors who he describes as "nationalists" is an example of his attitude toward anyone else who tampers with the verifiable facts of history, and can seen on one of his discussion pages here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Moreschi/The_Plague&diff=252382144&oldid=237936534

These are his exact words . . . "As Muhammad once said, I believe, the nationalist is he who supports his people in an unjust cause". "On Wikipedia, this translates to rewriting history, and tampering with facts and verified information"

On that basis he should have banned my two critics for "tampering with . . . verified information" etc.

 

Gordonofcartoon's double standards about Rewriting history

Gordonofcartoon has had an ongoing interest in an article about Gibraltar, and has recently objected to other editors deleting information and, in effect, rewriting the history about that topic. These were his words "Dearodear . . . And 'just after the majority of the Spanish population left in 1704. They just left? They thought one day, 'Bit bored living here, lets go somewhere else.' I suppose?" signed Gordonofcartoon 19:03, 7 March 2010.

That is an example of his double standards where he was deleting verifiable information from the history of Da Costa's syndrome, but later pretending to be prim and proper and self righteous by subjecting another editor to mockery for deleting verifiable information about the history of Gibraltar.

 

Types of History - and Original Research?

My critics have made the rather ridiculous accusation that my report on the history of Da Costa's syndrome is original research.

However, original research involves doing something for the first time, such as looking into a microscope and finding a new bacteria, and then drawing a conclusion from one persons point of view. Wikipedia gives the example of "An account of an accident written by a witness" which is a primary source of information about the accident" . . . and . . . "secondary sources are at least one step removed from the event" . . . and include articles or reviews which report, evaluate, or explain multiple primary sources.

I have reported on the history according to many researchers such as Sir James MacKenzie, who independently reviewed and summarised the major research findings for the period 1863 to 1916, and Caughey who reviewed the literature of internal medicine in 1939, and Oglesby Paul who covered the research from 1863 to 1987, and Charles Wooley who reviewed the period 1863 to 2006 etc. I have also considered the information provided by Paul Dudley White who studied it for 50 years, and I have looked at the information provided by patients in the 20 year follow up study of Wheeler etc.

 

By contrast there are other ways of writing history

For example you can write it from an exclusively modern point of view with information coming from dictionaries and websites which contain only one or two sentences or paragraphs of information, or from one organisations or one countries point of view, or from one specialty such as cardiology, neurology, or psychology, or you can do it from the civilian literature, or, the military literature, or from post war studies which only relate to about 1% of the patients, or you can write about it from the older, or current official point of view, or you can refer to a research paper that reports on ten studies, and mention only one of them.

In order to consider the criticism objectively it needs to be noted that WhatamIdoing was editing the page when it had only four lines of text, and no references, and I started adding information and continued until there were 65 references about every aspect. WhatamIdoing has gone through that information and taken out anything and everything to make it suit WhatamIdoings point of view. That isn't any type of research , and it isn't history - it is WhatamIdoing's personal POV/Pushing

This is what Wikipedia says about Neutral Point of View Policy . . . "All Wikipedia articles, and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

My main critics complete failure to comprehend the basic principles and values of history can be seen in their following interpretation of Wikipedia's purpose . . . "our goal is to provide the sum of all human knowledge—but not the full list of wikt:summands and a catalog of the operations undertaken to produce the sum. You might like to read WP:What Wikipedia is not, particularly "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2010 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Existence_≠_Notability&diff=prev&oldid=362527188

Leap Frog History

Leap frog history is a way of writing history which shows a similarity from one time to another but completely erases massive gaps of important information that is necessary to get a proper understanding of the subject. In the case of Da Costa's syndrome history the leap is more than 100 years of scientific discoveries, which, in Wikipedia, appears not to have existed.

I spent about 12 months providing Wikipedia with an account of the history of Da Costa's syndrome from 1864 through to 2008 here. They kept the early period from 1864 to 1876, and deleted the information about the next 132 years, and replaced it with the following 11 words -

Since 1876: "a variety of similar or partly similar conditions have been described."herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214#History

NPOV means the 'neutral point of view' as required by Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy

In the past 140 years there have been more than 100 different labels and theories about Da Costa's syndrome, so any sensible person who was writing the history of the topic would need to give a balanced view of 'all' of them. However, my two critics would tell me that they had found a dictionary which contained a small paragraph of information that 'considered' it to be an 'anxiety disorder'. They also linked the article to a childrens story called 'Soldier's heart', and used a reference to a journal which called it a 'post-war syndrome'. They then argued that their quaint interpretation of policy required me to write the history of the topic based on the 'modern' understanding of the disorder, and made it clear that, in their opinion, I was only permitted to trace the origin of the anxiety and post-war ideas and delete all the others.

I replied by suggesting that if they thought it was an anxiety disorder they should set up a Wikipedia page called "Anxiety Disorders" and write the history of anxiety theories. Also, if they thought it was a post-war syndrome, then they should set up a page with that title and write the history of post-war syndromes, and then they wouldn't need to delete everything else from the Da Costa's page. One of them described my suggestion as 'stupid'.

They also went about telling all of the other editors that I was giving undue weight to verifiable scientific evidence, and not giving a neutral point of view.
Their contrived interpretation of neutral point of view is that it is acceptable to give readers the false impression that Da Costa's syndrome is a condition that only affects soldiers, and reasonable to remove information about it being common in civilians and women who have never been to war.

The title of the page was "Da Costa's syndrome", and the name of the section was called "history", so I wrote the history of Da Costa's syndrome and they were trying their hardest to turn it into the history of something else. (The title of the page was determined by someone else a year before I started on the topic, and the title of history was given to the secion by one of my critics. I just wrote the history which was relevant, but they complained incessantly about it.
See their POV pushing here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa%27sSynd%20Wikiwebpa2.html#anchor1214728

 

The reliability of my old history references?

When I started reading the research journals for information about Da Costa's syndrome I eventually reached the limits of knowledge, beyond which nothing more was available, and there wasn't an effective method of controlling the symptoms or curing the problem, so I started looking elsewhere for 'clues'. At some stage I bought an old medical book at a garage sale that was printed at the turn of the century, and I noted that it had information that was widely accepted as fact at that time, but has since been completely forgotten, such as the fact that the majority of nineteenth and early twentieth century women wore extremely tight waisted corsets, and would often experience palpitations, breathlessness, and faintness, and would become faint and exhausted in response to the slightest exercise, or during hot weather, and that they would relieve their fainting spells by unlacing their corsets and laying on 'chaise lounges'. I naturally became interested in the history of medicine and began buying more old books from antique shops or sales, and by borrowing them from the crypts of state or university libraries. I spent some time reading 17th century books and translations of older and ancient texts. I used that information to solve some of the mysteries of the condition.

When I saw Wikipedia I noted that it invited people to add useful information that was not already there, so I did, but I soon had two critics who started complaining that my sources were out-of-date and obsolete, and that the only thing they would accept as references must have been published in the mainstream literature in the most recent five years.

They say that there are people who are more foolish than that who believe everything they read on the front page of this morning's newspaper, or that it is a good idea to bulldoze some piles of old rocks called the pyramids.

 

Facts are Superior to Opinion

The facts;"The first world war saw an amazing degree of concern for the syndrome described by Da Costa. Some of the best medical brains in Britain were recruited to study the problem". Reference: Paul O. (1987) Da Costa's syndrome of neurocirculatory asthenia, British Heart Journal, Vol 58, No.4, p.308

The opinion; This is what one of my two critics wrote . . . Da Costa's syndrome is " a vague nineteenth century syndrome . . .It's overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia, so we can't justify investing several editors' time and energy turning it into a little gemof an article." etc signed WhatamIdoing 2:25, 18 May 2008.

 

It would be easy for the History section to be published on another page

The main arguments of my two critics are that the article is too long, or that the information is out-of-date, or not representative of a neutral point of view . However those issues could be easily resolved if a separate page was set up called "The Research History of Da Costa's Syndrome". All of the history items could be deleted and transferred there and linked. That would immediately reduce the size of the page by half, and would make it irrelevant to refer to the information as out-of-date. My critics could then discuss the information, and, if they could show that some of it was wrong, they could delete it, and if they thought it was not a balanced view, they could add whatever they wished from sources that they thought were relevant, without having to delete anything.

However, my two critics obviously don't want to discuss anything, or make any compromises, because all they want in Wikipedia is their own point of view.

To consider the potential of a separate page for the history section see the start here

Wikipedia and the content controlling edit war lords?
The photo of the cattle at the top of the Civil POV pushing page refers to readers and new contributors as cattle (easily led) See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing&diff=prev&oldid=268277856

 

Introduction to the POV accusation

For 12 months my two critics in Wikipedia deleted all clear scientific evidence of the physical causes of the four main symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome, and used policy reasons as their excuse, and each time I added more, they replaced it with obscure jargon and imprecise psychosomatic interpretations. However, with regard to policy, they argued, in particular, that I was violating Neutral Point of View guidelines (NPOV) by adding information that I regarded as vital to understanding the topic, but they were then violating the same policy by replacing it with information that favored and emphasised their own opinion.

When you read their words below, which I have cut and pasted from the Wikipedia POV discussion page, please note that I have repeatedly criticised them for their double standards in the past, insofar as they expect other people to comply with Wikipedia policies, but they don't comply themselves e.g. here and here

 

The POV Accusation

As you will soon see, the double standards blatantly apply to the NPOV policy. However, please first consider the discussion starting on the 15-5-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Physical_v_psychosomatic . . .

Note that WhatamIdoing, the self-described "instant expert" with the self-professed "annoyingly high IQ", has agreed with me that the symptoms are due to a "physical" problem, but then demonstrates a personal POV by cherrypicking one of Jenny King's research papers and agreeing with, and therefore favoring it over all others. WhatamIdoing adds that "HVS explains all of the symptoms" . . . but does not mention that many other theories "explain all of the symptoms", and that not everyone agrees with WhatamIdoing and Jenny Kings POV.

WhatamIdoing then goes on to to express the opinion that DCS is a "sloppy diagnosis", but that is very offensive way of describing the first detailed description of the condition which distinguished the symptoms from heart disease. WhatamIdoing then adds that the label has gone out of fashion because there is now a better understanding of the disorder with more precise diagnoses, but does not say what the "precise" diagnoses were. However, there is just as much confusion about the cause of the DCS symptoms nowadays as there has ever been. Furthermore, according to WhatamIdoing here and elsewhere, the modern diagnoses are mixed in with "imprecise" and "poorly characterised" post-war and post-traumatic stress disorders, and several unspecified anxiety disorders??? and is "generally considered" to be psychosomatic - and the words "generally considered to be" mean - not everyone is convinced of it.

WhatamIdoing also repeatedly makes contradictory comments about what Da Costa's syndrome is called nowadays, such as it is just "garden variety orthostatic intolerance and hyperventilation syndrome" here . . . and it is described as the same as several other conditions elsewhere.

WhatamIdoing then pushes the POV that the symptoms are due to "anxiety-related hyperventilation" without mentioning that there are other theories about the cause of HVS, or that there have been doubts about whether the physical aspect is cause or effect. Therefore WhatamIdoing has been giving undue weight to the anxiety cause, by excluding others, which is a violation of "WP:undue weight" guidelines here.

WhatamIdoing "the instant expert" then expresses another POV that "the cardiac symptoms look strikingly like Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome". Note that they would look "strikingly" similar to an "instant expert" who had just started to study the subject and "suddenly" noticed the similarity. It would also be classified as WhatamIdoing's personal 'opinion' which is also 'Original Research' which is a violation of OR policy. In other words it is an example of WhatamIdoing violating NOR (No Original Research) and NPOV.

WhatamIdoing's choice of sources and content are the "only" ones that get to stay in Wikipedia. However, I have been summarising "all" research, all labels, all theories, and all opinions to provide APOV - All Points Of View, and therefore a neutral point of view - NPOV, yet WhatamIdoing has accused me of pushing my own POV???? and violating NPOV????

My theory and research were deleted 12 months ago and I have since been writing the research history of Da Costa's syndrome, not just the nineteenth century history, not just the recent history, not just the psychiatric history, not just cardiology history, not just the HVS history, not just the military history, not just the civilian history, not just Paul Dudley White's history, and not just Oglesby Paul's history etc. but was providing a balanced summary of all of it.

 

Before reading any further I draw your attention to an aspect of the comments made by my two critics which present a typical example of how they carefully chose almost every word in every sentence to put a negative, derogatory, or trivialising spin on almost everything that I wrote in the previous twelve months of arguments that I actually won.
Notice also their arrogant and ill-mannered air of superiority and tone of condescension.
Their comments are therefore violations of WP:CIVIL policy (discussion must stick to the facts and be objective and courteous), and WP:NPA (No Personal Attacks - no derogatory remarks or insults) etc.

My first critics remarks; Their ID code is WhatamIdoing:

I have highlighted their choice of deliberately offensive and derogatory words in bold print . . .

"This is, in the grand scheme of things, 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. His real article, called The posture theory, was deleted as non-notable through AfD. A few days later, he 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, so 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. 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.

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. 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, and he's undeterred in his overall goal.

But what sort of support do we get from the broader community? We get responses that add up to "Y'all play nice, now." "It's a content dispute: you should 'work for a consensus'." "You could just keep removing the stuff he adds; it's not like your time and energy is worth anything." "Surely nobody would deliberately add original research, because adding 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? Unless I'm willing to undertake a concerted campaign to drive away the editor by convincing him that Wikipedia is controlled by a particularly rude version of the Wicked Witch of the West, then 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.

And that, BTW, 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 he 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. We need another solution." WhatamIdoing 02:25, 18 May 2008  

 

MY RESPONSE TO MY FIRST CRITICS ESSAY

1. When my critic refers to this as a "minor case" in the "grand scheme of things", they are trying to understate their major attempt to discredit me for the past 12 months, and it took that long because they kept on losing most of the arguments.

2. When they refer to me as a "single-purpose account" they are trying to create the false impression that I only have only one topic of interest. However I have many interests and my 1000 page book refers to dozens of ailments. They don't just want to stop me from contributing to the Da Costa's topic page, but to all medical pages, and they have just banned me permanently.

They are also saying that people, such as myself, who have had a lot of knowledge and experience with a subject, are not good sources of information for Wikipedia, while my critics should be able to dictate what information gets into Wikipedia on the basis of their newly acquired "instant expertise"??? as mentioned here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=247115577&oldid=247067496

They also expect new contributors, such as myself, to write about subjects that they have no knowledge of, and are not interested in, presumably because that it the only way that my critics - the "instant experts" or "Jacks of all trades" are ever going to win content arguments.

When they say that I added a couple of references to the Wikipedia page each week they are not telling you that it is the way I do most essays, and that it also provided my two critics with the opportunity to add information which they thought was relevant during the week, but 95% of the time they chose to do nothing except criticise me. (The reason that they didn't want to mix their information with my "scientific references", was because the evidence sheds doubt on their account of the condition).

When they say that my book was expensive they are not telling you that the sales price was established to pay for the cost of printing, binding, and postage, with no profit being made.

When they say that The Posture Theory was deleted as being non-notable on AFD they are not giving a link to the discussion. here it is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_posture_theory
&diff=prev&oldid=174977810

Note that I answered all of the editors questions fully and courteously, and then they said "We just need dates, titles (and most preferably links to online versions of all of this) so it can actually be verified that everything you said is true". Note that they wanted proof online but such information was not available for articles written in newspapers 30 years ago, so I provided them with the name of a journalist and the phone number of the newspaper and they deleted the article anyway. They did not say that the decision was that the article was not notable because, after me providing that information they would have looked ridiculous. They finished the discussion with the words "Close discussion:Delete" and did not specify a reason. Also when I later provided online proof by putting a scanned copy of one of the newspaper articles on my website they should have said "ONLINE PROOF PROVIDED AS REQUESTED - THANKYOU - ARTICLE ACCEPTED", however they changed their attitude and have since repeatedly argued that it was proof of conflict of interest, and self-identification, and self-promotion etc. - their hippocracy is blatant, offensive, and ridiculous e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_23.

3. When they say that no editor has ever supported my viewsthey are not telling you that before my name was mentioned on the Da Costa's page, many editors were enthusiastically co-operating with me, and since then an editor named SmokeyJoe has said that my references are not insignificant here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Posturewriter . . .

In addition to those comments another editor named Guide Den Broeder read my contributions and described me as an expert, AND WhatamIdoing has referred to me as an expert in some arguments against me e.g. here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Posturewriter&diff=prev&oldid=225855935 . . .

However, when SmokeyJoe assessed my contributions as those of "well qualified academic" WhatamIdoingrushed in to say that I was just a field sports coach in the research project herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#RE:_Responses_to_comments_to_
User:SmokeyJoe.E2.80.99s_suggested_outcome

(I was actually the designer and co-ordinator of a medical research programme, and another person was delegated the role of field instructor.

They are also not telling you that I often found NPOV editors who agreed that my contributions were complying with all policy e.g. in the third paragraph here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter . . . with the words "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 (97 different sources quoted!!), or biased", and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Posturewriter/DaCostaDraft&diff=prev&oldid=243449158, with the words "This article may well come under more scrutiny than many other articles written on Wikipedia so do be prepared for lots of suggestions. However, at the end of it all I really believe we can produce a brilliant article. Keep up the good work! " , . . Such favorable words were undermined by my critics who spent a lot of time criticisng the NPOV editors, and referring to them as being medically ignorant and not expert enough in the topic area to be able to judge the merits of the evidence e.g. in the fourth paragraph herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter

However it was not their role to assess just content, but to also assess layout, presentation, referencing , verifiablity, neutrality, and the appropriateness in relation to the relevant policies.

They are also not telling you that the fundamental principles of Wikipedia are superior to the policies, and that the information is supposed to become superior to printed encyclopedias by getting it from "all" sources, not just "medical sources", and that the only way of complying with neutral point of view policy (NPOV) is to include "all" information, not just one side of any ten sided story. They are also not telling you that Wikipedia invites "all" members of the public to contribute, not just cherry-picked individuals with particular backgrounds and associated bias.

When they refer to my "non-mainstream" ideas they are referring to my suggestion from "the Posture Theory" that poor posture compresses the ribs and makes the muscles between them tender and prone to occasional sharp chest pains etc and that poor posture also compresses the lungs and strains the breathing muscles to produce a tendency to sighing respiration etc. By contrast one of their favorite mainstream ideas is a highly complicated mix of obscure contradictory arguments such as there is no heart disease therefore the pain is imaginary and must be caused by anxiety, a fear of heart disease, and subconscious psychological problems that are so mysterious that nobody can find them. The editors are trying to bury their ideas in jargon such as "somatoform autonomic dysfunction" etc, that normal readers would have no hope of understanding or questioning, and would therefore be expected to blindly believe.

4.When they are referring to Da Costa's syndrome as "a vague 19th century syndrome" they are deliberately misrepresenting a condition that is so clear and distinct that in 1987, more than 100 yearsafter it was first identified, Oglesby Paul wrote "It is important to be able to recognise the condition irrespective of the label used. The diagnosis is usually not difficult for an interested reasonably inteligent physician" here http://heart.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/4/306 . . . and it affects 2-4% of the population and has been subject to major debates during that time re; is it heart disease or not, is it mental or physical etc. (note that 2-4% of the population is 200 to 400 million people globally)

They also don't want readers to know that it is now mixed in with the common labels of chronic fatigue syndrome because they don't want to add to the existing controveries on that topic, or have those groups of individuals having a closer look at the evidence from history. They also don't want you to know about the disputes because Wikipedia "all" points of view, "especially" with "controversial" topics.

They also don't want you to know that the arguments of history were "heated" because they don't want you to realise that anyone who presents information on the topic is likely to get hostile responses from a whole host of individuals with strong bias or prejudices. re; they don't want you to notice that their hostile responseto me is the result of them having a strong POV or undisclosed COI. i.e. they want you to think that their criticism of me is purely objective so that you will focus on possible faults in me, and that you don't stop to take a close look at their motives.

An example of desperate measures at removing the information can also be seen in a series of anonymous vandalistic deletions which started on 9-5-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=210262939 . . . soon after gordonofcartoon added the cruft, or rubbish comment on the page. see more details here

They also say that I am promoting my own ideas when in fact they deleted all information about it twelve months ago and I haven't put it back. However someone else established the Da Costa page, and after I started adding to it someone else gave it a subsection with the title of "history". When they deleted my research they said thatthey appreciated my other contributions herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#I.27m_going_to_go_read_WP:CIVIL_now . . . so I started adding to the history section by basing my contributions on the information provided in J.M.DaCosta's original research paper of 1871. I then proceeded to fill in the gaps in the history of research by referring to the findings of 60 different medical researchers from all medical specialties, with the aim of eventually having the most important findings and ideas arranged in a clear and logical chronological order, and tracing it through the changes in labelling to 2008. They don't tell you that they were sysetmatically removing all information that they didn't want the readers to see and replacing it with information that supported their POV. They were invited to do their own account of the article for comparison but they refused to do that by aguing that they didn't have the time because they were too busy editing other articles. They also don't tell you that their idea of history only includes the period from 1863 to 1900 which I wrote and they tried to discredit.

5. When they say it is generally considered an anxiety or psychosomatic disorder, they are not telling readers that there have been more than 100 theories and labels about it for the past 100 years, and vast amounts of evidence of physical cause have been found e.g. here http://heart.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/58/4/306. The editors have been deleting all significant evidence of physical cause on the basis that the scientific evidence from the past is "old" "out of date", "obsolete" or "superceded". I have told them many times before that research papers from the past are acceptable in history sections for "obvious" reasons according to Wikipedia Sourcing policy, but they just ignore that and pretend that they haven'l lost that argument many times in the past 12 months. Other editors have told them the same thing e.g. at the top
of WhatamIdoing's talk page here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter

Note also, in 1947 a researcher finally found the real physical cause of the breathlessness of DaCosta's syndrome which was abnormal function of the breathing muscle here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=186305009. Confirmation of that discovery disproved the previous ideas that it was just 'subjective' or 'imaginary' and the fact that the breathlessness is physically based will never change. It had a proven physical cause in 1947, is still the same symptom with the same cause in 2009, and will still be the same in 2050. WhatamIdoing has removed that reference, and therefore the evidence of that fact twice e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=190462118&oldid=190379699, and keeps on inferring that the sighing respiration is due to anxiety induced hyperventilation. If readers were informed of the breathing abnormality at least half of them would have enough sense to question the anxiety theories, but WhatamIdoing obviously wants Wikipedia readers to blindly believe the anxiety theory without questioning them, and so deliberately removes the evidence that sheds doubt on it. It is the equivalent of treating Wikipedia readers with contempt, as if they are cattle to be herded, or mushrooms to be farmed, re; kept in the dark and fed on b.s. Wikpedia readers are not a crop of mushrooms, and editors such as WhatamIdoing should not be allowed to use Wikipedia as their own private mushroom farm. (does WhatamIdoing have a degree in social engineering???, and is someone paying WhatamIdoing to sit on the computer for up to 16 hours a day and do up to 100 edits or more a day??? and 20,000 edits in four years. Are we all supposed to believe without question that all that activity is voluntary???? or should intelligent people consider the possibility that they may be establishing a reputation for service and integrity so that they can control content - if and when necessary - and when they are criticised by people like me they come up with the innocent, sanctimonious argument - "Are you question my integrity?" etc. Anyone who isn't naive would question the motives of such an editor, and it is not uncivil to ask that question. It is common sense.

Also, even if there is no money involved, the selective nature of the editing and the hostility of the response indicate some sort of prejudice or bias that could be related to their health status, class, educational qualificatons, and or professional or group affiliations.

Finally, WhatamIdoing has previously received a medical trophy for a Wikipedia article on fatigue herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Fatigue, and would therefore be bringing a personal POV to this subject, given that DCS involves chronic fatigue.

5B. Note also that WhatamIdoing has criticised me several times with the derisive arguments that"old" in one quote, and "obsolete" in another, and "out-of-date"in another, because they were published more than ten years ago, and, yet again, as quoted above "Of course, the condition is entirely superseded, so most of the refs are from before most editors were born", and again from the arbitration page where he told the other editors that my contributions were poor quality because some of my references (about the history of DCS) were "from nearly a century ago". However, if you look at the reference list on the Da Costa's page of 2-2-09 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=268043151&oldid=266976152#References, which they apparently find acceptable, you can see that nine of the eighteen references were published between 1871 and 1993, but because they are being used to suit WhatamIdoing's point of view they have not been deleted. That is just one of my criticis many double standards, but they predictably argue that their use of "old" references is justifiable for "different" "policy" reasons, and they will try and convince me and you that I am not intelligent enough to understand the difference.

5C. Note my critics excessive emphasis on all things psychological on the Da Costa's syndrome article page, and their preference for the W.H.O. use of "Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction" . . . That is jargon that no-one is supposed to understand, but the word somatoform essentially means "imaginary" which contradicts the scientific evidence of physical cause that WhatamIdoing is selectively deleting. The whole terminology is also generally regarded as "wastebasket"diagnosis e.g. in the second last paragraph of this section here

Note that patients are not rubbish just because it is deemed "official" . . . "scientific" . . . "opinion", and it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to be used as a waste bin for humans. It is also not their place to exclude the opinion of medical consumers. WhatmIdoing has also added victim blaming exercisesby referring in an oblique way to "compensation", and implying that patients are faking the symptoms to get sympathy or monetary gain, and WhatamIdoing should stop adding victim blaming double talk to the notes in the references by referring to DCS patients as cowards who need to be given dignity e.g. in reference number 4. here . The editors of Wikipedia need to stop acting like intellectual cowards by excluding the opinion of medical consumers, and start winning their arguments on the basis of merit, instead of by stealth and default. You can see the evidence in the history of edits for the Da Costa's syndrome page between late December 2007 and December 2008.

6. When they say it is "overall an unimportant article" that they could turn into "a little gem of an article" they are choosing their words to deviously downplay a major topic of heated debates and controversy for 100 years, and want other Wikipedia editors and readers to think that it is trivial so that nobody reads the evidence. It is the equivalent of them trying to convince you that the model T-Ford is overall an unimportant motor vehicle in the history of human transportation, but we could turn it into a quaint little match box toy to amuse children.

7. When they imply that the information that I provided for the article page is "actively wrong", and that there are more important articles such as meningitis or mental health for them to consider, they are simply trying to trivialise the topic that was already in Wikipedia before I started on it, and that they have put an enormous amount of time into trying to argue about, and losing. They haven't provided any evidence that the information is wrong because they can't. They just expect the readers to believe their casual statement as if the pearls of wisdom and drips of honesty and innocence flow from their slippery brows.

Also, when they say that it is their goal to produce an article on DCS that is "not actively wrong" they are not telling you that they have always had the opportunity to modify it, or abbreviate it, or to provide their own references and comments. However, they chose to delete my contributions in whole slabs. Also, since then, they have had the opportunity to present their version of the topic but refused. They argue that they haven't got time to do a few pages about the topic, yet they have had the time to do more than 100 pages of criticising.

Furthermore, you also need to know that they want you to believe that Da Costa's syndrome is generally regarded as an anxiety or mental disorder. They are not telling you that they are deleting all significant evidence of physical cause to give you that impression. By contrast I have been writing the whole "history" of DCS, not just the history of ideas taken from psychology journals, or journals that have that bias. There have, in fact. been 100 years of heated debates about the cause of DCS, and more than 100 labels and ideas on cause. They are trying to convince you that my account of the whole history of DCS is "actively wrong", and that their account of the modern psychological theories is the only correct way of writing about the history of the subject.

They are also trying to convince you that the history of the topic is "cruft" which is their word for too much detail, with a sweeping broom symbol on the note to carry the dual insult of rubbish e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&dif
f=208737181&oldid=208705270 . . .

The entire page of information was then slab deleted by anonymous vandals shortly afterwards here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=210262939 . . . and the two editors said that they weren't the anonymous editors, and that they didn't know who they were, and criticised me for asking the question, and later argued that I had falsely accused them of using anonymous editors as their sockpuppets on the RFC page item 3 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Evidence_of_disputed_behavior

>My critics described it as cruft again here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=212440419

However, they have left the early discussion from 1863 to 1900 and deleted everything from 1900 to 2008 e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=212440419&oldid=211817271

They want you to believe that their motive was to give the original history a fair showing, when if fact it is just there as a misleading token, They also want you to believe that they deleted the information from 1900 onwards because it was a nice rounded date at the end of the century. In fact they cherrypicked that time because the next entry referred to the 1916 observations of Sir James MacKenzie who described the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins, which results in an inefficient return of blood to the heart and brain causing problems with exercise, and tiredness. That is significant information about the physcial basis of the symptoms which I previously added here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=211817271&oldid=211269450.

WhatamIdoing does not want you to know that the whole purpose of the past 100 years of research was to determine whether the symptoms were real or imaginary, and physical or mental, and that the real physical basis of most of the symptoms has already been found.

For example researchers in the 1940's discovered abnormal function of the breathing muscle which proved that the breathlessness was physical not mental, and "objective" and not just "subjective". i.e. "real" and not "imaginary" e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=186305009&oldid=185756410

WhatamIdoing has selectively deleted that information several times on the trumped up grounds that it was "old", "out-of-date", or "cruft" (rubbish - because it was too much detail that wasn't necessary or relevent to modern theories, and that modern readers didn't need to know and wouldn't be interested in it anyway).\

After carefully deleting all of the scientifically proven evidence of physical cause WhatamIdoing then replaced it with the modern opinion that DCS is a type of "somatoform autonomic dysfunction". The word "somatoform" is generally used as a synonym for "imaginary", and the term "somatoform autonomic dysfunction" is rarely used and is "officially" recognised and defined, but for all other intents and purposes it is generally regarded as a "wastebasket" label for patients who have illnesses that the doctor doesn't understand.

Wikipedia is supposed to be written in plain English so that ordinary people can understand it, and I have previously criticised WhatamIdoing for trying to bury the subject in jargon. WhatamIdoing lost that argument, and responded by changing the subject and accusing me of policy violations. When I asked members of the general public if they knew the meaning of the term "somatoform autonomic dysfunction" none of them could tell me.

8. When they say that I have finally given up getting my name and website into the article they are trying to create the false illusion that I am trying hard to add information to Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes - which I am not.

They have slab deleted all information about my research and ideas twice in the past, and completely disregarded all discussion about it. Guido den Broeder told them that there had been no information about me or my ideas in Wikipedia for six months on a previous COI page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Posturewriter&diff=prev&oldid=225855935, so they did not have a case of Conflict of Interest against me. I haven't bothered to replace the information for the past year because it isn't necessary, and because if I did my two critics would immediately delete it anyway. I am writing about other peoples research in the history section etc, all properly supported by top quality references. Also if I wanted to promote myself I would have put an identifying photo on the cover, or in the pages of my 1000 page book, but I didn't. My critics are also trying to portray me as a person who gives up easily, when they are actually making a habit of giving up in all evidence based arguments against me, and resorting to policy, spin and trickery, and going to as many other discussion pages to get as many of their friends as possible to help them block me. There is only one of me and they have recruited at least twenty of their friends to help them win arguments againts me. I prefer to deal with these things on my own, but they always work as a team of two and desperately search far and wide for more help. Also when one of them says HVS is ES, and the other says it isn't, I don't have to argue because they defeat themselves. Also they started one of the COI pages with the statement "is this close enough to COI", which means "No! it is not COI" . . . In order to clarify how absurd that is I can give you a similar example; They would argue that you was doing 55 km/hr in a 60 km/hr speed zone, and then ask the judge if it was close enough to breaking the speed limit for him you to have your drivers licence suspended for life.

9. When they say that I am violating COI policy (Conflict of Interest), they are not telling you that all information about my ideas was deleted a year ago, and they are not mentioning these previous quotes from another editor that can be seen by scrolling down to the relevant dates here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232 . . . "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. Guido den Broeder 17:29, 20 May 2008" . . . and a few days later . . . "I see nothing in his recent contributions that is related to his personal theory. Most of these diffs are ancient." Guido den Broeder 17:24, 20 May 2008".

My critics are telling you that I am deliberately using Wikipedia to promote myself, when I am repeatedly telling them that I don't want my name mentioned unless I say so, because I prefer privacy, and they are using my name at the top of discussion pages, or deliberately archiving their own page so that my Wikipedia ID is at the top e.g. here . . . where all their friends can see them making personal attacks on me, and, that placement is an obvious tactic aimed at getting their friends to join in the criticism. They have mentioned my real name at the top of the first page of criticism against me, and named my theory, and linked to my website many more than I have mentioned it myself e.g. herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_
syndrome_take_.232

They have taken every opportunity to induce other editors into demanding that I provide more information about myself under the pretense of revealing my COI. It has been obvious to me that they want to get as much information as possible to harass me. They then keep up their nonsense arguments which I paraphrase "See - told ya so, this is just another example of Posturewriter being "self-identifed" (with the snide innuendo of - for self-promotion purposes).

Also note that I have told them before that when they started asking for information about me the only way of providing it was by placing a new section about myself of my own website for them to see, and when they started deleting the information that I have provided for Wikipedia, I started putting it onto my website because I have no intentions of wasting it. I then started adding full reviews on my website so that I could abbreviate them later for wikipedia, and they have been arguing that I have been using wikipedia as a dumping ground for my reviews.

10. When they say that I am adding bona fide references it is true. All 60 of the references are in accordance with wikipedia sourcing policy requirements. Most are exceptional quality such as those of Sir James MacKenzie, and Sir Thomas Lewis who were knighted for their contributions to medicine, and Paul Dudley White, and other scholars and professors from Harvard Medical school etc.

However, when they say I am only using those that support my own views, they are not telling you that I added reference to J.M.DaCosta's original research papercalled "On Irritable heart", because they didn't, and that they got their favorite label "Soldiers Heart" from the title of a childrens fiction novel, and moved it into a position of prominence at the top of the page by using "hatnote policy" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=215793876&oldid=215793297.

I have added sixty good quality references from all types of sources, which represents all points of view, and therefore Neutral Points of View(NPOV), and my main critic, WhatamIdoing has only added 12 references in 12 months, including some which were simple definitions from dictionaries or websites, and the remaining nine had psychiatric labels in the name of the article or journal, and represent "extreme bias", and contain notes which are 'victim blaming exercises", and they exclude the opinion of medical consumers. My critics are brazenly violating NPOV policy with their twelve cherry picked references, while putting a spin on their actions by accusing me of violating it when I used 60 references from all sources, including theirs. For example, when I saw their link to Oglesby Paul's article in the reference list, I read it, and provided a one page review of his ten page article about the complex history of of Da Costa's syndrome, and they deleted it, and replaced it with one sentence about anxiety here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=190379699&oldid=190352656 , and they continued to misrepresent the article again six months later here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome#Oglesby_Paul

11. When they say that the evidence that I am providing from history has been superseded, they are trying to hide the fact that the evidence of history discredits a lot of modern ideas, and they are virtually trying to convince readers that history can be properly understood by reading this mornings newspaper. They are also expecting you to believe that scientific facts that have been erased from history, or erased from Wikipedia, are no longer scientific facts.

12.They move along to imply that I am deliberately adding (*gasp* - their word) original research which they describe as a violation of OR policy (no Orignal Research allowed), and "of course all of this violates a variety of other policies". What they don't tell you is that after they deleted reference to my own research they added 'that they appreciated my other efforts". They obviously thought that I would not be able to add any more, so when I added a reference to a 1947 research paper on the proven physical cause of breathlessness, they accused me of violating Synthesis policy by adding information that supports my theory. I provided a reference which stated that breathlessness affected 93% of DCS patients and mentioned the obvious fact that every person who wrote about DCS would have to mention research studies related to that symptom, but they simply ignored that comment and deleted the information anyway. I then waited for them to add information and references to fill in the gaps in the history from 1863 to 1940, and from 1980 to 2008 but they did nothing. I therefore started. by adding references from the 1940's and they accused me of deliberately choosing papers that were old because they supported my theory. They then "moved the goalposts" and said that I must use only "secondary sources" of information which are reviews of research in reputable medical journals. When I added a 1998 review by Streeton in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is the most famous medical journal in the world, they deleted it because, according to them, Streeton was not an expert on the topic and it was just an op-ed item (opposite the editorial page).

They are also not telling you that when I read one of the links that they provided I found that it was an irrelevent children's fiction novel that wasn't suitable according to WP:MEDRS, and they said that reading it, and then giving my analysis of it was violating "original research" policy in item 4. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Evidence_of_disputed_behavior . . . What they are essentially saying is that they can put anything they want on the page and nobody is allowed to criticise it.

They are telling you that I have violated multiple policies, but what they are not telling you is that every time I comply with one policy they find an endless supply of other policies which they invent as their excuse to block my contributions, and they leave comments on policy pages to add or modify Wikipedia policies to suit the easy banning of SPA's in the future etc etc.

They have also written a lot of words trying to convince readers that they are policy experts, and that I have a poor understanding or comprehension of simple policies, when in fact, I fully understand how they are misrepresenting policy to deceive people and to block me. For example when they say repeatedly that I am violating Medical Sourcing policy by using \out-of-date references they are only quoting the main paragraphs of WP:MEDRS policy and not directing me or the other editors to paragraphs further down the policy page which state that older references are relevant to the history sections of article for OBVIOUS reasons. They even repeat that accusation again on the POV page with the words that you have just read . . . "Of course, the condition is entirely superseded, so most of the refs are from before most editors were born"

When they say that I don't understand the meaning of the word "consensus" they are not telling you that I studied Group Psychology at tertiary level for four years, and consensus is a feature of human group interaction. They are also not telling you that they have been tag teaming against me as a group of two so that they can always say that it is two to one againts me, when in fact it is one tag team against one person, and they frequently use the word "we" think this and "we" think that to create the illusion of greater support for their argument than actually exists. They also don't tell you that when they lose a case such as COI number one, they start up COI number two with words such as "can we revisit this one" here, and when they lost the case on the MFD page they say words such as "this failed on procedural grounds" and go onto an RFC page, without telling anyone that an editor who keeps bringing up new cases relentlessly is "forum shopping" which is a case of them violating guidelines of conduct, and they don't tell you about the general policy of acceptiing their defeat and moving on, instead of persisting relentlessly until they get the outcome they want. In fact, I have told editors that my recent banning has been the result of other editors violating RFC closing policy, and barging in on an orderly arbitration process to block it, and none of them has challenged me, presumably because they couldn't. They just ignore what I have said about them, and they ignore the fact that they have violated policy by using an administrator who they call the "cavalry", and ban me anyway.

13.They also falsely say, without evidence, that I am violating the truth, however, they are not saying what truth, because I have given factual and referenced information to Wikipedia which can be easily verified . . . and after they wrote volumes of words to convince everyone that I am the publisher of a thousand page book . . . they have the audacity to tell them that I am WP:COPYVIO - which means - breaching my own copyright??? - which is ridiculous.

In fact, at the end of a lengthy dicussion about the copyright accusation here Gordonofcartoon's exact words were "Since your identity was declared, the copyright issue has always been an irrelevancy", but they just keep bringing up the same arguments over and over again without any regard for how many times the subjects have been discussed before, and that they have lost repeatedly.

Furthermore, when WhatamIdoing argues that I have violated WP:RS policy it refers to Wikipedia Reliable Sources of information. What you were not told is that one of my sources was a Streeton review from the editorial section of the 1998 edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association, which WhatamIdoing described as an 11 year old op-ed piece written by a non-expert on the topic.

By contrast WhatamIdoing wanted to give prominence to the label of Soldier's Heart which is one of the many alternative labels for Da Costa's syndrome. That was achieved by moving a reference to a book by that title from the end of the Da Costa's page to the top line where it is the first thing that readers will see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=215793876&oldid=215793297. I therefore read it and found that it was irrelevant, but when I criticised them for using a Children's fiction novel as a reference they argued that I didn't understand hat note policy. They argued that hatnote policy was used to to help the blind and disabled navigate their way through Wikipedia to find articles with the same title here. Gordonfcartoon then added, poems, plays, and telemovies with that title to the linked page. You have also not been told that the "hatnote" has since been removed by another editor for being inappropriate and offensive.

Note that my two critics also know that I am older and more experienced at dealing with controversy than they are, but they have been choosing their words and using "spin" in an attempt to create the false impression that I am younger than they are, and that I have poor comprehension, and am emotionally fragile, and easily upset. An extreme example can be seen after I criticised them for using the childrens fiction novel as a reference for the medical page. Their "spin" involved making themselves look good by justifying their foolish actions with hatnote policy, and then they tried to make me look childlike and emotionally delicate by using the following words . . . "I just want to add that I'm sorry you read that book. Paulsen makes a living from writing deliberately depressing books to promote his anti-war/anti-military views. He has a particular talent for sympathetically disgusting descriptions. I have read about ten of them and only found one that was worth my time. They are, unfortunately, officially recommended or required reading in many, many American schools." WhatamIdoing 03:06, 30 June 2008

Note also that they then archived half the page so that their sentence was the last that readers would see at the end of the first 6 months of discussion. They were obviously attempting to leave a "lasting" false impression here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Comments_on_the_
novel_.E2.80.9CSoldier.E2.80.99s_Heart.E2.80.9D . . . My final comment is that if my critics were depressed by reading children's fiction they need to grow up, and if they are fond of childrens fiction novels they should edit childrens pages, not medical pages.

14. They then complain that their existing "Attitude Readjustment Tools" can't stop me in Australia, and link the text to a Lart webpage which refers to new editors as "newbies", and those who are adding information to Wikipedia which they don't want the readers to see are called "flame bait", and then they add links to "flame wars", and flame notices, posters or emails, where they leave the names of "newbies". so that their friends will see it. Those friends can then act as "flame throwers" or "cavalry" by coming from nowhere into an arbitration page and impose instant blocks under the presence of being completely independent and uninvolved or unbiased (to paraphrase "by the way I just happened to notice this page . . . it was just a coincidence, honest it was"). Am I supposed to assume that they are an eraser gang of juveniles in adult bodies, or perhaps they are trying to intimidate me with fairy tales or cryptic innuendo carrying the threat of coming to my own home to do me harm???? or getting their international friends to do so!!!!! Am I supposed to hire a bodyguard, or put a paper mache gnome on the front door mat???? Are they trying to make me anxious or paranoid, or are they generously giving me the opportunity of proving that they are a stupid gang of trolls????

15. The criticism just continues endlessly with spin after spin, and goes on to say "It's back at WP:COI/N for a second go-round" (it's actually the third time). They are not telling you that the "Conflict of Interest" page number one failed, and that my two critics had just lost an argument against me here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#WP:SYNTH.3F . . . by contradicting each other about Hyperventilation syndrome and the Effort Syndrome which I explained in the second comment here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Proposed_page_move . . . and that neither of them had read past the first paragraph of Rosen's research paper on the topic. The first critic Gordonofcartoon added several hundred words of criticism to the COI page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232 . . . and then the other critic named WhatamIdoing, who had been co-operating against me for months comes into the page and says with words that I paraphrase . . ."by the way, I have been away from Wikpedia for a while and just noticed this page by sheer coincidence - does any one mind me adding my 2c worth." . WhatamIdoing then adds several hundred more words of criticism faster than I cared to respond to, so I sat back and watched until the dust settled. After 5000 words of criticism another editor assumed that there was so much evidence against me that I could not possibly defend myself and decided that I must have breached COI. I then spent a week or so preparing a 2500 word defense from several weeks of notes (i.e. half as many words as my critics) here - and then, at the end of that essay Gordonofcartoon added the offensively dismissive remark "please cut this readable length", indicating that he had absolutely no intention of reading anything I put on the discussion page, and later implying that I didn't understand paragraph for paragraph discussion conventions.

16. In the last paragraph WhatamIdoing forecasts the intention "to team up with other disgusted editors to be so mean and rude to the SPA that he leaves in disgust", hence the forum shopping for help, and the insults continued. However, as I advised them, I have had 30 years of experience at dealing with controversial topics and am fully aware that some people will have strong views and will resort to insults. In Wikipedia the process of insulting a person for the purpose of making them leave is called trolling, and is a violation of several policies, including WP:CIVIL here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Civility&diff=279120817&oldid=279120346#Engaging_in_incivility.

Finally, when WhatamIdoing (a hostile critic) refers to my contributions as "nonsense", it needs to be put into context with an NPOV editors opinion here "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 (97 different sources quoted!!), or biased" here

Note that my statements about Da Costa's syndrome were actually based on 60 top quality references that are all verifiable. Hence, WhatamIdoing is trying to convince you that highly respected scientists in the history of research were writing nonsense???

My second critics remarks; his ID code is Gordonofcartoon:  

Seconded, and an update for general edification. 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) on Talk pages while the editor wrote a personal new draft of the article (critics unwelcome. Then he chose to put it back against consensus into mainspace. Finally I raised it at Requests for Arbitration. They were cautiously moving toward accepting before the cavalry arrived in the form of admins who were prepared to bring blocks, ultimately an indefinite one for disruptive
This has taken about a year to settle. 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 Critics, and inflammatory language like editor X's "web of deceit" and "juvenile duplicity" and editor Y "swinging through the wiki trees beating his breast and yelling his typical bark". And yet you get admins looking at this and saying stuff to the effect of "Oh, I don't see anything here that really constitutes an attack or "
And that's not even factoring in the exhausting effect of long-term contact with procedural nitpicking, obfuscation, lying by misquotation etc ("user A says and diff B that my article is wonderful", then you look at the diff and find it doesn't, or it has been quoted out of the context of other editors saying it was crap; so you say so, and get back 1500 words of WP:SOUP saying why it doesn't mean what it seems to mean, and how it's just another example of my critics using their tactics to silence me, and anyhow the procedure wasn't conducted properly because Bilbo von Booger who you got banned because he supported my case said at diff D that ... and .
As WhatamIdoing says, we need another solution. Gordonofcartoon 16:57, 3 February 2009

 

MY RESPONSE TO MY SECOND CRITICS ESSAY

 

1. My second critic Gordonofcartoon, comes to this page, not being aware of just how obvious it is that the two of them (Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing) have been ganging up on me from the start by arguing against me as a team. (They started the Da Costa's syndrome talk page, and added the first two paragraphs of criticism on 21-12 -07 here . . . and have made more than 95% of the criticism against me since, and started the final arbitration page against me here. This POV page is just another obvious example where they try to get other editors to believe them with great floods of unreferenced criticism on a page that they don't think I will notice, and was not told of, and where they think I won't have the opportunity

WhatamIdoings comments from last May (2008) escaped my notice until I found Gordonofcartoon adding comments on this POV page (in January 2009) after I had been banned, and that he assumed I would not be able to find or respond to - They often set up new discussion pages without telling me about them so that decisions will be made by other editors before I get to give my side of the story e.g. here

2. Gordonofcartoon says that the case is finally settled by me being banned on an arbitration page where I said that I would prepare my defense for posting next Sunday. There were about 12 editors voting about 5 to 7 against me when an administrator named Moreschi came in and banned me on the Thursday. That may or may not be a violation of wiki policy, but it is a serious violation of normal common sense justice and fair play, and is essentially a sabotage of the natural course of justice - Note that Gordonofcartoon had previously set up a discussion on the Administrators noticeboard on 25-8-08 where Moreschi responded to the accusations and I replied. That discussion didn't go any further, so I assumed that it ended in my favor, Moreschi had been absent from the discussions ever since, so I became suspicious of 'behind the scenes' conversations when he suddenly came to the arbitration page to ban me. Arbitration decisions should be made by consensus, or by editors who have had no previous involvement or bias, and if he wanted to dispute anything about my contributions he should have done so six months earlier - that dicscussion can be seen here

3. Gordonofcartoon also mentions the RFC which is a "Request For Comments" page about me. I notified the editors that I would spend a few weeks preparing a subpage for them to consider, and after about a week another editor named Wizardman came to the page and closed it with comments that I must restrict my contributions to non-DaCosta pages, which Gordonofcartoon refers to derisively as my "PET" topic. According to wikipedia policy, which I checked before starting the subpage, an RFC cannot be closed while contributors are still trying to solve the dispute, and an editor does not have any real authority to impose sanctions. On other pages WhatamIdoing was encouraging editors to pretend that they had authority, and within two days of closing the RFC, my critic WhatamIdoing went to Wizardmans page and awarded him a barnstar for help with "closures of RFC's" in the past few months. I checked and there were no other closures that I could see.

4. When Gordonofcartoon refers to "continual griping" invariably lengthy, you need to understand that he is choosing those words to create a false derogatory impression of my comments which were generally matter-of-fact and objective. He also isn't telling you the facts. I have not one, but two critics working against me who, in my opinion, are trying to drown my truths with great volumes of critcism, often several times a day. After they have argued throughout the week, I generally respond on a Sunday, although sometimes their comments require me to reply immediately or mid week. You need to also consider that most of the time I have simply been adding more information to comply with each new sourcing policy that they require me to meet, and they whinge or gripe about it because they don't want me adding anything.

5. When he says that I prepared "a personal new draft (critics unwelcome)" he is again misrepresenting the facts. There were actually two neutral editors who came to the RFC so I tried to get them to act as policy referees. When they suggested that both parties (me and the tag team) should set up subpages and do versions of the DaCosta's page without interference, I agreed, but Gordonofcartoon snubbed the idea (because he didn't have enough knowledge to do a page), and WhatamIdoing cut and pasted my page and subjected it to 80 points of merciless criticism (nitpicking). It was never intended for me to invite those obvious opponents to my subpage or vice versa. They were to be compiled independently so that good pages could be put together without interference or disruption, and I invited "neutral" editors to assist me put the page together in compliance with policy e.g. herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:SmokeyJoe#Regarding_the_Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_subpage. When I had finished it another editor named Avnjay described it as "honestly" much better than the existing page with no evidence of COI etc here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter

WhatamIdoing immediately responded with another relentless barrage of nitpicking which went on for a month, not only criticising me, but also embarrassing the other editors by describing them as not being experts on the topic and not understanding it, until, as usual, the other editors started agreeing with them. Note that those editors were invited to assess NPOV, and MEDRS, and Verifiability etc, and one of them did, and he agreed with me. WhatamIdoing changed the courteous and orderly discussion into an opportunity to ridicule me, and to turn it into a content dispute, and spent several weeks misrepresenting my comments and taking my words out of context to deceive the other editors into believing that my subpage was wrong.

6. When Gordonofcartoon said that I put it back into mainspace he means that I replaced the existing Da Costa page with what Avnjay described as a "much better one", and when he says that I did it against consensus he is not telling you that I was the only one to do a subpage. You need to also consider that I sent messages to both of the NPOV editors to do it for me and one of them didn't reply for months, and the other one made indirect comments elsewhere that "silence is consensus" and "be bold". I also left a message on the "Editors Assistance" page asking for a neutral editor to replace the existing page with my subpage but no-one agreed, or disagreed for about a month, so I replaced it myself. My critics deleted it, I replaced it, etc, and they blocked me for being disruptive by replacing the older page with a better one. (They misrepresented the three revert rule (3RR) to accuse me of it, and they used careful timing and teaming to avoid that rule themselves).

7. When Gordonofcartoon said that "he" raised it on an arbitration page (on Monday 26-1-09), and later that they were cautiously moving towards accepting, he is referring to the fact that he set up an arbitration page to discuss having me banned from adding information to the Da Costa page. At that stage the outcome was five editors in favor of me, to seven against. You can also notice that at 8:37 on Tuesday 27-1-09 I gave an initial response to the criticism and told the arbitrators that I would be happy to present a fuller response on the following Sunday, unless requested to do so earlier. Within 24 hours WhatamIdoing presented a large essay of misleading criticism (at 20:25 on Tuesday 27-1-09) and knew that if I had the opportunity to respond to it I could have easily done so. (I mention that because it is the backgound circumstantses for Moreschi's urgent decision to ban me on Wednesday 28-1-09). It is obvious that they tried their hardest to ban me before Sunday 1-2-09 because they knew that they had lost almost every previous argument against me, and didn't want to take any chances of me winning again. When Gordonofcartoon says that "the "cavalry"!!!!! arrivedin the form of admins who were prepared to block" he means Moreschi, who is only one of the admins who suddenly interupted the orderly discussion of the other arbitrators andbanned me on Wednesday here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid
=266981397#Comment_from_Moreschi . . . before I was due to give my defense on Sunday - Note that when they say that "the cavalry arrived???? - they are referring to "their cavalry" - part of an organised group - in a flame war??? - and they accused me of being "disruptive", and starting an edit war?????). The only question here is did Moreschi know all the facts, and that he was the cavalry, or had he been misled into acting as the cavalry re; was he an outsider who believed all of their insulting remarks about me, and did he ban me without properly investigating the facts????

When Gordonofscartoon says that I was blocked for disruptive conduct he is not telling you that I was doing everything I could to comply with process and policy, and that they were using every policy and process that they could find to disrupt my opportunity to present my side of the story.

You can see the arbitrtion process, and each persons comments by scrolling down the page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid
=266981397#User:Posturewriter

8. When Gordonofcartoon says that the process took a year to settle he is referring to the fact that he tried multiple items of jargon as a ruse hoping to confuse me, and multiple policy reasons to disrupt my contributions, and went to multiple forums to get help because both of my critics working as a team were losing every argument for a year e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome, and they have finally blocked me by subverting two processes, namely the RFC which was closed while still active, and Arbitration which was closed by one admin before I was to present my defense.

9. When he says he "doesn't blame anyone" he is trying to convince you that he didn't care but that many other editors were losing their patience and their tempers, when, in fact, the other editors only showed the normal casual interest that you would expect from neutral uninvolved participants in an arbitration process, but Gordonofcartoon was losing his temper and resorting to foul language. He is using that choice of words to downplay his own involvement, and divert attention away from the fact that he tried his hardest to disrupt me for a year with his tag team mate.

10. When he says that a snapshot of any period in the past "doesn't look too bad" he is trying to give the impression that what looks "matter of fact", and "courteous", is not to be believed, because he wants you to believe that I have been violating AGF. In fact I was being courteous despite the criticism. Also, AGF means "Assume Good Faith" in other editors, which I did for a few months until it became obvious that "they were not acting in good faith", and according to Wikipolicy you don't have to keep assuming good faith in people who give evidence that they don't deserve it. (i.e. you don't have to be so naive that you will assume good faith in a bank robber with a bag of cash when he says that the nice bank teller gave it to him for his birthday). Also, despite the fact that I stopped assuming good faith in them, I continued to treat them with courtesy because Wikipedia policy requires it.

Furthermore the idea that all new contributors should assume good faith in everyone else is a good idea for fostering goodwill and harmonious co-operation with the editing process, but it doesn't take into account that some editors would be using it as a tactic to (a) prevent justifiable criticism of themselves, or (b) as a delaying tactic to get a "newbie" banned before they realised that they were being strategically stymied with contrived snafu (i.e. Situation Normal All Fouled Up - by using policy as a weapon instead of its proper purpose).

10a. When Gordonofcartoon says that I had "openly flouted WP:AGF" by making inflammatory remarks about two editors named X and Y and their webs of deceit or their typical barking, he is disguising the fact that editor X was himself, and editor Y was WhatamIdoing. He was trying to make it seem as if I was causing problems for a lot of editors. Note also that I was responding to their trolling - re; they were baiting me in the hope that I would become uncivil so that they could ban me for violating WP:CIVIL. - re; I was the flame bait in their flame war that I didn't know they had started. They were choosing words to taunt me. (note. I have had plenty of practce at dealing with that tactic successfully)

11. When he says that I was being uncivil and making personal attacks by setting up a "motivation and tactics of my critics" section on my talk page he is not telling you the facts that I have explained to him. The facts are that I was relatively new to wikipedia and was being mercilessly and personally criticised by my two critics every time I beat them in an evidence based argument. They responded by taking advantage of their four years of experience as editors by using policy as a weapon to block me, and moving into my own user talk page to deride and insult me, so I set up a top paragraph describing their unimaginative tactics which they used repeatedly. For example when I complied with their request to not use references to "original research" (primary sources), I started adding reports on scientific reviews and summaries of multiple research studies (which are called "secondary sources"), and then they said the "secondary sources" can't be used because they are old, so I must use only reviews published in reliable medical journals in the past five years. I then added 15 reviews from modern sources and they blocked me anyway. That is called "moving the goalposts" or laying "a wild goose chase" where it doesn't matter what you do they will keep adding new policy objections to ensure that you never get to contribute to Wikipedia. (re; to paraphrase it, they say "if only you do this you can edit . . . and then they keep adding . . . "you have done that, now you only have to do this" . . . endlessly).

They are not telling you that I have already criticised their use of "wild goose chase" tactics several times e.g. in the last paragraph here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#WhatamIdoing.E2.80.99s_Blitz_Krieg_-_Disruptive_Editing.3F , and they are continuing after the ban. For example, after WhatamIdoing criticised the lack of modern references linking DCS with CFS, another editor came to a talk page and suggested I add more in order to get that aspect accepted here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Posturewriter/DaCostaDraft&diff=next&oldid=246207742 . I therefore added 12 references to verify that many modern researchers in many different countries equated Da Costa's syndrome with Chronic fatigue syndrome. This was to ensure I couldn't later be critiised for using old, primary, or original reasearch, or NPOV violations etc here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880 , but WhatamIdoing has since commented separately by making this remark . . . "I think we can all agree that a string of a dozen refs is silly" . . . here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=276302034 . Note that if I wasn't being subjected to a ridiculous amount of criticism, I would have only needed to add one or two references, or none - given that I was stating the obvious - so obvious that a dozen references were easy to find, including the latest 2008 edition of Harrision's Principles of Internal Medicine which is one of the most widely used medical text book in the world, and which relates CFS to the Effort Syndrome which was a common synonym for DCS. (note that this particular argument started because WhatamIdoing, the "instant expert" didn't know enough about the history of DCS to realise just how easy the references were to find, and didn't think it was possible for me to provide 12 relevant secondary review articles in top quality, modern, peer reviewed research papers or books).

12. When Gordonofcartoon says that I was making personal attacks by using words like WhatamIdoing's webs of deceit, I was responding to their personal attacks on me, and the web of deceit related to many of their tactics. For example they go to policy talk pages to discuss "newbies" and encourage the use of making statements in the name of authority, when the editor has no real authority to enforce their advice.

WhatamIdoing also deceives other readers by incessantly referring to a medical consumers web PAGE about the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome as a web SITE about iguanas, because the persons other pages discuss her interest in lizards. WhatamIdoing is also deliberately not telling you that the list on the patients web page was compiled by four doctors and is an accurate account of the history of confusion surrounding the topic. The misrepresentation of a webpage on CFS as a website about lizards is a violation of WP:CIVIL

WhatamIdoing wants to give the false impression that there is, and has always been a long history of harmonious and objective scientific study which seemlessly fits with todays views along the typical lines "Oh yes, the scientific experts all agree so it must all be true". i.e. as if anyone who presents the idea that the world is round was a heretic and always will be. School children are taught to have a more intelligent understanding of the history of science than my critics.

It should also be understood that WhatamIdoing tried to impress the other editors by providing a list of five synonyms for DaCosta's syndrome. I could have easily provided more than 100 but knew that everthing I added would be mercilessly criticised unless I could provide an independent source, so I added Melissa Kaplans list of 80.

WhatamIdoing also tries to give other editors the false impression that all my references are low quality by stating on 18:12, 27 January 2009 in the history of edits list here . . . "Rv POV version by COI-blocked editor using RSN-banned sources such as the personal webpage of a patient".

WhatamIdoing is not telling you that I provided sixty top quality references which are equal or superior to those on the current article page, and that the one compiled by the "patient" and four doctors was put there because it was accurate, and gave some input from a medical consumer i.e. to improve NPOV - neutral point of view, rather than arrogantly excluding all patients as if they are just cattle who don't deserve a voice. The others references include authors such as Sir James MacKenzie, Sir Thomas Lewis, and Harvard University Medical professors etc.

Compared to me WhatamIdoing only added 12 references in the entire year, and used hatnote policy to put the title of a children's fiction novel at the top of the medical page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=215793876&oldid=215793297 . . . and the author was a champion dog sled racer, and writer of adventure stories for a children's fiction publisher. The title of the book was "Soldier's Heart" which is one of more than 100 synonyms for Da Costa's syndrome. The argument about that went for weeks until I was blocked from editing the page. WhatamIdoing is also deliberately not telling you that another editor agreed with me that it was inappropriate, and since then a second editor has removed it, and a third editor has removed Gordonofcartoon's links to the "Soldier's Heart" page about poems, plays, and telemovies with that title here
. . . and that link isn't there now. i.e. WhatamIdoing is not telling you that I have since won the argument when I wasn't even there. Also WhatamIdoing has since edited that page and knows that I won that argument.

Furthermore, if you look closely enough at the arguments you will see that one of the critics moved the title "soldiers heart" to the top of the page. They both argued that it was appropriate because of hatnote policy, and Gordonofcartooon then added the poems, plays, and telemovies etc. and later WhatamIdoing said that I was criticising their use of a "regular" disambiguation page, as if it had been there for a long time, and was put there by someone independent here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_
arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing

Note also that they selectively cherrypicked the hatnote policy from many others so that they could give prominence to their favorite label, which is in violation of anNPOV policy which states . . . "Be alert to arrangements of formatting, headers, footnotes, or other elements that may unduly favor a particular "side" of an issue, and to structural or stylistic aspects that make it difficult for a neutral reader to fairly and equally assess the credibility of all relevant and related viewpoints" here

Another example of WhatamIdoing's deceitful methods was evident when I notified the RFC that I would spend a few weeks compiling a subpage. I checked the RFC closing policy and found that the RFC couldn't be closed while still active. I also knew from previous experience that WhatamIdoing would try to have the page closed before I returned. Another editor named Wizardman then came and closed the RFC, and on the following day or so,WhatamIdoing gave Wizardman a barn star as a prize or "reward" for closing RFC's. e.g. see the first discussions here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter

WhatamIdoing would argue that I should assume good faith AGF, and accept that it was just a coincidence, but I had stopped giving good faith because of their similar and predictable tactics months earlier. Their "juvenile duplicity" relates to the fact that they do such things and "play dumb" about it and expect to fool me and all the other editors with such a "juvenile" ploy.

They have since been successful in persuading someone else to remove the "motivations and tactics" section from my UserTalk page here.

They are not telling you that I invited another editor to remove it earlier in the year if they wished, but they didn't, and they haven't told you that I won the debate about not removing the section in two previous discussion processes, namely the WikiAlerts page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive48#User:Posturewriter, and the Miscellany For Deletion page here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Posturewriter.

I wrote that section and put it at the top of my talk page so that everyone could see what they were really doing. When it was deleted they continued to attack me with accusations of policy violation even after I have been banned. It is the equivalent of them tying my hands behind my back, and them putting bricks in their boxing gloves, and then trying to convince you that they are winning

Another example of their methods is to tag team against me on every discussion page for 12 months as described in the third paragraph here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#The_solution_to_disruptive_Wild_Goose_Chases , and then Gordonofcartoon went to a discussion page on the subject and added a suggestion about what to do when "falsely " of tag teaming??? here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Tag_team&diff=268486470&oldid=263995921.

Also note that they have been accusing me of violating NPA policy (No Personal Attacks) but are not telling you that they have been making hostile personal remarks about me for the past 12 months, and have continued on this POV page, but they don't ban themselves for violating

13. When Gordonofcartoon says that other editors have been arguing "Oh, I don't see anything here that constitutes an attack or serious incivility", he is trying to give the false impression that I am uncivil, even when other editors recognise that I have been polite. I have actually been applying the Dale Carnegieapproach of continuing to be polite in situations that don't necessarily deserve it, and that is what the other editors are recognising. By contrast Gordonofcartoon has used foul language in the last sentence of the POV page which is typical of them accusing me of violating WP:CIVIL when in fact they are. In fact, the use of profanity or swearing is specifically mentioned as a violation. My two critics often defeat their own

14. When Gordonofcartoon says that he "is not even factoring in the exhausting effect of long-term contact with procedural nitpicking" he is trying to convince you that I am at fault. I have in fact, told them, that I have had more experience in controversies than they have, and note that I have been doing 95% of the "contributions" and they have been doing 99% of the disruption with "procedural nitpicking". It was obvious to me months ago that they were nitpicking in an attempt to annoy me so that I would get frustrated and lose my temper and say something that was uncivil so that they could use it as an example of WP:CIVIL violation and ban me. Their tactic was so blatantly obvious that I was not going to fall into their trap, and as you can see in the last sentence Gordonofcartoon has resorted to foul language, and fallen into his own trap. That type of language would get a school teacher sacked immediately, and if it was used in Parliament, the politician would be escorted out of the building and be permanently banned from politics. A radio or television announcer would be sacked immediately. My understanding of Wikipedia discussion policy is that Gordonofcartoon should be permanently banned for that type of language, but he will "play dumb" and pretend that the missing letters didn't spell what they obviously spelt. He would also try to defend himself by arguing that he has made a lot of valuable contributions to wikipedia and therefore deserves to stay while they ban me because I am just new. That defense would not help him anywhere else, and I understand it is not appropriate in Wikipedia either, according to Wikipedia policy. However I suspect that the other editors are intimidated by their influence and are giving them some sort of unspoken Wiki privileges, and a lot of leeway to violate policy with impunity.

15. When he accuses me of obfuscation and misquotation he is trying to convince you to listen to his summary of the situation and ignore the vast volume of evidence against him. I also have never misquoted anything, but if he provided a diff, and could give me an example, I would look at it and give a reply about it. (a "diff" is a link to a page where a discussion took place, and it presents the additional text that a person added which makes it "different" to the previous i.e. if 10 people added comments to a discussion page, and you added a paragraph, then it would be highlighted as the difference for that time and day). Also WhatamIdoing is trying to divert your attention away from the fact that I have often been deliberately and repeatedly misquoted to give false impressions about me. For example WhatamIdoing has been trying to create the false impression that I wrote in my essay that Da Costa's syndrome is exactly the same thing as the modern terms for the Chronic fatigue syndrome, when in fact, I have said "it is similar to" some of the modern definitions, and I have won that argument several times before e.g. in the last paragraphs of the section here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Disruptive_editing#

16. When he says I used 1500 words of SOUP to convince people of something that wasn't true he is referring to Conflict of Interest page number 2 here

Note that he started COI number two page after losing COI number 1 and then losing an argument about Rosen's research paper which can be seen by scrolling down to the comments at 10:15 on 25-3-08 herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Proposed_page_move. He wrote several hundred words of criticism on the COI 2 page, followed by several hundred more by WhatamIdoing that was too fast for me to bother with, and the combined criticisms on the the Da Costa talk page, and the COI 2 page etc. soon amounted to 5000 words of criticism, so several week later I prepared a 2500 word reply (half the words). He then added an offensive dismissive note at the end "cut this readable length", snubbing my comments as not worth reading. His comments can be seen at the end of my essay here

He later argued that I didn't understand Wikipedia's paragraph by paragraph discussion conventions when he accused me of "failure to follow the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines to be concise and keep discussion focussed". Those words can be seen about halfway down the section at 9:28 on 27-1-09 here

17. The person who Gordonofcartoon refers to as "Bilbo von Booger" is "Guido den Broeder", who is actually a medical consumer and founder of the Netherlands Chronic Fatigue Society. The insulting alteration to his name (refering to him as a Booger) is at the very least a violation of "no personal attacks" policy, and WP:CIVIL, and I understand that serious violations like that are sufficient on their own to get an editor permanently banned.

According to Wikipedia, and in printed dictionaries, the colloquial meaning "dried nasal musus" or "snot" here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Booger

18. Gordonofcartoon's last sentence just about sums up the situation, where he also insults me by telling lies when he says that other editors described my contributions as "crap". No editor has ever said that!!! He then goes on by using more foul lanuage to describe my defence of his never ending floods of criticisms with the words "and so on and on and on and f***ing f***ing on"> . . . after I have been banned, and when he thinks that I can't defend myself In my opinion he and WhatamIdoing should be permanently banned from Wikipedia,

19. In my closing comments, you can note that I have been accused of using Wikipedia to promote my ideas. While I don't wish to offend the other editors of Wikipedia, and while it would be a small advantage to me, I hope I have made it clear that I don't need Wikipedia for anything, and that I was giving Wikipedia a good article for free. M.B.

 

 Gordonofcarton's Point of View

As you can determine from the page where I have been falsely accused of Point of View Pushing, Gordonofcartoon wants to tell lies about me ten times per minute, and objects to me telling people the truth about his devious editing once a week.

 

Here are some words from Guido den Broeder about Gordonofcartoon

"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 (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2008" - which can be seen in discussion 65.1 on the list at the webpage herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_
Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232

Note COI refers to 'conflict of interest', and POV refers to 'point of view'.

Here are some words of advice given by one of my two critics about the nature of consensus . . . "If you want a practical answer . . . you need a four-to-one ratio of editors to enforce any proposed change" signed WhatamIdoing 3:29 on 14th February 2010.

****

< In the conflict of interest discussions that Gordonofcartoon started against me my two critics wrote 95% of the criticism and two people told them that they were wrong, and only one agreed with them. In other words there were two against them and only one in favor so there NEVER WAS A CONSENSUS in their favor. In fact, despite writing several thousands of words against me they still FAILED to get consensus.

However, since then they have managed to tell lies and say there was a consensus against me?????, and they soon managed to get the two editors who opposed them banned, namely Guido (soon after), and myself (eight months later), so they did manage to rig the outcome in their favor to push their own interpretation of policy, and their own point of view on the topic page.

Almost exactly twelve months later at 23:18 on 27th January 2010, in response to an editor named Ludwigs2, WhatamIdoing continued to tell the same deliberate lies with the following words . . . "Perhaps you haven't been dealing with the same kinds of editors, then User:Guido den Broeder or User:Posturewriter, for example, who were banned for exactly this same kind of behavior and with whom no number of 'short discussions' had any apparent effect on their grasp of basic facts, like 'Wikipedia is not a place to promote your beliefs about your health'. . . . At some point, it is in the best interests s of the encyclopedia to quit 'dealing with it' and ban editors whose goals are completely incompatible with the projects goals'. signed WhatamIdoing 23:18, 27th January 2010.

Note that WhatamIdoing was deliberately violating the talk page guidelines which state . . . "Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussion focused on the topic of the talk page, rather on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page . . . NEVER post personal details: Users who post what they believe are the personal details of other users without their consent may be blocked for any length of time, including indefinitely".

Despite such pretentious statements by WhatamIdoing the aim of Wikipedia is to get information from all people about all aspects of topics, and not just from a couple of arrogant 'self-opinionated' snobs who deliberately try to whip up a frenzy of prejudice against anyone who they perceive as a threat to their own bias.

As Guido den Broeder 'quickly' determined, it was my two critics whose sole purpose was 'to get the opposition against (their) own POV out of the way'

As you can see my two critics didn't care how many lies they told, or how many policies they violated, or how many policies they had to change, or how many rules they ignored, or how many editors they had to ban to achieve their objectives.

****

Note that my two critics had a habit of accusing me of policy violations on several pages at a time so there were actually more words discussed than just on the COI pages number one AND two, and occasionally another editor would make a decision without seeing both sides of the story.

For example, at 2:26 on 19th May 2008, an editor named EdJohnston wrote this. . . 'Based on the diffs given by WhatamIdoing, I left a warning for User:Posturewriter. If he persists in COI editing, he risks being blocked for disruptive editing'.

Another editor would come along later and give me advice without even bothering to read the evidence properly and would say something like this . . . 'based on what EdJohnston said Posturewriter's edits 'appear' to be influenced by conflict of interest'.

My two critics would exploit that with words like this . . . 'Posturewriter is ignoring the advice of many, many, many editors and refuses to accept the consensus of opinion against him' . . . and sometimes they would be more specific, for example with these exact words on the RFC page at 18:16 on 20th July 2008 . . . "Self-promotional edits at Chronic fatigue syndrome and Da Costa's syndrome led to warnings from JFW, Gordonofcartoon AND WhatamIdoing". (note: only one other editor)

THE SHEEP TRICK

As you can see, they always worked as ONE team against me and wrote thousands of words to convince other editors to block me and rarely gained support, but always exaggerated the outcome in their favor. They were using a technique which could be called the 'mob effect' or the 'sheep trick' which goes something like this - If two people stand in the middle of a busy street and look up at the sky, another one will be curious to see why and look up, and before long a hundred people will be looking up at the sky when there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to be seen.

Note also that Gordonofcartoon was giving an opinion that my edits were self-promotional, but Guido den Broeder told him that he was wrong. In other words Gordonofcartoon was deliberately and manipulatively misrepresenting his own biased opinion as a fact.

After making his decision against me EdJohnton added these words . . . "Others are welcome to give their advice on how to handle this case"

The only advice he got from "other" editors (who were not me or my two critics), was this . . . "I see nothing in his recent contributions that is related to his personal theory. Most of these diffs are ancient." signed Guido den Broeder 17:24 on 20th May 2008

 

How my two critics deceived Wikipedia readers - an example

Over the past few years several friend of mine informed me of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that was availble online on the internet. They told me that it was open to receiving new information from all members of society about all topics. The objective was to became a more comprehensive source of knowledge than the previous print versions, so I joined up with a code identity of Posturewriter and started adding to it, and continued to do so between 2007 and early 2009. During that time I found myself being subjected to a seemingly endless series of rules and regulations, called policies, that were oppressively restrictive about who could or could not add information, and what they could or could not discuss. Virtually everything that I added was deleted, on every topic, until I found myself confined to the history section of a medical topic called Da Costa's syndrome.

95% of the criticisms came from two editors who accused me of violating more than a dozen rules and guidelines, and insulted me at every opportunity by saying that my contributions were "nonsense" and that my suggestions were "stupid", and that all of the references that I used to verify the information (in the history section) were "unreliable" and "out-of-date".

My response to them is that they are supposed to use policy to ensure that reliable information is added to Wikipedia in a manner that ensures that contributions are derived from ALL reliable sources in order to represent ALL available information to ensure a neutral point of view, but they were using policy as excuses for deleting verifiable facts that shed doubt on their own point of view.

There were only two of them, and they should not have been inflating the value of their own personal views by using words such as "we" think this, when they were referring to unnamed persons inside and outside of Wikipedia, or that they had consensus when they didn't, or that they represented the "entire" Wikipedia "community" when they didn't. They should have taken responsibility for their "own" opinions, and their "own" personal "interpretations" of policy.

They seem to have the desperate, hopeful, but unrealistic and irrational belief that because they have contributed more than twenty thousand edits between them in the previous four years that they can get away with telling a massive number of lies, and violating most of the Wikipedia policies in their twelve month dispute with me. I don't think that the other editors will continue to sympathise with them, or support them, when they have read all of the evidence, because then they will be implicating all of Wikipedia as having that low standard of behavior.

I was banned from Wikipedia in January 2009, and since then have been through my notes on the experience and have identified particular issues and discussed them one at a time, or in some cases have grouped the essays on common issues together, so there will be some repetition, but it will show the type of problems that members of the public are likely to encounter, especially if they contribute to topics that involve controversy.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_win_an_argument&diff=1739378&oldid=1340913

 

My description of their tactics can be seen here

 

The entire text of Da Costa's syndrome before I began improving it

An article about Da Costa's syndrome had been in Wikipedia for eighteen months from 15-5-2006, and the very small version of 17-10-2007 can be seen in the window below and verified here.

 

"Da Costa's Syndrome is a type of anxiety disorder first observed in soldiers in the American Civil War. It causes symptoms similar to heart disease but, upon examination, nothing is found to be physically wrong with the patient. The symptoms usually consist of fatigue upon exertion, combined with shortnewss of breath, palpitations, sweating, chest pain, shaking, and, less commonly, fainting. The symptoms may increase whilst exercising, and it is thought to be caused partly by hyperventilation.

Related: Neurasthenia, Orthostatic intolerance, Hyperventilation syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Soldier's heart.

 

This disease article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

I began adding to it on 8-12-2007 here.

 

Note that it has only four to five lines of text and no references.

In the next twelve months. I provided an article that had 14 setions which contained more than 300 words and 61 references from top quality researchers who included Harvard professors and physicians who had been knighted for their contributions to medicine, and from prestigious publications such as the British Medical Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The information that I provided and they deleted

The chest pain is in the lower left-side of the chest, in the muscle and tissue between the ribs, and can be immediately relieved by inserting a pain killing injection at that site, which proves that it is real and not imaginary, and physical not mental.

The breathlessness has been found to be caused by spasm and inefficient function of the breathing muscles which means that it is real, and not subjective.

The faintness and fatigue is due to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and leg veins and the resulting reduced amount of blood reaching the brain, which proves that there is a logical and physical explanation for it, and that it is not just the patient's subjective feeling, and not just normal tiredness.

Most soldiers who develop the ailment during the war already had the symptoms to a minor degree during civilian life for many years before enlisting, and some were born with the condition.

 

The information that they put in it's place

The symptoms are "considered the manifestation of an anxiety disorder".

"it was classified under non-psychotic mental disorders."

It is "frequently interpreted as one of a number of imprecisely characterized "postwar syndromes"..

In the reference notes they added this gratuitous comment ""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"

 

They also changed my plain English description of the physical cause of the faintness and fatigue by replacing it with the words "orthostatic intolerance', which is exactly the same thing, except that it is jargon which the vast majority of readers won't understand.

 

As you can see there is a real, logical, scientifically proven physical cause of the main symptoms, but my two critics don't want the Wikipedia readers to know it, so they deleted all of that information.

They want the readers to believe that the symptoms are somatoform (imaginary) and that the condition is a mental illness caused by the fear of battle, so they have deleted the information about it being common in civilian life, and that most soldiers had the symptoms before enlistment.

Essentially they have deleted absolutely everything positive about the patients and added everything that gives a negative impression of them.

They have also obscured the link to the chronic fatigue syndrome and are misrepresenting the facts and defaming the character of 200 million people.

I invite those people, and all Wikipedia readers to protest and demand that those two individuals be permanently banned. Neither of them have revealed their true identity, so you don't have to either, and you can do anything you want to achieve that objective.

I am only one person, and the facts, and the science, and the evidence alone, don't appear to be having any influence, so without some form of general protest it is unlikely that anything will change.

 

The chest pain

If you get a small 4cm sewing needle and stab it between your ribs on the lower left side of your chest and withdraw it immediately you would have a reasonably good idea of the type of chest pain in Da Costa's syndrome. If you push your fist backwards as hard as possible into the centre of your chest you will have a reasonable idea of the type of crushing pain that occurs with angina heart disease. I am not suggesting that you actually do that, but you can easily understand the obvious difference.

What my two critics would like readers to believe is that you need to attend university for six years to know the difference. Here is a tip - you don't.

They also want you to believe that the stabbing pain is caused by anxiety, or severe depression, or the fear of exercise, or the fear of battle, or that it only effects soldiers, or that it is due to a mysterious personality disorder, or the sub-conscious traumas of early childhood experiences.

The medical label for that ailment is costochondritis which is one of the main symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome, and sometimes mistakenly used as an alternate label. The version of the article provided by my two critics classifies it as a somatoform disorder, which means imaginary, and a mental disorder.

Here is a tip - that pain can occur when you are sitting in a cafe on a sunny day while reading the comic section of a newspaper.

My two critics are pompous nitwits who are completely and utterly ignorant of the facts and haven't got even the slightest idea of what they are talking about.

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chest_pain&diff=184172945&oldid=182863209

 

The following words come from the Costochondritis page in Wikipedia . . . "Costochondritis often results from a physical strain or minor injury, but the true cause is not well understood.[1] . . .Treatment options are quite limited and usually only involve rest and analgesics . . . Severe costochondritis is referred to as Tietze's syndrome."

see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Costochondritis&diff=394654703&oldid=393612795

The following quote comes from the Tietze's syndrome page in Wikpedia . . . "While the true causes of Tietze's Syndrome are not well understood, it often results from a physical strain or minor injury, such as repeated coughing, sneezing, vomiting, or impacts to the chest. It has even been known to occur after hearty bouts of laughter. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tietze_syndrome&diff=392972531&oldid=386602977

 

According to my theory poor posture causes the strain on the chest and that type of pain (as well as related cramps in the far left and right of the chest), and when I was trying to see if anyone else had thought of that possiblity I found a similar suggestion in a reference book by Paul Wood O.B.E. in 1956. My two critics deleted both references and the link to the Wikipedia page about costochondritis.

See more information here

You can find that information summarised in my version of the article below.

 

My critics statements from their essays above

"No editor has ever supported his view" . . . WhatamIdoing 2:25 on 18-5-08 

Neutral Point of View
The exact words of other editors - highlighted in red

 

It would be useful to first read the discussion on the COI number 2 page which started on 13-5-08 and ended on 24-5-08 here.

You can see that it is where WhatamIdoing began an invective diatribe on 15-5-08, and was fully aware of the support being given to my contributions by Guido den Broeder. The false claim that "No editor has ever supported his view" was made on the POV page three days after Guido den Broeder started supporting my contributions.

 

These are some concluding words of Guido den Broeders comments between 13-5-08 and 20-5-08

"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". Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2008

 

Here are some supporting words by Avnjay before Gordonofcartoon seconded WhatamIdoings comments.

"Hi Posturewriter. Firstly: Well done, this appears to be an excellent article, well sourced, and a lot better than the one that is already up there in format and detail". Avnjay 19:42, 2-10-08 here.

 

and these words

"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 (97 different sources quoted!!), or biased" . . . AvnjayTalk 10:51, 5-10-08 here

Note that there were actually 97 "links" to 24 "references" at that stage, and I have since increased that by providing 400 lnks to 60 references here.

 

and note these words

"This article may well come under more scrutiny than many other articles written on Wikipedia so do be prepared for lots of suggestions. However, at the end of it all I really believe we can produce a brilliant article. Keep up the good work! " Avnjay 15:34, 6-10-08 here

(Note that both the draft page and it's associated talk page have been removed by the editors and cannot be checked by independent readers now.)

 

Avnjay also said this in the same discussion

"I asked WhatamIdoing to have a glance over the article and two things she picked up on were: not enough up-to-date sources (WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence) and that some of the quotes were very short and so can have their context questioned. I would definitely recommend finding some more sources from the last few years - have a look at the current article as I think there e some there". (end of quote)

 

I then spent a few weeks looking for more good quality modern medical articles, and now there are ten references, from 2000 to 2008, as you can see in the list here. . . However, WhatamIdoing just continued the relentless barrage of criticism here . . . and up until 27-1-09 here . . .

until I was banned on 28-1-09. 

WhatamIdoing has also acknowledged the other editors consensus of opinion for the past 12 months with these words "He's not particularly rude so why bother blocking him" here

 

Tampering with the Jury

The neutral editors and the "Arbitration" editors of Wikipedia are the equivalent of the "Jury" in a normal trial, and any attempt by the accuser or the accused to influence the decision of guilty or not guilty is called "Tampering with the jury".

However, my two critics would "tamper with the jury" at every opportunity, to get their way, so I will give some examples.

1. When they started an RFC discussion to get me blocked there were two neutral editors who suggested that we each write a separate page about Da Costa's syndrome and let them decide which was the best and most "neutral". However one of my critics refused, and the other one "conveniently" ignored the offer.

2. When I wrote a neutral essay and started discussing it with a "neutral editor" name Avnjay, one of my critics described the discussion as a "walled garden" which they were excluded from??? (as if they didn't have the opportunity to do exactly the same thing independently with the same neutral editor). When the neutral editor said that my version of the article was a lot better than the existing one (their version), my other critic cut and pasted the essay and nitpicked it with 80 ridiculous criticisms, and then badgered and pressured the neutral editor for several months until he changed his mind. See here.

3. When another administrator named Wizardman made a decision to block me on an RFC, my main critic gave him a barnstar for doing it, when she was aware that he had inadvertently broken the rules of the closing policy.

4. When another admin, named Moreschi, banned me she gave him a barnstar for doing it by "ignoring all the rules". See here.

It is the equivalent of real "criminals" paying members of the jury "a large reward" after the trial is over. Her actions also render her liable to accusations of "bribing the jury" before the trial. Such behaviour is ridiculous and should be banned.

The other administrators would get the message that if they helped her win disputes in the future, they would get their "reward" too.

The aspect of tampering with the jury is featured in a movie called "Rainmaker".

 

How my two critics deceived Wikipedia readers

an earlier essay

Over the past few years several friend of mine informed me of Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that was availble online on the internet. They told me that it was open to receiving new information from all members of society about all topics. The objective was to became a more comprehensive source of knowledge than the previous print versions, so I joined up with a code identity of Posturewriter and started adding to it, and continued to do so between 2007 and early 2009. During that time I found myself being subjected to a seemingly endless series of rules and regulations, called policies, that were oppressively restrictive about who could or could not add information, and what they could or could not discuss. Virtually everything that I added was deleted, on every topic, until I found myself confined to the history section of a medical topic called Da Costa's syndrome.

95% of the criticisms came from two editors who accused me of violating more than a dozen rules and guidelines, and insulted me at every opportunity by saying that my contributions were "nonsense" and that my suggestions were "stupid", and that all of the references that I used to verify the information (in the history section) were "unreliable" and "out-of-date".

My response to them is that they are supposed to use policy to ensure that reliable information is added to Wikipedia in a manner that ensures that contributions are derived from ALL reliable sources in order to represent ALL available information to ensure a neutral point of view, but they were using policy as excuses for deleting verifiable facts that shed doubt on their own point of view.

There were only two of them, and they should not have been inflating the value of their own personal views by using words such as "we" think this, when they were referring to unnamed persons inside and outside of Wikipedia, or that they had consensus when they didn't, or that they represented the "entire" Wikipedia "community" when they didn't. They should have taken responsibility for their "own" opinions, and their "own" personal "interpretations" of policy.

They seem to have the desperate, hopeful, but unrealistic and irrational belief that because they have contributed more than twenty thousand edits between them in the previous four years that they can get away with telling a massive number of lies, and violating most of the Wikipedia policies in their twelve month dispute with me. I don't think that the other editors will continue to sympathise with them, or support them, when they have read all of the evidence, because then they will be implicating all of Wikipedia as having that low standard of behavior.

I was banned from Wikipedia in January 2009, and since then have been through my notes on the experience and have identified particular issues and discussed them one at a time, or in some cases have grouped the essays on common issues together, so there will be some repetition, but it will show the type of problems that members of the public are likely to encounter, especially if they contribute to topics that involve controversy.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_win_an_argument&diff=1739378&oldid=1340913

 

My description of their tactics can be seen here

 

The entire text of Da Costa's syndrome before I began improving it

An article about Da Costa's syndrome had been in Wikipedia for eighteen months from 15-5-2006, and the very small version of 17-10-2007 can be seen in the window below and verified here.

 

"Da Costa's Syndrome is a type of anxiety disorder first observed in soldiers in the American Civil War. It causes symptoms similar to heart disease but, upon examination, nothing is found to be physically wrong with the patient. The symptoms usually consist of fatigue upon exertion, combined with shortnewss of breath, palpitations, sweating, chest pain, shaking, and, less commonly, fainting. The symptoms may increase whilst exercising, and it is thought to be caused partly by hyperventilation.

Related: Neurasthenia, Orthostatic intolerance, Hyperventilation syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Soldier's heart.

 

This disease article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it."

I began adding to it on 8-12-2007 here.

 

Note that it has only four to five lines of text and no references.

In the next twelve months. I provided an article that had 14 setions which contained more than 300 words and 61 references from top quality researchers who included Harvard professors and physicians who had been knighted for their contributions to medicine, and from prestigious publications such as the British Medical Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The information that I provided and they deleted

The chest pain is in the lower left-side of the chest, in the muscle and tissue between the ribs, and can be immediately relieved by inserting a pain killing injection at that site, which proves that it is real and not imaginary, and physical not mental.

The breathlessness has been found to be caused by spasm and inefficient function of the breathing muscles which means that it is real, and not subjective.

The faintness and fatigue is due to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and leg veins and the resulting reduced amount of blood reaching the brain, which proves that there is a logical and physical explanation for it, and that it is not just the patient's subjective feeling, and not just normal tiredness.

Most soldiers who develop the ailment during the war already had the symptoms to a minor degree during civilian life for many years before enlisting, and some were born with the condition.

 

The information that they put in it's place

The symptoms are "considered the manifestation of an anxiety disorder".

"it was classified under non-psychotic mental disorders."

It is "frequently interpreted as one of a number of imprecisely characterized "postwar syndromes"..

In the reference notes they added this gratuitous comment ""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"

 

They also changed my plain English description of the physical cause of the faintness and fatigue by replacing it with the words "orthostatic intolerance', which is exactly the same thing, except that it is jargon which the vast majority of readers won't understand.

 

As you can see there is a real, logical, scientifically proven physical cause of the main symptoms, but my two critics don't want the Wikipedia readers to know it, so they deleted all of that information.

They want the readers to believe that the symptoms are somatoform (imaginary) and that the condition is a mental illness caused by the fear of battle, so they have deleted the information about it being common in civilian life, and that most soldiers had the symptoms before enlistment.

Essentially they have deleted absolutely everything positive about the patients and added everything that gives a negative impression of them.

They have also obscured the link to the chronic fatigue syndrome and are misrepresenting the facts and defaming the character of 200 million people.

I invite those people, and all Wikipedia readers to protest and demand that those two individuals be permanently banned. Neither of them have revealed their true identity, so you don't have to either, and you can do anything you want to achieve that objective.

I am only one person, and the facts, and the science, and the evidence alone, don't appear to be having any influence, so without some form of general protest it is unlikely that anything will change.

The chest pain

If you get a small 4cm sewing needle and stab it between your ribs on the lower left side of your chest and withdraw it immediately you would have a reasonably good idea of the type of chest pain in Da Costa's syndrome. If you push your fist backwards as hard as possible into the centre of your chest you will have a reasonable idea of the type of crushing pain that occurs with angina heart disease. I am not suggesting that you actually do that, but you can easily understand the obvious difference.

What my two critics would like readers to believe is that you need to attend university for six years to know the difference. Here is a tip - you don't.

They also want you to believe that the stabbing pain is caused by anxiety, or severe depression, or the fear of exercise, or the fear of battle, or that it only effects soldiers, or that it is due to a mysterious personality disorder, or the sub-conscious traumas of early childhood experiences.

The medical label for that ailment is costochondritis which is one of the main symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome, and sometimes mistakenly used as an alternate label. The version of the article provided by my two critics classifies it as a somatoform disorder, which means imaginary, and a mental disorder.

Here is a tip - that pain can occur when you are sitting in a cafe on a sunny day while reading the comic section of a newspaper.

My two critics are pompous nitwits who are completely and utterly ignorant of the facts and haven't got even the slightest idea of what they are talking about. See here

The following words come from the Costochondritis page in Wikipedia . . . "Costochondritis often results from a physical strain or minor injury, but the true cause is not well understood.[1] . . .Treatment options are quite limited and usually only involve rest and analgesics . . . Severe costochondritis is referred to as Tietze's syndrome." see here

The following quote comes from the Tietze's syndrome page in Wikpedia . . . "While the true causes of Tietze's Syndrome are not well understood, it often results from a physical strain or minor injury, such as repeated coughing, sneezing, vomiting, or impacts to the chest. It has even been known to occur after hearty bouts of laughter. See here

 

According to my theory poor posture causes the strain on the chest and that type of pain (as well as related cramps in the far left and right of the chest), and when I was trying to see if anyone else had thought of that possiblity I found a similar suggestion in a reference book by Paul Wood O.B.E. in 1956. My two critics deleted both references and the link to the Wikipedia page about costochondritis.

See more information here

You can find that information summarised in my version of the article here

MY CRITICS QUALIFICATIONS

One of my critics claimed to have an annoyingly high IQ and to have university qualifications, but admits to not knowing much about Da Costa's Syndrome until I started contributing to Wikipedia. see here

and claims to be an "instant expert" in discussion number 16 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Categorisation_of_dermatology_articles_on_Wikipedia.2C_

input_wanted

Here are some of the policy guidelines that WhatamIdoing had been violating before and during the POV/Pushing page . . . "Characteristics of problem editors . . . You warn others not to edit war even while edit-warring against them . . . You often talk about single purpose accounts in article discussion. Remember to comment on content, not on the contributor. And especially, don't bite newcomers . . . You constantly warn editors for "harassment" or "incivility" which occurs within mostly constructive comments." here

When individuals with university qualifications discuss topics they generally use scientific methods, proofs, and references to verify their statements but in their discussions with me my two critics lied and cheated and took my words out of context, and misrepresented me and the quality of my references and deleted most of what I wrote in order to make their own version of the article look good.

They were not using the type of methods that you would expect from intelligent university graduates.

The Relevance of my Qualifications

Note that all members of the public are invited to contribute to Wikipedia and ALL editors are required to discuss CONTENT and not personal details.

After reviewing THE QUALITY OF MY REFERENCES an editor named SmokeyJoe wrote these words at 11:14 on 15-8-08. . . "I am assuming that Posturewriter is a well qualified individual" here

WhatamIdoing replied six hours later at 17:28 on 5-8-09, and said that I was not qualified, and added these comments . . .
"He was a [[sports instructor]] who got interested in exercise for people with fatigue and worked essentially as a coach or physical therapy technician on a single exercise-related study" (end of quote) here.

After making those comments several editors started discussing me in an offensively patronising and condescending manner.

 

Here are a few relevant facts

Thirty years ago I was using indexing systems at University libraries to find the best and most recent information from the best researchers and medical authorities in the world when I found a cardiology book called "The Heart", 3rd edition, by J.W.Hurst et al. (1974). It contained a chapter on the cardiovascular symptoms of anxiety neurosis, or neurocirculatory asthenia, with an introduction that mentioned Da Costa's syndrome as being one of the most commonly used alternative labels. On page 1554 it outlined a hypothesis that the condition involved abnormalities in aerobic metabolism, and then I saw these words . . . "Attempts by Cohen and his associates to alter these abnormalities by physical training were unsuccessful since the patients could not or would not follow the prescribed training programme."

However, I had also developed some of my own ideas on that subject, and when I discussed them with a friend of mine he introduced me to the head of the S.A. Institute for fitness research and training. I told him about my ideas which included information about the abnormal nature of the response to physical exertion, and that training people in a manner that kept them within their limits could prevent the type of symptoms that would make them stop training. He then asked me to design a programme that would be followed by patients, and said that he would discuss it with his research staff. Some time later he invited me back to his office and explained that all of his staff were busy on other projects and invited me to do it. I told him that I didn't have any medical qualifications and that I would rather not get involved, but he said that it didn't matter because the staff cardiologists could do all the medicals, and a committee of doctors could be set up to formalise and approve the study, and that a training coach could be found. My role would be to co-ordinate the study and compile and evaluate the results. Following the success of the first twelve week programme, two more followed until a total of more than 80 people had been tested and trained, and nine completed three months, and five completed six months of training, which proved that some of the patients "could", and "would" train if the programme was designed appropriately. I then left the study, and the programme continued, but I did

Hence, I was the designer of a successful research programme in an area where other international researchers were having problems, and it provided a method for others to use, and scientific confirmation of the affect of exercise on aerobic metabolism. However, WhatamIdoing was trying to create the false impression that I was a sports trainer who had no medical knowledge, and who was not involved in the research itself. Note also that I presented some of that information on my website in response to earlier requests from other editors, and, as is obvious, WhatamIdoing was aware of it, and read it, and deliberately here

All references to PACING were deleted from the Da Costa's page and the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome page

I also saw a comment on the CFS page which had been provided by someone else, and used it as a reference in the 2000+ section of the history of Da Costa's syndrome because it was similar type of exercise programme . . . These were the words . . . "Nevertheless patients report that exercising at a self-determined mild level within their own perceived limits, called "pacing" was the most effective method (b)" . . . I added it to the Da Costa's page at 00:08 on 14 January 2008 here

However, WhatamIdoing deleted it within two at 1:34 on 14-1-08 here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=184167421

I then checked the reference again and noticed that another editor named JamesStewart7 had deleted all reference to "Pacing" from the CFS page on 5-1-08. (it had been there for several months without anyone showing any need to delete it until I mentioned it on my own website in a section called "About the Author", which had been put there because other editors requested information about my own research experience). The discussions about those deletions can be seen here

I wrote a further summary of that sequence of events on my own website above, after I was banned, and WhatamIdoing would have been watching, and did, on at least one occasion, make some critical remarks about what I was doing on my own website, and suggested derisively that other editors take a look at it. Obviously, some of the editors of Wikipedia could have seen all of the information, and then I checked the chronic fatigue syndrome topic page again, eight months after I was banned, and saw that a section on PACING was in the list of contents at the top of the page, so I had a look at the history of edits to find out when it was put back, and who put it there. It was put back by an anonymous editor with the IPP address of 87.112.52.109 at 17:00 on 1-9- 09 with these words . . . "Pacing is not a therapy but a strategy to manage energy which has been consistently rated as one of the most helpful treatments available " here

That section was then improved by Ward20 and RobinHood70, and some of the descriptions were very similar to the principles which I developed, and which were in my own research paper from the 1980's. See here, and see a copy of my research paper here.

Summary: my two critics were WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon and they were deleting the information about my research and they had me banned on the basis that it was "ignorant", "non-notable", "self-promoting nonsense". However, the principles that I designed for the research programme in 1982 have now been reworded (paraphrased) and put back into a related topic page by other editors and attributed to other sources. In other words there is a consensus from other editors that the principles of the research programme that I designed were the best according to independent verifiable sources, and they don't appear to care who they get the most effective methods from, as long as it wasn't me.

Deletion Editing

see also here

My main critic, named WhatamIdoing, is the sixth highest contributor to Wikipedia policy pages, but does not wish to become an administrator and has often turned down the offer to be one. That individual is clearly trying to hide their influence by not becoming an obvious power behind the throne, but has nevertheless managed to completely sabotage the original principles upon which the project was based. By encouraging paid editing, and allowing corporations to employ staff to edit Wikipedia, and allowing some editors to contribute despite their conflict of interest, and banning others, and by using policies such as 'COI', 'Notability', 'Assume good faith', and 'Ignore all rules'" to be used as an excuse, or a 'front' for deletion editing, such editors can keep dictatorial and totalitarian control of information disguised as "Neutral point of view".

 

 

Wikipedia's purpose according to it's founder, Jimbo Wales

A quote from Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia, taken from the UserPage of an editor named Arcadian . . .

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing.” -- Jimbo Wales (end of quote) here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Arcadian&diff=next&oldid=376334468

 

Jimbo Wales is an "inclusionist"

"In September 2007, Jimbo Wales – himself an inclusionist who believes that if people want an article about every Pokemon character, then hey, let it happen — posted a one-sentence stub about Mzoli's, a restaurant on the outskirts of Cape Town, South Africa." see here http://www.wordnik.com/words/inclusionist/examples/2

 

Why there are no secrets in Wikipedia according to Jimbo Wales

The following quote comes from a report on the SFGate Website about Jimbo Wales talk in the Tambaleo nightclub in Austin.

"He said he asked the question of his five-year-old daughter, and she told him, "Daddy, I have no secrets."

He then told a moving story about her birth on Dec. 26, 2000. When she first emerged, "all hell broke loose," Wales said. She had Meconium Aspiration Syndrome, a rare but dangerous condition in which, according to Wikipedia, the infant's first stool gets into the lungs.

Wales said he was fortunate that her physician, a Dr. Bernstein, was a leading expert on the condition, and offered a nerve-wracking experimental treatment. Doctors paralyzed the baby, stopping her breathing to rinse out her lungs.

"In two days, she was fine," Wales said. "Now she's this incredibly gifted child who has no secrets."

"On Jan. 15, 2001, I founded Wikipedia," he said. "The world needs knowledge. The world needs people like Dr. Bernstein. I want to be there to help them. That is my secret."

See also here http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/techchron/detail?entry_id=3514

 

This is what would happen to Jimbo in his own encyclopedia today after it has become filled with a myriad of deletionistic policies

I am very pleased that Jimbo had such good fortune in the case of his own daughter, but would like to advise him what could happen if he tried to add that information to Wikipedia today.

The editor named WhatamIdoing would write . . . "This is just garden variety MAS. Looks like something reported by a non-medical person about a newly invented wheel. Does anyone here, except Jimbo who has a clear conflict of interest in judging the merits of this fringy stuff - object?" and Gordonofcartoon would add "Agreed, and nothing about the treatment in the real medical literature sugests it takes up undue space."

Jimbo would politely reply with these words "I agree with you insofar as it takes up too much space for such an experimental procedure so I have abbreviated the section."

WhatamIdoing would reply "Jimbo, I apologise for not being clear earlier - I don't want any of this story of yours shortened I want it removed entirely. Wikipedia is not a place for telling us about your little personal experiences, When you can provide something from a top quality peer-reviewed medical journal we will consider it. So far your favorite little ditty isn't notable enough to justify even half sentence on Wikipedia."

Gordonofcartoon would respond "I agree and am removing the bit about "all hell broke loose" and "rare and dangerous condition". This is an encyclopedia, not a place for one-off anecdotal accounts of such details. I've started a discussion to get Jimbo blocked for "conflict of interest".

Jimbo would reply. "WhatamIdoing; thankyou for your courtesy. I understand that Wikipedia verification policy allows a person to present verifiable facts which you can confirm with Dr. Bernstein himself, who is a leading expert on this condition."

Gordonofcartoon would reply "No! I'm fed up with this - we haven't got time to phone every newbies pet expert", and WhatamIdoing would then set up a section called "I'm going to read WP:CIVIL now" and add . . . "Jimbo, did you "forget" that writing about your favorite little anecdote constitutes a conflict of interest, or were you just hoping that no-one would notice you adding it again. I'd like to add as well that this article is on my daily watchlist, and I suspect on several other editors watchlist. I think you can rely on me noticing future attempts to use this article to promote your favorite opinion, but I do appreciate your other efforts".

If, after abbreviating the article, Jimbo complied with the requests to not mention his own experience again, but continued to add information from other sources such as top-quality peer reviewed medical journals, the same two editors would find a continuous stream of different reasons for deleting every word he wrote, or to set up a dozen discussions to get him blocked, and twelve months later would start an arbitration page to get him banned with these words . . . "We have here a "self-identified" Jimbo, a 'single purpose account' with a "demonstrable conflict of interest" and a known agenda. I'm asking for Arbitration attention - ideally a topic ban covering disruption/harassment on Talk and dispute resolution pages - on grounds of Jimbo exhausting community patience - this involved a classic example of the behaviours described in Wikipedia: Tendentious editing and Wikipedia: Disruptive editing. The dispute has been going on for 12 months now but Jimbo's attitude to discourse had made it impossible to achieve consensus by the normal collaborative process. We want him to prove that he can edit co-operatively on other pages before he resumes on this one. We recommend that he starts by fixing spellig errors on pages about rare Patagonian butterfiles."

Jimbo would reply "Arbitrators, please note that WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon have a consistent pattern of edits in changing the jargon, or the policy, and setting up new forums each time I comply, and just find new things to complain about. They are not likely to change so please give me a week to reply to their next criticisms."

The next day WhatamIdoing would submit a massive essay of criticism full of lies and misrepresentation, and would end with these words "We know that Jimbo means well, and believes that the treatment practically saved his own daughters life. But it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. I think that a broad topic ban covering Meconium Aspiration Syndrome, childbirth, pediatrics, or anything even slightly related to parenting would be the appropriate outcome".

A few days later, before Jimbo had been given his response, there would be a message on his Userpage "Jimbo has been banned", and he would be advised "You have a right to appeal the decision, but you must not comment on the editors who banned you, and must promise that if you go back into Wikipedia you will follow their advise."

A few months later WhatamIdoing would "secretly" and "furtively" give an Outlaw Halo Award to the editor who banned him by using the "ignore all rules" policy.

 

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1

and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=

267259599#User:Posturewriter

and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232

see also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter

 

 

The information that I provided to Wikipedia that was deleted while I was involved, and added back from different sources after I was banned.

 

A quote from my original research paper from 1982

This is a quote from the research program that I designed in 1982 and put onto my webpage after several Wikipedia editors asked me to provide evidence and details of my own research.

At that time the condition was referred to as neurasthenia (chronic fatigue)

"Exercise principles: (a) no sprinting or accelerating (b) no heavy lifting or strenuous work (c) gradual improvement (allowing for fluctuations) (d) work at own level with pulse 120/140 bpm even if this means periodically reducing performance (e) if overexercise occurs and the person appears distressed by faintness and dizziness, he should stop exercise and alternately pace about and rest and take deep breaths until recovering, but may continue to feel some distress for "See page 2 here

A quote from the information that I added to Wikipedia at 5:58 on 18-12-2007

(I mentioned some findings from another researcher named Volkov in 1980, about the aerobic capacity of patients with the same ailment, but he didn't provided any information about the effect of exercise, and other researchers were finding it difficult to get that information because the patients would refuse to train, so I added a summary of my own research with these words). . . "From 1982 -1983, researchers at the South Australian Institute For Fitness Research and Training examined more than 80 volunteers with persistant fatigue and found similar results, and a training programme was designed on the basis that they would participate if they kept within their own limits and improved at their own rate. Eleven who didn't train were examined 6 months later with no significant change. Ten completed three months training of 2 hours per night twice per week, and six completed six months or more. Three cases improved but plateaud after three months below 600 kgm/min, and 3 ot those who were initially recorded as below 400 kgm/min showed significant improvement. Twelve months after starting the training programme one of the participants entered a six mile marathon and completed it. Although the results were not published in medical journals the general findings were reported in several Australian newspapers." herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=177992390

My two critics then set up a DCS talk page and commented on that information in their first edits on 21-12-07

"I'd like to remove the last few paragraphs of the "History" section, beginning from the words "From 1982-1983 . . . Does anyone here -- that is, anyone here except Banfield, who has a clear conflict of interest in judging the merits and notability of his own work -- object? WhatamIdoing 01:08, 21 December 2007

No objection here. Nothing I can find in real medical literature it merits such undue space, and I agree about the COI of his expounding anything to do with his own theory in this article. I've posted a note to that effect at User talk:Posturewriter; if necessary, it can go to WP:COI/N." Gordonofcartoon 02:16, 21 December 2007

Note that they were later claiming to be highly experienced and expert medical editors who were thoroughly conversant with the topic, and that I was ignorant, but they were acting as if they were not aware of anything in the medical literature about the benefits of exercise in DCS????

 

A quote from the information that I added to Wikipedia and that one of my two critics deleted on 14-1-08

This was part of the information about my posture theory and my fatigue research that I put back onto the Da Costa's syndrome page after modifying and abbreviating it because it was said to take up undue space, and that WhatamIdoing also deleted at 1:33 on 14-1-09, so I haven't bothered to put it back since.

"From 1982 -1983 researchers at the South Australian Institute For Fitness Research and Training examined more than 80 volunteers with persistent fatigue and found similar results to Volkov using standard scientifically reliable ergometric graphs. The objective of the study was to determine the effects of regular exercise on the fatigue, but previous programmes had found that patients refused to train or dropped out of the courses too soon for meaningful results to be obtained. In order to overcome that problem Max Banfield, who was appointed research co-ordinator of the project, designed a training programme on the basis that the participants would continue if they kept within their own exertional limits and improved at their own rate . . . Ten completed three months training of 2 hours per night twice per week, and six completed six months or more . . . Although the results were not published in medical journals the general findings were reported in several Australian newspapers etc" See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=184167421&oldid=184151270

Although I haven't put that information back since, my two critics repeatedly tried to give the arbitrators the false impression that I was constantly putting it back almost every week for a year, and needed to be banned for disruptive editing???? e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid
=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing

A quote provided by another editor from other sources seven months after I was banned.

This was the explanation for a contribution by an editor named Ward20 at 19:51 on 1-9-09 . . . "Pacing: combine text with previous text treatment page. Need high quality sources. this version has a review referencing material).

The wording on the CFS topic page was then amended as follows . . .

"Pacing is a strategy to encourage behavioral change while acknowledging patient fluctuations in symptom severity and delayed exercise recovery. Patients are advised to set manageable daily activity/exercise goals and balance their activity and rest to avoid possible over-doing which may worsen their symptoms. Those that are able to function within their individual limits may then start to gradually increase activity and exercise levels (GET) while maintaining pacing methods. The goal is to increase over time the level of routine functioning of the individual.[52] A small randomised controlled trial concluded pacing with GET had statistically better results than relaxation/flexibility therapy.[53][54]". See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=311334025&oldid=311305422

(Note that G.E.T. refers to Graded Exercise Therapy)

Summary;

The information about my research from 1982 that I provided about exercise on the Da Costa's page has been deleted as "nonsense" and I was subsequently banned. Since then several other editors have put the same general information back on the CFS page as the best method available according to other references published between 2004 and 2008.

Comparisons of research success and failure

When I designed a training programme for patients with chronic fatigue, it was not called the 'chronic fatigue syndrome', but it was the same group of patients, and they were required to exercise at a rate that was comfortable and within their limits, and to increase at their own rate, and if they had any symptoms they simply decided for themselves to slow down. Nobody told them that they must improve, or forced them to advance at any particular rate, which is why it was very easy to get a group of people to train for three months or more. I expected no more than they attend classes, and try to improve their fitness level and many of them did. I also knew that it was unlikely to cure the problem but has been noted by many other researchers that some patients return to normal levels of activity in daily life. I also knew that mild exercise of any sort was generally better than none for those who were capable of it, and did not force anyone to do anything that they didn't want to do. I knew that most previous programmes by other researchers were failing because they were telling the patients that there was nothing physically wrong with their health, and that they must run at a gradually increasing pace in order to get a cure for their condition. Such a programme would be virtually guaranteed to make the symptoms worse, which appears to be the case according to a recent edit added to Wikipedia which I will describe.

About a year after I was banned, an editor named Goldstein123 added the text below (in italics) to the excisting text over several sections of the 'Chronic Fatigue Syndrome' page at 17:37 on 18 April 2010.

"Cognitive behavioural therapy
According to the cognitive-behavioural model of illness, the patient's interpretation of symptoms plays an important role in perpetuating the illness. CBT aims to help the patient change these negative beliefs with the goal being either to reduce the symptoms, help the patient cope with the illness, or to fully recover.<ref>{{cite book |author=Mark A. Demitrack, Susan E. Abbey |title=Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: An Integrative Approach to Evaluation and Treatment |publisher=Guilford Press|year=1999 |pages=241 |isbn=1572304995, 9781572304994 |oclc= |doi=}}</ref>

>Frank N.M. Twisk and Michael Maes published a study in 2009 called "A Review on Cognitive Behavorial Therapy (CBT) and Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)" in their conclusion they stated that "We conclude that it is unethical to treat patients with ME/CFS with ineffective, non-evidence-based and potentially harmful “rehabilitation therapies”, such as CBT/GET."<ref>http://node.nel.edu/?node_id=8918</ref> . . .
Frank N.M. Twisk and Michael Maes in their 2009 study "A Review on Cognitive Behavorial Therapy (CBT) and Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)" stated "this review shows that exertion and thus GET most likely have a negative impact on many ME/CFS patients. Exertion induces post-exertional malaise with a decreased physical performan ce/aerobic capacity, increased muscoskeletal pain, neurocognitive impairment, “fatigue”, and weakness, and a long lasting “recovery” time. This can be explained by findings that exertion may amplify pre-existing pa thophysiological abnormalities underpinning ME/CFS, such as inflammation, immune dysfunction, oxidative and nitrosative stress, channelopathy, defec tive stress response mechanisms and a hypoactive hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis."<ref>http://node.nel.edu/?node_id=8918</ref> . . .

Dr Lerner, a well known CFS/ME doctor in America, has published a number of papers demonstrating the benefit of treating CFS/ME with antivirals such as Valacyclovir<ref>http://www.cfsviraltreatment.com/cfs_publications/index.html</ref" (end of extracts)

I have no wish to criticise a researcher of this topic but there have been evidence based studies for the effects of exercise in 'chronic fatigue' patients, and the benefits of mild exercise, and the harm from strenuous exercise has been known and documented for more than 90 years, since the studies or Sir James MacKenzie in 1916 and Sir Thomas Lewis in 1919. For more information about CFS and exercise see here and here

 

Note that a person who adds information to Wikipedia is required to provide independent verification that what they say is true, and that it is preferable to do it online for the convenience of other editors so that they can check it easily. They are also required to show that the information is supported by many different sources so that it can be deemed reliable, which is why I added information about my own research to my website (to make the it easy to find), and why I mentioned other studies with similar findings (to show that it was independently verifiable), and why I looked for, and added a link to another page in Wikipedia (to make it easy to verify)). When the information was deleted I did not put it back unless I could satisfy the other editors requests to meet particular standards, and then I stopped mentioning my own research. However, WhatamIdoing always put a negative spin on everything.

It is probably superfluous to say that I have no reason to avoid mentioning anything about myself to unbiased and intelligent people, but it is not sensible to freely discuss any topics of a controversial nature. My two critics in Wikipedia give classic examples. For example when I said that I had written a thousand page book on the subject they argued that I could not contribute because of "conflict of interest" policy. When I said that I had access to research papers from my own filing cabinet (which were by other authors from research journals), they said that I couldn't use them because it was a violation of "original research" policy, and when I discussed research into the symptom of breathlessness from the 1940's, they argued that I couldn't use it because it was "synthesis" of my theory. (that symptom affects more than 90% of patients). When they were repeatedly probing for more details about me, it was obvious that they were looking for excuses to ban me.

However, when I mentioned that WhatamIdoing had previously admitted to not knowing much about Da Costa's syndrome, and to being useless at cardiology, and to being an instant expert, and when I stated the obvious fact that instant experts had shallow knowledge, they responded with spite and hostility. I mentioned that at 10:08 on 27-1-09, and at 10:25 (in less than half an hour) Gordonofcartoon responded with arrogant indignation, and at 18:27 (eight hours later) WhatamIdoing wrote these words "Posturewriter has been blocked for COI violations and editwarring"

herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266789799&oldid=266722358#Da_Costa_Article_page
_text_replaced_with_the_text_from_the_Posturewriter.2FDaCostaDraft.

You can determine for yourself that one or both of them then started desperately sending emails to their friends in a great rush to get me banned the next day (before I had time to give my final defense). The evidence for that can be seen where an editor named Moreshci interrupted the regular arbitration process that involved twelve editors, and banned me on his own on 28-1-09, and a few days later, on 3-2-09, Gordonofcartoon expressed his great relief with these words . . . "Finally I raised it at Requests for Arbitration. They were cautiously moving toward accepting before the cavalry arrived in the form of admins who were prepared to bring blocks, ultimately an indefinite one for disruptive conduct" here

Note that Gordonofcartoon was using the plural word "admins" to create the false impression that there was a large group of editors banning me, when in fact there was only one, and his name was Moreshi. and he was referring to him as the cavalry in a further attempt to create the illusion of great numbers. You can also see that the use of the word cavalry is an indication that his arrival was part of a predetermined edit war that was being conducted against me, and that WhatamIdoing said that I had been blocked for edit warring when I didn't know what an edit war was, and was just defending myself from multiple

There is more evidence a few months later on 8-5-2009 when Whatamidoing awarded Moreschi with an OUTLAW HALO award for being the only editor prepared to break all the rules to get me banned. These were WhatamIdoing's words to Moreschi . . . "Thanks for being the only part of the community that was willing to step up to the plate when I was about to tear my hair out over [[User:Posturewriter]] . . . in January". User:WhatamIdoing 23:41, 8 May 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moreschi&diff=prev&oldid=288770661

***

Note that at 8:32 on Tuesday 27-1-09 I advised the other twelve arbitrators that I would be presenting my final defense the following Sunday with these words . . . "Arbitrators; Please note that you can see the pattern of WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon changing the jargon, and changing the policy, and changing the forums each time I comply, which is a form of disruptive editing called "moving the goalposts . . . Also note that this has been going on for 12 months and I prefer to contribute on Sundays only so if that is a problem please let me know, but I don't think any thing I say will change the way they do things. Posturewriter (talk) 08:32, 27 January 2009 here

Note also that I was aware that my two critics would see that comment as well, and that they would probably do something to disrupt and undermine the arbitration process. I was therefore not in the slightest bit surprised that they would get one of their friends to come along and ban me before Sunday1st February. Moreschi banned me at 15:36 on Wednesday 28th January herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=
266981397#Comment_from_Moreschi

The Two Deletionists

One of the five main symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome is lower left-sided chest pains.

It is very typical and easy to diagnose and can occur as a small area of tenderness or pain, or an occasional sharp stabbing pain between the ribs, and can be immediately relieved by the injection of an analgesic in the correct location, which means that it is physical and real, and definitely not imaginary.
It is more common in sedentary workers than manual laborers, and in patients who have thin physiques, stooped or sideways curved spines, and long, narrow, or flat chests.
In my posture theory I have suggested that the stooped posture causes that pain by constantly putting pressure on the lower ribs, and that it tends to occur on one side because of sideways curvature of the spine, and that a long chest would have more leverage, and a flat chest would be more likely to buckle in that area, and that it is more likely to effect sedentary workers who lean back and forwards to read and write at their desks all day

My two critics argued that my theory was nonsense and crap and deleted all mention of it within the first month, and then spent the next twelve months telling all of the other editors that I had a conflict of interest and should be blocked from the topic. They also contrived a wide variety of policy reasons as their excuse for deleting almost every verifiable fact about the symptoms, including the chest pain.
They then rewrote a version of the article in which they deliberately gave the false impression that the symptoms only affected soldiers and were the 'manifestations' of an anxiety disorder caused by the fear of battle.

They told lies about my theory, the policies, and the subject, and in particular, they lied by omission.

This is a quote from the symptoms section of their version of the article . . . "Physical examination reveals no physical abnormalities causing the symptoms.[9]"
Note that they supported that statement with their reference number 9 which was written by Neuhof Selian in 1917, thirty years before the physical cause of the chest pain was discovered. See the symptoms section of their version of the article here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266577085&oldid=266514750#Symptoms

 


The Deletionist and their Extreme Prejudice

The physical basis for the main symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome had already been determined and scientifically proven by the late 1940's as evident from the following information that I provided for Wikipedia . . . "Also in 1947 a report by Cohen and White noted that the complete mechanism of Da Costa's syndrome symptoms was unknown but when respiration was investigated objective abnormalities were found, 'just as when other symptoms of N.C.A. are investigated with objective methods, which demonstrates that the abnormalities are not all in the subjective sphere'. The respiratory abnormalities at rest were few but during exercise the abnormalities became more pronounced and the deviations from the normal became greater as the rate and amount of exercise increased'." here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266514750&oldid=266506092#1920-1949.
My two critics deliberately deleted that information, and everything relevant to it, on the grounds that it was rubbish from unreliable sources, and replaced it with the following words to describe the entire history of research from 1876 to 2000. . . "Since then, a variety of similar or partly similar conditions have been described" e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=266514750#History

However, without that information they could proceed to argue that the symptoms were not real, or not physical, or were imaginary, or were caused by fear and anxiety and were psychosomatic, or were due to depression or mental illness, or to describe the patients as lazy, stupid, cowardly or mad. See their cherry-picked references and prejudiced comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214#References

They also deleted the information that the condition affected 2-4% of the population, which, on a planet of 5 billion, equates with up to 200 million patients, and they replaced it with a reference to a rare diseases database. However, such patients do not deserve to be told that their ailment is 'just you', or odd, unusual, weird, or 'rare', which is what would happen in the absence of the correct information.

(note that in the U.K. Da Costa's syndrome was called the 'effort syndrome', and in the U.S. it was called neurocirculatory asthenia - N.C.A)

An explanation for the deletion of some details

In December 1997 I saw a page about Da Costa's Syndrome in Wikipedia with a general invitation for members of the public to add information to it. That page contained only four lines of text with no references here. I began contributing and several editors made corrections and layout improvements which enhanced it considerably, but then I added some information about my own research findings. Ever since then several editors, but two in particular, have changed their attitude from being friendly, co-operative, and useful, to being hostile, insulting, derogatory, offensive, and disruptive, and within a short time they had used trumped up policy reasons to delete everything about my own research, as well as deleting it again after I responded to their request to abbreviate it, and then they proceeded to delete everything else I wrote. For example, when I added several paragraphs describing a Harvard scholars history of at least a dozen controversial theories on the topic, they deleted them and replaced them with one sentence favoring their own opinion here. They also went to several other topic pages where I had added one or two sentences, and used trumped up policy reasons for deleting them here etc. They continued in that manner, and over a period of ten months tried to bamboozle me with what they thought would be an obstacle course of jargon, and when I questioned them about some of their mistakes, e.g. here, and >here, and here, they cited multiple policy reasons for deleting my contributions, and then they went to many discussion or forum pages to seek the assistance of up to fifty other editors to block me. In essence they were deleting all significant scientific evidence of a physical cause, and replacing it with references to psychosomatic concepts, and then they added a link to the end of the page which opened a window where Da Costa's syndrome was highlighted in bold print in the middle of a list of more that 80 mental illnesses.

My contributions would amount to perhaps eight to ten A4 pages in Wikipedia (and many medical pages are that length), but the combined criticism would probably surpass one hundred A4 pages of text if copied and printed.

Eventually another two editors saw the disputes and suggested that I and my critics set up separate subpages to present our contributions without interference, which were then to be merged by "neutral point of view" editors (NPOV's) later, and one of them provided me with a sub-page. I advised them that I would add the contents a few weeks later on a Sunday. I also predicted that my critics would find a way of stopping that from happening because, if my text was added to Wikipedia their article would not look credible. Within two weeks another editor closed the Requests for Comments page with advice that I would be banned from contributing to the Da Costa's syndrome article page if I added any more information to it. I had been progressively blocked from adding anything to the Da Costa page, and then the discussion page, and then to any pages related to Da Costa, and then to any medical pages. e.g. with these words on 27-1-09 . . . "I think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an appropriate outcome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2009" here

I was, of course, in the process of preparing the article and have since completed it ready to be used as a replacement for the existing Da Costa's syndrome page, but rather than argue with editors for another twelve months I have decided to present the information on my own website here. My critics had been arguing that wiki policy on medical articles required that I should only use references that were consistent with medical dictionary definitions or medical textbook descriptions that had been published within the past two years, and that anything other than that was unreliable, and anything older than that was obsolete. Their method of using policies and forums to control the content in Wikipedia would prevent their readers from gaining a proper understanding of the subject and would be of interest to "media studies" students, so I will add the full text of those discussions on another page in due course for those who wish to consider it.

The Da Costa's syndrome article that was left in Wikipedia after being altered by other editors up until 26-9-08 has only been edited once by someone else since 1-8-09 here

The article that I initially provided for the subpage was posted in Wikipedia on 28-9-08 here, and was soon flooded with a barrage of offensive insults and more than 80 criticisms here. I subsequently responded by adding 400 links to 60 top quality references to verify the accuracy of every statement in the text.

The last version that I posted in Wikipedia was on 30-11-08 <here, and is therefore available to Wikipedia, or anyone else to use for free.

I have continued to use the Wikipedia page and referencing templates, and I have written additional text, with additional references, and added it on my website for the first time on 30-12-08 here, and any use of that additional information would be a breech of my copyright, and the source, which is now this website, should be acknowledged, with me as the author. M.B.

****

In the process of developing the sub-page one editor, named Avnjay, provided constructive assistance by rewriting the introduction and the history from 1864 to 1900, so I eventually added that version to the Wikipedia topic page three times between 25-1-09 and 27-1-09, but each time it was deleted and then I was banned. I have therefore added the whole essay to my website, but in order to claim authorship, I have replaced those two sections with my original introduction etc. All other information has been written by myself, with much of it cut and pasted from my previous contributions to Wikipedia which have been deleted and only remain in the wiki history of edits. I also provided about 60 of the 70 references, and did my own reviews of the other 10, and some of my text was in response to criticism, and otherwise wouldn't be necessary, and has reduced the usefulness of the page, but not irreparably. I may add to, or amend the text later.

I spent twelve months writing that essay, so if it isn't going to be used by Wikipedia I will use it myself here. It is more accurate and informative than the one supplied by my two critics M.B.

 

THE SPECIFIC DISCOVERIES AND EVIDENCE THAT WERE DELETED BY MY TWO CRITICS

Time in history The evidence that the Wikipedia editors deleted.

 

Deleted information
Policy reason used as an excuse for the deletion

1916

Sir Thomas Lewis statement that the fatigue is related to abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal veins which reduces blood flow to the heart and brain.

Deleted here

Deleted on the grounds of Cruft - which means rubbish or excessive detail

1947

S.Wolf's discovery that the breathlessness was due to spasm of the breathing muscles

Deleted in February 2008 here  

See also my integration of respiratory references in May 2008 here
and the slab deletion here

See also more discussions about the breathlessness here

This important fact was deleted when one of the editors summarised several studies on breathlessness, and later by an anonymous editor.

1951

Paul Dudley White's statement that DCS "constitutes a kind of fatigue syndrome" . . . and in some cases . . . "it is more or less a chronic condition"

(which I used as one of many references to describe DCS as a "type of" CFS)

Deleted here

See also WP:MEDRS for HISTORY articles in the last paragraph of the "up-to-date" evidence section here

See also the criticism of the reference by scrolling down to the comments at 23:04 on 11-1-09 on this link here

Note that when I mentioned that Paul Dudley White was a "Harvard" professor my critics added the comment that it was "Unimportant detail added to push POV" in the second paragraph here . . .

and then they mirepresented the reliability of the book by deliberately not mentioning that Paul Dudley White was the author, and then describing it as "a 1951 text book" and "seriously outdated material" on the arbitration page here

Note that Da Costa's syndrome had been described as being related to chronic fatigue syndrome here, before I started adding to it 12 months ago, and nobody argued about it then: See here . . .

and the article which they replaced mine with included the words "The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome" on 27-1-09 here

The quality of my 60 references can be seen by scrolling down to the reference section here

Removed on the grounds that it was original research that violated WP:OR policy. Also later criticised for being an obsolete reference, and an unreliable source of information about medical history - re that it violated WP:RS, and WP:MEDRS

1956

Paul Wood's statemtent that the left-sided chest pains can be immediately relieved by injecting novocaine between the ribs

e.g. Added here

Deleted here etc.

(Novocaine is local anesthetic used as a pain killing medication)

Removed with whole text on the grounds that I had been topic banned etc.

1980

V.S.Volkovs study demonstrates that the severity of the condition can be measured.

here

The measurements were deleted when the item was abbreviated on the grounds of making it more concise?

1998

David Streeten's review of the history of research on the subject of chronic fatigue syndrome and delayed orthostatic hypotension, and it's similarity to Da Costa's syndrome.

The reference details and a link for Streeton's article can be seen here

See also; the Wikipedia policy for reliable sources of medical information with JAMA mentioned as a typical good example here

The JAMA article was criticised several times e.g. as can be seen by scrolling down to the comment on 00:01 on 3-1-09 here

You can also see attempts to discredit the Streeten's article by scrolling down to the 1998 period here

. . . and by referring to the MEDRS compliant article as "an op-ed piece" on the arbitration page here

In effect WhatamIdoing is suggesting that the publishers of the Journal of the American Medical Association would let non-experts give unreliable opinions for their readers. It should be obvious that a top quality journal only becomes top quality by ensuring that all of it's articles are top quality.

You can also note that, while they have been critising me for referring to Streeten's suggestion that the orthostatic hypotension of CFS was similar to that described by Da Costa, you can check their version of the article which they used to replace mine, and you can still see the words "The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome" and note that nobody has argued with it since here

My review of an editorial in JAMA was criticised on the grounds that it was just an op-ed by a non-expert and because it was 11 years old etc.
    Other evidence that was deleted for similar reasons  

1887

R.L.Dickinson's scientific measurements of the external and internal pressure of the chest and abdominal cavities and the effects on health.

The page on corset pressure measurements is here

On 20-12-07 I added a link to it here.

That link was deleted here

Some of the discussion about the topic of tight miliraty uniforms can be seen here

The reason for deletion was stated here

This link was deleted on the grounds that Da Costa's syndrome (and the tight chest straps of military knapsacks) were not specifically mentioned in the article.

1987

Oglesby Paul's ten page history on the variety of observations and theories on causes in the British Heart Journal

See the abstract for the article here, and then I recommend that you read the full article.

My review of about ten of the possible causes mentioned in Paul's paper was reduced by my two critics to one sentence about anxiety here

See also: the discusssion here

Note also that after I was criticised for choosing unreliable sources of medical information I decided to do a review of Oglesby Paul's paper because it was the number one reference on the Da Costa page and another editor named "Arcadian" had put it there earlier at 5:43 on 19-12-07 here

I started that review by describing his research credentials to make the history of the topic interesting, and to let the readers, editors, and critics know that he was a top quality medical author.

Here is some more of their deliberately offensive criticism of the way I described Oglesby Paul's research in the 7th paragraph here . . . "The style is horrible. Medicine-related articles do not obsessively name the year, publisher, and authors when discussing research work. That's what your citation is for . . . 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. . . . and . . . Proper style skips this sort of stuff etc."

Note Oglesby Paul was a Harvard researcher, and The Briitsh Heart Journal is a medically reliable publication, and a review is a secondary source, as specifically required by WP:MEDRS policy, and my critic was telling other editors that I should not mention his credentials because he was just "this guy" who wrote a "routine review".

Reduced to one sentence about anxiety on the grounds that it needed to be condensed extensively
 

The whole article was deleted in one slab by an anonymous editor

The whole article was slab eleted by an anonymous editor several times in a series starting here.

The fact that another editor deleted the whole article with a vandalistic remark is an indication of just how sensitive, biased, prejudiced, and hostile some people are toward the information that I was adding. Re: it may not be just my two critics who are so determined to delete it.

Nevertheless, they were the only "other" editors to slab delete most, if not all of the article, on several occausions, so it is rather obvious that the anonymous culprit was probably one of them, or one of their friends or associates e.g. See one of my relevant reports here.

Deleted by an anonymous editor, possibly one of my two critics, or one of their friends?
   

The page of text that remained after my two critics has added their edits, and deleted all of my contributions, and all of the evidence listed above, can be seen here . . .

  

Some of the statements provided by my two critics about Da Costa's syndrome

This is some of the information that I provided and my two critics deleted on the grounds that it was 'cruft', which means unimportant detail or rubbish, and because the references were, in their personal opinion, old, trivial, poor quality, inaccurate, unreliable, or unverifiable.
"In modern times, Da Costa's syndrome is considered the manifestation of an anxiety disorder"

According to J.M.Da Costa's original research paper of 1871 . . . "great care has been exercised to arrive at the probable causative element". The "Analysis of 200 cases" was . . . "fevers 17%, diarrhea 30.5%, Hard field service, particularly excessive marching, 38.5%, and wounds, injury, rheumatism, scurvy, ordinary duties of soldier's life, and doubtful causes18%" . . . Some of the soldiers marched 26 miles in one day, or fought and marched for three days in a row, and carried heavy knapsacks, and,or had a combination of factors such as poor food and water, and fevers such as typhoid.

(e.g. a summary of that list of causes would be: a soldier who marched up and down hills for three days in a row in cold rainy weather with damp boots and clothes, and poor food and water, develops a fever and sweats, becomes dehydrated, and continues marching until he feels breathless, faint, and dizzy, and falls to the ground exhausted several times until he is unable to get up again. He spends a few months in hospital recovering and later finds that the he cannot keep up the pace of the other soldiers as he did before.)

Note; The following history of edits shows how the information was altered

I provided the article with the reference to Da Costa's original 1871 article at 7:30 on 9-12-07 here

I later added his statistics on 1-2-08 here

Nine days later, at 8:20 on 10-2-08 I added a summary of Oglesby Paul's ten page article on the research history of Da Costa's syndrome here

Five hours later, at 13:10 on 10-2-08 (the same day) Gordonofcartoon abbreviated that summary down to one sentence about anxiety with the words "This is an encyclopedia, not a treatise! - condense extensive Oglesby recap to overview" here

Eight hours later, at 21:12 on 1-2-08 (the same day) WhatamIdoing removed Da Costa's original statistics in the process of abbreviating the article again with the word "Summarize" here

In the same edit of 21:12 on 1-2-08 WhatamIdoing also deleted my summary of Edwin Wheelers 1950 follow up study of 173 patients and the following statistics "11.7% were well, 35% had symptoms, 38.3% had mild disability, and 15% had severe disability, and there are notes where the subjects led quiet or moderate lifestyles, and when changing to more strenuous and sustained activities their health deteriorated, so they returned to the quiet life and recovered".

Those two individuals continued to do most of the editing after a topic ban was virtually imposed on me on an RFC page started by Gordonofcartoon on 20-7-08 here, until I was banned on 28-1-09, and the text that remained after WhatamIdoing deleted my subpage replacement on 26-1-09 gives an abbreviated account of Da Costa's original observations and then summarises it with the following words . . . "The soldier soon found that he could not keep up with his comrades in the exertions of a soldier's life as previously" etc, "yet upon examination some time later he appeared generally healthy".

The two editors also introduced the topic with references to the mid 20th century ideas about neuroses, and modern references to anxiety and somatoform disorders here

Note that their words "generally healthy" are a lot different to the factual evidence from history that only 11.7% were well, and "35% had symptoms, 38.3% had mild disability, and 15% had severe disability" twenty years later.

Here is a statement from Paul Dudley White's book of 1951 that was deleted by my critics . . . "The condition must be discussed seriously, not lightly as if it was of no importance", and it is equally wrong to dismiss it as negligible or imaginary, as it is to to regard it as dangerous or serious and a threat to life which demands bed rest

"a physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities"

A physical examination involves observing the patient, and testing the pulse rate and blood pressure etc., and may reveal the following physiological abnormalities.

The patient may report occasional brief, sharp stabbing pains in the lower left side of the chest, and pressing on the ribs in that area may reveal that the muscles between them are often tender, and the pain can be relieved by injecting novocaine at that site.The breathing pattern is abnormal, and the patient can often be seen to be taking frequent deep sighs. They also have a reduced capacity to hold their breath, and an intolerance to carbon dioxide where deliberately overbreathing, or breathing CO2 enriched air brings on their symptoms, as does wearing a gas mask and the infusion of sodium lactate. Other common distinguishing features are abnormalities in the shape of their fingernail capillaries, and it is very common to find dermatographia where running a finger nail lightly down the skin of the chest will leave a trailing red mark and hence the ability to write on the skin.Ergometric tests on a stationary cycle reveal measurably lower than normal aerobic capacity, blood tests reveal abnormal levels of blood lactate during exercise, and the pulse rate takes longer to return to normal after exercise, and tilt table tests reveal abnormalities in blood pressure and pulse rate during changes in the position of the body.

That information was added three times. e.g. here, and was deleted by my critics and replaced with their version three times, e.g. here

This is some information that I gave to my main critic on 1 January 2009 . . . "WhatamIdoing: the “Centers for Disease Control and Prevention” is regarded as a reliable source of medical information and it’s website states that 96% of adults with the chronic fatigue syndrome have evidence of hypotension when tested on a tilt table, and that the change in blood pressure causes their symptoms. There is nothing ambiguous about those facts."Posturewriter 03:55, 1 January 2009 here
The details relate equally to Da Costa's syndrome and have chaged since I last viewed that site as can be seen here

"The syndrome is also frequently interpreted as one of a number of imprecisely characterized "postwar syndromes"

In 1956 Paul Wood O.B.E. wrote that "The cardinal symptoms" of irritable heart, soldier's heart, disordered action of the heart (D.A.H.), etc. are "breathlessness (93%), palpitations (89%), fatigue (88%), left inframammary pain (78%), and dizziness (78%), or syncope (fainting) (35%)". In 1919 Sir Thomas Lewis noted that a large percentage of soldier's who developed severe symptoms during the war alreadyhad signs of the ailment during civilian life before enlisting in the army, and most of them came from sedentary occupations (and never played sport). He called it the "Effort Syndrome"because in some soldier's the symptoms only occured during exerion.

Here is another quote from Oglesby Paul's paper of 1987 . . . These words can be seen in the first paragraph . . . "Originally identified in men in wartime, it has been widely recognised as a common chronic condition in both sexes in civilian life" . . . and these words can be seen on his last paragraph . . . "The diagnosis is usually not difficult for an interested reasonably intelligent physician"(see reference number 2 here.

It is therefore a civilian syndrome that is generally made worse by the conditions of war.

The Issue of physical or physiological causes

On 15-5-08 WhatamIdoing wrote these words . . . "IMO, most people who supposedly have DCS probably do have a physical disorder that affects autonomic nerve function. I'm with Jenny King: Most of them have a problem with habitual hyperventilation, which may or may not be triggered by anxiety. HVS explains all of the symptoms . . . WhatamIdoing 22:05, 15 May 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Physical_v_psychosomatic

Note that as I added information about the physical or physiological aspects of Da Costa's syndrome e.g. here

However, WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon deleted it and at 18:12 on 27-1-09 the following misleading statement remained on the first sentence . . . "a physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities" herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266787024&oldid=266755214

Five months later on 19-6-09 WhatamIdoing wrote these words on the HVS page "While oxygen is abundant in the bloodstream, HVS reduces effective delivery of that oxygen to vital organs due to {{carbon dioxide}}-induced [[vasoconstriction]] and the suppressed [[Bohr effect]]" . . . and . . . "Other mechanisms may also be at work, and some people are physiologically more susceptible to this phenomenon than others" herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyperventilation_syndrome&diff=297270442&oldid=296041457

WhatamIdoing supports the HVS statement with a reference that links to a website that contains these words . . . "In some cases, patients with this syndrome have demonstrated altered respiratory physiology" here http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/807277-overview

Note that despite WhatamIdoing arguing that HVS is the same as Da Costa's syndrome, the symptoms described on each Wikipedia topic page are substantially different. Also, WhatamIdoing has deleted the information that I provided about the physiological abnormalities on the Da Costa's syndrome page, and is adding information about the physiological abnormalities to the HVS page.

Also note that the version of the Da Costa's page provided by my two critics does not mention hyperventilation syndrome, and it still wasn't mentioned on that page by them or anyone else 18 months after was banned.

The Removal of Relevant Statistics to create false impressions

Deletion of disability statistics

My two critics always found a plausible excuse for deleting important information and entirely relevant statistics from top quality references that were essential to gaining a proper understanding of the disorder. In this example, WhatamIdoing suggested removing everything about my research because it hadn't been published in "top quality" research journals, and in the next sentence Gordonofcartoon he said that he was removing statistics (from a top quality reference) because they were too much detail for an encyclopedia.

This is a quote from my main critics arrogant, and deliberately offensive remarks on 27th December 2007 . . . "Max, I apologize if my previous comments weren't clear. I don't want your made-up theory shortened; I want it removed entirely from this article. Wikipedia is not a reasonable place for promoting our pet theories. When a physician's group or a peer-reviewed scientific journal publishes your theory, then I'd be3 happy to include it. So far, however, the medical communities response has basically been resounding indifference, with a sidebar of rude remarks about your ignorance, and that means that your pet theory is not notable enough to justify even half a sentence on Wikipedia."WhatamIdoing 18:42, 27 December 2007

This was Gordonofcartoon's response two days later .. . . "I agree, and am removing it. And we also generally need to summarise the 'case history' material (the "35% had symptoms, 38.3% had mild disability, and 15% had severe disability" kind of thing). This is an encyclopedia article for general readership, not a med journal literature survey. I've also posted it to WP:COI/N. Gordonofcartoon 01:05, 29 December 2007

At 21:12 on 10-2-08 WhatamIdoing abbreviated the text that I provided for the implied purpose of summarising it, but in the process replaced the relevant scientific statistics with one misleading and deliberately pejorative sentence about the patients 'self-reported disability'.

Here is an extract of the words that I provided, . . . "In '''1950''' Edwin Wheeler and his colleagues . . . presented their report of a 20 year follow-up study of 173 patients with the Effort Syndrome. . . They found that the condition generally takes a variable course, and also varies from person to person. Most subjects completed questionnaires and of the 60 who attended medical examinations, 11.7% were well, 35% had symptoms, 38.3% had mild disability, and 15% had severe disability, and there are notes where the subjects led quiet or moderate lifestyles, and when changing to more strenuous and sustained activities their health deteriorated, so they returned to the quiet life and recovered . . . In some cases this occurred two or three times in their life before they recognised the necessity and value of limiting their activities"

These are the actual words that WhatamIdoing used. . .

"A 20-year longitudinal study of 173 patients with "effort syndrome" concluded that patients self-reported disability improved with a low-stress lifestyle". (end of quote)

 

Note t that the reference that I used was from the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is one of the best quality medical science journals in the world, and was mentioned in Wikipedia's sourcing policy as an excellent example of what they recommended.

You can see that WhatamIdoing said that the information about my research was being deleted because it hadn't been published in a top quality peer-reviewed journal, and then gave a different reason for deleting Wheeler's research data which had been published in top quality research journal. Also one of Wheeler's collaborators was Paul Dudley White who was one of the most important researchers in the history of the topic.

See Gordonofcartoons comment here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=180716273

The summarising process can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=190462118&oldid=190379699

 

 

Double standards in the deletion of statistics (a form of manipulation)

the editor named Ward20

I added these comments about Ward20 and JamesStewart7 between 14th and 17th February 2011

When I completed my research on chronic exercise related fatigue in 1982-4 it was obvious that I had scientifically proven beyond doubt that it was a real physical and measurable ailment with various degrees of exercise limitations that corresponded exactly to the measurements. i.e that the symptoms were real. I also knew that it would be impossible for any respectable scientist to continue to use the old argument that it was trivial, imaginary, or subjective, because those scientists could be easily discredited.

Within a few years the term Da Costa's syndrome went out of use, and I heard and saw comments in the media about a brand new disease called the chronic fatigue syndrome which was attributed to the modern lifestyle, and that was exactly the same argument that had been used a century earlier about neurasthenia, which referred to patients who were always complaining of fatigue.

It doesn't matter how many symptoms are mixed in with the various definitions of those ailments, because the fact remains that the core symptom of exercise related fatigue is exactly the same in all of them.

However, my main critic in Wikipedia presented the extremely stupid and childish argument that Da Costa's syndrome and CFS 'aren't related' just because they put CFS in the "Related" section of the Da Costa's page etc. That editor put the equally childish argument that CFS was a diagnosis by exclusion, and therefore couldn't be the same, but for example, it didn't exclude the orthostatic intolerance, and the post exertional malaise of CFS which is the core fatigue symptom of Da Costa's.

The following time frame will show what happened about some corresponding statistics.

14-6-2007 an editor named Ward20 joined Wikipedia

9-12-2007 I started adding information to the Da Costa's syndrome page

13-12-2007 at 20:33 I added the following statistics from J.A.M.A. to the Da Costa's page . . . "Most subjects completed questionnaires and of the 60 who attended medical examinations, 11.7% were well, 35% had symptoms, 38.3% had mild disability, and 15% had severe disability"

21-12-2007 WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon started up the DCS talk page and began criticising me and deleting information as a tag-team.

27-12-2007 at 00:44 Ward20 who had already made over 1000 contributions, did his first edit on the CFS page.

14-1-2008 At 1:49, WhatamIdoing wrote these words on the DCS talk page - "I'd like to point out as well that this article is on my daily watchlist, and I suspect that it's on several other editors lists for the same reason. I think you can rely on me promptly noticing future attempts to use this article to promote your theory. (I do appreciate your other efforts, but you need to quit adding your own research theories to this article.) WhatamIdoing 01:49, 14 January 2008 (end of quote)

My comment - I suppose they will think that my excellent ideas have not been given broad coverage, so they can ban me and steal them, and take the credit, and get away with it). At the same time they can add comments and references that discredit any of my ideas that they don't like.

10-2-2008 at 20:07, Ward20, added this statistic to the CFS page "Some cases improve over time, and treatments (though none are universally accepted) bring a degree of improvement to many others, though full resolution may be rare, only 5-10% according to the United States Centers for Disease Control (CDC)."

10-2-2008 at 21:12, (five minutes later), WhatamIdoing deleted the statistics from the Da Costa's page, in relation to arguments that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, not a treatise, and didn't need all of that detail, cruft, and rubbish that had "crawled in" and needed to be swept away.

 

27-7-2010 (two and a half years later) Ward20 added another statistic to the CFS page . . . "A study review calculated a median untreated patient full recovery rate of 5%, and median improvement rate at approximately 40% compared to pre illness status.[12]

In the meantime other editors added more statistics such as this "Studies have reported numbers on the prevalence of CFS that vary widely,[4] from 7 to 3,000 cases of CFS for every 100,000 adults,[6] but national health organizations have estimated more than 1 million Americans and approximately a quarter of a million people in the UK have CFS.[7][8] For unknown reasons CFS occurs most often in people in their 40s and 50s, more often in women than men,[9][10] and is less prevalent among children and adolescents.[7] The quality of life is "particularly and uniquely disrupted" in CFS.[11]"

19-2-2011 (another year later, and current to this report)

The section called "Cognitive behavioral therapy" is filled with statistics and percentages from various studies, and the section called "Prognosis" has a sub-section called "Recovery" which in turn has one paragraph which contains seven sets of numbers or statistics. The section called "Classification" has a sub-section called "Naming" which presents 17 alternative labels for the condition, most of which look like they were copied from my book or website, or Melissa Kaplan's website, which have both been deleted or unlinked from the Da Costa's page. References to Icelandic disease, Tapanui Flu (from the South Island of New Zealand), Royal Free disease, myalgic encephlomyelits etc, and my suggestion that there are several different types of disorder called CFS. (Those labels are listed in the index of my thousand page book which was last published in the year 2000, eleven years ago, before Wikipedia started.

Summary - I added statistics to the DCS page, as well as information about it affecting children, women, and civilian men, and supported it with top quality references, but my two critics described it as too much detail, rubbish, nonsense, and crap that had to be "liposuctioned' or deleted. The current DCS article portrays it as a military condition, and has major deficiencies and errors, including the lack of statistics, and there is no mention of the fact that it affects women and childen, or men who have never been to war.

However, in the meantime, similar statistics have been added to the CFS page by Ward20, and others, with a timeframe and circumstances that make it look like the idea was taken from my book, website, and contributions, and many more statistics have been added but no-one, including my two critics, have called it too much detail, cruft, or crap that needs to be deleted, and those statistics, from different sources, are still there several years later.

CFS is one of several modern interpretations of Da Costa's syndrome, and my two critics are liars about Wikipedia policy, and about statistics being regarded as too much detail by the 'community' of other Wikipedia editors.

 

I added Da Costa's statistics here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=177517136

Ward20's first CFS edit can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=180341181

Gordonofcartoon gave his reasons for deleting the statitics here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=180716273

WhatamIdoing deleted the Da Costa's statistic here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=190462118&oldid=190379699

Ward20's 10% statistic was added to the CFS page here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=190335266

Ward20 added the 40% statistic, and the other statistics can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=375682529&oldid=375660041

The statistiscs are still on the CFS page three years later here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=413563686&oldid=413538862

A recent DCS page can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=389110761&oldid=389110449

A CFS page of 10-2-2011which contains many statistics can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=414759390&oldid=414627821

 

 

The editor named JamesStewart7

26-7-2007 an editor named JamesStewart7 joined Wikipedia. (or earlier)

9-12-2007 I started adding information to the Da Costa's syndrome page.

21-12-2007 WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon started up the DCS talk page and began criticising me and deleting information as a tag-team.

24-12-2007 Three days later, at 11:25, JamesStewart7 who had already made five months of contributions, did his first edit on the CFS page, followed by more than 150 contributions to the CFS topic, and talk page in one month.

14-1-2008 At 1:49, WhatamIdoing wrote these words on the DCS talk page - "I'd like to point out as well that this article is on my daily watchlist, and I suspect that it's on several other editors lists for the same reason.

23-1-08 at 7:17 JamesStewart7 made his last in a series of 150 edits on CFS in one month, and didn't do any more on that topic until after I was banned a year later.

24-1-08 Gordonofcartoon had been arguing about Rosens research paper, and I proved him wrong about his interpretation. He said it wasn't related to the effort syndrome of Da Costa's syndrome, but the article was about the chronic fatigue syndrome and included T.Lewis in the reference list. (Lewis studied Da Costa's syndrome and renamed it the 'Effort Syndrome')

29-1-2009 - a year later, Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing finally managed to get me banned.

16-2-2009 - two weeks later JamesStewart7 made four edits about CFS in the three days to 18-2-09, and then did none up until apparently leaving Wikipedia six months later.

18-8-2009 at 15:49 JamesStewart7 stopped editing Wikipedia and had done nothing more for at least 18 months last time I checked.

 

JamesStewart7 started editing the CFS topic here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=179940324

and did more than 150 edits about CFS in one month ending on 23-1-2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_fatigue_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=186301132

Gordonofcartoon lost his argumen about Rosen's research paper here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#WP:SYNTH.3F

JamesStewart7 started a series of four edits in three days shortly after I was banned here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chronic_fatigue_syndrome_treatment&diff=prev&oldid=271100237

and stopped editing Wikipedia altogether about six months later here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation&diff=prev&oldid=308702799

 

Conclusion - As you can verify there was very little interest in Da Costa's syndrome which had only four lines of text when I first saw it, and the chronic fatigue syndrome was listed in the "Related" section. Within a month WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon were criticising and deleting everything I added, and editors named Ward20 and JamesStewart7 developed a sudden interest in the chronic fatigue syndrome in which they made a very large number of contributions for a month, and then again a year later, shortly after I was banned, and then in dribs and drabs since. Other anonymous editors have transferred a lot of my information to the Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia syndrome page, which is another modern interpretation of DCS.

You can draw your own conclusions about their motives, or what was going on behind the scenes, but Wikipedia now has the benefit of thirty years of my research, either provided by me, or copied and plagiarised by others who have had access to my website and books, and the capacity to become instant experts on everything, and to construct exactly the same information from other sources using different labels.

They have used me to make Wikipedia the best source of information on this topic in the world, while at the same time they were arguing that DCS is just a minor topic, that I am non-notable, and that my references were unreliable, and that my contributions were nonsense and crap, and have then banned me, erased my UserPage, and my talk page, and my essay on the topic, and my essay in which I described their unethical tactics, so that everything about me has disappeared from public view.

Jamesstewart7 may be an employee of a company who is being paid to control content in Wikipedia, so when he has finished his task he, and others may have changed their ID and still be editing Wikipedia, but on other topics in the same general range of subject matter.

For more evidence of plagiarism see my report here

 

Deletion of corresponding scientific measurements of severity

At 20:46 on 20-2-08 WhatamIdoing abbreviated the Da Costa page text relating to V.S.Volkovs study, and in the process removed the statistics that showed that the patients were divided into 3 groups determined by the scientifically measurable severity of their condition, and replaced it with an exaggerated emphasis on 'fear for their hearts'. This is an extract from the original text that I provided . . .

"In '''1980''' Soviet researcher V.S.Volkov presented his report on a comparative study of the exertional capacity of 228 patients which distinguished three stages of the effort syndrome (which he referred to as neurocirculatory dystony - NCD). . . V.S. Volkov called chest pain, fatigue, and "fear for their hearts" during exercise ''neurocirculatory dystony''. . . For healthy men the average was 1176 kgm/min, and the three stages of NCD were 1161, 940 & 591 respectively, and for healthy women was 834, and the stages of NCD were 854, 621 & 420 kgm/min, indicating that the severity of the condition was related to circulatory efficiency and exertional capacity. 87.2% tolerated levels of 600 kgm/min or more, and 14 of the others had to stop because of overwhelming radiating chest pain, fatigue, and "fear for their hearts", and another 14 stopped their test prematurely because of changes in their heart rates which reached sub-maximal levels".

This was the abbreviated text the WhatamIdoing used to replace the original.

"In 1980 Soviet researcher V.S. Volkov called chest pain, fatigue, and "fear for their hearts" during exercise ''neurocirculatory dystony''"

here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=192879544&oldid=192878833

 

Deletion of symptom statistics

At 20:51 on 14-5-2008 WhatamIdoing deleted some important statistics about the ratios of symptoms for the stated purpose of removing original research. While it was reasonable to abbreviate the text (which is supposed to be discussed first), WhatamIdoing chose to slab delete it without discussion here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=212440419&oldid=211817271.

Note that the breathlessness was evident in 93% of patients and was therefore the most common symptom as can be seen from the following two extracts . . .

"in '''1947''' S.Wolf studied the 'respiratory distress characterized by inability to get a full breath' and found that the thoracic diaphragm function was abnormal, and when the diaphragms contractile state during inspiration was such that adequate inspiration was no longer possible, breathlessness occurred with a feeling of inability to take a full breath. The spasm of the diaphragm was often accompanied by pains in the chest and shoulder, occlusion of the lower end of the esophagus, and difficulty swallowing".

"In 1956 Paul Wood . . . described . . . The cardinal symptoms of effort syndrome, neurocirculatory asthenia, irritable heart, soldier's heart, disordered action of the heart (D.A.H.), etc. are "breathlessness (93%), palpitations (89%), fatigue (88%), left inframammary pain (78%), and dizziness (78%), or syncope (fainting) (35%)" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=212440419&oldid=211817271

Note that my critics had previously removed information about S.Wolf's 1947 discovery, on the grounds that it was synthesis of my theory. However if the readers knew that the breathlessness affected 93% of patients they would realise that it would be impossible to discuss the ailment without mentioning that finding, and would know that such a criticism was ridiculous. Hence, in order to make that reason plausible they had to remove the statistic, and then delete all evidence of the discovery of cause. My critics preferred to refer to it by using the jargonistic term of hyperventilation syndrome (HVS), where the readers would be unaware of the chronic abnormality in diaphragm function.

The previous comments were deleted by WhatamIdoing at 21:12 on 10-2-08 with these words used to replace them . . . "Several limited studies of these conditions were undertaken during the mid-20th century . . . One detailed report on the breathlessness seen in effort syndrome stated, "many respiratory symptoms occur in high incidence....The evidence of poor ventilatory efficiency corresponds interestingly, although it may not explain, another symptom which patients have which is that they 'can't get in enough air' or that 'air doesn't seem to do as much good as it should'".[14] These reported symptoms are essentially identical to what is now called hyperventilation syndrome (which, paradoxically, results in less effective breathing)". here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=190462118&oldid=190379699

Da Costa's syndrome and . . . hyperventilation syndrome (the misnomer)

Note that when I provided that reference from 1947 WhatamIdoing described it as an unreliable source of information and a violation of medical referencing policy for up-to-date evidence, but that particular editor then used it. Note also that it states that 93% of patients have the breathlessness, which is actually a characteristic breathing problem involving abnormally deep sighs, that is used to identify it.

However, more than a year after I was banned that same editor tried to write with 'authority' by arguing as follows . . . "a subset of Da Costa's patients certainly had mitral valve prolapse, which has nothing to do with "over-breathing". WhatamIdoing 02:25, 25 April 2010

Note that WhatamIdoing does not actually understand the problem, and while I was in Wikipedia argued that it was text-book perfect hyperventilation syndrome, which is overbreathing, and a year later argued that it 'has nothing to do with over breathing'. Also by referring to a subset of MVP patients that editor is trying to avoid another argument because, if 93% have the problem, it means that only 7% or less are in that very small, almost insignificant subset. It is an unreliable statement anyway because it is just WhatamIdoing's opinion that was not supported by reference from a top quality medical journal.

Not also that I have previously explained that Da Costa's symptoms occur in relation to exertion and include palpitations, breathlessness, chest pain and fatigue, whereas hyperventilation occurs in relation to panic and involves rapid breathing for several minutes and dizziness, with tingling sensations in the fingers and toes. i.e. completely different. Therefore using the term hyperventilation syndrome to describe Da Costa's syndrome is contrary to common sense, and is a misuse of the English language and a faulty use of jargon, because it is going to create the false impression that patients with Da Costa's syndrome are puffing and panting with fear all day every day???? when there isn't any evidence to support that.

According to Oglesby Paul's history of Da Costa's syndrome (1987), some healthy people hyperventilate frequently, and some Da Costa's patients rarely or never hyperventilate. Similarly, some patients with MVP don't have any symptoms, and some with Da Costa's syndrome don't have MVP so it is highly unlikely that hyperventilation or MVP are the cause of the problem. My two critics deliberately deleted that information because it made their own personal opinions look implausible. The information on both of those subjects was on other pages in Wikipedia anyway, so that is where such matters should have been discussed and easily linked to if they thought it was relevant or necessary.

NPOV VIOLATION BY DELETION

To clarify the concept of Neutral Point of View, it is relevant to focus on a specific aspect, and only two of the many points of view. For example, a discussion between two diametrically opposed groups of people. The first believe that Da Costa's syndrome is an entirely psychological disorder, and the second who say that it is an entirely physical disorder. An article that represented the neutral point of view would mention both ideas, and provide verifiable, independent, peer-reviewed evidence to support each of them. However, a group of people who wanted readers to believe that it was entirely physical would delete all evidence of a psychological cause, and a group who wanted readers to believe that it was an entirely psychological disorder would systematically delete all information of a physical cause. In an extreme case one of the groups would have a 'secret', 'covert', or 'unspoken' 'deletionist' policy, of 'delete, delete, delete' to rig, load, or bias the article in the direction of their point of view, and if someone tried to put the information back to re-establish NPOV, they would be portrayed as being uncivil, argumentative, and disruptive, and ultimately be deleted themselves - banned.

My two critics distorted view of neutrality can be seen in the following advice that WhatamIdoing gave to another editor named StormRider . . . "Wikipedia directly 'defines' 'neutral' as being whatever the reliable sources say. If our sources say that the sky is organge and the sun is green, then claims of blue and yellow would be dismissed as unDUE and non-neutral" signed WhatamIdoing 23:35, 22 January 2010.

 

Overview of the deletions

The Da Costa's syndrome history of controversies shows that there was once a general attitude that the chest pain was imaginary, the breathlessness was subjective, the patient was complaining excessively about normal tiredness, and the response to exercise was due to poor fitness resulting from a lack of exercise, or was due to a fear of the normal symptoms of exercise. The editors of Wikipedia have deleted all information about those ideas, and the fact that they have all been scientifically proven wrong.

Here is a statement from Paul Dudley White's book of 1951 that was deleted . . ."It is a real and not an imaginary incapacity, even though at first glance it may have appeared imaginary in World War1(1914-1918) when it was sometimes labelled "malingering", and even though in civilian practice it has frequently been diagnosed as "mere nervousness".

Here is one of the deleted statements relating to a 1947 study . . . "a report by Cohen and White noted that the complete mechanism of Da Costa syndrome symptoms was unknown but when respiration was investigated objective abnormalities were found, "just as when other symptoms of N.C.A. are investigated with objective methods, which demonstrates that the abnormalities are not all in the subjective sphere". The respiratory abnormalities at rest were few but during exercise the abnormalities became more pronounced and the deviations from the normal became greater as the rate and amount of exercise increased.[30]"


Here are two relevent statement from Wikipedia NPOV policy "The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV"" . . . and articles should represent . . . "fairly, and as far as possible without bias all significant views (that have been published in reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all editors" etc here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view&diff=287438322&oldid=286179471

The systematic deletion about me and everything I wrote
 Attempts by WhatamIdoing to discredit and delete every word I have written in Wikipedia with the approach "delete, delete, delete", and now, according to the information in Wikipedia, I no longer exist - and never have ever existed.

(There is an essay in Wikipedia called The Last Word which my main critic has obviously learned their dirty tricks from and it can be seen here

Here is a story that I have written for the benefit of my two critics: Once upon a time there was an inferior emperor who wanted to convince his people that he was the best emperor, so he arranged for all of the statues and writings of the superior emperor to be smashed and burned. He was not the superior emperor, he just made himself the only emperor.

For an example of Damnatio memoriae here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

WhatamIdoing or Gordonofcartoon, usually both, started or followed me to every page of discussion from the start of my contributions until I was banned, and WhatamIdoing made sure that whatever I added anywhere in Wikipedia was deleted, including all of the independently verifiable information on the Da Costa's syndrome page. This is an extract from the Wikipedia page on harassment . . . "The term "wiki-hounding" has been coined to describe singling out one or more specific editor(s), and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit (often unrelated) . . . in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor . . . Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes . . . If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions" herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Harassment&diff=286286607&oldid=286035108#Wikihounding

The main editor who was hounding me had the cheek to give this advice to another edtior in May 2010 . . . "Intent to annoy: BQZip, I've just flagged a mistake in your view. HOUND, as quoted here, does not require that an editor "intend" to annoy someone. It requires that (other people decide that) your comment or action appears to have this aim. The actual intent of the accused editor is irrelevant." WhatamIdoing 16:17, 6 May 2010

The tag-team continued to hound me relentlessly, on every page for 12 months, repeatedly adding tendencious comments, being unreasonably disruptive, and attempting to inhibit my contributions e.g. with WhatamIdoings attempt here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880

To see another editors response to hounding and harassment on the subject of the 'chronic fatigue syndrome' see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:RetroS1mone&diff=360656148&oldid=360656124

and where that editor discusses hatred and conspiracies here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid
=360657025#Harassment_related_to_Whittemore_Peterson_Institute_and_chronic_fatigue_syndrome

Note that WhatamIdoing had two constructive choices in relation to the subpage. The first was to do a better subpage text than me. The second was to merge the information into a neutral version of the topic page. However WhatamIdoing was only interested in finding as many excuses as possible to delete almost everything I wrote.

My 'confidential' Wikipedia ID was Posturewriter, and if you go to that User page now (19-7-09) you will see these words "Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact name. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:Posturewriter. If in doubt, please verify that "Posturewriter" exists".

Evidence of them following me around and deleting everything I wrote

Wikihounding

The following words are a quote from Wikipedia's policy called Harassment

"Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia . . . The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." See here

My interests in medicine extend to the history of the subject, and in the process of examining old texts I often found information that was once common knowledge but has since been completely forgotten. Consequently, when I started contributing to Wikipedia I searched through some of the topics and occasionally saw pages where some useful and important information was missing, so I added it. I also mentioned some ideas from my own book.

However, I later found that some of it had been deleted by other editors, and most of the remaining contributions were deleted by my main critic called WhatamIdoing until there was ALMOST nothing left.

The watchlist

Essentially, that individual put me on a watchlist and checked my history of contributions to follow me around and ultimately make sure that everything I wrote had been deleted in order to discredit me here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Posturewriter

 

"SmokeyJoe, excluding The posture theory, which has been entirely deleted, the editor has made 47 edits in the mainspace, involving exactly six articles. All of his contributions outside of Da Costa's syndrome have been reverted. Here's the complete list:

* Human position -- add his own website (where you can order his self-published book). It's removed as spam. (March 2007)
* Chest pain -- add his personal theory. It's removed. (Nov 2007)
* Chronic fatigue syndrome -- add his personal theory. It's removed within minutes. Repeat. (Nov 2007)
* Varicose veins -- add, and claim non-existent "ref.26". It's removed. (Dec 2007)
* Kyphosis -- add his personal theory. It's removed. (Dec 2007)
* Da Costa's syndrome -- Add his personal theory. Cite self. It's removed. Add personal website. It's removed. Add some history and parts of his personal theory. Cite favorite primary sources. It's heavily edited. Complain. Add exhaustive catalog of every single primary source that might support personal POV. It's deleted. Complain. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat

So given this information, would you say that this track record really constitutes "many non-trivial contributions"? How does "has had every single contribution outside of Da Costa's syndrome deleted, and has had practically every contributed sentence inside that article either deleted or substantially revised" strike you for accuracy? WhatamIdoing 23:50, 27 July 2008 " here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Posturewriter&diff=
prev&oldid=228283224

 

You can see that I started adding small amounts of useful information to a range of articles, and intended to proceed in that manner, but WhatamIdoing made certain that everything I added was deleted and was obviously going to continuue, and yet would try to give the other editors the ridiculous impresion that I was being politely "encouraged" to edit other articles. However, that would have been a complete waste of my time, because WhatamIdoing always found a new policy reason for deleting everything on every page relentlessly. See here

 

At 3:03 on 20-8-08 WhatamIdoing endorsed a suggestion by ScienceApologist and added these comments about me . . . "A topic ban is not really unreasonable at this stage, and he's declined repeated encouragement to edit ''any'' entirely unrelated article". see herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/
Posturewriter&diff=next&oldid=233036364

 

WhatamIdoing's objectives were described six months later at 20:25 of 27-1-09 on the arbitration page, and I was banned by Moreschi at 15:36 the next day (28-1-09). If you followed the discussions closely for the entire 12 months you would see that I started adding to the whole Da Costa's page, and then they effectively restricted me to the history section, and later recommended banning me from the entire page, but said I could still make suggestions on the discussion page. They then ignored almost everything I recommended and wanted to ban me from the discussion and edit other topics. They then said that I couldn't add anything to CFS or Varicose veins pages, or "anything slightly related to it". WhatamIdoing was obviously laying out a 'wild goose chase' so that I would never be able to add anything to Wikipedia, as can be seen in the comments here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests
_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing . . . and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for
_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Comment_from_Moreschi

"I think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an appropriate outcome." WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009

 

WhatamIdoing is obviously hostile toward me or the content that I am adding, and is trying to create the false impression that all of my contributions were considered to be trivial by everyone who saw them and were therefore worthless. However, editors are supposed to give the links to the exact articles so that other readers can check them, but WhatamIdoing did not, because my contributions were actually reasonable, and the references were appropriate, and were provided in good faith, so I will put the details below for everyone to read. You can also see the quality of the references that I have provided in the past 12 months here

You can see one of my critics interpretation of Medical sourcing policy at 11:14 on 5-8-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Response_to_SmokeyJoe.27s_Solution

The link on the Human Position page??? Apparantly I placed a single link to my website at the end of the Human Postion page on 24-3-07, probably after noticing that there was also a link to the Posture Page which is a website that I have known about for many years. That addition can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_position&diff=next&oldid=117428866

All of the entries in the "external links" list were deleted as spam by an editor named Mukadderat on 31-3-07 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_position&diff=119174126&oldid=119170079.

I cannot recall being a member of Wikipedia that far back, but it was the only link that I added prior to Novermber 2007. However I would have thought that it was a reasonable thing to do, given that Wikipedia invites members of the public to help improve knowledge, and given that my book had 1000 pages of information about posture. . . and as a new contributor . . . I did not know of all the sourcing policy requirements.

Here are WhatamIdoing's words at 21:35, 10th March 2010 . . ."IMO Wikipedia has so many rules that nobody can really be expected to know them all".

This is a comment given to another editor by WhatamIdoing at 4:28 on 20 April 2010 . . . "Wikipedia has hundreds of guidelines and dozens of policies" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Talk_page_guidelines&diff=prev&oldid=35714253

 

The Cause of Chest Pains. . . I added to the Chest Pains page by including poor posture as one of the causes, and used my own book "The Posture Theory" as a reference on 28-11-07 here , but it was deleted by WhatamIdoing later on 14-1-08 here, with the following explanation . . . "Removed unsourced edit and link to deleted article by an editor with a particular POV ".(end of quote)

Note that it is just as "obvious" that poor posture causes chest pains, as it is that poor posture causes backache, so it is just nitpicking to delete it, but here is a reference anyway from Paul Wood O.B.E "Left inframmamary pain . . . It thus usually differs from angina pectoris . . . It may be initiated by . . . faulty posture". Those words come from page 939 to 941 of the book called "Diseases of the Heart and Circulation" published by Eyre and Spottiswoode in 1956, and Paul Wood was Director, Institute of Cardiology, London, and Physiciam National Heart Hospital, and Physician in charge of the Cardiac Department, Brompton Hospital. I purchased a copy of that book decades ago, but am reluctant to say so, because when I have previously mentioned that some references came from my own filing cabinet, another editor (Gordonofcartoon) said I couldn't use them because the fact that they were in my own possession meant that they were a violation of OR policy (original researh is not allowed in Wikipedia). Note also that the correct policy is WP:MEDRS which actually states that information should come from top quality secondary sources, and Paul Wood's book is a top quality secondary source.

The Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: on 28-11-07 I made three entries to the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome page where I gave an account of my own ideas on the cause of fatigue, supported by a reference from Paul Wood O.B.E. here

It was deleted on the same day by an editor named Thedreamdied here with an offensive remark here

However, given that the editor was not familiar with the theory his scepticism was understandable, but I have since become familiar with Wikipedia policy, and the offensive remark was not necessary and was a foolish violation of Wikipedia's civility policy.

I resubmitted the comments again at 20:28 on 28-11-07 here

It was deleted again that day at 20:51, by another editor named JdWolff with the explanation "again rv, please discuss on the talk page if editors question the suitability of inclusion here

That same editor JdWolff then set up the articles for deletion page for The Posture Theory a few minutes later, which was being provided by an editor named PaulaIsRight. That person had previously sent me an email complimenting me about my posture theory book, so I told her that I had considered giving an account of the theory to Wikipedia but saw notes that recommended that people do not write about their own ideas. I suggested that I could write an abbreviated account of my book and she could rewrite it in her own words according to what she thought was appropriate, and after some correspondence she agreed and registered with Wikipedia under the code name of PaulaIsRight. I later suggested some small improvements to the text that were subsequently made to provide a neat and tidy encyclopedia style of summary of the idea, until it was virtually complete. Note that I have never met that person, and do not know their Sir Name, or what country they reside in because the only contact was by email. Also note that there is a concept in Wikipedia called sock puppet, which refers to someone else doing contributions on behalf of another, but I didn't know about that policy, otherwise i would not have wasted my time or hers. Soon after the page was established several editors accused her of violating my copyright, so I entered the discussion and confirmed that I had given permission for her to use the material. That discussion continued until 00:02 on 1-12-07 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_posture_theory&diff=prev&oldid=174949653 . . . with the words of an editor named Someguy ":*'''Comments.''' We just need dates, titles (and most preferably links to online versions of all of this) so it can actually be verified that everything you said is true. I can only verify myself that which is available online. If these verifying materials are not available online, I suggest taking the same information I have just requested to either [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine]] or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia]] to request assistance. Someguy1221 00:02, 1 December 2007 "

I replied at 6:28 on 1-12 07 with the name of newspapers, and dates and a phone number where some information had been reported, and an explanation that I had phoned them and been told that copies from that long ago were not readily available but could be seen in State library archives etc. However that was all ignored and the discussion was closed and the article deleted by and editor named Fang Aili at 1:46 on 5-12-07 with the words "Close discussion: Delete", and no other explanation. I have since scanned one of the articles onto my own website and provided the Wikipedia editors with a link to it, and my critics have responded with hostility that I did it to deliberately violate COI policy and promote my own website. Note also that the editors only gave me a few days to get that information, and that, according to policy, it is acceptable for a person to provide that information.

When that discussion was over, I found a few pages of interest including Da Costa's syndrome which had only four lines of text and no references, and the following words at the end . . . "This disease article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." . . . I started adding to that page at 7:39 on 9-12-07 here

The Cause of Varicose Veins; The heart pumps blood down to the feet through open tubes called arteries which have strong walls, and the blood then flows up to the heart again through tubes called veins. However those veins have weak walls and one-way valves placed at intervals to keep the blood going upwards. If something blocks those veins, such as a blood clot, the pressure below the blood clot increases until, with time, one of the valves fails and the blood fills a larger section and the weak walls stretch and bulge outwards. I read the Wikipedia article and noticed that there was no mention of the fact that tight leg garters such as those worn by boy scouts etc, could compress the veins and block the flow of blood to cause varicose veins below the garter line.

I initially added information on that subject on 9-12-07 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varicose_veins&diff=176725573&oldid=174031047 . . . but it was deleted a week later by an editor named Jfdwolff with the following comments . . .(rm WP:NOR (I see no reference 26))
on 18-12-07 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varicose_veins&diff=178813149&oldid=176911634

Note that WP:NOR refers to me not being allowed to use original research. However, I was not providing original research, but was giving a comment from an encyclopedic style of book, and did provide the reference to "The Illustrated Family Doctor" (1935), published by Waterlow & Sons, London, Dunstable, and Watford, page 692, However, I was new to Wikipedia and didn't know how to add the reference information codes so it may have not been saved properly. It showed on the page as ref. 26 with no links.

Six months later (on 27-7-08), when WhatamIdoing ridiculed me by falsely claiming that I was using poor quality references on everything which had all been deleted everywhere, I added another one the next day on 28-7-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varicose_veins&diff=228350554&oldid=227307535 . . . and . . . here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varicose_veins&diff=next&oldid=228350752 . . . with verification by the following reference to a book called The Specialties in General Practice" published by W.B.Saunders Company, Philadelphia and London: pp. 48. The author was Russell L. Cecil, M.D., Professor of Clinical Medicine, Emeritus, Cornell University Medical College, New York City.

The information was deleted three days later by an editor named Nbauman with the following explanation "(RV. Please find a more reliable source WP:RS for garters as a cause of varicose veins than a 1951 textbook.)" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varicose_veins&diff=228926477&oldid=228564750

I knew that I wouldn't be able to find a modern reference because garters had generally gone out of fashion and the association with varicose veins had been forgotten.

I also knew that the editors of Wikipedia were familiar with the concept that blocking a vein would cause varicose veins, and that they knew that tight garters would be a cause that didn't need explanation because it was "obvious", and contributors do not necessarily have to cite "the obvious". Note that the article includes the fact that pregnancy is sometimes a cause. That is because the varicose veins result from the weight of the enlarging womb on the veins coming from the legs into the abdomen. That causes the blood pressure in the leg veins to increase and sometimes damage the valves in the veins.

I also noted that they changed the heading of the section from plain english "CAUSES" of varicose veins to esoteric and jargonistic "ETIOLOGY / EPIDEMIOLOGY. Note, editors are supposed to avoid the use of jargon, and definitely NOT replace it with jargon.

Previous discussion of the varicose veins edits can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter#Response_to_SmokeyJoe.27s_Solution

 

The diagram above shows that tight garters are an obvious cause of varicose veins. It is from page 692 of a book called "The Illustrated Family Doctor" published in 1935.

See a YouTube video on the veins and valves here, and some information on causes from another source here.

 

Here is some evidence from Wikipedia that compressing the veins in the legs blocks blood flow . . . "Harnesses . . . The use of a safety harness can also contribute to orthostatic hypotension in the event of a fall. While a harness may safely rescue its user from a fall, the leg loops of a standard safety or climbing harness further restrict return blood flow from the legs to the heart, contributing to the decrease in blood pressure" . . . here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Orthostatic_hypotension&diff=302878518&oldid=302878298#Harnesses

Note that the safety harness worn while climbing puts pressure on the leg veins and blocks blood flowing upwards and therefore reduces blood pressure to cause "orthostatic hypotension". However the harnesses are generally only used, or only restrict blood flow for short periods of time, whereas garters are often worn all day, and the increased pressure in the veins below the garter eventually weakens the walls of those veins, and damages the valves so that they bulge outwards. When the veins bulge excessively they have the capacity to hold excess blood, and the walls are weaker and stretch more easily when blood suddenly rushes down from above. That can occur due to changes in the effect of gravity on the weight of the blood when a person stands up suddenly. The blood rushes down, the leg veins stretch and hold more blood, so the flow of blood returning up to the heart is temporarily weaker, and low blood pressure can follow.

 

The Cause of Kyphosis (stooped spine) . . Note  that the Wikipedia page on the causes of stooped spine (kyphosis) already included "Postural Kyphosis" which had been added to the article long before I joined, so when I saw the article I added the following category and words . . .

 

'''Nurtritional Kyphosis''' can result from nutritional deficiencies, especially during childhood, such as vitamin D deficiency (producing [[rickets]][[Image:Example.jpg]]) which softens bones and results in curving of the spine and limbs under the child's body weight. This can be due to dietary deficiency of vitamin D or lack of exposure to sunlight. Also any infectious illness in childhood which involves prolonged periods of nausea, vomiting, or poor apetite, can result in nutritional deficiency and weight loss, and loss of muscle bulk and tone, which leads to curvature of the spine. re: [[The Posture Theory]]

That information was added by myself on 28-11-07 here

 

and WhatamIdoing deleted the following words . . .

"This can be due to dietary deficiency of vitamin D or lack of exposure to sunlight. Also any infectious illness in childhood which involves prolonged periods of nausea, vomiting, or poor apetite, can result in nutritional deficiency and weight loss, and loss of muscle bulk and tone, which leads to curvature of the spine. re: [[The Posture Theory]] on 14-1-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyphosis&diff=184172238&oldid=181497353 . . . with this explanation . . ."(ÆClassification: Removing unsourced material, link to deleted page)"

 

and kept the following words

''Nurtritional Kyphosis''' can result from nutritional deficiencies, especially during childhood, such as vitamin D deficiency (producing [[rickets]][[Image:Example.jpg]]) which softens bones and results in curving of the spine and limbs under the child's body weight." (end of quote)

Presumably WhatamIdoing mistakenly thought that someone else added the first part of the information, or kept it because it was RELIABLE AND ACCURATE INFORMATION, but deleted the link to my book as the source. Also note that the information was still there on 25-4-09 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kyphosis&diff=prev&oldid=286081828

i.e. all of the editors who have checked that page for the past seventeen months have regarded it as either obvious, or accurate and reliable.

 

In the meantime, on 27-7-08 WhatamIdoing told another editor named SmokeyJoe that my contributions were inaccurate and worthless and that I had "every single contribution outside of Da Costa's syndrome deleted" which wasn't true - because WhatamIdoing accidentally missed one sentence.

See also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Posturewriter

*****

Note that nutritional factors "obviosly" cause spinal deformities, but that was not mentioned on the page until I added it, and it is rarely mentioned in medical text books, so I thought I was being useful to Wikipedia and readers by stating that fact. However, as you can see, my main critic deleted most of it, and that happened after I started contributing to the Da Costa's page. Note also that my critics had the opportunity of being helpful by finding references to nutritional causes of kyphosis, but of course they are trying to discredit me, so all they ever do is criticise e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User_talk:Posturewriter

Note also that in young children poor nutrition can cause the stoop, and then the stoop compresses the stomach and further impairs digestion and nutrition to compound the problem.

Other nutritional causes include calcium deficiency.

Other factors include sleeping in spring mesh beds, and the transferred mechanical effects of wearing high heel shoes, the effects of the long period of pregnancy where the weight of the womb places the bodies centry of gravity in front of the spine instead of directly above it, and the adoption of the same posture for many years of occupational bending such as in "dentist's spine".

There is no mention of those in Wikipedia, and without that knowledge a person would not be able to understand or prevent the problem.

RicketsInBaby

An obvious example of spinal deformity caused by rickets - due to vitamin D deficiency in childhood

 

 

CLOSING COMMENTS

My two critics were sore losers

It was obvious to me very early in my time at Wikipedia that I had two critics who were were very sore losers. They would start arguments against me and lose, and then become sullen, petulant and resentful about it, and knew that they couldn't ever win on the basis of merit, so they would rush off to set up a policy page and get me blocked on the grounds of a seemingly endless series of them.

They held a grudge and WhatamIdoing went around to every page where I had added content, and made sure that anything that hadn't been deleted by other editors was deleted by themselves. See also here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=243268880

However, WhatamIdoing had the cheek to write these self righteous words . . . "I think that the possibility of redemption is motivating to new editors, and that Wikipedia is not best served by even the appearance that permanent grudge-holding is recommended. What do you think?". signed WhatamIdoing 00:12 17th February 2010.

You can be put on their watchlist

Some editors in Wikipedia put new contributors on a watchlist, and use it to deter and harass them and delete every word they write within seconds, which can be seen in the following quote written by my main critic . . .

"New Page Patrol problem . . . There have been some complaints again about a handful of new page patrollers not choosing to follow the community's advice about not patrolling pages within seconds of their creation . . . Spamming tags into articles that someone is actively working on is unfriendly, irritating, and often unhelpful; it also produces edit conflicts and produces public complaints from new contributors. On the flip side, apparently waiting 15 minutes means that some other consensus-rejecting, overly hasty editor may have already speedied the obvious vandalism, so following the directions isn't as much fun . . . Some of these hasty NPPers seem to rely on Twinkle and Friendly. Is it possible to change Twinkle or Friendly to make compliance with the community's NPP advice more likely, e.g., by not marking pages as patrolled if they're less than 5-10 minutes old?" signed WhatamIdoing 22:57, 23 April 2010 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle&diff=prev&oldid=358303368#New_Page_Patrol_problem

Another relevant page called Twinkle, which has the symbol of a policeman on it, can be seen herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Twinkle&diff=354220398&oldid=353179779

Such editors probably have similar methods for getting into the home computers of new contributors, and checking what they write.

See also here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GAME. There are other pages in Wikipedia about how it's policies are being used as part of an internet game or for edit wars which appeals to the type of person who wants to exert control over others. Some of them are only fifteen years old and give themselves grandious ID's to create the false impression of having personal authority gained from knowledge and experience???? and my two critics are at least ten years younger than me, and deliberately try to create the false impression of giving advice to someone younger.

The other side of the story

I had contributed to Wikipedia in the areas of knowledge that I was familiar with, but my two critics were trying to discredit me as a SPA (a single purpose account). They actually created that impression by deleting evertything I wrote, and making it impossible for me to finish the Da Costa's article so that I couldn't move onto other topics. They twisted everything out of all proportion to give the false impression that I was always promoting my own ideas and being disruptive everywhere I went, and that all of my references were trivial and worthless when if fact they were from top quality authors in top quality journals that contained independently verifiable scientific information. Here is another editors comment.

 

Some words from Guido den Broeder about my contributions

"I see nothing in his recent contributions that is related to his personal theory. Most of these diffs are ancient. Guido den Broeder 17:24, 20 May 2008 ) herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232

"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". Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2008 herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232 

and about another critic named Gordonofcartoon

"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 (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2008 " here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome_take_.232

 

What my two critics did to push their own opinions

 What they should have done

THEY FALSELY ACCUSED ME OF BEING UNCIVL WITHOUT READING MY EXPLANATION

When I started adding information to the Da Costa page in early December 2007 several editors were co-operating by improving the layout etc, but when I added an account of my own theory one of them said that it occupied undue space in the second paragraph here

so they soon deleted it here

I then abbreviated the section and added it back here

I then left an explanation on the talk page with the idea that they would discuss the abbreviation, and accept it, or delete it. However, they obviosly didn't bother to read my explanation, but they deleted it within two hours and offensively accused me of ignoring their advice and deliberately violating WP:CIVIL here

They should have read my explanation before insulting me and accusing me of being uncivil, and note, the information has not been added in the 12 months since, and they are the only ones to have repeatedly named my theory in their criticisms.

THE EDITORS "APPRECIATED MY OTHER EFFORTS???

When one of my critics deleted the section about my own research he wrote "I do appreciate your other efforts, but you need to quit adding your own research theories to this article" . . . Those words can be seen dated 14-1-07 here

The information was deleted here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=184167421

If you scroll down that page to here

you will be able to see that the remaining comments were all in the history section that they set up by giving it a specific Section Heading calle "History" in this edit at 21:33 on 18-12-07 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=178805024

The history section included reports of Sir Thomas Lewis 1919, Paul Wood O.B.E. 1941 and 1956, Edmund Wheeler of Harvard Medical School,1950, and V.S.Volkov, a Russian researcher study that I had translated, 1980.

In the twelve months since then my critics have completely changed their attitude and deleted all reference to all of those authors (who they appreciated) on the grounds that it is all cruft (rubbish), and that they are all unreliable sources of medical information on the history of the topic, because the references are "old", "out-of-date", or "obsolete".

 

Summary . . . They set up the "history" section . . . They said that they appreciated my efforts - which were reviews of research projects described in that section . . . I added reviews of more significant projects to fill in the gaps of history before 1919 and after1980 . . . I also allowed plenty of time for them to add the information, and specifically invited them to on several occasions but they either ingored me or said that they didn't have time, and they later argued that I was deliberately avoiding modern references . . . And then they repeatedly accused me of being unco-operative, going against consensus, and being disruptive?????

It is clear that the only research references that they want in Wikipedia are those which I provide that suit their opinions.

They should not refer to anything about history as being out-of-date or obsolete.

 

They should not have referred to some of the most respected researchers in the history of this subject as "unreliable sources" of information

 

They should not have deleted everything in great slabs.

 

They should have let me do the article on my own, with them giving advice on policy or . . .

If they want to dictate what goes into Wikipedia they should have written the article properly themselves.

 

They should not tell people that they appreciate their efforts and then accuse them of violating policy when they do what they have been asked to do.

THEY REDUCED A TEN PAGE ARTICLE ABOUT THE COMPLEX HISTORY OF DA COSTA'S CONTROVERSIES TO ONE SENTENCE ABOUT ANXIETY

They deleted my review of Oglesby Paul's article on the history of many controversial theories about Da Costa's syndrome and replaced it with one sentence about anxiety here

When I mentioned that Oglesby Paul was from Harvard, they told other editors that he was just "this guy" who published a "routine review" here

Oglesby Paul had graduated in History AND Medicine, and had been a professor at Harvard Medical School, and a president of the American Heart Association

This is the link to Oglesby Paul's ten page article in the British Heart Journal here

All that I am required to do to meet Wikipedia MEDRS policy requirements is provide a secondary source (which is a review by someone else) from a reputable peer reviewed journal (which the British Heart Journal is), but my critics try to discredit everything I add.

They should have replaced it wih one paragraph summarising all of the theories

THEY CHANGED THE WORDING AND DELETED SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO CREATE FALSE IMPRESSIONS

I added information from Edwin Wheeler's 1950 follow up study of 173 patients which showed that there were varying degrees of disability, and V.S.Volkov's 1980 study which showed scientific measurements of three different levels of severity.

At 21:12 on 10-2-08 WhatamIdoing abbreviated several studies to "Summarize" them and in the process changed the wording of Wheelers study to "self-reported disability" here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=190462118&oldid=190379699.

At 20:46 on 20-2-08 WhatamIdoing deleted Volkov's scientific measurements . . . for "concision" here

That choice of words and removal of scientific information leaves the false impression that the patients thought they had a disability, but that it was just their self-reported , an therefore subjective, and unreliable opinion, and not an objective scientifically verifiable fact.

They should not delete independent verifiable information from top quality peer-reviewed medical journals

THEY REPLACED PLAIN ENGLISH DESCRIPTIONS WITH JARGON

1. They deleted the evidence that the breathlessness was due to faulty function and spasm of the breathing muscles etc and replaced it with hyperventilation jargon.here  

2. In the same process they changed the wording about the varying degrees of disability of patients by using the words (self-reported) to give the impression that it was just the patients perception rather than a realistic and measurable fact.

However they had also deliberately removed all other evidence that the degree of disability corresponds with scienfifically verifiable measurements e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=192879544&oldid=192878833

3. They also tried to hide the topic with jargon by moving the text of the Da Costa's Syndrome page into a new page that they wanted to create called "Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction", but they lost that arguemt. That discussion can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#Proposed_page_move

On the naming guidelines talk page at t 3:36 on 3-11-2009, ten months after I was banned, WhatamIdoing wrote these words . . . "I know what willfully obscure technical jargon means", but that obviously did not stop WhatamIdoing from willfully using it. See here

1. They should have kept the plain english description of the actual cause of the breathlessness, so that readers would know that it was not imaginary, and not normal breathlessness, and not a normal response to exercise.

2. They should have kept the information about measurements of fatigue etc so that readers could gain scientifically reliable information about whether the disability is subjective (imaginary) or objective (real)

3. They should not have attempted to replace a plain English label with 'willfully obscure jargon:"

They REPEATEDLY MISREPRESENTED a WEB PAGE about the CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME as a WEB SITE about IGUANA LIZARDS

They said that I used a WEBSITE about iguanas to prove that DCS is the same as CFS, and that my sources of medical information were unreliable.- which can be seen by scrolling down to their comments dated 00:01, 3 January 2009 here.

and you can follow the discussion on the same page down to my explanation at 8:46 on 10-1-09 here.

I also left the following comments on an RFC page . . . "Please note also that Melissa Kaplan's website is about CFS“[20], and it is not about iguana's just because you keep sayiing so." Posturewriter" 01:15, 11 January 2009 See here.
Note that, at that stage I only knew about Kaplans web page by a link from the Google search engine to the topic of ME/CFS. In order to misrepresent that page as a web siteabout iguanas my main critic would have known the facts, and knowingly, deceitfully, iand willfully changed the emphasis to the website.

They misrepresented that reference at every opportunity on multiple pages - a personal talk page, the Disruptive editing talk page, and the Reliable sources noticeboard etc. and see how it was misrepresented on the Administrator's Noticeboard in item number 52 with these words . . . "The editor is an agenda editor (standing up straight cures disease, and now Da Costa's syndrome is a type of Chronic fatigue syndrome because someone that runs an iguana website said so" WhatamIdoing 02:42, 11 January 2009 here

They completely ignored my comments about DCS being "similar to" CFS, and that they should stop misrepresenting me as saying they were "the same", and they ignored my advice to stop referring to a medical consumers web page as a web site about iguanas, and that my 60 references were better than their 10.

They just continued to misrepresent Kaplan's page as a reference about iguanas on another page on the same day at 23:04 on 11-1-09 here, when they wrote these words . . . "Posturewriter, the place to convince people . . . that a webpage entirely written by a non-expert medical consumer (at www.anapsid.com, a website that is largely about iguanas) is not an unreliable self-published source is at WP:RSN, not here". WhatamIdoing 23:04, 11 January 2009 here,

Two weeks later that editor made another comment about the medical consumer's page being an iguana website with these words . . . "Nearly all of your sources are unreliable in terms of Wikipeda'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?" WhatamIdoing 01:32, 26 January 2009 . . . and . . . "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". WhatamIdoing 02:19, 26 January 2009 here.

You can see more discussion on this matter on the Reliable sources noticeboard starting at 5:39 on 26-1-09 here.

Note that I offered to remove the reference to Kaplan's webpage if the other "Reliable Source" editors still wanted me to after I had given them an explanation, and that I actually did start by removing the main reference as you can note by the fact that 12 references that contained five or more synonyms were still in the first paragraph of my new replacement, but the Kaplan list of 80 was not mentioned and the link was removed at 18:56 on 26-1-09 here.

Note also that I was blocked the next day, and one of my critics deleted the page again on the grrounds of "Rv POV version by COI-blocked editor using RSN-banned sources such as the personal webpage of a patient". Those words can be seen at 18:12 on 27-1-09 here

Note that the critic either did not bother to read the article, or did so in a rush and did not notice that the reference to the medical consumer had been removed, and that it was therefore inappropriate to block me for that reason.

You can deduce that they had no intention of considering anything that I said or did. My two critics just wanted to find some minor issue to blow up out of all proportion and use as an example of everything else so that they could use it as an excuse for banning me. re: stopping me from adding information that they didn't want the readers to see. i.e. to rig the article so that it suited their POV.

Note also that taking my comments out of context and misrepresenting a webpage about CFS as a Website about iguanas is a serious violation of Civility policy here.

This is the advice given to another contributor by WhatamIdoing after I was banned, on anther Wikipedia topic . . . "These off-topic items can be a real problem in terms of complying with our basic guidelines, since external links are supposed to be on-topic (the actual page that we link to, not necessarily the entire website "WhatamIdoing 23:15, 10 June 2009 here.

They should have been honest, courteous, and respectful, and only mentioned that the person was a medical consumer who had produced a webpage about the chronic fatiigue syndrome which was compiled in cooperation with four doctors . . . and then tried to argue that it was unreliable.

They should not have deliberately misrepresented a WEBPAGE about CFS as a WEBSITE about iguanas, to create the false imprssion that it was an irrelevent and poor quality source of information provided by a medical consumer

They should have mentioned that they (my critics) were only able to provide five synonyms for DCS whereas the medical consumer and the four doctors provided 80

They should have mentioned that they had only provided 12 references in 12 months, and that I had provided 60, including 12 to support the medical consumer's website alone, and that my references included Sir James MacKenzie, and Paul Dudley White who were knighted for medicine, or professors of Harvard medical school etc, and that most of my refernces were far superior to their websites and dictionaries.

They should have been honest and said that I described DCS as "a type of" CFS, and not tried to misrepresent me by saying that I was trying to prove they were the same.

THEY SUBJECTED MY REPLACEMENT PAGE TO MORE THAN 80 FASTIDIOUS CRITICISMS

One of my critics added more than 80 separate criticisms to the replacement page that I produced, asking for references to verify almost all of the statemtents I made, including obvious ones, and they spent months of time criticising the article here and here

Adding 80 notes of criticism to one page is a classic example of ridiculous nitpicking which I have previously discussed here

Note that I provided many additional references required in response to criticisms such as "citation needed", in some cases several references for each statement, and added them to the subpage text before I put it back into Wikipedia as a replacement for the existing article page. here is the text with all the additional links to each statement requireing citations. In particular when they required references from modern journals I provided additional citations bringing the total to ten from 2000 to 2008, which can be seen is the list of 60 here

Note also that I ultimately added multiple references to support some statements to ensure all policy requirements were met, such as: must be in a peer reviewed research journal, must be a review and not original research, must be modern and not old etc. I also added multiple references to some facts in response to the endless criticism in order to ensure that there was no doubt about the facts, and that it was widely agreed upon. For example my critic was arguing that CFS was not the same as DCS. I actually described it as a type of CFS, but I provided a link to more than 12 modern authors who actually did use them as the same. Some time later the same critic went to the Wikipedia talk page about CITATIONS and wrote "Yes, it's stupid to list a dozen nearly identical refs for the same non-controversial fact" at 20:31 on 9-3-09 here

and again on the Wikipedia talk page about VERIFIABILITY at 16:43 on 10-3-09 wrote "I think we can all agree that a string of a dozen refs is silly" here

The point to be made here is that experienced editors who know all the policies can "cherry-pick" them to suit the outcome they want. For example they can say "citation needed" - or we will delete this fact, and if you provide a reference they can say "unreliable source", and if you provide 12 references from 12 different reliable sources they can try to convince other editors that it is stupid to use so many.

¥ou can see the large number of faults that are supposed to be in my replacement page according to my crtic here

Note also that you can check through the medical pages to find examples where there are anonymous editors, no references, and no links etc. and nobody criticises the page because the information suits the established editors POV. You will also be able to very easily find other artcles where the reference list is full of original research pagers, articles older than 10 or 20 or 100 years, and anonymous sources, unsourced opinions, and poor quality references such as newspapers, magazines, and telemovies etc, and many of them have been accepted without criticism. When I have criticised my critics for not editing those pages they say that they haven't got time, which is ridiculous, because if the spent only 10% of the time that they spent editing the Da Costa page they would have probably created and lost arguments against100 different contributors, and driven others away by making it impossible for them to add anything useful to the articles.

Note also that they are virtually admitting that they didn't know enough about the topic to find them, and that I found multiple sources for most of their "citation demands". Note also that when I see a criique that says "neutrality disputed", I provided multiple references from different authors, in different specialties, different coutnries, and different times in history to establish the widespread basis for some statements in the text.

The other point is that most new contributors want to add usefull information to Wikipedia, and are not interested in learning all of the policies, and if they started, it would take months, if not years of experience to deal on an equal basis with the established editors. This means that eventually the only things that readers get to see in Wikipedia will be what the established editors want them to see. i.e. it will be a vehicle for them to push their own POV and exclude everything else, regardless of the reliability and merit of the information.

Wikipedia will then be filled with a mixture of established editors, and "yes-men" who cave-in to the pressure of confomity, or who agree with them, or are prepared to toe the official line, or who are banned, or who leave in disgust because of all of the hippocricy and double standards.

Instead of inviting members of the public to provide Wikipedia with information from "all" sources and write it in plain English to make it available to as many people as possible they should just train monkeys to cut and paste copies of articles from encyclopedia Britannica into Wikipedia word for word.

My two critics should have spent their time producing a replacement page of their own so that it could be merged later by unbiased editors.to ensure that it constituted a neutral poing of view - and was not violaing WP:NPOV policy.

They shouldn't have made it so obvious that they were going to ensure that the information that remains in Wikipedia was based on their decision about what should be added, and their decision about what should be deleted, and that they had no intention of considering other contributors verifiable information unless it suited their opinion.

 

The deletion of the entire Da Costa's page

(by an anonymous editor?)

 

Only "Skilled" editors should be able to "Boldly Revert" an article to the "previous" version?

My main critic is an offensively arrogant person who argued on 26-4-2012 that the Wikipedia essay about the bold reverting of articles to the previous version, should not be upgraded to the status of actual "policy" because it should be left up to "skilled" editors to do it, not everyone who see the "policy".

She is a self-opinionated anonymous woman who wants everyone else to believe that she is "mature", "sensible", "honest", and "skillful".

The only thing that she is skilled at is persuading other editors to include loopholes, and double standards in the rules, to enable her to continue her stupid, dishonest and corrupt editing practices. See here (Her main "skills" are those of a fork-tongued rattlesnake)

 

Time Frame for the Slab Deletions

It is against the rules of Wikipedia to make slab deletions

10-2-08, at 13:10, Gordonofcartoon deleted a large slab of information about Oglesby Paul's review, and reduced it to one sentence. here

10-2-08, at 21:12 (only 8 hours later), WhatamIdoing deleted large slabs of the essay here

28-4-2008, Gordonofcartoon added a 'cruft' template to the page with the symbol of a broom (to indicate 'too much detail', or 'rubbish'). here

9-5-200, An anonymous editor with the ID address of 168.8.27.4 deleted the whole page and replaced it with the words "I LOVE CHEESEBURGERS" here (See also the last sentence here)

During the next 12 minutes it was reverted automatically, and deleted by the same person another three times here, and here, and here.

14-5-08, WhatamIdoing deleted large slabs of text here

25-1-2009, at 15:39 Gordonofcartoon deleted the whole page and replaced it with their version here

26-1-09, at 11:45 Gordonofcartoon deleted the whole page again (after I put it back), and replaced it with their version here

26-1-09, at 18:57, WhatamIdoing deleted the whole page (after I put it back) here

27-1-09, at 18:12, WhatamIdoing deleted the whole page again (after I put it back) here

Their obviously vandalised, deleted, dictated, and controlled version remains in Wikipedia.

See also my report of their technical violation of the "Three Revert Rule" WP:3RR here

And, how they put me on a watchlist and tried to delete every contribution I made here

And also, my report about their tag-teaming here

They are fond of "colloquial expressions", and so, as the saying goes, if they look like cows, and moo like cows, and give milk like cows, you don't need to prove that they are cows, because everyone with any common sense can see that they are cows. See here

 

After adding the comment about "cows" in late April 2012, my main critic did this edit about an "I love heeseburgers" vandal on May 1st here. I have no doubt that she has my website on her watchlist, and trying to divert attention away from herself. When I clicked on the link to that edit it first threw up the "TROUT" message etc.

 

Several essays on the same anonymous vandalism episode reviewed by me at different times

Note that some editors who can't win content or policy arguments, will resort to getting a friend of theirs to delete information without giving their name, so it appears at the end of the edit, or at the top of the page, as an internet number instead. Such 'friends' are acting like a 'puppet' of the person, so in Wikipedia they are called 'meat puppets'. However, sometimes the editor will go to their local library etc, and use the library computer to change text in Wikipedia without giving their name, so again, the only thing that appears at the end of the text is the libraries internet number. When an editor adds some information in their own name, and then deletes other information without giving their name, they are said to be using a 'sock puppet'. If you look at the pattern of edits you can see that my two critics were trying their hardest to find policy reasons as their excuse for deleting everything I wrote, so it appears as if they resorted to deleting the whole page anonymously. It is difficult to prove, and they would obviously deny it, so I just described the circumstances. When large amounts of information are deleted it is called slab deletion, and if the entire text is removed, I called it 'whole page deletion'I . However, in Wikipedia the policies refere to that type of deletion as "sockpuppetry" which is classified as a type of "vandalism".

How my two critics confused a young university student

On 28-4-08 Gordonofcartoon added the cruft template (which means rubbish) here

I continued to add to the topic on 5-5-08 here

The series of vandalistic anonymous deletions of text started on 9-5-08 here

When i mentioned the possibility that my two critics or their friends were the anonymous vandals Gordonofcartoon accused me of violating WP:AGF (Assume Good Faith), and WP:CIVIL (Civility) policies, just for asking the question about the OBVIOUS circumstances e.g. in item number 3 of the RFC page on 20-7-08 here . . .

 

 

The editor named Arbiteroftruth?

Four days later, on 24-7-08, another editor named Arbiteroftruth was so overwhelmed by the enormous volume of criticism against me that he thought that I was the one who had been accused of sockpuppetry i.e. He thought that after I put most of the information on the page I would then go and anonymously delete it?????? . . . These were the words described as his "outside view" i.e. as an outsider who had no previous involvement . . .

"I personally think that at this point in time, what Posturewriter has done is so disruptive that the Wikipedia community should not tolereate that. Therefore, I am going to propose a much harsher solution: ACB blocking of his account, perhaps hard blocking 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 address".. Arbiteroftruth 04:12, 24 July 2008 "

Those words, which he eventually retracted, can be seen here

This is a quote from another editor named MastCell . . . "if $username =~ m/truth|justice|freedom|neutrality/i, then the account should probably be blocked preëmptively, because nothing constructive will ever come from it." (end of quote) See item number 3 here

 

My comment on Moreschi . . . I am a comedian by nature, so I view almost everything, including that hyperbole, with amusement, but as you can see that young editor was taking Wikipedia very seriously.

The editor who banned me called himself Moreschi, and from what I can determine, new virtually nothing about medicine. He only participated in one very brief discussion, and only wrote two lines of text about me in August 2008, and then, four months later, went to an arbitration page and described me as "the worst type of troll" who had been disrupting a topic that he knew absolutely nothing about. The following words are from a page called "User:Moreschi/Wikithoughts, Wikimorality, Wikiphilosophies"

"Like hyphens, if you take Wikipedia seriously, you will surely go mad." and . . .

"Those who attack the community on external websites of vices they are invariably guilty of themselves will never recognise their own hypocrisy." See here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Moreschi/Wikithoughts,_Wikimorality,_Wikiphilosophies

That editor is the classic hippocrit who would use that 'philosophy'? to argue that Wikipedia is a most serious project therefore we must ban Posturewriter for being disruptive to our most serious aims. However, if I, or anyone else criticises Wikipedia after being banned then we are stupid for taking it seriously.

I think that Wikipedia had a good objective of providing the sum of all knowledge, but it is impossible to achieve that aim while it is being controlled by opinionated deletionists.

 

They created confusion and CHAOS

At an earlier stage of my discussions on the Da Costa's talk page, on 24 July 2008, that young editor was so convinced by their relentless arguments against me that he described me as an irresponsible and disruptive vandal, and proposed "a much harsher solution" than they wanted, and he suggested "an indefinite, irreversible ban" on me in relation to a policy violation.

In actual fact, I had asked administrators to check on some evidence that other??? editors were violating that particular policy. When I explained those facts he retracted and struck out his own comments. see here . . . and here

The evidence was this - my two critics were regularly deleting or altering almost everything I added, and then an anonymous editor came into the situation and deleted the whole page until it was completely blank except for the 'new' words "I LOVE CHEESEBURGERS". Those words were put back about three times after an automatic editor reverted it. When the anonymous editing period was over, my two critics returned and continued deleting most of the new information that I added. In the meantime it looked to me as if they or their friends were using someone else's computer to delete information anonymously, but when I asked for the matter to be investigated they accused me of violating 'assume good faith' policy - WP:AGF - I was supposed to assume good faith in THEM????? - and assume that they wouldn't be the actual editors who were deleting ALMOST everything AND ALSO the anonymous editors who were deleting ABSOLUTELY everything. I couldn't see any evidence that anyone else cared, except for those two tag-teamers. See here

Note also that whether or not one of my critics was involved, it was still my responsibility to report the matter to the administrators who investigate anonymous vandalism, and it is a typical example where I did something for one policy reason, and my two critics spun it around and found that I was violating another.

Also, the young and impulsive editor named Arbiteroftruth would have assumed that the experienced editors were presenting a reliable account of the facts, and not bothered to check the details, and he would have joined in to assist them in order to gain their favor for the benefit of his future in Wikipedia. He also would not have the confidence to go against experienced editors by supporting a new contributor. He claimed to have experience in dealing with vandals who used sockpuppets.

However, in essence he came charging in with the threat to immediately impose the most severe punishment on me, for a crime that my two critics were accused of committing????

My two critics were spectacularly successful in creating confusion, disorder, and CHAOS in Wikipedia.

 

The Anonymous Vandalism Investigation?

(If an editor can't get something done himself because he hasn't got consensus, he may decide to use an anonymous ID to create the impression that two people want the same changes to the text, or he might email a friend to do it anonymously for him. The 'anonymous' editor is called a 'sockpuppet', and is a violation of the Wikipedia policy called 'Sockpuppetry'. See here)

 

When my two critics suspect another editor of being a sockpuppet they warn them, AND have them investigated, AND recommend that their IP address is blocked, AND that their IP address, AND the topics that they regularly edit are put on a watchlist to make sure they are not using multiple anonymous edits. If they are found to be editing anonymously again they are banned.

However, when I suspected that my two critics were the sockpuppets, they investigated it themselves?? and denied it, and accused me of violating Assume Good Faith policy for reporting the circumstances. They also pretended to be helpful and respectable by telling Arbiteroftruth that it wasn't me.

The correct thing for Arbiteroftruth to do, given that he regarded himself as a sockpuppet expert, was not just to retract the erroneous accusation against me, but also to follow through with a thorough investigation, and if he found evidence that it was one of my two critics (or their associates), then he should have suggested the HARSHEST solution, namely an "indefinite, irreversible ban" on THEM. The anonymous editors IP address was 168.8.27.4 here.

However, my two critics would have sufficient knowledge of computing methods to edit anonymously, and appear to be doing so from any country without being traceable to the actual location.

see also here

A change of name - a new Wikipedia ID

The editor named Arbiteroftruth changed his Wikipedia ID to Kiteinthewind at 7:15 on 2nd of July 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kiteinthewind&diff=next&oldid=299390387

At 8:45 on 2-July 2009 he wrote these words. . . "With this username, I will strive to be the upholder of truth here on Wikipedia, and remove all falsehoods, vandalism, and other undesired, malicious edits on Wikipedia. I do not consider myself to be infallible, and I am prone to mistakes, but I will try my best to contribute to Wikipedia. I recently changed my username, on the suggestions of some users. This new username symbolize freedom, especially freedom to determine my own future, and my own development in life. The new username is also less controversial than the old name."

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Kiteinthewind&diff=next&oldid=299844233

My comment; The obvious controversy relates to a nineteen year old giving themselves an ID that gives the false impression of age and experience, and then using it to criticise adults who actually do have the advantage of age and experience.

At 20:30 on 2-7-2009 that editor gave this explanation "While my old username (Arbiteroftruth) was merely inspired by an old friend, who told me to be able to judge truth from fiction, some have found that it is inappropriate, and that is why I decided to change it".

(One of the reasons that he changed his ID would have been to hide the fact that he made a foolish, impulsive, hotheaded and humiliating mistake in a dispute against me, by not checking the facts first. i.e. he leapt to the wrong conclusion)

Further down the page that editor placed a heading . . . "My Temperament", which contained the following words . . . "Some of you may know me as being a little too hot-headed in the past, especially in my dealings with vandals. After thinking about it, and also seeing the negative reaction that I got from other users on this issue, I have decided to take it easy on vandals (as in not feeding the trolls, as opposed to not caring). However, if ever I "cross the line", don't hesitate to let me know. See here

My response to Arbiteroftruth - now Kiteinthewind

This is my response - Kiteinthewind, You did "cross the line" with your comments against me, but I did not respond with equally hostile counter-criticism because you were not the real problem. The problem was that my two critics wrote so many words of criticism that you believed them without bothering to go back beyond their litany of lies.

I told you that the evidence of sock puppetry was against them not me, so you struck out the comments. However, given the fact that your criticism was severe, and that I proved you wrong, the retraction alone isn't good enough. I still haven't had an apology from you, and am still willing to accept one, and you still haven't investigated my two critics to see if they, or their friends were the anonymous vandal, so you need to do that, and do it thoroughly without believing their denials. You are half the age of my two critics and much less experienced, and if you criticise editors who have their influence, they will try to ruin your future in Wikipedia, as they have done to other editors, but you still have to do that, and give THEM "the harshest punishment" and get them indefinitely and irreversibly banned.

The following words come from your second edit of your Userpage at 8:26 on 19 July 2005

"I choose the name Arbiteroftruth as my username because I want to be the fair person and be able to report the truth to the people who visit this site. I vow to be neutrai, and truthful. No lies will come from my edits." See here

If, for no other reason, you should get my two critics banned because THEY are prolific liars, and I have given you the evidence here.

They have paraphrased my theory
The evidence that a small gang of anonymous copyright thieves have systematically transferred information from my theory and books to other topic pages - It wasn't there before I joined, and they called it nonsense when I put it there, but not when they add the same ideas later.

(veiled plagiarism)

See also Wikipedia's one day blackout if the English version of it's encyclopedia on 18-1-2012 here, as a protest against SOPA - the Stop Online Piracy ACT here introduced as a bill by the U.S. government on October 26th 2011, and PIPA - the PROTECT IP ACT here which aim to prevent online threats to economic creativity and theft of intellectual property

 

The editor who says teach, and not let copyright stop learning

(He doesn't seem to understand that without people like me ungrateful people have got nothing to copy)

An editor with no apparent medical knowledge or qualifications has joined Wikipedia on 23rd September 2009, with the ID of Doc9871 here, but appears to have a lot of previous knowledge of Wikipedia problems and procedures as is evident from their very early comments e.g. see their User page on 9-11-09here. In fact another editor has left the comment that he appears to be a sock puppet, which means that one person is Using two different ID's at the same time. It could mean that he has edited under a different name before, and has changed his ID to hide his mistakes, or shame, or misconduct, or that he wants to use the second ID to do a different type of editing, such as the dirty work of insulting or banning people. In the past WhatamIdoing always tag-teamed with another editor named Gordonofcartoon, but now it appears as if Doc is coming to her rescue. starting from 22-1-12 here

The following words are from his current User page of 22-1-12 where he gives information about himself and his attitudes here

"This user has been in Wikipedia for three years 11 months and 20 days"

"This user is able to contribute with a professional level of sarcasm" - end of quote (which is breaking the rules about using good manners)

"This user was born to kill"

"This user is a WikiOgre" (see here)

"This user acts like an administrator on the English Wikipedia but really isn't."(which means he is a fake)

"This editor thinks Wikipedia should readily allow copyrighted images and supports fair use. We should teach and not let copyright stop learning" (end of quotes)

 

Fair use means that editors should acknowledge who they are getting the ideas from, and not steal them, rewrite them with different words and jargon, and pretend that they got them from somewhere else.

 

He criticised my comments about WhatamIdoings use of unreliable lists which was labeled as "Off-topic discussion" after 5:21 on 22nd January 2012, which can be seen by clicking on the words [show] on the right side of the page here.

He also participated in this discussion about the same matter here

 

A quote from Rowan Dean, who was one of the speakers at the "Big Ideas" conference about the Nanny State, on ABC TV News, Channel 24, Sunday 16-10-11. . . "if there is anything we hate it is academics who take the credit for other peoples ideas".

 

At 1:48 on 14-10-11 my main critic redirected information about "Hoyle's Law" to a page about seventeenth century author Edmond Hoyle (1672-1769), who's ideas were plagiarised. It indicates that my main critic is fully aware of how people's ideas and rights have been stolen before, and knows exactly how to remove my name from Wikipedia, and then steal my ideas and get away with it. See here

 

According to the Wikipedia article called "Cheating", the problem of Academic Cheating is "extremely common". 50-70% of school and university students admit to "serious test cheating" or are dishonest in their homework, and a third of them cheat repeatedly. 97% had copied someone else's homework.

"The new revolution in high-tech digital info contributes enormously to the new wave in cheating: online term-paper mills sell formatted reports on practically any topic; services exist to prepare any kind of homework or take online tests for students despite, the fact that this phenomenon, and these website's, are well known to educators." See here

That quote shows how easy it is for my two critics to read my contributions, and my book and website, and then steal my thirty years of ideas and information, and rewrite it, or encourage or pay someone else to rewrite it, and sew it into other pages of Wikipedia, and then ban me and delete all of my contributions.

The following quotes come from the Wikipedia article about "Academic dishonesty"

"Plagiarism: The adoption or reproduction of original creations of another author (person, collective, organization, community or other type of author, including anonymous authors) without due acknowledgment." and

"Sabotage: Acting to prevent others from completing their work. This includes cutting pages out of library books or willfully disrupting the experiments of others." See here

 

The copyright thieves loophole

This is a quote from a change made to the Notability guideline, by my main critic, at 6:09 on 27th November 2010, after I had been criticising the way that individual and their anonymous friends or associates had been deviously stealing information from me . . .

 

"For articles on subjects that are clearly not notable, then deletion is usually the most appropriate response, although other options may help the community to preserve any useful material."

Those comments were linked to another page called "Editing policy" which contained a section called "How to fix problems" and these words . . . "Instead of deleting text, consider: rephrasing . . . and . . . moving text within an article or to another article (existing or new)" (end of quotes)

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Notability&diff=next&oldid=395884042

and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Editing_policy&diff=prev&oldid=410475899#Try_to_fix_problems

 

It sounds respectable enough if you were not the one being robbed of your intellectual property in this manner . . . 'We invite everyone to edit Wikipedia, Welcome, thankyou for your contributions - however we think that you are not notable, and you have a conflict of interest, and your contributions are crap, so we are banning you. Too bad sucker, now that you have given us the information, we grubby thieves can steal it to improve the standard of Wikipedia articles without breeching your copyright.

 

Here is a quote from the Wikipedia page about plagiarism . . . "Plagiarism is defined in dictionaries as "the wrongful appropriation, close imitation, or purloining and publication, of another author's language, thoughts, ideas, or expresions, and the representation of them as one's own original work."[1][2] The modern concept of plagiarism as immoral and orignality as an ideal emerged in Europe only in the 18th century, while in the previous centuries authors and artists were encouraged to "copy the masters as closely as possible" and avoid "unnecessary invention."[3][4][5][6][7]
"The 18th century new morals have been institutionalized and enforced prominently in the sectors of academia and journalism, where plagiarism is now considered academic dishonesty and a breach of journalistic ethics, subject to sanctions like expulsion and other severe career damage.

The use of the Latin word plagiarius (literally kidnapper), to denote someone stealing someone else's work, was pioneered by Roman poet Martial, who complained that another poet had "kidnapped his verses." This use of the word was introduced into English in 1601 by dramatist Ben Jonson, to describe as a plagiary someone guilt of literary theft."

" In 1755 the word made it into Johnson's influential A Dictionary of the English Language, where he was cited in the entry for copier ("One that imitates; a plagiary; an imitator. Without invention a painter is but a copier, and a poet but a plagiary of others."), and in its own entry denoting both A thief in literature ("one who steals the thoughts or writings of another") and The crime of literary theft.[3][14]"

"Plagiarism on the internet . . . Plagiarism is not only the mere copying of text, but also the presentation of another's ideas as one's own, regardless of the specific words or constructs used to express that idea. In contrast, many so-called plagiarism detection services can only detect blatant word-for-word copies of text. (end of quotes)

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plagiarism&diff=385167324&oldid=383998749

What my two critics were doing was also intellectual theft and intellectual piracy.

This is a word to describe my two critics - GITS, a couple of 'Grubby Intellectual Thieves'.

 

The words of the Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales . . .

"There is no need nor intention to be vindictive, but at the same time, we can not tolerate plagiarism. Let me say quite firmly that for me, the legal issues are important, but far far far more important are the moral issues. We want to be able, all of us, to point at Wikipedia and say: we made it ourselves, fair and square.
— Jimbo Wales 15:54, 28 December 2005"

That quote is from - Plagiarism by Wikipedia editors here http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/psamples.html

 

A comment from that website called Wikipedia watch

"Another problem is that most of the administrators at Wikipedia prefer to exercise their police functions anonymously. The process itself is open, but the identities of the administrators are usually cloaked behind a username and a Gmail address. (Gmail does not show an originating IP address in the email headers, which means that you cannot geolocate the originator, or even know whether one administrator is really a different person than another administrator.) if an admin has a political or personal agenda he can do a fair amount of damage with the special editing tools available to him. The victim may not even find out that this is happening until it's too late. From Wikipedia, the material is spread like a virus by search engines and other scrapers, and the damage is amplified by orders of magnitude. There is no recourse for the victim, and no one can be held accountable. Once it's all over the web, no one has the power to put it back into the bottle."

See here http://www.wikipedia-watch.org

 

This is my advice to my two critics - 1. I found out, and 2. it is better late than never.

 

 

I spent 30 years putting the pieces of a medical jigsaw puzzle together in the neat form of The Posture Theory, and my two critics, including an "instant expert" who brags about having an "annoyingly high IQ", smashed it to bits and scattered the pieces throughout other pages in Wikipedia.

If they were the editors of a book publishing company and I sent them a novel with ten sub-plots, they would reject it, and spend the next 12 months using the sub-plots as the basis for ten short stories, and argue that they hadn't plagiarised my book.

They were not being annoying, they were being stupid, because if they had a useful brain, they would stop messing up good ideas and develop their own.

 

Introduction: The side view of the human spine has a slight S-curve which gives it a shock absorbing capacity. It is also upright, and therefore the person can maintain the balance of their posture without any effort.

However, I have suggested that poor nutrition, or any factor which reduces the tone and strength of muscle and bone during childhood can cause the spine to collapse under the child's own body weight. The result is an exaggeration of that S-shape, which is generally described as poor posture or slouching, or in severe cases is called hunchback or kyphosis where the head and shoulders are moved forward past the centre of gravity.

Between 1975 and 1980 I developed an idea which I eventually had published as an essay called " The matter of Framework", that I have since referred to as The Posture Theory which describes how poor posture can strain the spine and compress the chest and abdomen to cause many aches and pains, but particularly backaches, chest pains, breathlessness, and digestive disorders. It can also compress the tubular vessels of the body and affect the circulation of blood in a harmful way which in some cases may result in chronic fatigue. I have also suggested that many other factors, such as sitting at a desk for prolonged periods of time, and repeatedly leaning forward, would eventually make the symptoms worse.

I have also described how a person with sideways curvature of the spine will twist their spine as they write from left to right across the page, and that if they also have a shallow chest the breastbone will stab into their stomach in a twisting manner to produce indigestion and pain, and that slouching forward to write puts pressure on the wrist and disposes to 'repetitive strain injuries".

I called my original essay "The Matter of Framework because it was a framework of ideas that linked a framework of symptoms to the framework of the human body.

I also co-ordinated a fitness research programme between 1982-83 on the measurements of the aerobic capacity of patients with chronic fatigue.

 

Another person named PaulaIsRight provided a page of information about my theory for Wikipedia with my permission.

At 1:46 on 5-12-07. . . that theory was deleted. and although no reason was given, I have since had two critics arguing that it was because it did not meet the "Notability" guidelines because, in their opinion, a nurses journal and my self-published book, and my website aren't reliable enough evidence that I actually produced those ideas, or that they are significant or reliable. See here

My theory had been on the internet for more than twelve years, long before Wikipedia existed, and was generally on the top ten list on the Google search engine for posture, sometimes in position number 1, above other items from many other sources including the top research journals, but it was deleted on the ridiculous grounds that it wasn't notable???

 

I therefore started to look for other topics to contribute to and soon found a page about Da Costa's syndrome with only four lines of text.

At 7:39 on 9-12-07 I started writing about that topic. My theory and research includes that subject so I added some paragraphs about it but within a short time the same two editors started criticising it.

They told me that it took up too much space for non-notable information so I abbreviated it, however . . .

At 18:42 on 27-1-08 WhatamIdoing wrote these offensively patronising words . . . "I don't want your made-up theory shortened; I want it removed entirely from this article. Wikipedia is not a reasonable place for promoting our pet theories." WhatamIdoing 18:42, 27 December 2007

It was deleted by Gordonofcartoon at 00:54 on 29 December 2007 See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=180714637&oldid=180703608

Those two arrogant individuals have since described my ideas as nonsense and crap.

 

I knew that Wikipedia did not have a good article about posture, so it occurred to me that they or their friends would find a way of using the information anyway, so I checked their posture page sometime later, but couldn't see any evidence of it.

 

However, about 18 months after I was banned I found a Wikipedia page called "The Neutral Spine", which is just another term for "The Natural Spine" i.e. one that has a slight natural curve.

I therefore checked to find out when it was started and found it to be

at 16:40 on 16-2-08, here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_spine&diff=prev&oldid=191875326

i.e. it was started less than a month after all of the information about The Posture Theory had been deleted.

 

Here are some quotes which show the excuses that my two critics used for deleting information about my theory, that was also relevent to Da Costa's syndrome . . .

The first one, named Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "I'm not comfortable with the current development of the article. While the explicit Banfield material has been removed, it seems to me that the citations and case material added since have a distinct focus on chest compression, breathing, breathlessness, the diaphragm etc, that smells of WP:SYNTH slanting the whole picture toward the Banfield Theory. Gordonofcartoon 17:38, 8 February 2008
Three hours later the second one, named Whatamidoing wrote . . . "Yes, I share these concerns". WhatamIdoing 20:34, 8 February 2008

They also argued that my references from the nineteenth century about tight chest straps on uniforms were out-of-date and had been proven wrong, and they removed a nineteenth century scientific study that commented on the harmful effects of tight corsets and measured the pressures created inside the chest and abdomen.

 

Here are some quotes from the first edit on the new page called the Neutral spine which was set up by an editor named Classicfilms only a week later at 16:40 on 16 February 2008 . . .

"Working in neutral postures is preferable to working while twisting the back or bending the wrists"[2]In this posture, a person is able to completely and optimally attain balance and proportion of the body mass and framework.

"'Neutral spine' refers to the differences between a slouching posture and an erect posture." (end of quotes)

 

Here are some quotes from that small page at 19:46 on 16-2-08 after the same editor had completed fifty edits in three hours to establish it . . .

"Good posture optimizes breathing and affects the circulation of bodily fluids."

"In medicine and occupations concerned with physical fitness, the concept of good posture is referred to as "neutral spine."[4] In this context, proper posture or "neutral spine, is the proper alignment of the body between postural extremes."

"In neutral posture, the body is able to function in its strongest, most balanced position. Stress to the joints, muscles, vertebrae and tissue is minimized.[4]

"a non-neutral spine leads to improper posture, [that] especially when walking, puts increased stress on your back and causes discomfort and damage." (end of quots)

Those quotes are from 19:46 on 16-2-08 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_spine&diff=191909539&oldid=191909451

 

At 18:39 on 15-3-08 an anonymous editor 99.154.6.81 added these words . . .

"People who sit for long hours on the job are susceptible to a number of misalignments."

see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_spine&diff=next&oldid=198162661


It appears as though either or both of my critics has contacted the editor named Classicfilms and asked them to set up the "Neutral spine" page as a vehicle for transferring information from my contributions to there without being detected.

What they want the other editors to believe is that when I wrote those ideas it was all non-notable nonsense and crap that did not warrant a place in Wikipedia, but when other editors added exactly the same information while they were watching it was perfectly acceptable.

By deleting the information and banning me they obviously want the public to believe that I don't exist, and that my thirty years of research didn't happen.

They are the two most unethical individuals that I have ever come across in my life.

My website mainpage is here M.B.

 

The text of the "Neutral spine" page hasn't changed much in size in the two and a half years since. During that time there hasn't been much editing, with most of it anonymous and only about a dozen identifying themselves.

However, at 15:17 on 25-8-10 an editor named Travellinglightly added the following words . . .

"When the spine is left in non-neutral posture for extended periods of time, it raises the diaphragm, preventing the body from taking a full breath. This can lead to reduced oxygenation throughout the body. It can also compromise the internal organs performance by putting pressure throughout the abdomen.[5]

That editor has only made three contributions in total between 11th and 25th August 2010. Two of them were to the" Neutral spine" page and were about a minute apart. The first edit included reference number five which was www.stamfordhc.com, but that was replaced in the second edit to www.thesaurmethod.com

One is an advertisement for a chiropractic clinic, and the other for a posture improving product, but no-one has accused the editor of having a conflict of interest or disputed or deleted the information, or blocked or banned them.

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_spine&diff=prev&oldid=380928673

 

I am not in a position to say if that was copied from me, but after the 'Neutral spine' page had been established it was going to be a place where that type of information could be developed and expanded.

That isn't necessary because I wrote the theory thirty years ago, and I wrote my thousand page book between 1994 and 2000, and compiled all posture information in one place because no-one else had.

It is another example of my two critics describing it as non-notable nonsense when I added the information, but perfectly acceptable when someone else did.

 

Evidence on The "Neutral spine" page

The deletion process that preceded the transfer of information

At 17:38 on 8-2-08, set up a section on the Da Costa's discussion where he used an argument from a policy about synthesis as an excuse for deleting everything I wrote about that topic. However, since then several editors have been synthesising the information from my theory back into other pages in Wikipedia without acknowledging that got it from me. Their accusation about WP:SYNTH can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Da_Costa%27s_syndrome/Archive_1#WP:SYNTH.3F

Here are some quotes from that discussion

At 17:38 on 8-2-08, Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "I'm not comfortable with the current development of the article. While the explicit Banfield material has been removed, it seems to me that the citations and case material added since have a distinct focus on chest compression, breathing, breathlessness, the diaghragm etc, that smells of WP:SYNTH slanting the whole picture toward the Banfield theory". Gordonofcartoon 17:38, 8 February 2008
At 20:38 on 8-2-08, three hours later on the same day my other critic, WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "Yes, I share these concerns.
Additionally . . . I've been thinking the last couple of weeks that at least three-quarters of the history section should be removed (as an issue of undue weight)."

That editor continued and made these comments . . .
"Posturewriter, why don't you put all this up on your website? It would be a more appropriate home for such specialized material." WhatamIdoing 20:34, 8 February 2008
At 20:51 on 8-2-08, half an hour later, Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "As I said above, it's meant to be an encyclopedia article for the general reader, not an exhaustive academic literature survey. Liposuction time?" Gordonofcartoon 20:51, 8 February 2008
At 23:17 on 9-2-08, the next day,WhatamIdoing wrote . . . "I believe that you're right. I'm thinking that the history section should be about three short paragraphs and should name the major players and their own made-up names, but no give much, if any, information about the actual studies (which should be properly ref'd if anyone wants to read more). Does that sound WP:DUE to you? WhatamIdoing 23:17, 9 February 2008
At 13:27 on 10-2-08, the next day, the obvious team mate Gordonofcartoon wrote . . . "Definitely. I've just cut another 6000-character essay. Gordonofcartoon 13:27, 10 February 2008

(Note that Gordonofcartoon was exaggerating a section of a few hundred words by describing it as 6000 characters - which means 6000 letters. Also it was obvious that I was summarising Oglesby Pauls history, and was going to abbreviate it myself, and improve it, and co-ordinate it with other histories later)
At 20:56 on 10-2-08, seven hours later, his tag-teaming cohort, WhatamIoing wrote . . . I'm making a start. I just want to make a note here that some of what I'm deleting does not belong in this section because it's a textbook-perfect description of hyperventilation syndrome." WhatamIdoing 20:56, 10 February 2008 (Note that WhatamIdoing has since lost that argument)

(The Posture Theory was generally in the top ten list on the Google search engine for Posture, and was sometimes number one. The top article on 1-9-10 was the Wikipedia article called "Neutral spine", and mine has been gradually pushed back to page five. My two grubby critics would be proud of that.)

 

The beginning of the transfer of deleted information

At 16:40 on 16-2-08, only six days later, the editor named Classicfilms, started a brand new page called "Neutral spine", and continued for the next three hours to add another fifty contributions in a row up to 19:46 on the same day.

At 16:44 on 16-2-10, while doing those edits, Classicfilms went to the Wikipedia page called "Posture", and added a link to that brand new page called"Neutral spine".

According to the principles and policies of Wikipedia the title of the page should refer to the most common and easily understood meaning of the word for the general reader. The page should have therefore been given the title of "Posture", but it wasn't.

The first line on that page is . . . "A neutral Spine or 'good posture' refers to the 'three natural curves that are present in a healthy spine".

The first section heading in the contents list, and on the page is "Posture".

The first sentence in that section explains the origin and definition of the word "posture"

The remainder of the text describes the health effects of good and bad "posture".

Eleven of the next 12 contributions were minor edits by anonymous editors, and up until two and half years later there weren't any significant changes to the text . See 23:25 on 4-9-10 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_spine&diff=next&oldid=380928847

Virtually all of that information was available on the pages about "The Posture Theory" or "Da Costa's syndrome", or to my contributions to pages such as Kyphosis, and from my website and book.

 

When I provided that information Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing described it as nonsense and crap and deleted every word they saw. However, as you can see, they appear to have collaborated with an editor named Classicfilms to put all of that information into another brand new page in Wikipedia, so that it would be available to their readers without anyone knowing the real source. That process is a form of theft called plagiarism, and is also a breech of my copyright.

Although I gave all of that information to Wikipedia for free, my two critics still have to acknowledge where they got it from.

They didn't get it from the references on that pages reference list. They got it from me.

They were being devious about it to avoid detection, and will predictably use even more deceitful arguments to deny it. M.B.

 

Evidence of The "Human position" page Gordonofcartoon

Between 4:02 on 20-12-07 and 23:55 on 14-1-08 Gordonofcartoon added four edits to the "Human position" page, and introduced 'squatting', and 'squat toilets'

At 16:04 on 16-2-08 an editor named Classicfilms started a new page in Wikipedia called the "Neutral spine", and continued to make fifty edits with amendments up to 19:46 on the same day.

At 17:52 on 16-2-08 the same editor, named Classicfilms, came to the "Human position" page and added a link to the "Neutral spine" page.

At 23:21 and 23:22 on 16-2-08 WhatamIdoing made some minor changes to the codes.

None of those three editors appear to have contributed to that page before or since. In particular, the editor named Classicfilms appears to have contributed thousands of edits to pages about literature and films and has had no particular interest in posture or health in the past. Therefore it is apparent that my two critics may have arranged those edits by private emails. One of them may have actually written the text, and deliberately used Classicfilms as a sockpuppet.

See Gordonofcartoon's edit here and here and Classicfilms edit here and WhatamIdoing's edit here

 

Evidence on The "Defecation postures" page

I spent five years between 1975 and 1980 trying to explain the cause of a large range of symptoms so the actual process is quite detailed, but briefly, I soon found that leaning forward, or poor posture could compress the chest to cause chest pain, and compress that stomach to cause stomach pain etc. However it took me four of those years to determine how poor posture could cause fatigue.

I came to that conclusion after seeing a paragraph of information about Valsalva's manoeuvre which stated that 'stress' can be artificially created in the laboratory to determine the physiological response to it.

The symptoms were widely regarded as being due to stress so I wondered how 'stress' or worry or anxiety could be created in the laboratory.

I found out that it had nothing to do with anxiety because the technique was entirely physical. Valsalva's maneuvere requires the person to hold their mouth shut, and pinch their nose tightly so that air can't escape, and then to breath out with as much force as possible. That process causes the air pressure inside the chest to increase dramatically and compress all of the blood vessels so that the blood coming from the feet to the brain is blocked. The brain responds to that 'stress' automatically by stimulating the nervous system to increase the blood pressure. All of those physical factors can be measured.

When I found that information I knew why leaning forward could cause faintness and fatigue, and a tendency to do the type of damage to the blood vessels or nervous system that would result in chronic fatigue, especially if the pressure was applied repeatedly, as it would be in sedentary workers who leaned forward to read or write for many hours of the day for many years.

I then wrote "The Posture Theory" which essentially states that poor posture compresses the chest and abdomen, to cause chest pains, breathlessness, stomach pain, faintness, and fatigue.

When I was writing for Wikipedia (more than 25 years later), I mentioned those details, including Valsalva's maneuver, and explained how other factors could cause similar pressure such as corsets and pregnancy, but as you know by now, I had two critics who were describing all of that information as out-of-date nonsense that had been disproven and that nobody took seriously nowadays, so they deleted it all, including a scientific study from the nineteenth century which measured the level of pressure created inside of the chest and abdomen by corsets, and of course they banned me.

An account of The Posture Theory was added to Wikipedia by PaulaisRight with my permission, but was deleted at 1:56 on 4-12-07

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_posture_theory&diff=next&oldid=175645543

At 7:45 on 7-12-07 I started adding some of that theory to relevant sections of a page called Da Costa's syndrome

here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=176730045&oldid=176729513

I continued to make another fourteen contributions to that page until 6:10 on 18-12-07, so you can see that text here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=178669451&oldid=178669063

I then had two critics named Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing who would find fault with every word I wrote and delete or alter everything I added after that . . .

At 18:16 on 20-7-08 Gordonofcartoon set up an RFC page to get me banned from the topic.

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=prev&oldid=226845230

12:13, 4-10-08 an editor named NerdyNSK started a brand new page called "Defecation postures"

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defecation_postures&diff=prev&oldid=242949517

Other editors started adding to that page.

At 19:22 on 7-7-09, nine months later, and six months after I had been banned, WhatamIdoing started a series of six edits on the "Defecation page"

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defecation_postures&diff=prev&oldid=300849922

At 20:02 on 20-7-09 WhatamIdoing did a major edit of information that was obviously related to pressure withing the abdomen, fainting, the angle of interal tubular structures and vessels, and the effect on a variety of health problems. i.e. a veiled theft of the basic principles of my theory.

At 20:07 on 20-7-09 the last of those edits ended here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Defecation_postures&diff=next&oldid=300849922

 

This is an extract from that page as it existed then . . .

Note that syncope is another word for faint . . .

"Disadvantages and health risks: The sitting position causes the defecating human to assume a narrow anorectal angle, which some people believe is obstructive and causes difficulty in emptying the bowels. Critics of this posture say that "The only natural defecation posture for a human being is squatting".[6]
The sitting position can cause the defecating human being to repeat the Valsalva's meneuver many times and with great force, which may overload the cardiovascular system and cause defecation syncope. Sikirov also published 2004 study in which he compared the length of time needed to defecate using various postures, and concluded that the sitting defecation posture requires "excessive expulsive effort compared to the squatting posture."[7]

The squatting defecation posture involves squatting by standing with knees and hips sharply bent and the buttocks suspended near the ground. Squat toilets are designed to facilitate this posture.

Advantages and health benefits . . . Denis Burkitt believes that the squatting defecating posture can prevent cancer, especially colorectal cancer.[8]
The anorectal angle that results from squatting allows smooth bowel elimination.[6] The squatting defecation posture requires less expulsive effort when compared to the sitting defecation posture[7] Dov Sikirov says that the squatting position could prevent the risk of defecation syncope and death due to cardiovascular complications associated (in Sikirov's research) with the sitting position, as squatting requires less amount of straining on part of the defecating individual.[9]
Squatting can be beneficial for patients suffering from the spastic pelvic floor syndrome, due to the increased anorectal angle enabled by the posture.[10]
A sitting posture may increase diverticulosis of the colon. The magnitude of straining during defecation is at least three times greater than with the squatting posture.[11]
Disadvantages and health risks . . . The squatting defecation posture can place individuals at risk of stroke.[12] However, the study did not compare squatting with sitting for defecation, and did not measure the blood pressure of subjects straining on a western toilet.
Related to work on a zero gravity toilet for use in the space station . . . The authors concluded that squatting increases abdominal pressure, and that in normal gravity environments, the best posture is one in which the knees are higher than the buttocks.[14]

Summary . . . As you can see NONE of that information was in Wikipedia before I started contributing, and all of the information was available in my theory, my thousand page book, and my website, including the fact that any type of poor posture will cause changes to the pressure, and to the angles of any tubular structure in the chest and abdomen and produce a large number of health problems, such as defecation syncope (fainting while straining to empty a constipated bowel), and varicose veins (of the rectum - hemorrhoids), and that anything that improves the posture will relieve the pressure and reduce the number of symptoms and diseases.

The following words are from my edit of the varicose veins page in Wikipedia at 6:56 and 7:02 on 9-12-07 which was deleted by JfdWolff at 22:12 on 18-12-07 on the grounds that it was violating the 'original research' policy WP:NOR and that there was no reference 26 (I had not done much editing at that stage and probably didn't insert the codes properly, but there is another policy which advises - don't remove obvious facts just because there isn't a reference, and be useful and find one yourself before deleting obvious facts). These were the words that were deleted . . .

Varicose veins - causes -"the abdominal straining which occurs when emptying a constipated bowel" . . . and . . . "They are caused by any factor which impedes the flow of blood through the veins such as tight garters, where typically the varicosity occurs below the garter line on the leg, and not above it (ref.26)" See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Varicose_veins&diff=prev&oldid=176725573

My thousand page book has entire chapters on those subjects including haemorrhoids, and diverticulitis.

One of the differences is that I was providing it in plain English so that it could be more easily understood.

The evidence that my two critics have plagiarised that information (stolen it from me) is in the fact that they called it nonsense and rubbish when I added it, and yet were quite agreeable and cooperative when other editors added exactly the same details on a different page.

They did it deviously in the hope that I wouldn't find out, and be able to provide the evidence.

 

Evidence on The "Posture and Occupational Health" page

I started adding information to the da Costa's syndrome page on 9-12-07, and soon after added a brief account of my Posture Theory with a link to my website because it was relevant. However two arrogant editors started making it perfectly clear that they didn't want any mention of my name or my theory in Wikipedia. They checked the history of edits, and made sure that anything that hadn't been deleted by other editors was deleted by them.

As you can already see they have obviously transferred a lot of that information to other pages, but I recently found another one called "Posture and Occupational Health", so I will give some background.

On 14-1-08 my main critic wrote this . . . "Posturewriter, did you "forget" that promoting your own non-notable research ideas constitutes a conflict of interest, or were you just hoping that no one would notice when you added all that information again? The guideline is that a theory needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Until you can produce '"significant" coverage in "reliable and "independent" sources, your pet theory is not notable enough to justify any space at all in this article. I'd like to point out as well that this article is on my daily watchlist, and I suspect that it's on several other editors' lists for the same reason."WhatamIdoing 01:49, 14 January 2008

On 8-2-08 Gordonofcartoon wrote this . . . "I'm not comfortable with the current development of the article. While the explicit Banfield material has been removed, it seems to me that the citations and case material added since have a distinct focus on chest compression, breathing, breathlessness, the diaphragm etc, that smells of WP:SYNTH slanting the whole picture toward the Banfield theory." Gordonofcartoon 17:38, 8 February 2008

For the next month they spent most of their time trying to find ways of removing my name and my theory from every topic in Wikipedia, so one of their tactics was to get the name changed or the page merged with something else, even if they had to invent an entirely new page to do it.

This was one of their suggestions . . . "Currently, the ICD-10 names several conditions as somatoform autonomic dysfunctions. Da Costa is one of them. What do you think about moving this page to Somatoform autonomic dysfunction and giving each sub-type/named condition its own subsection on the page? It removes some of the WP:SYNTH concerns in declaring Da Costa to be the same as the others. WhatamIdoing 20:43, 24 March 2008

All of their attempts to change the page title or merge it failed, in that case because Wikipedia prefers plain English titles that the general reader can understand, rather than jargon that they can't.

During that period, at11:42 on 14-3-08, another editor named Dr.Nick started a brand new page called "Posture and Occupational Health". These were the opening words . . . "Further studies have implicated poor sitting posture in the development and perpetuation of neck pain syndromes. While sitting for long periods without interruption with a poor posture has been shown to cause postural backache."

In fact, every idea on that page could have come from my website, so they would have needed only one reference to The Posture Theory, and linked each statement or sentence to a sentence or paragraph on my website or book.

However that editor gave a list of ten references but none of them were linked to any of the statements on the page, which is essentially a violation of verification policy which recommends that you say where you got the information from.

My main critic, the fuming bloodhound, who had me on a watchlist, would have checked every page about posture to check if I had added information to it, and devised a policy excuse for deleting it.

However, upon seeing that the page was started by an editor named Dr.Nick, and not me, chose to leave the same information there, and didn't bother to add the words "citation needed" to every sentence.

Nevertheless, two years later, at 23:21 on 29-5-10, an editor named Diannaa amended a template at the top of the page which had these words . . .

"This article includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations Please improve this article by introducing more precise citations where appropriate. (May 2010)"

Citations have not been added to that page yet, as of 19-10-10

Summary: When I added information about posture from my website it was deleted on the grounds of being non-notable, so I added the same information from other sources, and added linked inline citations to verify it, but then my two critics argued that the citations were too old so I added more recent ones and they deleted everything on more trumped up policy grounds. in the meantime someone else added posture related information from other sources to another topic page, but hasn't bothered to provide linked citations for two and a half years, and nobody cares.

The information that I provided with a link to my website for every editor in Wikipedia to see was deleted in January 2008, and my two critics tried to block me and change the page name between February and March, where other editors could see the fuss they were making. in the same month Dr. Nick set up a brand new page called "Posture and Occupational Health" and placed exactly the same information that is readily available on my website and in my book, and supported it with 10 other references, but couldn't cite which sentence of information came from which reference.

 

The discussions between myself and my two critics from January to March 2008 can be seen in the first four sections here

The page about Occupational Health was started at 11:22 on 14-3-08 here

The request for citations was added at 23:21 on 29-5-110 here

 

My two critics didn't care about Wikipedia, they didn't care about it's policies, and they didn't care about the quality of citations, they just wanted to get me blocked because of some sort of personal prejudice or grudge.

My main critic put me on a watchlist here

To show where that editor tried to delete every word I wrote see here

To see where that editor demanded citations from me at every trivial opportunity see here

Gordonofcartoon also transferred information

to the J.M. Da Costa biography page

The topic page about Da Costa's syndrome had been in Wikipedia for fifteen months and hadn't been edited for the four months prior to me seeing it. It had only four lines of text and no references, and no mention of J.M.DaCosta's original study. See here

At 7:39 on 9 December 2007 I began contributing to it by adding a reference to J.M.Da Costa's original research paper of 1871and providing a brief summary for the text with these words . . .
"Da Costa's syndrome is a medical condition named after physician J.M. Da Costa who identified a set of symptoms occurring amongst soldier's during the American Civil War."

Over the next ten days I contributed fifteen more edits to 6:10 on 18 December. (see here and here

At 21:16 on 18 December, less than a day later, WhatamIdoing added 4 edits in a row starting here

At 5:43 on 19 December 2007, an editor named Arcadian added ten minor edits in one day, and didn't add any more to that topic for the next 12 months. See here

However, also on that day, he went to a biography page with the title of Jacob Mendez Da Costa which had a brief sentence about him being a surgeon, and then added a "See also" heading with a link to the Da Costa's syndrome page. See here

At 0:03 on 20 December 2007 Gordonofcartoon did the first of eleven edits to the Da Costa's syndrome page in one day which included changing or rewriting my edits. He would therefore have seen all of the information that I provided AND the references. See the first of his edits here

At 4:34 on 20 December 2007 on the same day, he deleted the "See also" section of the Jacob Mendez Da Costa page and replaced it with the following sentence . . .
"He is particularly known for Da Costa's syndrome, an anxiety disorder first observed in soldiers in the American Civil War that he documented in 1871."
and he used the WhoNamedIt website as a reference. here

As you can see Gordonofcartoon was quite happy to use the information that I provided, and then transfer it to another page in Wikipedia, and disguise the fact that he obtained it from me.

At 1:08 on 21 December WhatamIdoing started criticising me, followed by Gordonofcartoon an hour later at 2:16 on 21 December here

He and WhatamIdoing knew that my sources of information were top quality, but they spent the next twelve months criticising and deleting every word I wrote, and telling all of the other editors lies by arguing that I was filling Wikipedia full of nonsense and crap from unreliable references.

One of the problems that they have, is that neither of them have the ability to solve problems, so if I don't add the best information, or my best ideas to Wikipedia, or to my own website, they won't be able to copy them. Unfortunately it also means that no-one else will have access to useful knowledge, including the idea that I developed in 2006, which I have been having success with, and evaluating. It is not unusual for me to spend several years evaluating ideas before I write about them.. By contrast, my two critics are impatient and impulsive and leap to conclusions without thinking about them, and they sometimes deleted information that I added within a few minutes - 18 May 2010..

(Note also that Gordonofcartoons sentence on the Da Costa's biography page is deliberately misleading because he is implying that Da Costa described the syndrome as an anxiety disorder, when if fact he concluded that the cause was "Hard field service, particularly excessive marching" in 38.5% of 200 cases, whereas anxiety was not mentioned in his list. If you are writing a biography of someone you need to be accurate and should write about what they actually said, and if you are going to write about other interpretations you should make the difference clear. When Gordonofcartoon was misrepresenting facts to mislead readers he was violating the POV pushing policy to promote his own personal beliefs, or other interpretations or points of view.)

Gordonofcartoon Again???

on the Thomas Lewis biography page

At 12:20 on 28 April 2008 Gordonofcartoon added the 'cruft' template to the top of the Da Costa page - The word 'cruft' means 'too much detail' or rubbish that needs to be swept away, and of course he was using it for it's dual meaning as a way of insulting me here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=208737181
One of the references that I included was by Sir Thomas Lewis who gave Da Costa's syndrome the new name of 'The Effort Syndrome, and he was knighted for his contributions to that study.
At 12:43 on 28 April 2008, less than a half an hour later, another editor named Carcharoth started a brand new page in Wikipedia on the biography of Sir Thomas Lewis (Cardiologist), and mentioned the fact that he was knighted, but did not give the reason or provide a link to the Da Costa's syndrome page. See here and here

Academic dishonesty

The following quote comes from the Wikipedia topic page called Academic Dishonesty

"Plagiarism is the adoption or reproduction of original intellectual creations (such as concepts, ideas, methods, pieces of information or expressions, etc.) of another author (person, collective, organization, community or other type of author, including anonymous authors) without due acknowledgment, in contexts where originality is acknowledged and rewarded.[13] This can range from borrowing without attribution a particularly apt phrase, to paraphrasing someone else's original idea without citation, to wholesale contract cheating


Sabotage is when a student prevents others from completing their work. This includes cutting pages out of library books or willfully disrupting the experiments of others. Sabotage is usually only found in highly competitive, cutthroat environments, such as at extremely elite schools where class rankings are highly prized."


Professorial misconduct includes improper grading of students' papers and oral exams, deliberate negligence towards cheating or assistance in cheating. See here

Incontrovertible evidence -steal and confess

This was WhatamIdoing's response to another eidtor . . . "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". WhatamIdoing 06:10, 16 May 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:WhatamIdoing/Awards&diff=prev&oldid=290251621

Their cohorts transferred my ideas to a page called Corset Controversy

The deletion and replacement of my theory with the opposite

Within a six hour period in 2007 a small group of about six editors all rushed into a discussion about The Posture Theory and within a week, it was deleted. e.g. here. The theory describes, in detail, all of the physical causes and effects.

Some years, after I was banned some editors in a foreign country produced a page called Posture/psychology, and it was translated and put into the English version of Wikipedia on January 13, 2011, and put into the number 1 position, at the very top of the page about all of the Wikipedia posture related pages here. It was not in alphabetical order, and it is obvious to me that there are editors in Wikipedia who want people to believe that "laziness" and "sadness" etc. are the main causes poor posture, and good self-esteem, and "pride" causes good posture. See here.

(Note that it was a 'trick' used by my main critic to place her preferred items at the top of pages or lists, out of alphabetical order etc, and then say that it was just a co-incidence, and it is obviously a standard way of creating false impressions in literature, and Wikipedia).

They are obviously jealous of me for producing the correct theory of physical cause, and are just messing about and trying to create the ridiculous false impression that psychological factors are the most important, when in fact, they are the least important.

In fact, poor posture is likely to be the cause of physical and mental problems in adults if it is not prevented by attending to nutrition, health, and education about posture in childhood. e.g. here.

By deleting The Posture Theory those editors are being irresponsible and most likely to produce another generation of children who will grow up to become extremely sickly and miserable adults. See my report here

The administrators of Wikipedia should permanently ban all of the editors involved.

Much of the information about posture and health in Wikipedia has been copied from my book and website by copyright thieves anyway. See my report below.

When I joined Wikipedia I became aware of a policy which stated that it is preferable (but not compulsory) that an individual did not add information about their own ideas or books because they were likely to be criticised for bias or conflict of interest, and that it is preferable that other individuals review it. Consequently I did not write about it, but some time after that a person who I have never met sent me an email praising my book, and expressing her opinion about how helpful it was. A few weeks later it occurred to me that she might be interested in reviewing it for Wikipedia, so I explained the situation and policy and she agreed that she would be happy to do it. I then wrote a summary for her to rewrite in her own words to reflect the accuracy of the concept and her confirmation. She then joined Wikipedia under the name of PaulaIsRight, and loaded the article. I then recommended a few minor changes and it was almost a very good acceptable summary when, from what I can recall I was quite pleased with the co-operation that she was getting from other editors in making it a very presentable and excellent topic. It essentially presented the idea that poor posture was the cause of multiple aches and pains that don't show up on x-rays, and I was pleasantly surprised that no-one criticised the topic. I felt confident that the editors must have been truly independent individuals who didn't object to such a common sense and scientifically verifiable idea. However, I was obviously overconfident in their neutrality because I then asked her to make one minor change, and replace the words 'undetectable illness' (or something like that) to the word 'hypochondria'. The topic then became 'poor posture is the cause of the undetectable symptoms of hypochondria'. That very minor, insignificant change upset a lot of editors because six of them came rushing into the discussion page in six hours and each had an amazingly diverse array of policy reasons which they used as an excuse to get the page deleted.

A week of discussions followed but it was a waste of my time because they were hell bent on deleting that article no-matter how good the article complied with all of their policies, and that is exactly what happened. See here

Soon after that I started looking for other topics to contribute to myself and came across an article about Da Costa's syndrome. Between the 9th and 20th December 2007 I added information to that page about corsets and health, and a link to a nineteenth century research paper which scientifically measured the pressures on internal cavities, and the health problems to verify the inclusion. I knew that I was one of the few people in the world who was researching the nineteenth century and earlier studies on the subject and that it is one of the most important and neglected topics in human history.

However, two individuals began criticising everything I wrote and describing my contributions as worthless and unreliable nonsense, and of course deleted everything they could, and systematically and furtively deleted my comments about corsets, and later, the reference about scientifically measured pressures on internal anatomy. They cherrypicked ridiculous policies to use as their excuse for those deletions..

They read my website and probably read my book and knew everything about my ideas, and told as many other editors as possible that it was rubbish that was not good enough for Wikipedia. They also knew that if I stayed in Wikipedia long enough that I would have been the first to do a significant and important topic about corsets and health and the controversies of history.

They were in a frenzied panic to make sure that all of my contributions were deleted and to also ensure that I didn't add anything more on those, or any other important issues, and managed to lie and cheat in their arguments until, on 29th January 2009 they arranged for one administrator to ban me. See there deletion editing here

About one month later at 00:56 on 30-3-2009 an editor who contributes under the Username of Heather Smithfiled (possibly a pseudonym of my main critic or a friend of that individual) started editing to Wikipedia under that name for the first time. See here

Only six weeks after that, at 17:42 on 15th May 2009 she created a brand new page in Wikipedia called Corset Controversy. See here

(She was the type of editor who would try to make her carefully planned and deliberately sly actions look casual. i.e. something like this, 'I was just strolling through the park one day when I decided to join Wikipedia . . . .and a month later she would make the first contribution with the comment . . . 'bye the way does anyone mind if i add this large, major, and complete article about the corset controversies which I prepared this morning while having a cup of tea.)

You need to know that my book contains a 1000 pages of information, and an entire chapter about corsets and health, and the controversies, and a lot of illustrations about corset styles, which took me more almost ten years to research and compile, and that I did it because other authors had forgotten or neglected it.

You will recall that I had been criticised for adding information that, in the opinion of my main critic, was worthless to Wikipedia, and that the page about Da Costa's syndrome was described as being 'much, much, much, too large and contained much much much too much detail.'

However, the page produced about the corset controversy was much larger on the very first day, and was started as a massive essay filled with illustrations. It is offensively obvious that the person who wrote it got the ideas from me while I was in Wikipedia, and from my book and or my website, and has changed all of the sources, and the emphasis on particular issues to dilute the crucial fact that corsets went out of fashion because they were finally proven convincingly to be harmful to health in the early twentieth century.

The main page of my website contains illustrations and ideas about posture and corsets, and a separate webpage on that topic, and many comments about the controversies, and has a description of where my book can be purchased or read for free in public libraries throughout Australia and New Zealand and in some states in the U.S.A.

See the corset illustration on my main page here

and my corset webpage here

and information about my book here

My book has 300 references.

If that editor didn't get the ideas from me then why wasn't the article in Wikipedia before I joined, and why was that completely new article so massive just 3 months after I was banned. Also I was repeatedly told that my 60 references were poor quality because some of them were old and out of date, and yet you can see that editor using 45 references, many of which were from nineteenth century newspapers.

That individuals user name was new to Wikipedia within a months of me being banned, and there is no information on their Userpage to indicate their true identity, and could be a pseudonym for my main critics or a personal friend, or headhunted contact of theirs, and has only edited pages about corsets and fashion since joining. One of the links to the topic now is 'fainting rooms', and that was one on the Da Costa's article. It contained only basic information then, but the link was deleted. The current version of that article contains my theory on the cause of fainting, namely corsets cause faintness by compressing the blood vessels of the waist and impeding the flow of blood between the feet and the brain. The text of the page just before I started on the Da Costa's topic in December 2009, can be seen for 5:23 on 15-11-2007 here, and the current text as of 17:54 on 16-4-11 containing my theory, put there by someone else without acknowledging me as the source, can be seen here

My theory on fainting can be seen here and here etc.

My two critics were offensive liars and scheming copyright thieves and should be banned.

Some charts to illustrate how they stole my theory

The charts below show what happened to the information that I provided to Wikipedia for free.

Essentially, they insulted me and said that I didn't know what I was talking about, and used their policies as an excuse for deleting every word I wrote, sometimes in one sentence, or one paragraph, or in whole slabs at a time, and then they found a way to ban me, and during that time, and after I was banned, they, or their anonymous, or covert friends transferred exactly the same information to other pages in Wikipedia to be fully developed in the natural course of editing.

They deviously transferred information about The Posture Theory to pages on "Neutral spine", "Human position", and "Defecation posture".

They transferred the information that I provided about Da Costa's syndrome to pages on "Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome" and to the biography pages about J.M.Da Costa and Thomas Lewis

 
My two critics or their cohorts transferred information about The Posture Theory to Wikipedia pages called . . .
 
Neutral spine
Human position
Defecation posture
Posture and occupational health

 

 

 
They transferred the information that I gave about Da Costa's syndrome to Wikipedia pages called . . .
 

Jacob Mendes Da Costa

a biography page

 

Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia syndrome

 

Thomas Lewis (cardiologist)

a biography page

 

 

 

 
Their cohorts transferred the information from my book and website that I gave about Da Costa's syndrome to Wikipedia pages called . . .
 

 

 

Corset controversy

 

 

 

 

 

The two sly rogues could easily play dumb and argue that they weren't doing that, because they are both really good a BEING DUMB AND PLAYING DUMB, OR BEING DUMB AND DUMBER.

They know how to create coat racks - See my main critics edit at 21:19 on 25-9-10 here

Here is my advice to those two fools - If you don't have enough brains to write your own theories, don't mess the the person who does.

 

How they lied about my theory in the Da Costa's syndrome discussions - and covertly kept the information that I provided in the topic page.

While I was contributing to the Da Costa's syndrome topic two fools were telling lies about me and the topic on the discussion page. The also told me that I couldn't mention my theory, so I stopped, but they said I could still contribute by adding information from independent sources so I did. However they then accused me of selecting material that was supporting my theory, when in fact, it would be difficult to write about that topic in any other way, because my theory is so accurate that almost all research information confirms it. In fact, despite my two critics trying to delete everything I wrote they still left behind the elements of that theory because, not even they could write a useful or sensible article about it without those verifiable facts.

For example, the history section still contains the details that I provided from nineteenth century reports that the soldiers who were likely to develop Da Costa's syndrome were those who wore tight military uniforms which had strapping that compressed the chest and impaired the function of the heart, and who were required to march long distances while poorly fed and suffering from viral infections.

However, my two critics deleted all research evidence from 1876 onwards and replaced it with these words "Since then, a variety of similar or partly similar conditions have been described".

As you can see they have not said, on the actual topic page, that those observations were wrong, and they haven't provided any evidence that they were wrong, and they couldn't, even if the wanted to, because there isn't any evidence to disprove those facts. Of course, there may be other causes, but nobody has disproven the tight uniform or excessive marching causes.

If you have a look at the current article again you can see that it states . . . "The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome"

They were actually using jargon with the words "orthostatic intolerance" which simply means the tendency to feel faint.

In plain English they are saying that the tendency to faintness and fatigue in Da Costa's syndrome of the nineteenth century is still being seen nowadays in patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome etc.

If you have a look at the treatment section which I wrote, it still states . . . "The report of Da Costa shows that patients recovered from the more severe symptoms when removed from the strenuous activity . . .
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."

In other words the current Wikipedia article states that tight chest straps and excessive marching caused faintness and chronic fatigue in Da Costa's syndrome in the nineteenth century, and those symptoms are still seen today in the chronic fatigue syndrome, and treatment recommends that patients don't wear tight clothing, or anything else that compresses the chest, and don't engage in any excessively strenuous activities, and don't slouch.

They have kept the essential elements of The Posture Theory embedded in the topic because they know that it is 100% correct, but they have some sort of resentment against me, and so have insulted me, and called all of my ideas nonsense and banned me. The were insolent, disrespectful, and ungrateful fools.

(They told the other editors that the tight uniform ideas had been proven wrong, but they kept the information on the topic page because they know it is correct. The obvious evidence can be seen in the history of military uniforms. The nineteenth century garments were generally spic and span and colorful, with tight collars and belts being a regular feature, but modern soldiers are clothed in loose uniforms with the subdued colors of camouflage.)

A page from 09:00 on 6-6-10, which is essentially unchanged since I was banned 18 months earlier, can be seen here

If my two critics can steal my ideas and breech my copyrights and not acknowledge me as the source, then nobody can trust Wikipedia's respect for copyright entitlements. That is a problem for the administrators and owners to fix because they are ultimately responsible.

Playing dumb, or pretending not to know, or ignoring the evidence, or arguing that there is not enough evidence, is not appropriate.

 

After stealing the ideas an information from me my main critic has the bald-faced cheek to act pompous and proper by writing these words of advice to an editor named JN466 18 months after I was banned. . . "I think the point of the citations is to help us "identify" plagiarism and copyvios. Naming the source doesn't actually "help avoid" these problems in the first place; it only helps us find (and therefore remove) them. WhatamIdoing 04:41, 7 October 2010

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability&diff=prev&oldid=389249163

 

That edtior was essentially deleting the information from my theory, and arranging for it to be rewritten on other pages in different words, and yet has the cheek to give this advice to another editor at 20:36 on 19-10-10 . . .

"Just a quick note to say that if you keep encountering problems with people demanding that you inappropriately quote sources, you can take the dispute to WP:NORN, where some editors who are good at figuring out the line between "verbatim copyright violation" and "accurately summarizing the source in your own words" usually hang out. WhatamIdoing 20:36, 19 October 2010 see here

 

This is my reponse - I don't need the help of other editors to figure out when a known or anonymous plagiarist is stealing my compilation of knowledge and rewriting it on multiple other pages in their own words, and pretending to get the information from other sources.

 

The jigsaw puzzle

In 1975 I had to solve a problem that I was told was impossible to explain with one cause because there were too many symptoms affecting too many systems in the body. After studying each of the symptoms in detail for five years, and putting them together in The Posture Theory I likened it to putting the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together to make a neat picture out of a mess. I spent another 25 years adding to that idea, and when I contributed some of that co-ordinated information to Wikipedia I had two critics who were taking out the bits and pieces and tossing them into other places and turning the puzzle into a mess again.

If they think that the information that I provided was wrong then they should go to all of the other pages and delete the same facts.

They should also apologise to me for telling lies about my ideas, and the verifiable facts that I provided, and they should voluntary leave Wikipedia, and the internet, and stop using computers, and find themselves a new hobby.

 

Wikipedia's problem - it is retarding human intellectual progress.

Wikipedia is perfectly entitled to write it's own policies, and I don't have any objection to that, and if they have a policy which prohibits the publishing of "original research" I don't particularly object to it, but if they steal, violate my copyright, and plagiarise my ideas and the information from my books or on my website I do object, and I object to anyone who plays dumb, or turns a blind eye to the obvious, or who make excuses for getting the same information from other sources, and "instantly" combining it in the same way, by simply copying (or aping) a method that took me 30 years to develop.

Here is their problem; If they steal information they will be responsible for the retardation of human intellectual progress, because people who develop ideas to solve their own problems will not write them down or share them with other people who don't have the same problem solving skills.

I have several ideas that I won't be submitting to Wikipedia because they will be deleted, and I won't be posting them on my website, because they will be stolen.

The power brokers who control Wikipedia have an excellent recipe for destroying all human creativity.

Evidence of the transfer of information by stealth

on the Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia syndrome page

They hid what I wrote, stole the information - and later anonymously transferred it to another page.

While I was in Wikipedia adding to the topic of Da Costa's syndrome my two critics were deleting information to make it smaller and smaller, but at the same time anonymous editors were adding similar information to the Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia syndrome page (POTS) and making it larger and larger.

If you check the following links you will notice that the editor with the peculiar name of WhatamIdoing, and the odd question in that name, was editing the Da Costa's page shortly before I started, and was doing most of the deleting of my material while I was adding it, and was also editing the Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome page. That same editor was trying to block and ban me, and rewarding others for their help, and after I was banned, that same editor stopped adding to the Da Costa's page, but kept editing the POTS page.

In answer to the question, 'What was that editor doing'? . . .It looks like that editor or one of their friends was taking the information that I was giving Wikipedia for free, and transferring it to another page so that no-one would know that I was the source of it. That editor was calling it nonsense when I added it to the Da Costa's page, but turning a blind eye to the same or similar information when 'anonymous'???? editors added it to the POTS page.

The very small Da Costa's syndrome page of only four lines of text and no references, can be seen at 17:08 on 17 Oct 2007 here

I made my first contributions to that page at 7:39 on 9 December 2007 (about 12 lines of text with 3 references) here

The much larger page that I provided (about 6 screen sizes in length and 61 references) can be seen at 27 January 2009 here

The smaller page that was left after my two critics deleted my text (about 2 screen sizes in length with 18 references) can be seen at 18:12 on 27 January 2009 here

The text was virtually unchanged, with no additional references, a year later at 19:21 on 10 January 2010 here

The very small POTS page of 4:20 on 4 December 2007 (about fifteen lines of text with five references that were not properly linked to the text) is here

The much larger POTS page a year later (about four screen pages with six references - and only two of which were properly linked to the text), and shortly before I was banned, can be seen at 2:42 on 20 January 2009 here

and the very large POTS page two years later (about five screen fulls with 23 references - all properly linked to the text) at 11:23 on 3 May 2010 can be seen here

My additions to the Da Costa's page started at 7:39 on 9-12 December 2007 here

I added these comments about treatment to the Da Costa's page and started improving the layout. The text at 5:58 on 18 December 2007 can be seen below

"Treatment: The reports of DaCosta, and Wheeler show that patients recovered from the more severe symptoms when removed from the strenuous activity or sustained lifestyle that caused them. In many cases relapses were prevented by determining the limits of exertion and lifestyle and keeping within them. The limits were related to abnormalities in respiration and circulation. 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 orthtostatic hypotension in some cases." (end of quote) see here

The following text is an extract from the information that I provided to the Da Costa page at 0:49 on 20 December 2007 . . .

"(4) Fatigue: 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 DaCosta, Lewis, Wood, Wheeler. and other sources, included:
(a) Postural Compression: a stooped curvature of the upper spine kyphosis, a forward curve in the lower spine lordosis and sideways curvature of the spine scoliosis.
(b) Mechanical Compression: Leaning forward, bending or stooping added to the pressure, paricularly bending at the waist instead of the hips" (end of quote). see here

When criticising me on the Da Costa's syndrome talk page at 22:05 on 15 May 2008, WhatamIdoing wrote these words . . . "the "cardiac" DCS symptoms look strikingly like postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome". in the first sentence here

They were calling my edits 'nonsense' and rubbish, and deleting my comments about posture and exercise research, and arguing that Da Costa's syndrome was an anxiety disorder. However, anonymous editors had been adding information that was similar to my theory about posture, and my research about exercise, as a treatment for POTS, and just before I was banned WhatamIdoing corrected a word on the POTS page about it not being an anxiety disorder. Also, it was done without acknowledging my website or my research as the real source. Of course, they would probably argue that they got the same ideas for essentially the same condition from somewhere else.The edits are quoted below.

At 23:56 on 31 March 2008 an anonymous editor 68.55.208.16 added the following words . . . "Physical therapy" - "POTS symptoms can be worsened by postural asymmetries, restrictions in mobility, and areas of adverse mechanical tension in the nervous system. These physical abnormalities can be relieved with gentle manual therapies including neural mobilization (or neural tension work), myofascial release, and cranio-sacral therapy . . . and . . . "Exercise" - Exercise is very important for maintaining muscle strength and avoiding [[deconditioning]]. Though many POTS patients report difficulty exercising, some form of exercise is essential to controlling symptoms and eventually, improving the condition." here

(Note that they put a twist to my theory because there is a difference. For example, they mentioned "postural asymmetrics" which is jargon for postures that are unequal when looked at from the front or the side. such as one shoulder being lower than the other in sideways curvature of the spine 'called scoliosis', and the head being placed forward of the spine instead of being straight above it, which is commonly called poor posture, but is also called hunback, or 'kyphosis'. Also I suggested that posture affects the circulation, whereas they were arguing that it effects the nervous system, and I suggested that exercise improved circulation and aerobic capacity, whereas they were saying that it avioided deconditioning, which is jargon for the normal loss of physical fitness due to the lack of exercise. The other aspects of exercise look precisely like my programme, such as the fact the symptoms are aggravatged by high levels of exercise, and therefore only mild exercise is appropriate, at least in the initial period.)

My main critic, named WhatamIdoing, would have seen that edit because they made an addition to that page only about a week later, at 21:45 on 9 April 2008 as shown in italics in the following quote . . . "POTS is often difficult to diagnose. A routine physical examination and standard blood tests usually will not indicate POTS. A [[tilt table test]] is vital to diagnosing POTS, although all symptoms must be considered before a final diagnosis is made. Tests to rule out [[Addison's Disease]], [[pheochromocytoma]], electrolyte imbalance, [[Lyme Disease]], [[Celiac Disease]], [[Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome]], and various food allergies are usually performed. A blood test may be performed to verify abnormally high levels of [[norepinephrine]] usually present in POTS patients" here

Note that tilt table tests were also referred to by me on my website about Da Costa's syndrome in regard to posturally induced fatigue, which is a main part of my Posture Theory, and I referred to it in the Da Costa's page that I provided for Wikipedia .e.g. here

At 2:42 on 20 January 2009 just before I was banned WhatamIdoing corrected this sentence . . . "Symptoms of POTS overlap considerably with those of [[generalized anxiety disorder]], and a misdiagnosis of an anxiety disorder is not uncommon". here

At 19:44 on 26 March 2009 an editoir named Untrue Believer added these words to the POTS page, but as you can see the exercise programme is slightly different and they have used a different source for the information. . . "[Aerobic exercise]] performed for 20 minutes a day, three times a week, is sometimes recommended for patients who can tolerate it<ref>Grubb, B.P., Kanjwal, Y., & Kosinski, D.J. (2006). The postural tachycardia syndrome: a concise guide to diagnosis and management. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, 17(1), 108-112.</ref>. here and here

You can see my theory here, and my research programme here, and note that my theory was written and my research fitness programme was conducted, more than 20 years before their 2006 reference, and the fact that it occurred is confirmed in four major state newspapers in Australia.

At 20:27 on 11 April 2010 WhatamIdoing edited the POTS page where the following words were deleted???? . . . "-
*blood pooling in extremities" That feature was part of my theory about Da Costa's syndrome and was supported by comments in 1916 by Sir James MacKenzie. WhatamIdoing knows that it is correct for POTS as well, but curiously, or deviously deleted it. That page also included these words . . ." POTS was first named and identified by Schondorf and Low in 1993[22]; however, the syndrome has been described in medical studies dating back to at least 1940. Hypertension associated with POTS has been previously described as the "hyperadrenergic syndrome" by Streeten[citation needed] and as "idiopathic hypovolemia" by Fouad.[23] Hypotension associated with POTS has been previously described as the "neurally mediated hypotension" form of POTS." (end of quote) see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=355396430&oldid=355393877

Note that one of the alternative names for Da Costa's syndrome that I used in one of my published essays 30 years ago was 'hyperdynamic ß adrenergic circulatory state

At 2:08 on 13 April 2010 the next changes to follow WhatamIdoing were started by a series of anonymous editors.here

Note that according to my theory for Da Costa's syndrome the fatigue etc is due to weakness in the veins of the abdomen and legs, and is therefore made sllightly worse by varicose which involves weak leg veins cause by tight garters etc. Obviously anything that strengthens those veins could have a minor beneficial effect. Similarly the design of a gradually improving exercise programme within limits was part of my research. Those ideas appear to have been stolen from my theory and transferred to the POTS page as can be seen next .

At 2:21 on 13 April the following information was added by anonymous editor . . . "Exercises that improve leg and abdominal strength may aid in improving the muscle pump and therefore preventing pooling of blood in the abdomen and lower extremities" and "All exercise programs for POTS patients should begin with low intensity exercises for a short duration and progress slowly."

Note that according to my theory poor posture compresses the air in the chest and blocks the flow of blood between the feet and brain, and strains and weakens all blood vessels in the abdomen and legs. However . . .

At 2:22 on 13 April 2010 The information about posture was deleted by one of the anonymous editors with the ID address 75.72.228.142 here

It is obvious that I was not the anonymous editor adding that information to the POTS page. Firstly because I would be on the watchlist of my two critics and if they even suspected me of adding anything it would be immediately deleted. Secondly, they would have noticed the similarities to my theory and yet didn't ask the anonynmous editors to prove their ID or accuse them of being me, or of having a conflict of interest because they knew it wasn't me. How: because the anonymous editors were themselves or their friends or associates and they didn't want to have them investigated and identified, or because it was independent individuals who were stealing my ideas and they didn't want them stopped., because they wanted the good information in Wikipedia, but they simply didn't want to admit that it was me who provided it to Wikipedia it in the first place, or that it was being paraphrased from my website.

At 11:13 on 13 May 2010 you can see an anonymous individual correcting a spelling error for Whatamidoing's favorite explanations about NMH, and that autonomic dysfunction is the cause of the blood pooling, and hence POTS.The text from that section is as follows . . .

"Associated conditions: POTS is often accompanied by [[vasovagal syncope]], also called "neurally mediated hypotension" (NMH) or "neurocardiogenic syncope" (NCS). Vasovagal syncope is a fainting reflex due to a profound drop in blood pressure. Autonomic dysfunction that occurs with these disorders causes blood to inappropriately pool in the limbs away from the heart, lungs, and brain. The combination of misdirected bloodflow and hypotension will invoke syncope. Tachycardia associated with POTS may be a cardiac response to restore cerebral perfusion.
*POTS may be a cause of [[chronic fatigue syndrome]] in patients that exhibit signs of [[orthostatic intolerance]]. Treating POTS will greatly improve or even eliminate disabling fatigue for these patients. Some patients with [[fibromyalgia]] complain of dysautonomia-related symptoms. Treating these patients for POTS will often improve myofascial and neuropathic pain.

According to the Duck Test; if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, it's a duck, even if you can't prove it.

It looks like anonymous editors were deleting information about my theory for Da Costa's syndrome, and anonymously and systematically adding similar information to the POTS page, and that the editor with the weird and impudent ID of WhatamIdoing was doing it or organising it. That is unethical conduct. Nevertheless it doesn't matter how or what was happening; It has happened.

Shortly after I completed the essay above to my website my main critic wrote these words in Wikipedia with their own interpretation of policy. . ."our goal is to provide the sum of all human knowledge—but not the full list of wikt:summands and a catalog of the operations undertaken to produce the sum. You might like to read WP:What Wikipedia is not, particularly "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful." WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 17 May 2010 here

Extreme hypocrisy

At 22:32 on 8-7-2010 my main critic claimed to have written some information in Wikipedia, and that an outsider copied it without acknowledging the source. That critic had been acquiring information from me and copying it, or not doing anything about anonymous editors who were copying it, and was not doing anything about their tag team mate who was using information gained from me without acknowledging the source. They are extreme and gross hypocrites. See here

More Evidence that my two critics told lies about me, my subpage, and my references - POTS again

For the twelve months that I was in Wikipedia my two critics told the other editors that I was a disruptive editor adding nonsense and crap to Wikipedia, and between the 25th and 27th January 2009 Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing deleted my subpage text twice each and replaced it with their own version.

This is a section of my subpage that they deleted

At 7:46 on 25th January 2009 I wrote . . . "Nowadays those typical, distinct, or characteristic features can be seen in conditions which include the misnomer of effort intolerance (which should be effort limitations) due to exercise induced postural hypotension.[23][33][37] For example, it is seen in one type of the Postural Orthosttic Tachycardia Syndrome, which is in turn one of the many types of chronic fatigue syndrome[9] [16][37][38][7] [39][10]". here

At 18:12 on 27th January 2009 the two editors Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing used these words as a replacement . . . "The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome and mitral valve prolapse syndrome (11)." Note that the term "Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome has been omitted) here

At 19:23 on 10th January 2010 (almost exactly a year later), an editor named Hamleteer added this contribution in red

"The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa's has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) (11) and mitral valve prolapse syndrome (11)." here

Reference number 11 used by Hamleeter was different to mine, I nevertheless provided 8 top quality sources for the same information, and WhatamIdoing is still regularly editing other pages about fatigue but has not bothered to criticise Hamilteer, or delete the information from the Da Costa's page, or call it nonsense.

My two critics told lies and broke the rules to get me banned but nothing seems to be done about it, so I can only assume that they are telling lies to control the information on a lot of other pages in Wikipedia, especially about fatigue and related medical topics.

My critics insidious sarcasm - POTS again

(including the transfer of information and possible plagiarism)

Before giving the exact words used by my critic, I would like to provide some background information so that you can recognise the sly nature of their sarcasm.

1. It is sarcastic to deny being sarcastic in a sentence that is part of a paragraph filled with sarcastic remarks.

2. It is sarcastic when someone spends several months trying to convince the other editors that you are an ignorant person who was filling Wikipedia full of nonsense, and then asks you for your opinion as a relevant expert.

3. It is sarcastic when someone invents policy reasons for deleting all of your contributions, including violations of 'original research' policy, and then asks for your opinion, and then says that your 'opinion' is 'original research', and you know that they have no intention of using the information in the proper manner . (here is a quote from a few months earlier: "Please do not add original research . . . to our articles as you apparently did to Da Costa's syndrome." WhatamIdoing 1:58 14 January 2008)

4. It is sarcastic when someone spends several months refusing to co-operate with you, and then implies that you are not suited to collaborative writing.

5. It is sarcastic when someone deliberately 'misrepresents' the policies, and then implies that you are having difficulties 'understanding' the 'complexities' of the rules.

6. It is sarcastic when someone tries to make your editing as difficult as possible, and then suggests that you might not be having fun, and might like to think it would be better to spend your time doing something else.

These are the exact words extracted from one edit by WhatamIdoing on my Userpage on 15 July 2008.

"I am still waiting for you to identify my 'sarcastic requests' . . . I am not by nature a sarcastic person . . . and have never written anything on this talk page, or in any other conversation with you that was intended to be sarcastic . . . I'm asking for your personal opinion as relevant expert in this area . . . which is original research . . . Original research is fundamentally irrelevant to the development of any Wikipedia article . . . Let me say, though, that it has seemed to me that Wikipedia has quit being fun and interesting for you . . .You are welcome here, so long as you 'play the game' . . . according to the established (and admittedly complex) rules . . . but if it's not working for you . . . if you leave your computer with more frustration than satisfaction . . . then perhaps you will want to re-evaluate how you're choosing to spend your time and energy" signed WhatamIdoing 18:44 15 July 2008.

Who was frustrated?

On May 18th 2008 WhatamIdoing admitted that she had "failed" to annoy me with her "attitude readjustment tools, and on 3rd February her tag teamer Gordonofcartoon was showing his emotional immaturity by resorting to foul language about the dispute here, and again on the 8th May 2009, WhatamIdoing admitted that she was losing control of her emotions and becoming so frustrated that she was "about to tear her hair out" over me here.

They were essentially emotionally immature, unskilled, and unstable basket cases who were trying to convince other editors that they were in command of the situation, and that I was becoming 'frustrated'? However, in fact, I was actually being polite in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but I was describing their tactics to my friends as "childish".

 

The sarcastic request.

In order to understand the sarcastic nature of WhatamIdoing's requests, I will provide some more specific information.

My two critics had been repeatedly telling me that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, and not a book, and they had accused me of taking up too much space in a section of the article, which was a violation of WP:UNDUE (giving undue weight to a particular item or aspect). They had also deleted other information on the grounds that it was cruft or rubbish that involved too much detail that needed to be swept away. (here is a quote from January 2008 . . . "Da Costa's syndrome and cruft: I've added the template "This article or section may contain an excessive amount of information with limited interest or intricate details." Gordonofcartoon 20:45 13 May 2008).

I was fully aware that Wikipedia was an encyclopedia and did not need to be told by them that it needed to be concise. Hence, I generally confined the article to a discussion about the five main symptoms, rather than going into details about dozens of others.

 

WhatamIdoing asked for my personal opinion about details?

At 17:58 on 7-6-2008 , WhatamIdoing 'requested' my opinion about dozens of symptoms in a set of questions that they presented in a list so that it occupied the equivalent of half a page of printed text - here is a brief extract . . .

"I'd like to hear your personal opinion on whether this list of symptoms sounds like DCS to you . . . Exercise intolerance . . . Significant fatigue etc . . . Feeling like you can't get a satisfying breath . . .Heart beat goes up dramatically etc . . . Chest pain or discomfort . . . Light headedness or dizziness (etc) . . . Fainting or feeling faint - on warm days etc . . . Perceived muscle weakness . . . Occasional tingling in fingers and toes . . . abdominal problems . . . Problems with impaired concentration etc". WhatamIdoing 17:58 17 June 2008.

Note that the etc's were put there by me in place of some additional details in that request.

 

There were several reasons for not answering that question. Firstly, WhatamIdoing would typically find fault with whatever answer I gave, and would argue that the information could not be used anyway because my 'opinion;' was worthless 'original research', and therefore had no intention of using my answers anyway, Also note that if WhatamIdoing was such a pompous expert then they would know the answer, and it would not be necessary to ask me for my opinion, and if I added all of the answers to all of those details, it would be deleted as 'too much detail'.

Of course, when I was given the opportunity by neutral editors to write an article on a subpage without interference by my two critics, I included an appropriate, but brief account of those details in the history of the topic, and the symptoms sections etc.

This was the neutral editors comment on WhatamIdoing's talk page in September 2008 . . . "To be honest, in my opinion, It's actually a lot better and far more detailed than the one that is currently up" Avnjay 10:51 5 October 2008 (end of quote).

This was WhatamIdoing's response (the next day) . . . "The history section is much, much, much too detailed. It inappropriately blends in symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment . . . The style is horrible. Medicine related articles do not obsessively name the year, publishers, and authors when discussing research work.." WhatamIdoing 17:27 6 Oct 2007. (end of quote).

The symptoms that I was describing in October, were similar to the ones that WhatamIdoing was requesting information about in June!!!!!! , and I mentioned the names of prominent researchers who studied, and or discovered their causes, but WhatamIdoing had devious ways of inventing fault in every word I wrote.

The sarcastic nature of WhatamIdoings requests was something like this . . . 'Please give me your expert opinion . . . we have no intention of using it in Wikipedia . . . but give it to us anyway'.

(Her motive was that she didn't know what she was talking about, and wanted me to give her the experience of my knowledge so that she could secretly transfer it to the page about Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome).

A further reason; my critic was using every trick in the book to change the title of the page to push their own opinion on the cause.

I started adding to the topic of Da Costa's syndrome early in December 2007, and since then WhatamIdoing has claimed to have not known much about it at that time, but also to having an annoyingly high IQ and the ability to learn quickly and become an 'instant expert' on anything.

At 01:08, 21 December 2007 WhatamIdoing wrote these words as the first comments on the Da Costas talk page. . . "The section on "posture" isn't working for me. Nobody outside of the The theory looks like it was created by a non-medical person who is trying to reinvent the wheel -- the "wheel" being garden variety orthostatic intolerance and hyperventilation syndrome. WhatamIdoing 01:08, 21 December 2007 See here

At 22:05, 15 May 2008 WhatamIdoing wrote the following words . . . (IMO means 'in my opinion') , , , "IMO. . . the "cardiac" DCS symptoms look strikingly like postural orthstatic tachycardia syndromea" . . . WhatamIdoing 22:05, 15 May 2008 See here

In June 2008, WhatamIdoing was asking me for my opinion about the large range of symptoms, and it was obvious that they fitted the features of "Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome" which is abbreviated as POTS. It is one of the closest modern labels for Da Costa's syndrome, and I noticed that since they started arguing with me, and as I was adding information to the Da Costa's syndrome page, they were deletig it, and some anonymous editors were adding very similar information to the POTS page. The Da Costa's page was getting smaller and smaller, as the POTS page was becoming correspondingly larger and larger.

It was obvious that the 'instant expert' named WhatamIdoing was trying to convince all of the other editors that my contributions to Da Costa's page were worthless, and just wanted my opinion to gain the knowledge, and then transfer it to the POTS page, as the anonymous editor(s), or in collaboration with him, or them, or by influencing the direction of the article through occasional edits.

I eventually rewrote the entire Da Costa's article again on a subpage, and later moved it to the Da Costa's syndrome page, but WhatamIdoing rewrote, abbreviated and reverted it again, for the last time at 18:12 on 27 January 2009. I was banned two days later, on 29 January, because of WhatamIgoings trumped up protests that I was disrupting the attempts of many? editors to make the article a good one, but in the fifteen months since there have only been a few minor edits with no significant changes. Most noticeably WhatamIdoing has added ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

However, within a few days, on 3 February 2010, there were 22 edits added in the POTS page in one day. and of those,19 were anonymous, followed by 3 from WhatamIdoing. In fact, since I was banned the POTS page has been very active with more than 100 edits, including more than 60 anonymous ones that are interspersed with 8 from WhatamIdoing.

One of the first items of information that I made to the Da Costa's page in late 2007 was that the condition sometimes occurred during pregnancy, but it was deleted by Gordonofcartoon at 00:54 on 29 December 2007 herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=180714637&oldid=180703608

I later added that it was more common in women than men, but that was also deleted. However, one of the 22 edits on 3 February 2009, at 4:22 was WhatamIdoing's addition of these words to the POTS page . . . "Women can also develop POTS during or after pregnancy." here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=268185901

It looks like a continuing attempt by WhatamIdoing to change the title of the page, with the first try being to change or merge it to 1. "Somatoform Autonomic Dysfunction", which failed because policy prefers plain English to jargon, and because that page didn't exist and would have to be started for that sole purpose. The second was to change the focus of the article to the label of 2. "Soldier's Heart", by using hatnote policy to put that label on the top line, and on the first line of text in bold etc.

It would be typical for WhatamIdoing to have a third try and say . . . 'by the way has anyone noticed that the 3. "Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome" has similar symptoms to Da Costa's. Would anyone like to merge the two and then remove the DaCosta's page because it isn't needed now that we have a modern label. Gordonofcartoon, or some other collaborator would then come along and say 'Yup, what a good idea, we all agree then - we will do it for you'.

The reason that I have added this essay to my webpage at this time is because an anonymous editor added 'blood pooling in extremities' to the POTS page, and a few minutes later, at 20:27 on 11 April 2010, WhatamIdoing deleted it on the grounds that it is not actually a symptom.

Almost two years earlier, at 20:51 on 14 May, WhatamIdoing made massive deletions from the Da Costa's page, and removed the entire history from 1900 to 2009. The first aspect of the 20th century research was a report on Sir James MacKenzie's meeting of 1916, in which he wrote about the cause of the faintness and fatigue with these words which I quoted . . . "In these, the blood tends to occur in the peripheral veins of the limbs and the large abdominal veins, which results in a reduced blood flow to the brain so that the sense of exhaustion and syncope (faintness) are provoked".

It was obvious at that time that WhatamIdoing had kept the history section from 1864 to 1876, and very carefully deleted all of the information from 1900 onwards to disguise the fact that the first section, from 1916, was not wanted. That editor does not want readers to know that fact, or that I provided it.

 

Another aspect

When I joined Wikipedia I had the intention of adding one or two small items per fortnight, but WhatamIdoing, who claims to be editing 'voluntarily', and isn't being 'paid', and doesn't have a 'conflict of interest', was often adding more than 100 edits per day, or up to 300, and as a small part of that, would badger me with questions or criticism up to six times a day across six different discussion pages at the same time, and I had to decide which questions to answer, and which ones to ignore. Many of those criticisms were petty, and were obviously aimed at wasting my time. In the example above, I had been blocked from the topic page, and the discussion was taken from the DCS talk page, to my Usertalk page etc. Another example is in an RFC talk page from 4-6 August 2008 here

Platefulls of pills

Blatant promotional material for treating illnesses with pills - indicating massive financial "conflict of interest"

It is well known that the tobacco industry tries to divert attention away from the harmful effects of inhaling cigarette smoke, such as lung cancer, by putting their cigarettes in attractively decorated boxes with pictures of green trees, white beaches, and clean blue sees to put them in the false context of healful fresh air.

At 01:34, 3 February 2009, a few days after I was banned, an anonymous editor with the address ID of 82.2.115.40, added two pictures of platefuls of brightly colored pills to the medication section of the POTS page, obviously for the same purpose here
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=268159600
At 4:22 (three hourls later) WhatamIdoing added information about the condition being caused by the trauma of car accidents (which is discussed in my book), and pregnancy, which I mentioned on the Da Costa's page, and that editor deleted here.

At 4:36 (fourteen minutes later) that editor swapped one of the images used by the anonymous editor for the reasons of making it more relevant, but left the other image that was completely gratuitous and ridiculous here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=268188686

At an earlier stage, I asked that individual to check that page to stop the anonymous individual from copying the information which I provided to the Da Cost'as page, but was told they didn't have time and it wasn't their responsibility?

18 months after I was banned another editor deleted the image of the pills and gave this reason . . .

"Removed pic of four colors of pills. Seriously, it is the most idiotic pic and caption I have EVER read on W. It added nothing, and stated the blatantly obvious. Who writes these?!" InFairness 4:10 29 July 2010. (end of quote) here.

Twelve hours later on the same day WhatamIdoing, the most offensive two-faced individual I have ever come across, gave this false appearance of being appreciative of the removal of an image that was 'purely decorative' that had been on the page with their knowledge for a year and a half. The following quote reveals the bald-faced cheek of that person . . .
"Just wanted to say thanks for removing that purely decorative image from Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. WhatamIdoing 16:20, 29 July 2010 16:20, 29 July 201016:20, 29 July 2010. See here

(there is sufficient evidence to indicate that my main critic needs to be investigated to see if they actually put the picture there in the first place - anonymously)

A Wikipedia discussion about stakeholders?

According to my main critic editors are 'encouraged' but 'not required' to reveal their 'conflicts of interest'?

(Anyone with common sense knows that there are major corporations in this world with massive financial incentives to control knowledge so that it favors their own products, and removes information that sheds doubt on their safety or value)

However, the following quotes come straight from a discussion in Wikipedia between an anonymous outsider who works for a major company that is essentially an agent for "a lot" of international corporations.

Before you read it I would like to point out that my two critics said that I had a conflict of interest, and that according to policy I must write an essay about it and tell everyone else, or I could be banned if I continued to write about particular topics.

I was writing about physical causes and physical treatment methods

As you can soon see, my main critic was quite happy to leave pictures of platefuls of pretty pills on a medical page that recommends pills and capsules as a treatment, and then to tell a paid agent of a multinational drug company that they don't have to reveal their conflict of interest.

Here are the quotes . . .

At 20:11 on 13-9-10 Fruitsmaak wrote . . . Hi all, "I received this message through LinkedIn, maybe someone here is interested? Let me know.
cheers, --Steven Fruitsmaak 20:11, 13 September 2010

"Dear Michaël I hope you don't mind my contacting you. I understand you are a Wikipedia expert. I work for a medical communications company that works with a lot of global pharma companies. Our clients are increasingly concerned about inaccurate and out-of-date information on Wikipedia about medicines, but in many cases they are not permitted to correct the problems due to perceived or real issues with either Wikipedia's own rules, the industry regulations they are bound by, or both.
I am convinced we could come up with a process to correct these inaccuracies, that pharma could sponsor but not necessarily be a hands-on participant in, much like clinical publications or CME. I'm looking for professionals to join a steering group to scrutinise this process as it develops, to ensure it represents the best interests of all stakeholders.
Would you be interested in joining this steering group? Please let me know. Thanks very muchKind regards xxxx"


At 20:37 on 13-9-10 JFW responded with these words . . . "I think you should respond that people are certainly allowed to make edits in the face of a COI, as long as the content is verifiable and they declare the COI from the start. I think the concerns are quite correct, but I can't imagine any of us wanting to act as a proxy for a commercial company.". JFW | T@lk 20:37, 13 September 2010

At 18:32 on 14-9-10 Litereaturegeek wrote . . . "Really I think the first thing that should be established is; what public relations company are they from? What article(s) do they want to edit/change/update?" Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:43, 14 September 2010

At 18:32 on 14-9-10 WhatamIdoing gave this reply . . . As a point of fact, WP:COI doesn't require people to declare their conflicts of interest. It is "strongly encouraged", but not required." WhatamIdoing 18:32, 14 September 2010. See here

It is obvious that people like my main critic should be permanently banned from Wikipedia, otherwise it is going to become the sockpuppet of multinational corporations.

For information about paid editing in Wikipedia see here

Another discussion about stakeholders

On the ABC TV show the 7:30 report of 12-10-10 former newspaper editor Bruce Guthrie explained that the type of information that editors wrote was significantly influenced by what the owners, such as the Murdoch family would want. In the earlier days of newspapers the information was also influenced by what the major advertisers wanted, and since then, as shareholders have taken ownership of newspapers, their vested interests are considered.

My comment - In other words there is a conflict of interest involved in virtually all newspaper articles, and in fact, such vested interests influence all editors who write about virtually anything, which includes editors who write articles for Wikipedia.

My two critics had the bald faced cheek to say that I had a conflict of interest and they didn't.

 

THE "WP:NPA" - Wikipedia NO PERSONAL ATTACKS accusation

 

She has a history of joining personal attacks on other editors

When criticising my main critic for using the word "bloody", another editor named Unscintillating described her as having a history of joining in "personal attacks" on editors who she considered to be newbies. He told her to stop using crude language and making personal attacks on newbies but she always ignores the criticism, and carries on regardless. See here.

The following quote comes from the policy about the importance of good manners called "WP:Civil . . .

"an unfolding pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable. If incivility becomes harassment or egregious personal attacks, then it may result in blocks." here.

 

The two faces of the editor who calls herself "WhatamIdoing"

She tries to give the impression that she is a respectable person by telling other people to be honest and polite, and to provide information from reliable and verifiable sources.

However, in actual practice, she is the exact opposite.

She repeatedly told other editors my real name, and insulted me, but she refuses to tell anyone her own real identity. She can say anything she wants about anyone and get away with it because she is hiding behind anonymity and doesn't take any responsibility for what she says. She ignores the criticism, and won't admit that she is telling lies when I prove it, and won't apologise, and is not accountable for anything.

 

Absolute proof of her defamatory behaviour

See her making extremely offensive personal attacks on me here

These are some of WhatamIdoing's words . . . "my existing attitude readjustment tools apparently don't reach as far as Australia, and the editor remains unscathed".

See also Lart here http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/L/LART.html

The word LART is an abbreviation of the phrase "Lusers attitude readjustment tools".
That is evidence that WhatamIdoing was calling me a Luser, and trying very hard to drive me out of Wikipedia with a barage of insults. It is also evidence of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL violations.

Note also that WhatamIdoing was complaining about the fact that those tactics failed.

These are Gordonofcartoons words about me . . . "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 Critics.

Note that I was describing their tactics, not making personal attacks on them".

Essentially my comments were a proven description of their tactics.

Regardless of anything else, they were actually violating the policies that they were accusing me of.

 

Obvious personal attacks on me, and WhatamIdoing's absurd denials

At 02:25 on 18 May 2008, on the POV/Pushing page WhatamIdoing acknowledged using "ATTITUDE READJUSTMENT TOOLS" against me.

Those words contained a link to the LART webpage which refers to the use of (Lusers Attitude Readjustment Tools) which are part of a covert edit war against an individual to insult, taunt, harass, and provoke them until they leave Wikipedia in disgust, or respond in an aggressive manner so that they can be banned for violating WP:CIVIL.

i.e. the other editors were being told that I was, in WhatamIdoing's "opinion", a LUSER, and that I had been taunted for some time with no effect; see here

Note that I was not invited to the POV/Pushing page to defend myself, and, in fact, I was not even told about it, or meant to find it, or read it. I found it myself while looking at some diffs for another reason. I wasn't supposed to know that I was being insulted and DELIBERATELY taunted.

At 21:34 on 1-1-09, after insulting me for another three months on an entirely different page, WhatamIdoing tried to give the false impression of being a respectable editor who would not do such things . . . with these words . . . "I have not violated WP:CIVIL: I have not called you names, I have not taunted you, I have not used profanity, I have not impugned your race, religion or other personal characteristics, I have not improperly accused you of impropriety. You may have confused CIVIL with WP:WikiLove and wikt:friendliness . . . WhatamIdoing 21:34, 1 January 2009 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Fit_the_second

Note that WhatamIdoing is being more sarcastic by saying that I can't tell the difference between good manners and insults, and yet has the cheek to deny it. The brazen duplicity of that editor is astoniching.

Here are statements from the CIVILITY policy that WhatamIdoing WAS DELIBERATELY, KNOWINGLY, AND REPEATEDLY VIOLATING ON MANY PAGES . . . Rudeness: insults, and excessive sarcasm, Judgmental tone in edit summaries , Taunting or baiting, Ridiculing , rather than making serious criticism, Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page to mislead one or more editors, Quoting another editor out-of-context to give the impression that he or she holds views they do not hold, or to malign them, Using derogatory language towards other contributors, Harassment, Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb" . . . The CIVILITY policy guidelines can be seen herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Civility&diff=309320532&oldid=309305683#Engaging_in_incivility

They objected to me defending myself from their criticism

Most of what I did in Wikipedia was to contribute information and defend myself against false allegations, and most of what my two critics did was delete information and make personal attacks on me.

For example they deleted information from the Da Costa's syndrome page, and often did not discuss why, but imposed their views and told me what to do without compromise.

They lost several arguments on the talk page about Rosen's article, and suggested moving the topic to a jargonistic page. They set up COI number 1, and later COI number 2 page, and then went to my UserTalk page to insult me.

I then decided to defend myself so I wrote an essay about their motives and tactics and described how they were removing everything that contradicted their POV, and insulted me instead of participating in evidence based discussions. I then put that essay at the top of my talk page so that anyone who visited it would be able to assess the criticism against me in the proper context.

They then described my essay as a personal attack on them and set up up a Wikiquette alerts page to get it removed, and when that failed they started an MFD page, and they failed again. However they just kept on going and set up an RFC page, and the RFC talk page, and went to ANI pages (Administrators Notice boards), the POV/CivilPushing page, and the Reliable Sources Notice board etc, and ultimately started an Arbitration process where I was banned

After I was banned they aranged to get that essay deleted , AND my talk page which contained all of the evidence against them.

My comments were mostly described by other editors as appropriate and civil, but on rare occasions I responded in the manner of equal for equal to their sarcasm.

However, I did not follow them to all of their pages to delete everything they wrote, and I did not set up pages to get them blocked or banned. All I did was write an essay to describe their tactics to defend myself, and go to pages such as Editors Assistance to get unbiased editors to look at the discussions and act as referees.

My objective was to get a fair outcome, and ensure that my critics were using policy appropriately.

 

Nevertheless, as you can see, they just continued relentlessly losing argument after argument until they got the outcome they wanted which is an example of them violating the Wikipedia discussion guideline called forum shopping.

The Assume Good Faith Policy Flaw - the recruitment of the unbiased illusion

There are many editors who voluntarily contribute to Wikipedia up to several hundred times a day, or for six days every week, presumably because they enjoy the process. However there would also be large corporations who could see the advantage of allocating millions of dollars a year to control content. For example, the established editor would already be contributing to many pages and therefore gaining a reputation for neutrality, and an international drug company could encourage them to continue with their hobby, and offer them a bribe for the sole purpose of occasionally checking the medications pages, to ensure that additions to the beneficial effects of the drugs were left in place, and information about the harmful side-effects were to be deleted, downplayed, or trivialised.

If a new contributor persisted with adding information about the harmful side-effects, the experienced editor could argue that it was against Wikipedia policy to include such excessive detail. Furthermore, if the contributor questioned the editors motive for removing the detail, he would be accused of openly flouting the assume good faith policy, WP:AGF. The editors could also gain additional financial rewards for their successes in having the information deleted and the new contributor banned.


As an obvious example of what could have happended if Wikipedia was around thirty years ago, tobacco companies could have paid some of their employees to edit it to ensure that only favorable results of scientific studies were included. They could be given instructions to delete any links between smoking and lung cancer, for;"policy' reasons. and if anyone questioned their motives they would have been accused of violating the 'assume good faith' policy. In fact the tobacco companies could have paid their staff to add photos of beach scenes, blue skies, and green trees to give a healthy image to their product.

The Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia syndrome page at 00:07 on 19th October 2009 contained a photo of a multi-colored assortment of tablets, presumably to make them appear to be as pure and clean as white beaches on sunny day. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=320700074&oldid=319440800#Medications

 

Note that the inclusion of pictures of multi-colored tablets and capsules on a medical topic page in Wikipedia is unnecessary, EXTREMELY RIDICULOUS, and highly inappropriate and offensive. That picture was deleted at 04:10 on 29 July 2010, by an editor named InFairness after I criticised it on my website. See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Postural_orthostatic_tachycardia_syndrome&diff=376029786&oldid=373438037

 

That editor obviously agreed with me because he made this comment

"Removed pic of four colors of pills. Seriously, it is the most idiotic pic and caption I have EVER seen on W. It added nothing, and stated the blatantly obvious. Who writes these?!"

Conflict of interest

My two critics claimed that they did not have a conflict of interest but here is what one of them wrote about members of company or government agencies who are paid to do their job, which includes editing Wikipedia, but not revealing to other editors that they are employees being paid to edit. WhatamIdoing replied with these words . . . "Except, of course, that they are getting paid for doing a job, and that job (at least in their own interpretation) results in Wikipedia being edited. Some people will consider this "paid editing"; others won't." WhatamIdoing 01:43, 30 October 2009

 

Only Martians should edit?

An example of Gordonofcartoon writing Policies to be used as snide Personal Attacks on other editors later

At 1:16 on the 18th December 2009>Gordonofcartoon wrote an esaywhich he recommends "would be a good rule" for Wikipedia to use in the future. herehttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Only_Martians_should_edit&diff=prev&oldid=332412311

The title is . . . "Only Martians should edit". He then argues that there are many edit wars in Wikipedia where it is 'blindingly obvious' to uninvolved editors that there are contributors who can't be trusted to give an objective neutral point of view, and then he gives the example of "strongly divided local-politics" and 'highly hostile ex-members'. He then suggests that "only Martians should edit' to imply that all editors who are involved in the dispute should be banned so that only complete outsiders can contribute to Wikipedia.

He is essentially trying to embed insults into the Wikipedia guidelines so that he can evade the "No Personal Attacks" policy (WP:NPA), and he would use them in the following predictable manner.

Supposing he wanted to 'insult' a new contributor. He couldn't tell them that they were biased fools because he could be banned for violating WP:NPA. However he could instantly link to that "guideline" to imply that his opponent was a prejudiced idiot who was incapable of editing properly.

The new contributor might reply with equal predictability and say - 'excuse me, but if you don't mind me saying so, it is you who is the idiot who is so biased that you can't edit competently'.

Goronofcartoon would then get his 'cavalry' of edit warriors to ban the new contributor for violating the "No Personal attacks" policy. WP:NPA.

However, regardless of whether it is embedded in policy, or written in plain English, it is still a case of both being equally offensive 'personal attacks', and it is Gordonofcartoon who starts the 'so-called' edit war, and he would never ban himself for being the other person in the dispute.

He would pretend to be an 'entirely' neutral editor who was 'merely' quoting from an 'established' 'rule' that was written by 'editor X or Y'.

********

Gordonofcartoon also argues that people who cannot edit as "dispassionately" as a human describing a dispute about fictional Martian religious beliefs should be banned.

Of course Gordonofcartoon is so passionate about his own personal 'opinions' that he loses his patience. loses control of his temper, gets frustrated and hostile, and uses foul language, and completely loses all common sense and respect for "all" of the rules of Wikipedia (WP:IAR), and says things like this, and I paraphrase . . . "let's ban the f. . . ing polite f. . . ing new guy anyway". He then tries to convince the neutral editors that it is the polite person who is the problem.

Here are some quotes from the Civil POV pushing talk page at 2:25 on 18-5-08 where WhatamIdoing reports on the opinion of other editors about me . . . "he's not particularly rude so why bother blocking him", and then six months later at 16:57 on 3-2-09 Gordonofcartoon added a paragraph of hostile lies about me and ended his "unverified" "opinions" with these words "and so on and on and on and 'f****ing f****ing on." (end of quote).

I don't think that Gordonofcartoon knows the meaning of the word 'dispassionate' otherwise he would have to ban himself before anyone else.

Here is a word definition from Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary 1972 p. 240 . . . "Dispassionate; not influenced by strong feeling: CALM".

Predictably

Only about 2 months after Gordonofcartoon wrote his 'Martian' essay, he used it against editors with these words . . . "It's worse than that. Judging by the edit history, the article is a long-running battleground of single-purpose accounts, either promoting CrossFit or attacking it. I call WP:Martians on his one" signed Gordonofcartoon 1:48, 12th February 2010.

Notice how Gordonofcartoon deliberately tries to give the false impression that it is a long established consensus based rule by calling it WP:Martians and by using these words . . .

"I call WP:Martians on this one."

There is another essay in Wikipedia called "The Last Word" which refers to opponents as "bastards", "jerks", "little shits" and "easy prey", and those insults are generally bound up in a bundle with the use of the word "newbie". " The following words are a quote from that page at 8:20 on 8-1-2010

"This page is an essay attempting to critique certain actions. It is intended to show a serious opinion about editorial concepts — by means of a style that may or may not be described as "humorous".

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:The_Last_Word&diff=336562578&oldid=327607420

 

If that is justified on the basis of humor then I suppose I can be humorous myself and suggest some pages called . . .

Don't edit from Uranus

These would be the opening words . . . "Try using your brain - if you've got one."

Toffee nosed snottery

This is a type of arrogance which affects emotionally insecure social climbers who are excessively polite and groveling toward people who they perceive as having superior social status, but will display the manners of ill-bred pigs when discussing everyone else as sheep or cattle. Although it is not officially classified as a mental disorder by the W.H.O. it is "widely considered" to be inappropriate and "unacceptable behavior" affecting individuals who were born with silver spoons up their arse, but never achieved anything useful to society.

Instant expert

Experts are colloquially defined as drips under pressure, whereas an instant expert is someone who is so insignificant and useless that they can't even qualify as a drip until someone else turns the tap on.

Laughter is contagious

Never such a truth has ever been spoken.

Ain't I the funny one.

 

"Double standards in courtesy interpretation"
Selective courtesy is a feature of some arrogant individuals who will appear to be polite and respectful to people who they perceive as coming from the same social or superior class, and think that they have a right to treat anyone else with contempt. They are colloquially referred to as snobs.

Wikipedia has a policy called WP:CIVIL which requires all editors to treat everyone else with courtesy and respect at all times, even in disputes, so I often started discussions with such words as 'please consider this', or 'please consider that'. However, my two critics knew about the 'ignore all rules' policy WP:IAR (without telling me), and took every opportunity to be as offensive and insulting as possible, including making my courtesy look as if it was weakness.
This is an extract from the top part of that policy page . . . "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid profane and offensive language." This is an extract from the first paragraph . . . "editors should always endeavour to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably . . . It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians."

The following words are extracted from one insulting commentary by Gordonofcartoon who was accusing me of being uncivil for writing an essay in which I provided objective evidence that the tactics used by himself and his mate were violating all of the Wikipedia policies. In fact, for at least six months they had been deliberately acting like provocative and annoying trolls in the hope that I would eventually react by saying something uncivil so that they could use it as an excuse to ban me. When several other editors came under their influence and were starting to treat me as a subservient fool, I told them to stop my two critics from swinging through the wiki trees and beating their breasts etc, They must have insulted me more than 100 times, and yet they got me banned for insulting them twice. If you have a close look at Gordonofcartoons comments below you can see that he was accusing me of being uncivil, while he was taking every opportunity to fill every sentence with lies, insults, offensive remarks and foul language . . . In fact he was ignoring the consensus of opinion of other admins who said that I wasn't uncivil, and, in the same section, was displaying blatant disregard and contempt for civility policy himself.

This is what Gordonofcartoon wrote about me . . . "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 Critics, and inflammatory language like editor X's "web of deceit" and "juvenile duplicity" and editor Y "swinging through the wiki trees beating his breast and yelling his typical bark". And yet you get admins looking at this and saying stuff to the effect of "Oh, I don't see anything here that really constitutes an attack or serious incivility." . . . And that's not even factoring in the exhausting effect of long-term contact with procedural nitpicking, obfuscation, lying by misquotation etc ("user A says and diff B that my article is wonderful", then you look at the diff and find it doesn't, or it has been quoted out of the context of other editors saying it was crap; so you say so, and get back 1500 words of WP:SOUP saying why it doesn't mean what it seems to mean, and how it's just another example of my critics using their tactics to silence me, and anyhow the procedure wasn't conducted properly 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." Gordonofcartoon 16:57, 3 February 2009 (end of quote)

As you can see Gordonofcartoon is an extremely ill-mannered and offensive editor, and an extreme violator of civility policy.

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Civility&diff=
367742621&oldid=367553591
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing&diff=
prev&oldid=268277856#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome
For more examples of his ill-mannered behaviour and his use of foul language see here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa's
SyndWikiwebpagel.html#anchor16715

As a example of the extremely and deliberately offensive way that my other critic discussed my contributions with a neutral editor see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WhatamIdoing&diff=269715826&oldid=269639173#Wikipedia:
Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter

 

A typical example

Gordonofcartoon gave three extreme misrepresentations of the facts in a very short space when he wrote this about me . . . " "For six months, he has openly flouted WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL"
In order for outside readers to understand how Gordonofcartoon tells massive lies I will first need to explain those policies. WP:AGF means that all editors are supposed to 'assume good faith' in all other editors.. WP:NPA means 'no personal attacks' i.e. you should stick to content and not discuss other editors, but in particular, not make insulting or offensive remarks about them. WP:Civil is the policy that essentially requires all editors to treat everyone else, including new contributors, with courtesy and respect, even if you disagree with them.

Gordonofcartoons ridiculous interpretation of those policies is this. He can tell lies, and be insulting, and offensive, and accuse me of violating as many policies as possible, but I can't accuse him of violating policies. When I did he argued that I had to assume good faith in his editing otherwise I would be violating WP:AGF. When I provided evidence that he told lies etc he would argue that I was making a personal attack on him which was a violation of WP:NPA. When I provided evidence and proof that he was arrogant, rude, or using foul language, he would argue that I was being uncivil to him and violating WP:Civil.

As you can see Gordonofcartoons argument that I have openly flouted WP:AGF etc, seems believable, until you know the 'full' truth.
First of all you do not have to be stupid by assuming good faith in other editors when you have strong evidence against them. Secondly, it is actually the responsibility of all contributors to report other editors who violate policies, and is therefore not a personal attack. Thirdly, when you are responding to countless insults from someone else, it is not called 'attack' . . . it is called ' defence', and if Gordonofcartoon wants to be treated with courtesy and respect he should learn some manners, otherwise his behaviour could be summed up like this . . . 'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.
see also here http://users.chariot.net.au/~posture/Da%20Costa%27sSynd%
20Wikiwebpa2.html#anchor25704
See a description of Gordonofcartoon plotting and scheming to hide his rude, offensive, devious, and deliberately provocative behaviour here

A final matter that I found interesting was that my two critics would complain whenever other editors or administrators read the previous discussions to check the facts, and described me as a generally polite contributor, and that there wasn't anything I wrote that was a personal attack, or a case of serious incivility etc. Some of them even advised my two critics to provide evidence before making accusations, or to take a break and calm down, or to go away and edit other articles that they were not so passionate about etc, and 'not to come out with all guns ablazing'. However, nobody forced them to comply with the requests, or blocked them for ignoring the advice to take a break, or permanently banned them for using obvious 'edit war' methods such as 'attitude readjustment tools'.
I have not seen any violation of policy which is that extreme, and yet they are still free to roam about in Wikipedia and pretend to be honest, respectable, 'prim and proper', rule-abiding editors?

See requests and responses to breaks here
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_24#Break
and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Posturewriter&diff=prev&oldid=229761031
#Comment_re_Outside_view_by_User:Avnjay

 

The CASH FOR COMMENT SCANDAL

(the deliberate deception of radio listeners)

There has been a similar case in Australia where the most respected radio announcers in the country were misleading their listeners by giving the false impression that their opinions were unbiased. However the courts found them guilty of taking secret payments from large corporations in what became known as the 'cash for comment' scandals. Initially, some companies were getting a lot of criticism in the press, so their agents covertly approached the radio announcers and offered them inducements to improve their image. "The Australian Broadcasting Authority estimated the value of these arrangements at $18 million". e.g. herehttp://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s1085792.htm and herehttp://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/12/04/1070351725314.html and here http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve1/988tue.html and here http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve1/988tue.html and here http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/arpe/Vol1/Avery.htm and herehttp://dl.screenaustralia.gov.au/module/100/ and here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cash_for_comment_affair&diff=251311400&oldid=250258725

Note also that, at a later stage, the head of the regulatory authority became implicated in the scandal and had to resign see herehttp://trevorcook.typepad.com/weblog/2005/03/buying_influenc.html

 

Content control information from other websites

"A new data-mining service launched Monday traces millions of Wikipedia entries to their corporate sources, and for the first time puts comprehensive data behind longstanding suspicions of manipulation, which until now have surfaced only piecemeal in investigations of specific allegations."

Read More http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/08/wiki_tracker?showAllComments=true#ixzz0zw7E77Hr"

and here http://www.name-us.org

Wikipedia and Discrimination

 

Banfield's prejudice test ©

Tell one person or group something about yourself, and not another

See where an editor named SmokeyJoe, who didn't know anything about me, read my contributions, and assumed that I was a highly qualified academic here, and EdJohnston, who was told by two editors, that I had written a theory which gave me a 'conflict of interest' here, and Moreschi, who was told by one of those editors, in a very brief discussion, that I had been arguing with the Wikipedia "community', when in fact 99% of the criticism was coming from the same two editors here and here

Another reason that prejudice has an infuence is not due to anything the person does, but is due to the way they are described, the emphasis, and the interpretation.

 

Discrimination against all or discrimination against none

My main critic discriminates against medical consumers so I would like other editors to show her the importance of having a balanced view of other people by treating her with the type of discrimination that the ruling class of men thought about women in the nineteenth century.

They said that women had smaller brains than men, and that they were unsuited for education, and should be punished if they read books, and that they were emotionally delicate and unstable, and mentally inferior creatures who should accept their place in life, and confine themselves to the kitchens and brothels where they belong.

Of course, both of my critics are probably middle aged women, so when I asked them to introduce a policy called "No Double Standards" they replied by saying that there wasn't one, and that they didn't have to write one.

 

One of the reasons that I joined Wikipedia was because it invited all people from all parts of society to provide all information from all sources and make it better than printed encyclopedias.

However, my two critics were deliberately using words to build up a contempt of prejudice which essentially treated all medical consumers as a worthless underclass who need to be silenced. Four 'typical' examples are described below.

 

1. Soon after adding some information to the page about Da Costa's syndrome two editors started arguing that my theory and formal research were non-notable nonsense and crap, and that my suggestions were stupid, and a year later I was banned. In her closing statement, my main critic deliberately appealed to the most disgusting type of prejudice by telling a group of arbitrators, in a very childish, arrogant, and offensively condescending manner, that I meant well, but Wikipedia was not the place for the insignificant ideas of people like me.

However, in fact, my own ideas did enable me to dealt with the symptoms much better than other patients, and it is sensible for me to tell other people how I did it. It is also why the head of the South Australian Institute for Fitness Research and Training invited me to design and co-ordinate a research program which was so successful that the method have since been copied and are now regarded as the best methods in the world. The treatment section on the Da Costa's syndrome page was written by me and was based on my methods, and included verification from independent sources. My two critics have copied it. Furthermore the exercise principles are almost exactly the same as those described as PACING, which is mentioned in the Wikipedia topic called "the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" . . .

The following words are an exact quote from her rant of misrepresentation and lies. . .

"I understand: he believes that his theory or posture and exercise has practically saved his life. But it's not appropriate for Wikipedia." See here

As you can see, she says that my ideas are not appropriate, but she has included them in the treatment section, and another editor has included them in another topic page, but attributed them to someone else.

 

2. In the meantime, at an earlier stage, I was threatened with a block, and another editor, named Guido den Broeder, who was the president of the Netherlands Chronic Fatigue Society, started adding information to that topic and they told him that he had a conflict of interest, and referred to him as him as Bilbo von Booger, and arranged for him to be banned. e.g. see here


3. When I used a medical consumers webpage as one of my 60 references they argued that it was an unreliable source of information because she did not have any medical qualifications, and was not an expert. I actually used it because it had some good information about CFS. However, my main critic tried to mock and ridicule me by setting up four or more discussions of criticism and misrepresenting the specific webpage, as a website about Iguana lizards. e.g. here and here and here and here and here


4. One of my other references was a 20 year scientific follow up study of 173 patients published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, and they deleted it. They have since derogatorily referred to such studies as the unreliable 'self-reports' of patients. (It was of-course, good enough for the editors of JAMA)
They also argued that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that the 'neutral point of view' policy does not require them to include the views of medical consumers.
They were systematically discrediting and deleting all information from medical consumers which is a form of censorship, and the equivalent of the nineteenth century discrimination against women and negro's, and other types of racial discrimination that have been rejected be the wider society for decades, and is a very serious violation of Wikipedia core principles and it's claimed and promoted purpose for existence.


5. Needless to say, neither of my two critics are doctors, and neither of them appear to have medical qualifications, or have had any scientific experience, or been involved in "real" formal research, and neither of them knew much about the topic before I started. They are not prepared to say what their actual qualifications are, and neither of them are willing or able to provide proof that they don't have a conflict of interest.

See here and here and the first sentence here and here and the removal of the irrelevant link by an independent editor here and 'WP:Gaming the system' here and here

This is a quote from the Wikipedia page about discrimination . . . "Discrimination is a sociological term referring to the treatment taken toward or against a person of a certain group in consideration based solely on class or category. Discrimination is the actual behavior towards another group. It involves excluding or restricting members of one group from opportunities that are available to other groups.[1] The United Nations explains: "Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection."[2] Discriminatory laws such as redlining have existed in many countries".
see here

 

Social ignorance and attitudes

Some years ago I was standing in my back yard when I heard a neighbor say hello, and then saw that she was in a wheelchair, and that she was pushing her way toward my back fence to talk to me. She was a married woman in her mid twenties, and she told me that when she was five years old she developed cancer which affected her spine and paralyzed her legs. When she was in her mid thirties the cancer returned, and after 12 months of chemotherapy she died. However, during that time I had many conversations with her and she told me that one of the things she hated the most was when she was being wheeled through shopping centres, and well-meaning adults would assume that because she was physically disabled, she was also intellectually disabled, and talk to her as if she was a baby. She further explained how she had to be polite, because she found it difficult to tell them to stop annoying her and start treating her as a normal adult. I told her that many people live sheltered lives, and have a very small circle of friends, and don't know any better, but she still said that they were annoying.

My two critics have obviously led sheltered lives because they think that the only people who are intelligent, are people like themselves who have university qualifications, and that, everyone else in the world (the vast majority) are all as ignorant, stupid, and as gullible as sheep and cattle, including people who are older and more experienced than themselves, and have deeper and broader knowledge about the 'realities' of life.

They talk down to other editors by referring to their references as 'lousy', and 'repeatedly' give them advice about the 'many, many, many', 'very, very, very' 'important' policy requirements that they 'recognize' they feel 'personally uncomfortable with'. However, they were so self-centred they wouldn't be capable of predicting anything that other people thought.

Needless to say, while giving advice to other editors, my two critics ignore all the rules any time they want, and insult people freely, and use poor quality references any time it suits them, and always have an excuse. I have also met a lot of young people, and most of them are sensible and intelligent, but some of them think that their entry into first year at university is their free ticket to 'instant' 'wisdom', social status, and privilege, and they start talking about everyone else as if the are their social and intellectual 'inferiors', the 'common man', or the 'hoi polloi', or the 'ignorant masses'. They were only fifteen years old.

see at 6:11 on 11 July here and 17:43 on 13 July here and for snide inuendos about me being a 'luser', and 'cattle' see here

Seniority and Experience in Wikipedia policy

My two critics treated all of the rules of Wikipedia with utter contempt and disregard as if the Ignore all Rules policy was their standard default policy, or their failsafe fallback policy of choice.

Another example is their contempt for the policy which explains that all contributors are to be treated as equal, and that no editor should try to win disputes by arguing that the number of edits they have done or that their previous years of experience in editing gives them more authority than anyone else.

The following words come from a page called . . . "Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival"

"we Wikipedians abhor the idea that the amount of time spent working on this website is any sort of indication of how well one can write an encyclopedia article. Indeed, we distinguish ourselves by our ability to write good articles, which is what really matters. We ought to do our best to underemphasize seniority, which can be used, often illegitimately, as a way of deciding whom to accord how much respect. Of course, sometimes how long someone has been here does bear on, for example, how well they understand Wikipedia policy and why Wikipedia works as it does. But it doesn't bear on much else." see here

This is an extract from a discussion where Gordonofcartoon responded by using seniority in reply to criticism . .

"Gordonofcartoon if you haven't been able to read something about Da Costa's syndrome that has been on your 'to do' list for more than 12 months then you shouldn't be editing the page . . . Also note that WhatamIdoings qualifications are self-described here[44] in particular WhatamIdoing "is not a healthcare professional" and has "no plans to become one" . . . and is "typically useless in cardiology" and "can contribute at a very basic level, such as copy editing or reviewing sources" . . . and . . . If it's important . . . "can become an 'instant expert' on more or less any narrow subject". I highlight the fact that you are too busy to learn about the things you profess to know, and WhatamIdoing is only an "instant expert" and is "useless at cardiology" so should not be commenting on the complex 140 years of Da Costa's syndrome research, or on MVP." Posturewriter 10:08, 27 January 2009 posturewriter
Gordonofcartoon replied with these words . . . "not a healthcare professional - Did I say anything about being a healthcare professional? I said "medical editor" - one who routinely edits on medical topics here, and hence is thoroughly conversant with aspects such as WP:MEDRS. Gordonofcartoon 10:25, 27 January 2009 See here

Note that while Gordonofcartoon was arguing that WhatamIdoing was an expert in MEDRS policy, he did not mention the fact that that editor lied about it by arguing that 1951 references were unreliable because they were old and out-of-date. In fact, the policy states that older references are acceptable in history sections, which is where I put them.

The same editor lied about the information being out-of-date, because, while opinions and interpretations may change, the actual observations were accurate, and the facts that were discovered are still facts today. Furthermore, when writing about the history of a topic it is important to show how opinions changed, and not just describe modern opinions as if they have always been the same and magically appeared from nowhere. My two critics were obviously NOT EXPERTS about history, and were not reliable sources of information about it..

 

This is a summary of the methods used by my two critics who are supposed to have experience with editing.
Gordonofcartoon doesn't actually read the references, or doesn't bother, or doesn't have time to read past the first paragraph, and WhatamIdoing was useless at cardiology, and told lies about MEDRS sourcing policy, and either lies about how to write history, or doesn't understand that the basic principle is to document it in chronological order to show the important events.

Needless to say it is not appropriate to write about the history of the world in the following manner . . . ' It all started in England a long time ago, and by the way, a few other things happened in Rome and China, and nowadays London is the centre of human civilisation'.

However my two critics want readers to believe that Da Costa's syndrome started in the American Civil War, and was called Soldier's heart, and nowadays it is called a post-war syndrome.

(They would then argue on the discussion page . . . 'by the way, lets not tell the readers that 140 years of history has shown that some people are born with it, some children have it, and it is much more common in women than men, and that most soldiers who developed the condition already had the minor symptoms before they enlisted - we don't want to bother the readers with that sort of detail - we call that 'cruft' which, in plain English, means rubbish).

 

The following words are an extract from a discussion about seniority between other editors . . .

"Dweller, what do you think the current community of active participants could learn from the old timers? --SmokeyJoe 00:19, 13 August 2010
I really don't want to develop an old-timers/newcomers delineation . I am afraid it would morph into a seniority dynamic. See Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians in order of arrival, which reminds us all "We ought to do our best to underemphasize seniority, which can be used, often illegitimately, as a way of deciding whom to accord how much respect." Kingturtle 13:44, 13 August 2010
Agree, we don't want to get into a seniority dynamic." SmokeyJoe 01:02, 14 August 2010

 

In terms of other policies the objective is to focus on content and not the individual, which means not on who has been in Wikipedia the longest, or who has done the most edits.

 

Experience versus Instancy

Here is an example of my main critic violating that policy by inferring greater experience to gain the illusion of advantage over me . . .

"Posturewriter. . . has repeatedly edited my user talk page to include a section heading insultingly titled "WhatamIdoing’s attempts at undermining NPOV policy". This is the third message just today, and since he's in Australia, we're moving into his daytime (and out of mine).
I have asked the editor to stop posting on my talk page in general, and specifically to quit posting personal attacks. This behavior, as I pointed out to him before this last edit, violates the talk page guideline (specifically, see the fourth bullet item in this section) as well as WP:NPA.
. . . He's effectively topic banned from editing the article, and all the editor has done this month is complain that he's not getting his way because I don't agree that a 1951 book or www.anapsid.org are reliable sources for current medical information. His last mainspace edits were in July 2008 (and nearly all of them were reverted as biased, incorrect and/or outdated), so we're not talking about a particularly valuabe editor here.
He does not seem to mind that I object to his ongoing personal attacks. Would someone please consider whether a block is appropriate? I don't really want to come back to Wikipedia in a few hours and find another attack on my user talk page. WhatamIdoing 02:42, 11 January 2009 See here

I am not going to write about all of the blatant lies that editor told in that one small section, but here are a few examples. WhatamIdoing had been going to my Userpage and badgering me with silly insults and questions, and had also been insulting me for months in a section which they started on their own talk page.
That section was called 'Requests for comment Posturewriter", and a neutral editor named Avnjay went there to say that my version of Da Costa's syndrome was the best, but WhatamIdoing was arguing that he was incompetent, and that my version was 'horrible'.

In other words the neutral editor, or referee, was being barraged with criticism while I wasn't there to give my side of the story.
When I found out about that 'secret' conversation I essentially went there to say 'why don't you discuss this in a neutral forum where both sides of the story can be told, and stop violating the principles on "neutral point of view". The discussions about the essay should have been presented on the Da Costa's syndrome talk page in the view of neutral editors , not on WhatamIdoing's personal talk page in the view of that editors personal friends and supporters.

That editor put a snide sub-heading over my comments with these words "Fit the second", and I replaced it with the title "WhatamIdoing’s attempts at undermining NPOV policy" See here

Here are the facts; WhatamIdoing was making relentless hostile personal insults against me everywhere, in my face, and behind my back, and trying to get every other editor to turn against me. Whenever I tried to present my side of the story that editor would go into a temper tantrum and rush off to another group of editors to give another one-sided view of that facts in the hope that decisions would be made against me before I found out.

Note also that I hadn't actually been topic banned, but was advised that I could be, if I continued to edit the DCS page. I therefore complied with that request and yet WhatamIdoing argued that I hadn't edited since July and therefore wasn't valuable? Note also that WhatamIdoing gained that result by barraging another editor named EdJohnston with another massive barrage of lies before I had the opportunity to give my side of the story.

That editor was making blatant and obvious personal attacks on me, and yet, had the cheek to accuse me of making personal attacks on them.

Double standards in the editing by one of my critics

The human chest contains twelve sets of ribs which are spaced about a centimetre apart, but if a person slouches or stoops they are compressed together and that can put strain on the muscle and flesh between them so that they become tender and sore, although most patients don't notice it. Sometimes every few months they may feel a sharp stabbing pain in the lower left chest and if they think it is due to their heart they may rush off to their doctor, but until the 1950's many doctors didn't know the difference.

The same symptoms occur together with five other main ones in a condition called Da Costa's syndrome which is a more significant problem, and I wrote a theory about it in 1980 suggesting that poor posture was the cause, partly to distinguish that ailment from heart disease. That theory took me five years of study and thought to determine after writing more than a dozen essays that were published in the Australasian Nurses Journal.

The condition was named after J.M. Da Costa who observed the same set of symptoms in soldiers during the American Civil war and reported them in a research paper eight years later in 1871. In his introduction he noted that he had also seen the condition in his patients in civilian practice.

One of the earliest researchers to study Da Costa's syndrome was Thomas Lewis who wrote a book about it in 1918 in which he reported that in some cases the patients were thin, and had long narrow chests that were associated with a kyphotic curve, which means that they had thin and stooped physiques. He gave it the new name of the effort syndrome because in some cases the symptoms mainly, or only occur during exertion, and he was later knighted for his contributions the study of that subject.

Double standards in using Paul Wood's ref

The same problem was studied by Paul Wood who discussed it in a chapter in one of his books in 1956. He suggested that the cause of the chest pain may be constant strain on the muscles between the ribs due to faulty posture and reported that it was real and not imaginary because injecting a pain killing drug in the main area of tenderness relieved the pain. He also provided a photo of a painted portrait of such a patient that had been on display on the walls of a medical museum in London for many years, and it showed the typical long narrow chest, and the thin and stooped physique that was so commonly observed. These were the words that he wrote under that picture . . . "Fig. 23.01 - Classical facies, build and posture of a case of Da Costa's syndrome. Painted by Ian Tillard (life-size portrait in the museum of the Post-Graduate Medical School of London). He also described it with these words on page 942 . . . "A life-sized portrait of one of these patients (fig.23.01) hangs in the library of the Postgraduate Medical School of London and surpasses any description". (note that he says the painting was in the museum on page 941, and the library on page 942? Nevertheless it was on display in the London medical school in one of their buildings for many years)

On December 9th 2007 I started contributing to a page in Wikipedia called Da Costa's syndrome and at 5:07 on 12th December 2007 I added one of Paul Wood's lectures from 1941 as a reference here. About a week later, at 5:56 on 18th December, I added a summary of my own theory and research. and about two weeks later, at 23:46 on 28th December, I included some information from a chapter in Paul Wood's book of 1956 here, including the fact that the photo of a typical patient was on page 941.

However I had two editors named WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon who were constantly disrupting my contributions and were adding information about anxiety and psychosomatic disorders, non-psychotic mental disorders, post-traumatic stress disorders, and post war syndromes, and the classification of 'somatoform autonomic dysfunction'.

I didn't object to, or agree with what they were adding, but in order to push their opinion on readers they invented a never ending series of policy reasons for deleting everything that I wrote for the next twelve months. For example, they deleted the small section about my own theory because of a conflict of interest policy which advised people not to write about their own theories, so within a month I stopped adding it. They eventually deleted the information from Paul Wood's book by arguing that everything from fifty years ago was violating the sourcing policy which states . . . "Use up-to-date evidence . . . Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years." (end of quote).

However, during that twelve month period, in May 2008, WhatamIdoing used one of Paul Wood's 1941 lectures as a reference in an argument against Guido den Broeder and when it's reliability was questioned wrote these words of pompous and self-righteous indignation -

 

"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?" signed WhatamIdoing 23:10 28th May 2008.

 

Why was Wood's article deemed to be so old and unreliable when I used it, but so excellent when WhatamIdoing used it? It was because WhatamIdoing knew all about the MEDRS policy but conveniently 'forgot' to tell me about some of it. It states . . . "History sections often cite older work, for obvious reasons." (end of quote). Of course, when I find those words and use them to verify that I am complying with policy WhatamIdoing would just keep on inventing an endless labyrinth of objections in the same highly predictable manner.

Here are a few facts to consider: The typical physique of many patients with Da Costa's syndrome was so obvious to most physicians that it was often called 'common' or 'classic', and a painter was appointed to produce a very large life-size portrait as an example to be put on display in a medical school library in London to teach all new medical students how to recognise cases of the condition. It had been accepted as relevant, useful, and important by the administrators, educators, and librarians of that organisation, and kept on display for many years when one of the world's top researchers decided to mention the facts, and then take a copy of the painting and put it in his reference book that was distributed to doctors, cardiologists and universities all around the world. Paul Wood said that the painting 'SURPASSES any description'. However, WhatamIdoing said that those facts don't belong in the history section of the topic because they are fifty years old, and are therefore seriously out-dated, and then tried to discredit the information by ridiculing it as being written "before most editors were born"? I suppose WhatamIdoing wants the readers to think that somewhere in the recent past the condition began to affect all people with all types of physique equally???, or perhaps it is just another case of . . . "there are none so blind as those who don't want to see"!!!!

 

Modern Mainstream ideas - Opinion or Dogma?

While I was adding useful information to the Da Costa's page in Wikipedia I had two editors who criticised me in a highly predictable manner. For example, when I added information about my own research they deleted it on the grounds that it was original research, and when I added more information they deleted it on the grounds that it was out-of-date, and when I added modern information they deleted it on the grounds that it was not mainstream opinion etc. etc. They then replaced it with a text that gave an excessive emphasis on it being an anxiety disorder, and told the other editors the ridiculous lie that I didn't understand "simple" anxiety theories, or that I was upset by such comments. I have been interested in this subject for more than 30 years, and any comments of any nature pass by me as easily as water runs off a ducks back, so they were either incompetent judges of character, or were telling lies in a failed attempt to create a false impression of me in order to incite prejudice against me in the minds of other editors.

I will therefore give a small number of examples of that sort of criticism. Firstly, soon after I started adding information to the page I noticed that someone else had added links to ICD9 and ICD10 lists in the top right hand corner of the page, and had added links to the categories of anxiety disorders and somatoform disorders at the lower left side of the page see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=215809667&oldid=215806346

Initially one of those lists was left open at the bottom of the page, so that the top half discussed Da Costa's syndrome, and the bottom half had a list of about 100 mental illnesses with the word Da Costa's syndrome highlighted in bold somewhere in the middle. That, in effect, gave undue space, or undue weight , or undue emphasis to the idea that it was a mental illness. The other three links led to other pages with lists of 50 to 100 mentally related illnesses. Therefore at one stage I checked the destination of the links and found that one of them led to a description of Da Costa's syndrome that had similarities to the description that I gave to Wikipedia.

The ICD codes relate to the International Classification of Diseases published by the World Health Organisation, and was described by my critics as a top quality and reliable source of modern mainstream opinion, but when I provided information to Wikipedia that was similar, but from different sources, my critics described it as nonsense. Some time later they managed to talk another editor into imposing a topic ban on me if I added any more information to the DCS page, so I took some time off the watch how they were treating other editors. They started arguing that they were using the best and most reliable sources of modern mainstream opinion such as the WHO ICD 9 lists, and that another editor named Guido den Broeder was being disruptive for not accepting it as a reliable source, and they eventually arranged for him to be banned.

(The following words of advice were given by the two-facedt WhatamIdoing to an editor named Colin about the misuse of lists . . . "Isn't it more useful and more readable to learn 'probably caused by an infectious disease' than to hear 'probably caused by an infectious disease, and here are the names of nine hundred infectious diseases in alphabetical order'?" signed WhatamIdoing 21:26, 24 February 2010).

Some time later they were deleting all evidence of a physical and physiological cause for Da_Costa's syndrome on the spurious grounds that it was out-of-date, so I decided to find some modern ones, and in that process I looked at some other pages in Wikipedia. One of the modern labels for DCS is Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome, and I noticed that as my two critics were deleting information from the Da Costa's page, several anonymous editors (possibly them or their friends) were adding similar information to the postural orthostatic tachycardia topic. When I mentioned the OBVIOUS possibility that it was them and that administrators should check it out, they denied it and accused me of violating civility policy. (note that editors are actually supposed to report such possibilities to stop that type of vandalism, where an editor takes on two identities, or edits anonymously so that no-one knows that it was them doing it, and which is called sock puppetry - i.e. as if WhatamIdoing is a ventriloquist who is saying that the information on the DCS page is unreliable and deleting it, and then his puppet (the anonymous editor) is saying that it is good information and adding it to the Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome page - and then later WhatamIdoing says "I'm not him, and the dummy says "and he's not me)

I was adding information from top quality peer-reviewed scientific journals but my two critics always found some spurious reason for saying that they were unreliable. However they were also arguing that they were experienced editors who only used top quality references from modern mainstream literature, but some of their links were ridiculous, such as a link to a children's fiction novel. Of course, the author was no doubt an excellent author of children's adventure stories, but he didn't mention anything about Da Costa's symptoms in the text. They also linked to a rare disease database but Da Costa's syndrome is common, and they linked to Dorlands medical Dictionary and tried to create the ridiculous impression that I didn't use such 'reliable' sources. However, in fact, they probably had to go to their library to find that book, but I personally own several dictionary style medical texts, including two edition's of Dorlands, one of which is the current edition. I do not want to offend the editors of Dorlands because it is an invaluable source of basic information, but the current edition only contains one paragraph via a link to neurocirculatory asthenia.

They also used a reference to the "Who Named It?" website which they call a modern reliable mainstream source etc. Again, I don't wish to criticise the owners of that website by calling it unreliable, but it currently contains two entries, the first has only one paragraph, and the second only 3 paragraphs, and only three references. The first problem is that the supposedly reliable modern mainstream definition was supported by only three references (A.B.R.Myers 1870, J.M.Da Costa 1870, and Thomas Lewis 1919). My critics second problem is that I had also used those as three of my 65 references in Wikipedia, and they were arguing that all of them were out-of-date and unreliable (unreliable when I provided them but perfect when someone else provided them??????). If you have a look through the list of references that I provided you can see that it also include Sir James MacKenzie, Paul Wood, and Cohen and White etc, and anyone who tried to write the history of the topic without mentioning those major contributors would not be able to do it properly. (Note that I have just given information from the WhoNamedIt website of 9-10-09, but it can be edited and changed at any time. see here http://www.whonamedit.com/ )

Here is one of WhatamIdoing's many ridiculous criticisms of my references.

At 20:25 on 27-1-09 WhatamIdoing told the arbitration page this . . ."Posturewriter's use of references frequently, perhaps even usually, does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards" . . . WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests
_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing

My references are here

Moving the goalposts?

Here is a quote from a Wikipedia page which gives instructions on how to win arguments. It is supposed to be satire and humor but it was edited by WhatamIdoing at 00:53 on 11-9-10 who was obviously aware of it and edits as if it was that individuals instruction sheet of cheap tricks . . .

 

"Debates are like boxing matches. Try to make your opponent do the footwork so they get exhausted while you preserve your energy for the final blow . . . If they bring any arguments you cannot immediately refute, play dumb and ask for clarification, it helps wear off the adversary's patience. Ask for more sources and better sources (ideally in that order). If they insolently keep providing answers, arbitrarily stop replying for a while. Better yet, point out that their answer dodges the real question, which is something tangentially (if at all) related to your original point. Be sure to post on their user talk page, so they have additional opportunities for frustration thoughtful response. You can conserve your own energy by posting one question on the article talk page, posting a second question on their user talk page, then posting that second question on the article talk page and the first question on the user talk page . . .
Elegance is relative. Cheat, if you think you can get away with it. Call in your friends uninvolved users to keep the other party busy and distract from the original debate. Exploit the headstart you have over impudent newbies. Most of them walk into debates like knifers into a gunfight: Easy prey. (end of quote).

here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:The_Last_Word&diff=384119054&oldid=357876417

 

The following essay gives my assessment of WhatamIdoing's style of argument and was written a year ago, so as you can see, it is very accurately reflects the concept of moving the goalposts to be deliberately annoying.

When I joined Wikipedia it was on the understanding that it aimed to become better than print encyclopedias by getting information from all people and all sources. WhatamIdoing pretends to be supporting policy by saying that other information will be considered but that mainstream opinion is to be given more weight , However it is just being used as one of WhatamIdoings many excuses for controlling content. It sounds almost genuine but it turns out like this. I can't add information about my own research because it is original research (which sounds reasonable), and I can't use mainstream information from the 1950's because it's out--of -date (which sounds reasonable), and I can't use modern references because they are not mainstream (which sounds reasonable), and then I add a reference from the current editon of a modern mainstream text book and they accuse me of disruptive editing. If you look at their pattern of edits you can see that WhatamIdoing just kept changing the excuse for deleting everything that I added from top quality peer review research papers that are used by everyone else who has knowledge and experience in the history of the topic. WhatamIdoing is essentially a blatant Content Controlling Deletionist.

However, WhatamIdoing, who is entirely predictable, and devious, always has a way of 'twisting the truth' and making things look justifiable. For example . . .

At 4:42 on 28-1-09 WhatamIdoing wrote the following words about me on the arbitration page . . ."His complaints about 'moving the goalposts' are an artifact of trying to address specific problems one at a time. So Posturewriter cites his own self-published book (He stopped using the DCS article as a coatrack to publicize his own theory on Wikipedia when an admin promised to block him if he does it again), and other editors explain that Wikipedia relies on properly published materials -- assuming in good faith, that he's trying to find useful information, and that we don't need to spell out every single possible characteristic of a good source over one mistake. So he then cites, say, a case study involving a single patient, to make sweeping statements about the condition. No, we say: major statements like that need to be supported by a secondary source. 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. The goalposts haven't moved during this time: I just didn't post complete explanations of all of the relevant standards in the first message. I also didn't tell him not to shove beans up his nose, and I doubtless excluded other important instructions in my first message". WhatamIdoing 04:42, 28 January 2009 see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&diff=prev&oldid
=266981397#Statement_by_WhatamIdoing

Note that moving the goal posts actually means something like this . . . If you kick a football through the goal posts from fifty yards away and win the game, the opposition will pick up the goal posts and move them ten yards further along, and say that you missed, and lost the game, and in WhatamIdoing's case it means that if my references from the 1950's are criticised for being out-of-date, and I provide some from the 1980's the new problem is that they are not published in the past two years, and if WhatamIdoing was playing football the goalposts would be on motorised wheels and could be operated by remote control.

Notice also that WhatamIdoing pretends to be a respectable rule-abiding editor who complies with all policies, however the following ill-mannered, and offensive remarks about me were a violation of a lot of policies including the discussion policies . . . "I also didn't tell him not to shove beans up his nose". WhatamIdoing 04:42, 28 January 2009.

As for mainstream opinion; It changes from decade to decade, and from country to country, and from specialist to specialist. If you walked into any room with ten researchers from different specialties you would probably get ten different 'opinions', so the range of ideas needs to be covered, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.

Modern Mainstream opinion of History???

I gave Wikipedia an account of the mainstream opinion that was modern in 1871, by J.M.Da Costa, and I then reviewed the mainstream opinion which was modern in 1919, and represented by the views of Sir James MacKenzie, and Sir Thomas Lewis, and the mainstream opinion which was modern in 1939, and was represented by J.L Caughey's review of the literature on internal medicine, and the mainstream opinion that was modern in the 1950's with reference to the books of Paul Wood O.B.E and Paul Dudley White, and the mainstream opinion that was modern in 1987, and shown in Harvard professor Oglesby Paul's review of the history at that time. My two critics have obviously spent too much of their time reading children's fiction novels and poetry books, and not enough time reading history books, and have tried to argue that my account of the history is not valid because it was not taken from the modern mainstream history books of the most recent five years that will be rewritten sometime in the next five years??????? They are essentially trying to argue that the things that clearly and verifiably happened in the past 140 years didn't actually happen unless they were published in the last five years.

Modern Mainstream opinion in the nineteenth century

During the nineteenth century millions of women were suffering from breathlessness, palpitations, faintness and fatigue, known as neurasthenia, and attributed to their tight whalebone corsets. Similar symptoms were observed in soldiers where they were attributed to a variety of factors that restricted the natural function of the heart, such as tight fitting uniforms, position drills which displaced the heart, altered work habits, and heavy knapsacks which were strapped to the chest, and which compressed the rib cage. (The commonly used kit for heavy marching order weighed 'somewhat over 60 pounds'). In 1870 Reference: Howell, Joel D. (1985, 'Soldier's Heart: The Redefinition of Heart Disease', Medical History, Supplement No. 5, p.34-52.

Those ideas have since been disputed, but not disproven, and the fact that the symptoms can occur in other circumstances can be easily explained by other causes. However, my two critics prefer to misrepresent that as evidence that the ideas have been disproven???>

Modern Mainstream opinion and the"constitution" of Da Costa's patients in the 1930's

In the early part of the twentieth century the term Da Costa's syndrome was given the alternative labels of 'effort syndrome' in England, and 'neurocirculatory asthenia' in the United States. Two types were recognised. The main group was the 'constitutional' type who were born with the condition, and the second was the post-viral group who acquired the condition after being exposed to an infectious illness. The constitutional type didn't show any signs of disease but were genetically disposed to develop a thin physique, with a long, narrow, or flat chest, spinal and skeletal deformities, visceroptosis, and a reduced capacity to sustain effort. They generally adapted to their condition by avoiding vigorous sport, and engaging in occupations that involved light or sedentary work rather than heavy manual labor. However, it was also thought that sedentary work may have contributed to the condition, which would make the problem more difficult for the patient to manage. The ailment was known to respond poorly to treatment and was incurable, and was likely to be aggravated by periods of prolonged physical or emotional strain, so relapses often occurred throughout life, which was otherwise healthy and long, presumably because such patients, with their chronic condition, and their general intolerance for stimulants, avoided the usual hazards of smoking and alcohol consumption which was responsible for early deaths in the general population.

Exaggerated changes in pulse rate and blood pressure occurred in relation to changes in posture from reclining to standing, and from violent exercise or activities that involved hopping or bending forward, and from fear or fright. Faintness and dizziness was common, and actual fainting occurred in some cases and was related to "the sudden cessation of exercise, severe coughing attacks, deep breathing, the effort at stool, the sight of blood" and fear or fright. There was generally a sense of uneasiness or other forewarning of a faint so the person would sit down to prevent falling over and injuring themselves.

>Such symptoms disposed the patients to develop a fear of heart disease, called cardiophobia, so it was important to reassure them that there was no evidence of heart disease.

Comment; the patients were physically disposed to getting the symptoms from birth, so it is a case of the physical problems causing the anxiety, which is the opposite to 'psychosomatic' where the mind is supposed to be the cause of the physical symptoms.

For a reference to the 'constitutional' causes: See Rothschild Marcus A. (April, 1930 Neurocirculatory asthenia (Annual Graduate Fortnight, Functional and Nervous problems in Medicine and Surgery, October 7 to 19, 1929), Bulletin of The New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. V1, No.4, pages 223 - 242. here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2095901/pdf/bullnyacadmed00962-0005.pdf

Modern Mainstream opinion and the "physique" of Da Costa's patients"

If you have a look at the research papers prior to the 1950's you will easily and frequently find comments about the 'typical' 'constitution' or 'physique' of Da Costa's patients with words like this . . . many of them were 'unmistakably' 'smaller' and 'thinner' than the 'average' soldier, or had poorer physiques due to 'poverty', 'disease', and 'nutritional deprivation' in childhood. They had characteristically 'smaller, longer, or narrower chests', and had always found difficulty with exercise so they had avoided sport, and were generally unfit, and so tended to seek employment as sedentary workers where heavy lifting wasn't required. They had poorly developed skeletal structure with typically 'slouched' or ''lordotic', stooped' or 'kyphotic', or 'hunchback' spines, that occurred in combination with a variety of 'chest wall deformities'.

When they enlisted in the army they attended medicals where it was found that most of them already had the minor signs and symptoms of chest pains and difficulty with exercise, but they had found ways of organising their social, sporting, and occupational life so that it didn't matter.

However, soon after joining the army they would be sent to training camps where they would be supplied with up to 60 lb. of military equipment to be carried in knapsacks, and would collapse on obstacle courses or on long marches as they tried to keep up the pace of the other soldiers, and some of them would spend several months in hospital and recover, but rarely to the level of fitness that they had before the march.

Obviously the smaller, thinner (8 stone) men would collapse with fatigue before taller, stronger (16 stone) farmer laborers who were twice their size and weight and physically fitter.

However, my two critics systematically deleted all of the information about physique, and then systematically replaced the text by filling the page with words that would create the false impression that such men fell out of line because of the fear of war or combat. There are many authors who described "fainting", "falling out of line", or "collapsing" on long marches as "a mental breakdown" ???, and the chronic fatigue that occurs afterwards as a "mental" illness. Such writers relate it to the patient 'presumably' being mollycoddled by their mothers in childhood during periods of illness, and protected from the dangers of sport in their youth???, and the suggestion that all small men are timid, meek, and afraid of competitive sports etc.??? Those authors have obviously never played sport and are completely ignorant of such things as rules, and age and weight divisions. Also, children with multiple ailments would be likely to have impaired physical development, and be more prone to health problems as adults, but many writers choose to ignore those 'obvious' facts and focus on the idea that they became ill to get the same sort of sympathy that they 'presumably' received from their mothers during childhood?? Such ideas may be popular because they appeal to prejudice, but they are all just 'assumptions' or 'opinions' that have no scientific basis.

What my two critics also want readers to believe is that the diagnosis of Da Costa's syndrome is rarely used nowadays because there are more accurate modern labels???, and that the condition has absolutely nothing to do with physique???, so they will carefully select modern or old references which don't mention it, or which dismiss the information as being 'out-of-date' or wrong, and that somewhere in the recent literature there have been studies which now show???? that the same type of patients??? have normal physiques???.

Any modern diagnosis which focuses on a particular group of patients may find that their selection of patients have normal physiques, but they will not be studying Da Costa's syndrome, because there is absolutely no reason to think that modern patients with the ailment are completely different to previous ones.

 

Physique and the Effort Syndrome - deleting the obvious???

According to some reports the world's smallest man is 2 feet five inches tall compared to the world's tallest who is seven foot nine inches. There are similar extremes in weight from 4.5kg to 100 stone etc. Similarly some sportsmen are small, thin jockeys, and some are tall, strong weight lifters. In the American civil war soldiers were recruited from all walks of life, and were required to carry sixty pound knapsacks on their backs while marching 20 miles up and down hills in cold and wet weather and without the proper food or water. Some of them would become faint and exhausted and fall out of line, and be carried to hospital where they would recover from the worst of it, but be chronically fatigued for the rest of their life.

It would OBVIOUSLY be difficult for the smallest men to carry the 60lb weight on their backs and keep up the pace of other soldiers, and it would be equally OBVIOUS that the strongest men would find it easy. J.M. Da Costa, and many subsequent researchers have reported that the soldiers who tended to get exhausted were thin sedentary workers before enlisting, and those who did well were the physically fit farm laborers.

Some researchers referred to the exhaustion as a mental breakdown and attributed it to the fear of the upcoming battle, and diagnosed their chronic fatigue as an anxiety state. My two critics tried to promote their own opinions about it being an anxiety disorder by deleting all information about physique.

The type of warfare that was causing breakdowns? in hardy soldiers?

Here is a quote about the conditions of war which were said to cause the effort syndrome in the nineteenth century . . . "When one reads the history of the wars of those days, especially those fought in India with tight fitting tunics, the weight of the accouterments and sometimes of busbies, the diet and the drink, the temperature and the climate and the extraordinary exertions demanded of the men, it is amazing that any of those hardy soldiers escaped a breakdown." From: Sir Maurice Cassidy, K.C.V.O., M.D. 1941), Discussion on the nature and treatment of the effort syndrome, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine, Section of Medicine, Vol.XXX1V, 541, Sectional pages 37-50.

 

Da Costa's syndrome, undetectable causes, and Peptic ulcers

Some years ago I became aware of a medical condition that was widely accepted as being caused by stress or anxiety. There was also the idea that some of the patients had many illnesses during their childhood and were mollycoddled and given excessive sympathy by their mothers, so it was thought that they developed a 'learned illness behaviour' pattern and that when they became adults their minds developed the symptoms, or the actual disease in order to get that sympathy. Other researchers considered the possibility of a virus being the cause but despite extensive investigations they couldn't find any scientific evidence to prove it, or cure it, so the patients suffered from chronic pain, anxiety, and depression.

The name of that ailment was peptic ulcer disease. In the 1980's two researchers named Barry Marshall and Robin Warren discovered that the ulcers were actually caused by an acid resistant bacteria and then they developed an antibiotic treatment which cured 90% of cases in a week.

Another condition which was regarded as having the same sort of origin was Da Costa's syndrome, however the cause has not yet been found. I wrote an article about it for Wikipedia based on the history of the different ideas and findings. During that process I had two critics who arranged for that article to be deleted and for me to be banned

.

The reason for people having 'closed minds'

There were some researchers who studied the history of peptic ulcers and would mention the case of a nineteenth century man who was shot in the stomach and lived, and the bullet wound healed in such a way that it left a clean hole in his stomach which scientists could look through.They observed changes in the color of the lining of his stomach whenever he was under stress, which led to the development of the idea that stomach ulcers were due to the effect of stress and excess stomach acid. People generally became so convinced about that idea that ever since then any other suggestions were liable to be regarded as non-mainstream or fringe medicine of doubtful value. It was also thought that it was completely impossible for a virus to live in stomach acid, so any suggestion of a viral cause was likely to be ridiculed.

There are some people who have closed minds and don't want anyone to read anything except their own ideas so when I wrote about ALL of the history of Da Costa's syndrome my two critics deleted everything that shed doubt on their own point of view.

You can read the lead up to that banning below, followed by the article that I wrote here

Mainstream clones and puppets

Some people think that it is easiest to go through life as the clones or puppets of the mainstream system. I have got no doubt that they are correct but it involves the degeneration of their brain. Challenges are much healthier for intellectual development. I tried to cure a disease which no-one else could cure which is a much more important challenge than arguing with a couple of insignificant nitwits.

Society needs creative people who can solve problems more than it needes conforming mainstream nitwits who prefer the existing failed methods.

Proof and opinion

Most people don't distinguish between mainstream ideas that have been proven correct, and those which are unfounded opinions. However, there is just as much nonsense in mainstream science as there is anywhere else. The fact that something is mainstream is not much more reliable than the toss of a coin.

I have owned or read books called the Modern this or the Modern that from fifty or a hundred years ago, or from centuries long gone, and the only thing that those modern mainstream opinions are good for is material for clowns and comedians, such as the earth is the centre of the universe, the earth is flat, if you sail past the edge your ship will fall off, motor cars will never replace the horse, humans are too heavy to fly, mankind is too intelligent and educated to have evolved from monkeys, and 'spend thriftiness' is a form of insanity.

Information and Arguments about my contributions to Wikipedia

 

Sense of nonsense?

According to my theory the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome can be caused by poor posture and tight clothing which compress the chest and abdomen, and may, after many years, lead to chest pains, breathlessness, faintness and fatigue. Some other evidence to support it is here.

When I was writing an article about that topic for Wikipedia I included a treatment section where I mentioned that they could be "relieved by improving physique and posture", and "wearing loose clothing about the neck, chest, and waist". here

There are 90,000 other editors checking the articles for quality and reliability, and the comments about improving posture and wearing loose clothing about the waist are still there three years later. here.

However, while I was involved two individuals described my ideas about cause as "nonsense", which means that in their opinion they "didn't make any sense" so they deleted them, and banned me. They also removed other important and useful details about the treatment.

 

Their version of the article describes it as a mental disorder caused by the fear of battle, where the symptoms are imaginary or caused by the mind, so they have placed it in the categories of "Somatoform disorders" and "Anxiety disorders" at the end of the page here.

 

Their version also deliberately deleted the evidence that most of the soldiers who developed the ailment during the war already had the minor symptoms of it many years before enlistment, and had thin and stooped physiques with abnormal chest shape. i.e. Soldiers with such physiques were much more likely to develop the problem.

 

Summary: According to my theory poor posture causes the symptoms, and improving posture relieves them, and my two critics said that my ideas don't make any sense.???

 

I also designed an exercise programme for the South Australian Institute for Fitness Research and Training between 1982-1984, where some of those patients participated for more than six months, so I was able to scientifically prove that the symptoms were not due to the fear of exercise, and were not imaginary. See here. Da Costa made similar observations 100 years earlier so I included the following information as well . . .

"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." here. and that statement is still there. See here

 

 

A quick introduction to the 'before and after' picture

In the 1980's newspapers were reporting a brand new illness called the chronic fatigue syndrome, but it wasn't new, because before then, it was Da Costa's syndrome. When I joined Wikipedia in 2007 their article about Da Costa's syndrome described it as an 'anxiety disorder' (See here). I added a small amount of information about my theory in which I suggested that the fatigue was caused by a weakness of blood flow between the feet and the brain, and that the possible causes included poor posture and tight waisted corsets which compressed and damaged the blood vessels of the chest and abdomen. Two editors described that idea as nonsense and deleted it, However, the current article describes the fatigue as 'Orthostatic intolerance', which is just modern jargon for the weakness of blood flow, and the current treatment section states that the symptoms can be relieved by improving posture and wearing loose garments. The editors obviously want their encyclopedia to contain the best information. They just don't want the public to know that it was my theory.

The facts of history

If you have a look at the section called "Related" at the end of the text it includes Neurasthenia, Orthostatic intolerance, Hyperventilation syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, and Soldier's heart (See here). During the next fourteen months my main critic started arguing that 'just because somebody put Chronic fatigue syndrome in the "Related" section doesn't mean it is actually related to it' here, and she wanted to make "Soldier's heart" the main label here, and said that all of the symptoms can be explained by hyperventilation here. She lost all of those arguments so I will give you a brief summary of the facts. The condition was called neurasthenia in the nineteenth century, and after Jacob Mendez Da Costa wrote a research paper about it in 1871 it became known as "Da Costa's syndrome". It was called Soldier's heart when it affected soldiers, but that label was abandoned during World War 1 because it was also common in civilians. Since then there have been more than 100 different labels given to the aliment, and a very small minority of researchers have tried to argue that it is due to hyperventilation. The name became the chronic fatigue syndrome in the 1980's, and nowadays it is often diagnosed as "orthostatic intolerance" and classified as a vascular disorder.

If you check those facts you will be able to verify that my main critic is a liar and a fool.

 

A bit of gratitude

The purpose of my study of Da Costa's syndrome for the past thirty years has been to develop an understanding of the disorder and methods of preventing, treating, or relieving the symptoms. I published the ideas for the benefit of 200 million other people who have the problem which is now mainly known as the chronic fatigue syndrome. When I added some of the information to Wikipedia I was criticised by two editors who described my ideas as nonsense and replaced them with suggestions that it was an anxiety disorder to be treated by psychotherapy. However they kept the ideas which I included in the treatment section. Of course their argument is ridiculous because, if I didn't understand the problem I wouldn't be the best source of information about treatment.

You will be able to find individual aspects of those methods in references from the past which I used to verify them, but you won't find that combination of ideas in any book or publication in the world today, unless the author copies them from me. The combination includes improving physique and posture, wearing loose clothing, living and exercising within limits, avoiding stooping, laying on the back to relieve symptoms, and standing up slowly to prevent faintness if and when necessary. See here

Those ideas are part of The Posture Theory which is now presented in a 1000 page book that my two critics want you to believe is simple, fringy, and wrong. However two neutral editors offered them the opportunity to write a version of the Da Costa's article which was better than mine, but they didn't because they couldn't.

(When I was 25 there was no way of confirming the diagnosis and none of the treatments which were available at that time were relieving the symptoms. Since then my observations, reports, theories, and suggestions have made it possible).

 

Before you come to the conclusion that I am some kind of fringy fool who is wasting my time I would like you to know that in the 1970's and 80's I was criticising the tobacco company executives who were claiming that there was no scientific proof that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Now everyone knows that they were liars, and, the fact that smoking does cause lung cancer is now accepted as "officiald modern mainstream opinion".

I also criticised the scientists who claimed that Agent Orange was safe enough to drink, and that nuclear fallout was harmless.

 

 

My research methods

The only thing that my doctors could do for me in 1975 was shrug their shoulders and give me a different colored pill every fortnight. They couldn't understand, explain, or relieve the symptoms, so I started studying the problems myself. It wasn't long before I concluded from my own experiments with exercise that I had to exercise within limits, but it took several years of detailed observations to determine that I also had to lead a reduced lifestyle. It took me another 20 years to learn how to control the abdominal pain by standing at a computer, instead of sitting at a desk and leaning forward to write.

If I had not drawn those conclusions I would still be in the same predicament as I started, with no control of the daily symptoms, and several months of severe fatigue, and several months of severe abdominal pain every year. If I hadn't written and published my detailed observations other researchers would not have been able to understand the relation between their findings and real life experience, and doctors would not be able to give their patients good advice, and patients would still have no effective way of relieving their symptoms.

Any researchers or doctors will have to use my methods because, in general terms, there are two ways of dealing with problems, - the right way, and the wrong way. If they don't copy me, they won't get it right, and they won't relieve the patients symptoms.

When I was experimenting with my own symptoms I occasionally made mistakes which left me fatigued or in pain for months at a time, and on rare occasions left permanent damage (or changes in my health) which I had to deal with. Consequently I was highly motivated to avoid mistakes. However, other researchers can experiment without any real consequence to themselves, and when they fail, they don't publish the results, or describe the experiment as a failure, or the patient as a therapeutic failure. (they blame the victim by saying that they weren't sick, or that their symptoms were trivial or imaginary of due to psychological factors etc). There has never been any reason for me to do that.

Why most patients don't experiment with their own disease

One of the reasons that most patient's don't try to solve their own health problems is because they think that you need to be a university professor with a high IQ to succeed.

Another reason is that they don't understand the basic medical concepts and can't read the jargon.

A third reason is that they are afraid that if they experiment on themselves they might make a mistake and end up with worse problems. However, if they don't they are more likely to keep on making the same mistakes over and over again in the natural course of events anyway.

A fourth reason for them not recording or publishing their own observations is that some of them attract inappropriate prejudice, or are best kept private.

A fifth reason is that they are likely to be branded as a mentally ill hypochondriac who is obsessively and compulsively pre-occupied with their own health, and that they are just seeking sympathy or money from compensation funds.

A sixth reason is that if they fail they will be told that they were stupid for wasting their time, and if they succeed in relieving their symptoms they will be told that they were trivial and insignificant, or imaginary, and that they didn't have a real physical problem in the first place.

A seventh reason is that they are afraid of being medical critics because of the possible angry reaction by doctors who may withhold or give treatment less carefully.

I knew of all of those risks when I started, but I also had confidence in my own problem solving ability, and my health problems at that time were so bad that nothing could be any worse.

Anyone who tried to stop me from studying that problem was stupid, because they didn't have the ability to relieve my symptoms, so they were wasting their time and their breath.

 

 

The difference between Da Costa's syndrome and hyperventilation

The five major symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome include a type of breathlessness, but it is completely different to the breathlessness of hyperventilation. For example, in Da Costa's syndrome there may be occasional times throughout the day when, for no apparent reason, the person feels as if they are not able to get enough air, so they may take a forced breath, and feel as if they are breathing in against an obstruction. They may therefore take two or three forced breaths in a row. By contrast, some healthy people, when faced with a dangerous situation, may panic and take many rapid and shallow breaths for two or three minutes, and then feel a sense of dizziness and faintness. It is therefore extremely misleading use the term "Hyperventilation syndrome" as an alternative for "Da Costa's syndrome".

In particular, the breathlessness of hyperventilation is due to anxiety and panic, whereas the breathlessness of Da Costa's syndrome is not.

 

The history of labels

In order for you to understand this topic better there were more than 100 other labels for Da Costa's syndrome which depended on the particular ideas about the cause. Jacob Mendez Da Costa's wrote a research paper about it in 1871 where he called it "irritable heart", and his article was so influential that it was named after him. The most common label in England became "effort syndrome" because of the relation of the symptoms to physical exertion. The most widely used label in the United States was "neurocirculatory asthenia". Some psychologists considered it to be caused by anxiety so they called it 'anxiety state', 'anxiety neurosis', or cardiovascular neurosis'. When it occurred in the military it was called 'Soldier's heart ', but in the early twentieth century it was discovered that most soldiers who developed the condition already had the minor symptoms before enlisting. (Da Costa noted that the ailment could be caused by infections and excessive marching, and that it was common in civilians). The label of Soldier's heart' was therefore considered misleading and was abandoned.

In 1951 the world authority on the ailment, Paul Dudley White, wrote that "it constitutes a kind of fatigue syndrome" which is "more or less chronic".

The current 2008 edition of Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine describes the symptoms of the modern term chronic fatigue syndrome as being "not new" with the comment that in the past it may have been diagnosed as the "effort syndrome" defined in 1919 by Lewis.

There are various definitions for the chronic fatigue syndrome but they all include chest pains, breathlessness, faintness, and fatigue in their lists, as well as other varying features such as, for example, abdominal pain, muscle aches, and swelling of the lymph nodes. Some researchers consider it to be a post-viral syndrome but the cause is classified as unknown.

Other modern labels include dysautonomia, which relates to the idea that it is a neurological disorder involving dysfunction of the autonomic nervous system.

Another popular modern label is "orthostatic intolerance" which focuses on the feature of the symptom of faintness which can occur when the person stands up suddenly. The other symptoms are included in the description of that syndrome, and it is in the category of vascular disorders (blood vessel disorders), and is now considered to be a physical condition which can be diagnosed by tilt table tests to determine the abnormality in blood flow which occurs with any change in posture.

 

The Posture Theory is still in Wikipedia

In December 2007 I added some information about The Posture Theory to the article for Da Costa's syndrome and mentioned that the symptoms were caused by poor posture, and the tight waisted corsets of the nineteenth century. I also added information about a research programme which I designed, and it's principle of exercising within limits. See here

However, within a few weeks two editors were deleting the name of my theory, and then spent the next twelve months telling all of the other editors that my ideas were rubbsish and nonsense until they eventually managed to get me banned.

During that time they rewrote the article and described the ailment as a mental illness, but if you have a look at their section called "Treatment" which is still there four years later, in 2011, you can see that it includes my statements that treating the condition involves improving posture, wearing loose clothing about the waist, and living and exercising within limits.e.g. See here

 

 

Bias or evidence?

While I was contributing to an article called "Da Costa's syndrome" I essentially had one critic who was always dictating the content so that it reflected her bias that it was a mental disorder caused by anxiety and fear.

Consequently, whenever there were rare occasions when another editor added psychiatric labels to the page, she said nothing and kept them. For example, on one day, in December, 2007, one editor added links to half a dozen websites or pages which listed dozens of psychiatric labels, and they are still there.

 

I began writing the history of the research to include all aspects including the major discoveries of physical causes and abnormalities, and supported it with the references by the top researchers and the best research articles and books. My main critic would try to convince everyone else that my sources of information were unreliable, and she always had the same 'assistant' who would essentially say "Yup" and delete the information.

 

Throughout the next 12 months she was constantly complaining and deleting verifiable scientific evidence, and setting up dozens of discussions with countless numbers of other editors to convince them that I needed to be banned because I was biased and interfering with the attempts of hundreds of other editors to produce a good article on that topic.

However, I was just criticising her version of the topic because it contained her biased and cherry picked selection of information, opinions, and references.

 

Da Costa's syndrome and the reliability of information

Good research papers will describe Da Costa's syndrome symptoms as lower left-sided chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, and fatigue etc. They will also include some details in the text. For example the breathlessness involves an abnormal tendency to sigh, and an occasional sensation of not being able to get a full breath. Also the breathlessness is not very noticeable at rest, but becomes more prominent during exercise, and increases out of proportion as the level of exercise increases. Such details are important because the location of the chest pain proves that it is not imaginary, and the nature of the breathlessness proves that it is different to that seen in healthy people who are anxious. e.g. see one of my reports here

However my main critic wants readers to believe that the symptoms are imaginary so she deliberately deleted those details and just said chest pain, palpitations, breathlessness, and fatigue.

An example

As I mentioned, the breathlessness of Da Costa's syndrome involves the occasional sense of not being able to get a full breath.

By contrast , when a healthy person panics with anxiety they are likely to experience breathlessness where they breath rapidly, and shallow for a couple of minutes until they became dizzy and faint.

Also, in the past there has been the popular view that the symptoms which occurs during exercise are more related to the fear of the normal response to exercise than to the level of exercise. However that does not to take into account the fact that many of the patients were physically fit, or were athletes or sportsmen before developing the ailment. Neutral point of view requires that all facts from all sources be included, not just the evidence that favors my main critics personal opinion.

I hope that the administrators of Wikipedia now know how she has been deliberately deleting details to deceive them, and providing them with an article which is "biased", and "unreliable".

 

See my description of the symptoms here, which my main critic deleted and replaced with her description here. Another relevant part of my article which she deleted for the same reason can be seen here. See also my report about "neutral point of view" here

 

The symptoms are not due to habitual hyperventilation

At one stage my main critic showed her obvious bias and favoritism to the idea that the symptoms were due to a bad breathing habit, and anxiety or panic induced hyperventilation. This is a quote from her comments . . . "HVS explains all of the symptoms" (end of quote).

She also argued that the symptoms improved with fitness training because exercise improves the breathing function. See here

I am not going to discuss how wrong those ideas are, but just mention that the concept of hyperventilation is not mentioned in her version of the article. See here

 

 

Da Costa's syndrome before and after the 1980's

 

From 1871 to 1980 there were many heated arguments about Da Costa's syndrome being a physical or mental disorder.

1980 to 1984 - I wrote my theory and did my research describing a physicial cause.

1980 to 2011 - The use of the label of Da Costa's syndrome declined, and was replaced by the "chronic fatigue syndrome" and "orthostatic inteloerance", and others, and were used to describe and diagnose a physical cause for the same symptoms.

 

While I was in Wikipedia I had a critic who was trying to convince the other editors that she knew more about a topic called Da Costa's syndrome than me. She was telling lies when she argued that I was never going to convince her that Da Costa's syndrome was the Chronic fatigue syndrome.

She knows that I never said that and that she had criticised me for using "old" references, and demanded that I use "modern" ones, so I provided evidence that the symptoms described by Da Costa in 1871 were similar to those described in the chronic fatigue syndrome nowadays.

In fact, the main symptoms included a tendency to faintness and fatigue which, according to Sir James MacKenzie in 1916, was due to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and peripheral veins. In other words too much blood in the lower part of the body, and not enough in the brain.

There were about 100 years of arguments about whether the cause was physical or mental, but I wrote a theory of physical cause between 1975 and 1980 (see here), and was then invited by the head of the South Australian Institute for Fitness Research and Training to design a research program for patients with chronic fatigue. I designed it so that they could exercise within their own limits and improve at their own rate. I also studied the data collected, and was able to scientifically prove that the problem was physical (see here). During that time I also suggested that the problem could be tested by measuring the abnormal changes to the patients pulse rate and blood pressure while they were being moved about on a tilt table.

Soon after I completed my theory and the exercise research programme the use of the word Da Costa's syndrome became less prominent, and the label of the "Chronic fatigue syndrome" became popular, and the most widely accepted treatment is now a method called "pacing", which requires the individuals to train within their own limits. Also, if you have a look at the modern literature, the fatigue can be diagnosed by tilt table testing, and is called "Orthostatic Intolerance", where one of the main features is the tendency for the patient to feel faint when moving from the laying to standing position. (due to the sudden but temporary effect of gravity on slowing the flow of blood from the feet to the brain).

Da Costa's syndrome affects 2-4% of the population, or a total of 200 million people, and it is just as common nowadays as it was before, except that the labels have changed, with Chronic fatigue syndrome and Orthostatic intolerance being among them.

If you have a look at the Wikipedia article for Da Costa's syndrome you can see that my main critic has deleted everything about me and my research, and all of the evidence of physical and physiological cause from the history section between 1901 and 1999, and she has filled the page with psychiatric labels and links to lists of hundreds of others, and she has filled the discussion pages with all sorts of insults and innuendos about me.

However, if you have a look at the articles about the same symptoms in the Chronic fatigue syndrome and orthostatic intolerance you will find that the emphasis is on physical causes.

 

I will now discuss her version of the article about Da Costa's syndrome.

While she deleted most of my 60 references, and added a small list of her own, she included number 12 - the OMIM website, which states that Orthostatic intolerance is a syndrome first described by Da Costa in 1871, which is similar to the chronic fatigue syndrome according to Schondorf and Freeman in 1999. See here.

I will now discuss her article. and how she filled it with psychiatric labels such as anxiety disorder, neurosis, psychosomatic and mental disorders, and somatoform disorders etc.

If you go to the top right of the page she has a link to the code of F 45.3 and if you click on it you see a list of psychiatric labels - somatoform etc. here.

If you go back to the article there is another code just below it, 306.2, and if you click on it you will see more links to several lists of mental disorders here.

If you now go to the list of references here, you can see words in the first few references such as mental factors, anxiety disorder, risk, social psyche, and depression etc.

If you go to the end of the page you can see links to categories of Somatoform disorders which take you to this list here, where Da Costa's syndrome is mentioned as one of many.

There is another category next to it called "Anxiety Disorders" with a link to this list here where Da Costa's syndrome is mentioned in a very large alphabetical list of mental illnesses.

You could count up the number of psychiatric labels on all of those lists, but you don't need to in order to get the impression that my main critic wants you to believe that Da Costa's syndrome is a mental disorder with no real physical basis.

However, now go to Wikipedia's article about the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome where you can see that it is considered to be a medical condition of unknown cause in the categories of immune system or neurological disorders etc. here.

If you go to the Wikipedia page about Orthostatic Intolerance you can see that it is described as a disorder of the autonomic nervous system, and the top right side of the page for classification etc, links it to the OMIM website here, which says that it was first described by Da Costa's in 1871, and is similar in many respects to the chronic fatigue syndrome.

If you go back to the article and then to the end of the page it puts it in the categories of vascular diseases and peripheral nervous system disorders here.

Note that my main critic was named "WhatamIdoing" who edited the Da Costa's syndrome page on 17th October 2007, when there were no categories mentioned at the end of the page.

I was the next person to edit the page and included a link to my own website and theory on the 9th December 2007 here, and added more information about my theory and research during the next ten days. e.g. see 5:58 on 18th December 2007 here, and see a minor edit to my theory on blood flow at 6:04 on the dame day here

The next person to edit the page was my main critic who added the category of "Diseases" to the end of the page at 21:16 on the same day here, and nineteen minutes later changed the category to "Anxiety disorders" here

If you now go to the Da Costa's syndrome talk page where many of the arguments occurred, you can see that I am calm, polite, and orderly, but my main critic, named "WhatamIdoing" was trying to convince all of the other editors that I was stupid, emotionally delicate, uncooperative, antisocial and disruptive. She knew that I had the ailment, and was trying to create the illusion that my personality fitted in with the version of the article which she preferred.

 

 

The editor named Arcadian owes me an apology because he is now using the idea which I added to Wikipedia in December 2007

 

A quick summary

In 2007 an editor named Arcadian said that Da Costa's syndrome and Orthostatic intolerance were the same syndrome.

He also put Da Costa's syndrome into the category of mental illnesses which included "Anxiety disorders", and "Somatoform disorders".

He also read my theory that Da Costa's syndrome involved postural damage to the veins below the chest, which are part of the vascular system.

Four years later, in 2011 Arcadian put "Orthostatic Intolerance" into the category of "Vascular diseases".

He is misrepresenting Da Costa's syndrome by portraying it as a mental illness in 2007, and using my ideas in the page about "Orthostatic Intolerance" by putting it in the category of "Vascular diseases" in 2011.

 

More succinctly

To put it even more succinctly, according to Arcadian, "Da Costa's syndrome" and "Orthostatic intolerance" are the same, but he has put one in the category or 'Anxiety disorders' and the other in the category of 'Vascular disorders".

 

 

When I made my first contributions to the Da Costa's syndrome article, I said that according to my theory poor posture compresses the air in the chest and impairs the upward flow of blood which puts strain on the veins below the chest to cause a blood vessel disorder and weak blood flow, which causes the fatigue. (blood vessel disorders are also called a 'vascular diseases') e.g. see here. I also added links to my website so that the readers could see more details.

However, a few days later an editor named Arcadian did a small number of edits and then stopped. He is the person who provided the links to the ICD 9 and 10 codes for mental disorders which my main critic used in her version of the article.

Nevertheless, he also said that Da Costa's syndrome, the "Chronic fatigue syndrome, and "Orthostatic intolerance" were the same syndrome (i.e. the main set of symptoms are the same), and he used the OMIM website as a reference to support that claim.

He also put Da Costa's syndrome into the category of psychiatric disorders by going to the end of the page and adding links to the categories of "Anxiety disorders" and "Somatoform disorders".

He would have also read the information in the article about my theory for it being a "problem with the blood vessels", and he would have used the link to my website to get more details, and information about my book on the subject.

However, he deleted the link to my website so that no-one else could see it, and within a few weeks my two critics had deleted all of the information about my theory.

I was banned about a year later, because, according to my main critic, I was writing nonsense and being disruptive.

However, two and a half years later, Arcadian, who said that Da Costa's syndrome and Orthostatic intolerance were the same syndrome, changed the category at the end of the page about "Orthostatic intolerance" from "Cardiovascular diseases" to "Vascular diseases".

Arcadian therefore has to admit that in 2007 I was right, and he was wrong, and apologise to me, otherwise he is guilty of unethical and immoral conduct, and is stealing, or plagiarising my idea.

 

The evidence can be seen below

I made my first contributions to Da Costa's syndrome page between the 9th and 18th December 2007, and then, later on the same day, the 18th, my main critic, who calls herself "WhatamIdoing", added the category of "Diseases" at the end of the page, and then changed it to "Anxiety Disorders".

An editor named Mike Hayes did some minor edits on the same day and then, the next day, on the nineteenth of December 2007, at 5:43, an editor named Arcadian added his first in a series of nine edits here.

At 6:04 on the same day he mentioned that the use of the term Da Costa's syndrome peaked in the mid 20th century, and is now used infrequently, and is generally regarded as a form of neurosis, and a post-war syndrome. See here

At 6:20 he added the ICD 10 code for "Somatoform disorders and "Mental and behavioural disorders" here, and the ICD 9 code, and mentioned OMIM (for orthostatic intolerance).

At 6:27 on the same day he put my comments about Da Costa's syndrome being a type of chronic fatigue where posture was one of many possible causes, into a new section with the title of "Related disorders" here.

At 6:35 on the same day he did another edit in which he said that some researchers have described similarities between orthostatic intolerance, chronic fatigue syndrome, and the observations of Da Costa, and used the OMIM website as a reference. here

At 6:36 he deleted the link to my website here

At 6:37 he added that it is now classified under "somatoform autonomic dysfunction" here

 

You can see that he had the opportunity to see my theory, and my website, and probably read my book.

I was eventually banned a year later on 29th january 2009.

However, two and a half years later, the person who changed the category of "Orthostatic Intolerance" to "Vascular diseases" at 18:13 on 28th July 2011, was the same editor - Arcadian.

 

More evidence

According to the theory which I wrote in 1980 the fatigue of Da Costa's syndrome is due to postural pressure on the air in the chest which impedes the upward flow of blood and damages the muscular walls or nerves in the blood vessels below the chest - which makes it a vascular or peripheral nervous system disorder, so the current article actually agrees with the end part of my theory. The only real dispute is whether the weak function of blood vessels is caused by poor posture, or viruses etc., and whether the

abnormal function of the nervous system is the cause or result of the poor blood flow.

 

If you want any more evidence that the two syndromes are the same set of symptoms, then you can read my main critics response to my early contributions to the Da Costa's syndrome page. She said, in her typically pompous manner, that I was "trying to reinvent the wheel - the "wheel" being garden variety orthostatic intolerance." See here (note also that she lost the argument about hyperventilation syndrome, which is why it isn't mentioned in the current article).

.

 

The owners and administrators of Wikipedia should support me, because you invited members of the public to join and help improve your encyclopedia, and you are benefiting from my contributions.

 

 

Da Costa's syndrome - Soldier's heart?

Da Costa's syndrome was named after physician Jacob Mendez Da Costa who described a set of symptoms which he saw in American Civil War soldiers so some authors referred to it as 'Soldier's heart'. However, in his introduction he noted that he saw the same problems in civilian practice, and other authors soon established that most soldier's who developed the condition, already had the minor symptoms before enlisting, and that it was more common in civilian women than men. As a result the term Soldier's heart came to be regarded as irrelevant and misleading and so was mostly abandoned.

My two critics in Wikipedia deleted the evidence that it was common in civilians, and common in women, and gave emphasis to the label of Soldier's heart by placing it on the top line, and in the first sentence, with a link to an irrelevant children's fiction story which had that title. See here, and here and here and here.

They also deleted the fact, and the photo, that the typical patient had a thin and stooped physique with a long, narrow chest. i.e. was physically different from other men, as distinct from emotionally different here.

Unfortunately most readers of Wikipedia will believe what they see without bothering to check the facts.

 

 

Writing History

While I was writing the history section of Da Costa's syndrome for Wikipedia I had two critics who were systematically deleting every research discovery from the period of 1900 to 2008.

They also didn't want the public to know that the "Chronic fatigue syndrome", which was reported as a new ailment in the 1980's, wasn't actually new, but was essentially just the new name for the main symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome (chronic fatigue).

 

The complete history, including the information which they obviously didn't want the public to know about can be seen here.

 

A panelist made the following comment on the ABC TV show called "Quanda", on 29th August 2011, which I paraphrase . . . 'When you write history (as distinct from fiction), there is an implied contract with the reader, that you tell the truth, and don't leave out important facts.

 

The importance of the information that I provided about posture
Wikipedia was started in January 2001. Six years later, another editor named PaulaIsRight provided information about my book called "The Posture Theory", but it was deleted on 5th December 2007. I then found an article about Da Costa's syndrome and began adding to it, and included some information about posture, but three weeks later, on 29th December it was deleted by an editor named Gordonofcartoon here. It was removed on the grounds of being non-notable, and in a related discussion, my main critic, named WhatamIdoing, described it as nonsense. However, at 16:40 on 16th February 2008, only six weeks later, an editor named Classicfilms started a brand new topic page called "Neutral Spine" which is now Wikipedia's main page on "Posture" here. My main critic contributed to the discussion about that topic on the same day here, and the individual who started it has since retired from Wikipedia.
Ninety nine percent of that information could have been copied from my book and website, and rewritten to make it look as if it came from other sources.
There were only four references on that page, and the second was . . . "Definition of Neutral Posture" from Webster's New World Medical Dictionary.
Another editor started a page called "Posture psychology" on 13th January 2011 here, and it was placed at the top of their link page (out of alphabetical order) here, to give the false impression that psychological factors are the main determinants of the shape of the human spine.
I can provide this evidence which makes it clear what my main critic has done, but I can't stop the problem of other individuals being "willfully blind", or pretending not to know what was happening. See more information about how they transferred what I wrote to other pages in Wikipedia here.
Is my main critic intelligent enough to know the difference between nonsense and sense - or just 'too' smart for 'their' own good

Is my main critic intelligent enough to know the difference between nonsense and sense - or just 'too' smart for 'their' own good
That editor claims on their own UserPage to have an annoyingly high IQ here, but by stealing my ideas, is self-confessing to intellectual uselessness and inferiority. Nothing is more personally empowering than to know that your ideas are good enough to be stolen by people who need them.
As you can also see my main critic did not identify themselves as male or female, and then argued that the use of the word 'they' instead of 'he' or 'she' is a substandard use of the English language. Also when I mentioned that I was older than 'Generation X' 'they' tried to discredit the fact that they had been ill-mannered, impudent, and disrespectful to someone older than 'themselves'.
That editor also seems to think that it is intelligent to know the difference between the words 'to', 'too', and 'two'!
The Liars and copyright thieves
While my two critics were telling all of the other editors that my ideas about posture and health were nonsense and crap, and deleting it, they were also planning how to steal it, and give the false impression that the information came from some other source.
However, if they transferred the information on the same day to a new page called "Posture", then everyone else would know that they were liars and thieves.
They therefore waited for six weeks, and arranged for someone else to set up a brand new page called "Neutral Spine". If you read that article you can find that 'neutral spine' means 'neutral posture' which means 'good posture', and the article describes the difference between the erect and slouching posture, and good and bad posture, and then describes the health problems caused by poor posture.
If you read their version of the article about Da Costa's syndrome you can see that they want you to believe that the ailment is a mental disorder caused by emotional and psychological factors such as the fear of battle, anxiety, stress, and depression which affects the nervous system (somatoform autonomic dysfunction). My theory presented the idea that poor posture caused it by compressing the air and blood vessels in the chest to interfere with the flow of blood between the feet and brain and cause faintness and fatigue.
This is a quote from the new page about "neutral spine' on the day that it started. . . "A well proportioned erect posture optimizers breathing and affects the circulation of bodily fluids".

If you read my theory . . .The Posture Theory . . . which was also deleted from Wikipedia, it can be summarised like this "poor posture strains the spine to cause neck and back aches, and compresses the internal organs of the chest and abdomen to cause chest pains, breathlessness, faintness, fatigue, and stomach pains."

If you read the Wikipedia article about 'The Neutral Spine" three years later it now states
"improper posture, [that] especially when walking, puts increased stress on your back and causes discomfort and damage . . . "When the spine is left in non-neutral posture for extended periods of time, it raises the diaphragm, preventing the body from taking a full breath. This can lead to reduced oxygenation throughout the body. It can also compromise the internal organs' performance by putting pressure throughout the abdomen. [5]
The information in red was added by an editor named Travellinglightly at 15:17 on 25-8-10 here, almost two years after i was banned.
As you can see, instead of attributing all of that information to my theory, they have used reference 5. http://www.thesoarmethod.com here
That website is new with only 704 hits, and is selling a product, whereas my theory was written thirty years ago in i980, and later became a book which totaled 1000 pages by the year 2000, and my website about The Posture Theory has been around since 1994 and has had 135,000 hits since 2001. See here
They called my theory nonsense and rubbish, but the current Wikipedia article called 'Neutral Spine' is essentially just a duplication of the information that I provided.

See my theory here and my ten minute video summarising it is here
and the Wikipedia article about the "Neutral Spine" here

An open letter to Jimbo Wales, founder of Wikipedia . . . if you have got any ethics at all you will permanently ban my two critics.

 

While I gave some of that information to Wikipedia for free, it is the result of my thirty years of research and conclusions, and as such, anyone else who puts it back has a moral and legal obligation to acknowledge where they got it from. I didn't give them permission to use it the way they have, or to ransack my book and website for other information.

The organised Gang of copyright thieves

The editors who collaborated in violating my copyright by deleting the information that I provided and transferring it to other pages were . . .

WhatamIdoing - the orchestrator of the theft by fanatically making sure that everything I wrote was deleted while simultaneously trying to recruit collaborators to transfer the information to other pages. (e.g. see some details about the deletions here.

29-12-2007 Gordonofcartoon - his assistant in the deletions e.g. here

16-2-08 Classicfilms set up the new page called "Neutral spine" to describe the difference between good and poor postuure, and transferred information from my website that poor posture (when writing across a page from left to right) twists the spine, and poor posture affects the process of breathing, and compresses the torso to affect the flow of 'body fluids', and strains the spine to cause backache.

16-2-08 (the same day) WhatamIdoing added three project banners to the new topics talk page here (and had obviously arranged for the topic to be started so that other editors could steal some more of my ideas and put them there, stealthfully, later).

14-7-2010 Penbat set up pages called "Squatting posture" here and included information about posture and hernias, hemmorrhoids, and varicose veins, and six months later set up "Posture (psychology) - on 13-1-11 to give undue emphasis of the trivial influence of psychological factors on posture here, (that page should be called "Body language - not Posture (psychology). Penbat probably also recruited Travellinlightly between 15-7-2010 and 25-8-10 here to do some more of the information transfers.

25-8-10 Travellinglightly added information from my ideas to the "Neutral spine" page, such as poor posture impairs the function of the breathing muscles to cause shallow and ineffecient breathing, and puts pressure on the adominal organs to impair their function. here

 

How much space has been used to include my theory?

You can see from all of the evidence that when I provided the information it was described as nonsense, and excuses were found to delete it, but when other editors provided exactly the same information it was kept, and is still there, and no-one is complaining. The page may have different wording, but it is a straight forward duplicate of my main themes.

The reasons that my ideas have been controversial is that I have been stating that poor posture compresses the abdominal organs to cause health problems, and compresses the air and blood vessels in the chest and abdomen to cause such things as breathlessness and fatigue, whereas most other authors have been arguing that such symptoms have a psychological cause.

However, notice how that information has now been added back. This is three quotes from the Neutral spine page of 25-8-2010.

1. "Good posture optimizes breathing and affects the circulation of bodily fluids." and . . .

2. "When the spine is left in non-neutral posture for extended periods of time, it raises the diaphragm, preventing the body from taking a full breath. This can lead to reduced oxygenation throughout the body." and . . .

3. "It can also compromise the internal organs' performance by putting pressure throughout the abdomen."

See those words on the Neutral postion page here.

This is my theory here.

This is what my main critic wrote about me and my ideas two and a half years earlier, on 27-12-07 . .

"your pet theory is not notable enough to justify even half a sentence on Wikipedia." WhatamIdoing.18:42, 27 December 2007. here

 

 

 

Introduction to the content of the topic

The closest modern diagnosis for Da Costa's syndrome is the chronic fatigue syndrome. Here are some of the possible causes that were based on observations, and reported in J.M.Da Costa's research paper of 1871.

1. Excessive and prolonged physical exertion in adverse situations such as in the cold and rain with poor food and water 2. Viral infections such as malaria and typhoid etc. 3. Diarrhoea 4. Wounds, injury and scurvy. He also attributed the problem to 5. Physique, and 6.Tight belts or knapsack straps around the waist or chest. In general terms it is 7. A combination of those factors which caused the soldiers to faint and fall out of line. They were carted off to hospital. where it took two months to recover from the viral infections, buy many of them never fully recovered from the fatigue. His description was so accurate and respected that the ailment was named after him and the name continued to be in common use for more than 100 years.

None of those details were in Wikipedia so I put them there, and proceeded to add other top quality references to write the history of the topic, and include all of the information that was needed to gain a broad and balanced view of the condtion. However, from the start I was confronted by two editors who argued that I was writing nonsense and using poor quality references.

They incessantly criticised everything I wrote and eventually managed to get me banned, but they kept those details, and that main reference. and the best of my other references, but deleted the most useful clues, and retained the ones that favored their own opinions. You can read some more introductory comments or go straight to the article that I wrote here

 

How my two critics deliberately deceived the readers of Wikipedia in their first paragraph

(In science there is a concept called "noise" which refers to the general mass of confusing information thatgets in the way of seeing the actual cause of something. I spent a lot of my time trying to find the essential facts, so I repeatedly consider things until I can identify the facts with clarity)

 

My two critics had the ability to create false impressions while making it "appear" as if they were telling the truth as follows . . .

1. There are many individuals who don't show evidence of anxiety as a cause for Da Costa's syndrome, and there isn't any scientific proof that the ailment "is" an anxiety disorder, but my two critics want the readers to believe that there is, so they wrote - it "is considered the manifestation of an anxiety disorder".

2. They want readers to believe that the main alternative label for the ailment is Soldier's heart and is caused by the fear of battle so they deleted the fact that most of those soldiers already had the minor symptoms in civilian life before enlisting.

3. To anyone who has not read a good quality article about Da Costa's syndrome, the four main symptoms may "superficially" "appear" to be "similar" to those of heart disease, but they are clearly and distinctly different. For example the breathlessness is unique and involves an occasional sense of not being able to get a full breath. My two critics deleted the facts and wrote that they are similar.

4. Many scientific studies, such as blood tests etc, have shown a large volume of evidence of physiological abnormalities, some of which has been available for more than 100 years. My two critics deleted it and wrote that "physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities".

5. I established that many of the symptoms could be prevented by avoiding high levels of exertion and they psychomorphised it by writing that "treatment is primarily behavioral, involving modifications to lifestyle and daily exertion."

Their ability to write believable bullshit was gobsmacking, and they could easily deceive anyone who hadn't actually studied the scientific facts.

 

My two critics deleted the facts and wrote this in their first paragraph . . .

"Da Costa's syndrome, which was colloquially known as soldier's heart, is a syndrome with a set of symptoms that are similar to those of heart disease, though a physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities. In modern times, Da Costa's syndrome is considered the manifestation of an anxiety disorder and treatment is primarily behavioral, involving modifications to lifestyle and daily exertion." See here

 

Here are the scientific facts . . . There isn't any scientific proof that anxiety is the cause, or at least not the only cause of Da Costa's syndrome, and it isn't a disorder which only affects soldiers. In fact it is quite common in civilian life and has more than 100 different lables, and the symptoms are different to those of heart disease, but there are many research studies which show evidence of physiological abnormalities, especially at high levels of exertion.

 

Consider this - if they seeded that many lies into one very small introductory paragraph then how many did they put into the whole article, and other articles, and why did they try so hard to get me banned, and why should anyone believe anything they wrote.

Also my main critic has cultivated the illusion of trust, and knows that most of the other editors and administrators would not know the facts, and wouldn't read 150 years of research literature to check them, so if that individual tells lies then they stay in Wikipedia.

 

 

Their deletion and denial editing

My interest in posture and health began more than 30 years ago when I was trying to determine the cause of chest pains, breathlessness, and fatigue etc, which I later learned were a part of a condition called Da Costa's syndrome. Five years passed when I became involved in research which aimed at gaining scientifically reliable information about the fatigue.

However, in December 2007, when I started providing some of that information to Wikipedia, two editors told me that it was a violation of original research policy, and that I had a conflict of interest, so it was deleted. I then began providing information from the best quality independent scientific references available, but they continued to invent reasons for deleting it, and rewriting the article to reflect their own opinions. They kept on losing disputes about it so they tried to get me blocked by setting up a discussion page called 'Request for comment" (RFC).

At that stage two other editors made the sensible suggestion that each of us should resolve the content dispute by writing a version of the article outside of Wikipedia, to be put in later, and then merged by uninvolved, and unbiased editors to ensure that it complied with all of the policies about quality, and neutral point of view etc.

When I posted it into a sub-page for them to comment, one of the neutral editors described it as being 'a lot better' than the existing version in all relevant respects, so I eventually used it as a replacement.

However, one of the editors who had been deleting everything before, deleted the new version, so I put it back, and then both of my critics took turns deleting it again and again, and then managed to get me banned by arguing that I was disrupting the contributions of the entire Wikipedia community..

They were essentially falsifying the history of research by deleting all verifiable scientific evidence of a physical cause, and replacing it with as many psychiatric labels and interpretations as possible.

You can read the introduction below or go straight to the article that I provided here

 

Introduction

Wikipedia invites members of the public to add information to help it become a better source of information than printed encyclopedias so I joined up with that intention.

At one stage I found a page about the medical condition called Da Costa's syndrome which had only four lines of text and no references, and a request to improve it.

I subsequently spent about twelve months making it consistent with the size, layout, and policy requirements of other heath topics.

However, during that time two other contributors were being constantly disruptive, and trying to dominate the content with their own bias, so they ultimately delted a lot of information which is essential to a proper and balanced understanding of the subject, and reduced it to one third the size. They then arranged to get me banned.

Therefore the only reliable source for all of that information is my website where I have provided the full article. See here

 

Disinformation according to Wikipedia

"Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda . . . Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false . . . it also includes the distortion of true information in such a way as to render it useless. . . It is an act of deception and blatant false statements to convince someone of an untruth. . . A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole.

See here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Disinformation&diff=391580077&oldid=386235024

The readers are supposed to be so convinced by what they see that they don't think it is worth their while to investigate the full account of the facts.

 

What all of their fuss was about

The main symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome are left-sided chest pains, breathlessness, palpitations, faintness, and fatigue, particularly occurring in relation to strenuous exertion.

 

It is commonly observed that anxiety can cause the pulse rate to increase, and the breathing to become shallow, and that if it persists it will lead to poor concentration and tiredness, so one of the popular suggestions was that the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome are caused by anxiety.

 

However, it has also been commonly reported for thousands of years that poor posture is associated with poor or laboured breathing, poor concentration, lethargy and tiredness, and in 1980 I wrote a theory in which I suggested that it also compressed the ribs to cause chest pains, and the chest cavity to impair the flow of blood from the abdomen to the brain to cause poor concentration and tiredness, and could, in some circumstances, cause exhaustion.

 

It has also been commonly observed that if individuals or groups have different ideas, it is likely to produce a polarisation of views, and an escalation of arguments and hostilities, along the lines of "We are right and you are wrong."

 

I provided Wikipedia with all relevant information, but my two critics wanted some of it removed and me banned for putting it there. As is commonly said - some people don't care about the scientific evidence because they don't want the facts to get in the way of their opinions.

 

Here are a few facts

It is a common condition

When J.M.Da Costa was treating soldier's during the American Civil War he noticed that a particular set of symptoms were very commonly encountered. However, after the war, he noticed that the same set of symptoms were also very common in civilian practice.

When the first World War started the British government were so concerned about this major problem that they appointed some of the best medical researchers in the country to study it. About seventy years later, in 1987, Harvard professor Oglesby Paul wrote a ten page history of the topic and wrote these words in his conclusion . . . "Cohen and White reported that 2-4% of the population had this disorder (which is 2-4 in every hundred) . . . Da Costa's syndrome or neurocirculatory asthenia has been a common condition in the experience of many seasoned clinicians . . . It is important to recognise the condition irrespective of the label used. The diagnosis is not difficult for the interested reasonably intelligent physician . . . All too many patients with this syndrome, mainly women, are mistakenly labeled as having organic heart disease . . . and this leads to the unnecessary problem of cardiac neurosis. it is essential to reassure the patient . . . that the condition may be lifelong with remissions and exacerbations, and to appreciate that it may limit physically strenuous effort . . . A programme of reassurance, exercise. and physical fitness has been of value." (end of quotes)

What my main critic wrote

However while I was in Wikipedia I was confronted by an editor who wrote these words about my essay on the topic . . . "he 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, so 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." (end of quote).

That individual also provided a link to a website called the "Rare Disease database" which states that rare diseases are those which only affect less than one person in 200,000 (0.0002% of the population)

That individual appears to be editing several 'volunteer' website's in an attempt to create the same false impression everywhere on the internet, which may include the 'Rare Disease database', 'WrongDiagnosis.com, and several others'.

Summary

My personal observations were not mentioned in Wikipedia, but, in general terms doctors seem to be primarily concerned that patients are worrying unnecessarily about their hearts, whereas most patients seem to be concerned that their chronic illness is not being recognised, and that most of their problems come from the fact that they are inappropriately treated as mental cases, and are generally denied financial benefits for their illness, such as insurance entitlements, compensation, or pensions, and, as a consequence they have to live in poverty.

As they say, if the patient is not already anxious, the ailment and the poverty combined will probably cause anxiety, and in some respects become self-fulfilling prophesies.

As a final note; You can't make a problem disappear just by changing the label, and you can't make it rare by applying fifty different labels to a lot of people who all have the same illness.

 

References: The first paragraph of J.M.Da Costa's article of 1871, and Oglesby Paul's ten page history of 1987, pages 511-513.

and my critics contradictory comments can be seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Civil_POV_pushing&diff=prev&oldid=

268277856#Da_Costa.27s_syndrome

The Cause or Effect Question???

(the cart before the horse?)

A neutral point of view essay

In 1871 J.M. Da Costa identified patients with a particular set of symptoms that included palpitations, chest pains, breathlessness, faintness, and fatigue. His objective was to distinguish the condition from other ailments, particularly heart disease, and to determine the cause. The main focus was aimed at determining the physical causes, and they were all established by the 1950's. However, prior to then there was also the suggestion that it was caused by anxiety so some researchers referred to it as a 'psychological disorder' called 'anxiety neuroses' or 'anxiety state', and after the physical causes were determined, the idea changed to the suggestion that the physical symptoms had a psychological cause, so they regarded it as a 'psychosomatic disorder'.

The largest group of patients appear to be anxious or worried about their health because of the symptoms which aren't properly understood, and are generally poorly managed and rarely cured, and when the fatigue is severe the patients have to reduce their participation in social life, sport and employment, and are therefore often living in poverty and become depressed, or in some cases contemplate suicide, or actually commit suicide, and in some severe cases they develop psychoses.

 

There have therefore been many heated debates about the cause with some individuals and groups having very strong views which they prefer.

For example, some researchers regarded it as an entirely physical problem that caused anxiety in minor cases, and depression in severe cases, and psychosis in extreme cases.

However, other researchers have argued that the symptoms are entirely psychological, and when the patient is anxious they diagnose the symptoms as being caused by an 'anxiety disorder', and if the patient is depressed they diagnose that the symptoms are caused by 'depression', and if the patients is suffering from psychosis they diagnose that the symptoms are caused by a severe mental disorder. They essentially try to argue that three entirely different mental disorders are causing exactly the same set of physical symptoms in different groups of patients.

There have also been studies, such as Da Costa's original paper of 1871 which concluded that there were a variety of causes, and others which reported some cases where the cause was not known, and the onset of symptoms was gradual, and, or was not associated with an emotional ror traumatic event, and a 1950 survey of 173 patients by Edmund Wheeler showed that some of the patients were not suffering from anxiety o, depression, or psychois, and appeared to be perfectly normal in every way,, and didn't develop any of the other diseases that were supposed to be caused by anxiety.

I provided Wikipedia with a concise description of all of those theories and all of the scientific evidence from reliable, top quality medical journals and books, and my two critics deleted most of it. For example, they deleted the description of Wheeler's survey from the topic section, and removed his paper from the reference list. They replaced it with their version which included these words . . . "Da Costa's was 'considered' to be the 'manifestation' of an 'anxiety disorder'".

My two critics were trying to convince the other editors that I was pushing my own point of view, but in fact I was providing information about dozens of different points of view of the major researchers in the history of the subject, and my two critics were also telling lies by saying that I objected to the condition being called an anxiety disorder, but I didn't. I was, in fact, objecting to them pushing their own point of view by deleting absolutely everything from the history section that they didn't agree with. They were deliberately rewriting and falsifying history.

Another aspect - Physique

J. M. Da Costa's1871 research paper was entitled "On irritable heart", because that was the name of the ailment before it became named after him. It was also called 'Disorderly Action of the Heart' abbreviated as D.A.H'.

In 1918 Thomas Lewis (laterSir Thomas Lewis) studied the effects of exercise on such cases and observed that they would experience an abnormal response as measured by pulse rate, and observed in breathing patterns. HIs paper included a section called "Signs and Symptoms after Drill". That section was followed by another called "Facial Expression and Breathlessness" and it was augmented by a photo of the typical patient which clearly showed that the abnormal resplonse ot exertion caused anxiety. The caption underneath read . . . "Photograph or a patient, aged 28, admitted for long-standing and severe 'D.A.H.'. The photograph was taekn immediately after fifteen minutes of easy exercises . . . and shows the tension of the sterno-mastoid, slightly opened mouth, and dilated nostrils. The eyebrows are depressed, the forehead furrowed (the central furrow is permanent). The face expresses fatigue and the anxiety of early breathlessness." (end of quote).

As Da Costa observed and others observed the condition can be caused when soldiers are predisposed to the condition by their thin physique and are required to keep up the pace of physically fit farm laborers for 20 miles until they become fatigue, and ultimately collapse with faintness and extreme exhaustion. They recover after several months of rest but relapses occur as soon as they are required to exert themselves. Obviously the original event reduced their capacity for exertion in a manner that abnormal symptoms occurred as much lower levels. The symptoms were distressing in nature, and caused the patients to worry about their health.

I.e. In those cases it is a physical condition with a physical cause, where relapses are brought on by physical exertion. In other words it is a physical disorder that causes anxiety, not an anxiety disorder that causes physical symptoms, or to be more precise, it is the symptoms that cause anxiety, and not anxiety that causes the symptoms.

However some other cases appear to be brought on by anxiety which confuses the argument about cause and effect.

Furthermore, the symptoms of palpitations, breathlessness, faintness, and fatigue, although different, are similar enough to the normal effects of exercise, stress, or worry, to cause confusion. If the conditions could be easily distinguished there would be no confusion, and no disputes about cause.

The information about exercise and facial expression can be found in the following reference: Lewis, Thomas (March 13, 1918), The Tolerance of Physical Exertion, as shown by soldiers suffering from so-called 'irritable heart', The British Medical Journal p.363-365. Thomas Lewis was 'physician of the staff of the medical research committee, assistant physician University College hospital, from the Military Heart Hospital, Colchester.

The failure of my two critics to understand 'real' research methods

I provided an article based on more than 60 good quality references to cover all major points of view in a balanced manner. I included a chapter in Paul White's book from 1951 because he was the top authority in the United States. I also provided a 20 year follow-up study of 173 patients by Edmund Wheeler in 1950. My main critic had previously deleted, and or rejected White's book on the grounds that it was old and out-of-date, and then deleted Wheeler's review on the grounds that it was original research. e.g. see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=212440419&oldid=211817271

However, in December 2008 that editor again replaced my version with a much smaller article e.g. here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Da_Costa%27s_syndrome&diff=266577085&oldid=266514750

Their version emphasized anxiety as a cause, and it had only 18 references which included my number 14 that became their number 6, without noticing that it was from the same year - 1951. It was "Cohen ME, White P.D. "Life Situations, Emotions, and Neurocirculatory Asthenia (Anxiety Neurosis, Neurasthenia, Effort Syndrome)". That editor also had a habit of using references without actually reading the text or the authors reference list that supported it, and in this instance, without knowing that White P.D. was the same person as Paul Dudley White.

I will quote from it . . . On the final page 355, point number 9, are these words . . . "A crucial causal relationship of this disorder to life situations and emotion-provoking situations has neither been proven or disproven."

Point number 12 stated this . . . "Although these patients had 'anxiety' as a characteristic phenomenon, they did not develop, as judged by a twenty-year follow-up study, to any unusual extent diseases such as hypertension, peptic ulcer, asthma, ulcerative colitis, or thyrotoxicosis, which some authors have speculated are caused by 'anxiety'." (end of quote). That paper has Wheeler's 20 year follow-up study as it's reference number 72.

These were the words in the final sentence at the end of the article . . . "The cause and specific treatment of this disorder "are as yet unknown".

see here http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/13/6/335.pdf

You can also notice that editors real reason for deleting the full Wheeler study was not because it was violating original research policy, but because the article provided strong evidence that anxiety was NOT the cause. In fact the following words are from page 345 . . . "It was concluded that patients with neurocirculatory asthenia report abnormal feelings, and show abnormal physiological and chemical responses during and after muscular work, which is consistent with the histories and claimed disabilities of these patients".

Self-reports combined with objective scienfic methods

That person has also tried to argue that such studies are unreliable because they are' just' the 'self-reports' of patients, but as you probably know, most good researchers take that into account and make sure they have methods of confirming such reports by independent scientific procedures that can't be falsified. Only people who only have a shallow knowledge of scientific methods, such as my two critics, would not be aware of that. If they had ever been involved in 'real' research they would know that you have to ensure that the data is reliable or no-one will take it seriously. You also have to document your methods so that other people can independently use exactly the same procedure to do further studies to confirm or refute the results.

The general view or neutral point of view in terms of scientific evidence has been that for every researcher who finds that the ailment is caused by anxiety, there will be another who finds patients who aren't anxious. For every person who says that their problems with fatigue started after a viral infection there will be patients who say that it didn't. The same contradictions apply to almost every study of every aspect, and the only reliable thing to say is that there are several causes and several types of fatigue that have yet to be consistently distinguished from each other. Any person who says anything different or favors any particular idea cannot provide the scientific proof required to convince objective people of anything, and is violating Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy.

Pregnancy as a cause of Da Costa's syndrome

According to an article by Cohen and White in 1951, a twenty year follow up study fifty percent of women who had been pregnant believed that "the disorder had been "provoked, or made worse by pregnancy". Many other studies have commented on the role of pregnancy in causing or aggravating their symptoms.

Reference: Mandel E. Cowen, and Paul Dudley White (1951). Life Situations, Emotions, and Neurocirculatory Asthenia (Anxiety Neurosis, Neurasthenia, Effort Syndrome), Psychosomatic Medicine 13 (6) page 346. The comment is attributed to their reference number 36 - Mailton B.E. and Thomson K.J.(1941) The Heart in Pregnancy and the Childbearing Age, Boston, Little, Brown and Company.

 

 

 

My two arrogant critics act as if DCS patients are part of an inferior human sub-species

(and create and appeal to prejudice as part of their methodology)

Most people draw conclusions on the basis of appeals to emotion rather than the plain assessment of facts and evidence.

 

One of the main symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome is faintness, and it often occurs first thing in the morning when the person wakes up and get out of bed. As they stand up they feel faint or dizzy, as if they are about to lose consciousness, so they may stagger from side to side, and lean forward and place their hands on their knees for support to prevent themselves from falling over and getting injured as their head hits nearby furniture. The sense of faintness passes after a few seconds so they stand up again, and may feel faint and dizzy and lean forward again, but within a few seconds they stand up without any problems and then go about their daily activities.

They may continue to have the same experience each morning until they decide to get up slowly, and after a few days or weeks they learn from experience that it is easier to wake up, sit on the side of the bed, and then stand up slowly, and prevent the problem from occurring.

The method of dealing with the faintness comes from experience, and basic trial and error, and is an obvious solution that can be determined without confusion or difficulty.

However, my two critics are arrogant individuals who think that they are superior to everyone else, including all other editors and all patients. They act as if they are the sole custodians of common sense and good judgment, and that they understand such things because of their superior levels of intelligence, and that patients are having difficulties because they are a part of an inferior human subspecies, as is reflected in their choice of words in their descriptions.

For example, after explaining the concept of 'orthostatic intolerance', and the blood pooling in the abdominal and leg veins they wrote the following words of advice to another editor (I have highlighted their words of arrogance in red) . . . "Some people, for example, will stand up too quickly (there are many more triggers, but it makes a nice example) and end up temporarily unconscious on the floor. In others, the same problem will immediately trigger a release of adrenaline and stimulating the heart to beat much faster (150-200% normal speed) in an effort to (temporarily) raise the blood pressure as much as possible and to get that blood up to the brain as soon as possible. In others, they muddle through, but the strain of coping with the problem is exhausting. (Most people develop odd behaviors to reduce the impact, like fidgeting when standing in line.) . . . Orthostatic intolerance is one of the major modern interpretations of DCS" . . . WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2008 here http://en.wikipedia.org/wacky/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive_2#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.2FPosturewriter

Note that the problem of faintness when getting out of bed is not complicated and nobody needs to "muddle through it", and the solution to the problem is very obvious and basic, and you don't need to intellectually strain yourself to cope????, and the related exhaustion is due to the infefficient flow of blood to the heart and brain, and is not because patients have to struggle intellectually to develop a simple solution to a simple problem, and that standing up slowly is a logical and sensible thing to do and is not "odd behavior" or weird, and that moving the hands and feet stimulates the blood flow though the veins within them and is a method of reducing and preventing the faintness which has a logical basis, and it is not appropriate to call it fidgeting.

My two critics don't just use their arrogant language because they are arrogant, because they also do it to create prejudice, and think that they can get away with it because they think that no-one else is intelligent enough to see what they are doing. They were trying to create the ridiculous impression that intelligent people, such as themselves????? would be easily able to cope with the same ailment if they had it.

Brain size and intelligence

In the nineteenth century there was a form of research called craniology. The scientists measured the brain size of white men, black men, and white women, and argued that the white men had larger brains and were therefore intellectually superior and entitled to rule over all others. They argued that the Negroes were unsuitable for education and should be content to serve as beasts of burden and be happy to work as slaves for their wise masters. Any Negro who objected to that role was deemed to be maladjusted. Similarly, they argued that women had inferior brains and would be likely to have mental breakdowns if you tried to educate them, so they should be happy to confine themselves to serving their wise masters as housemaids and prostitutes.

The scientists didn't mention that they were rigging the studies to get the outcome they wanted, and that the white men were generally taller than the blacks or the women, so their larger brain size was simply due to that fact, and was not an indication of intellectual difference. Of course, the wealthy white men of that time ruled the world of opinion, and had a conflict of interest in confirming their own superiority and entitlement to use Negroes as slaves etc. Therefore the scientists had a consensus of support because of the "willingness to believe", and the "unwillingness to question".

Some women overcame that problem by writing books with the pseudonym of a man, and became famous authors, and some Negro children who had white fathers and were born white, would conceal their Negro origins and achieve the same success as whites. Since then a woman has been a prime minister of England, and the current president of the United States is a Negro.

In the 1930's it was believed that 70% of patients with Da Costa's syndrome were born with the condition which was characterised as "an inability to sustain physical effort", and that it was an incurable life-long condition. It was described as an 'inferior constitution' and was associated with an 'inferior nervous system', and an 'inferior intelligence' despite the fact that some of the patients were clearly intelligent, and others, such as Charles Darwin, who acquired the condition, was a genius. Many patients adapt to their problems by restricting their exercise to within their own limits, and by concealing the fact that they have it, and thereby avoid attracting the inappropriate prejudices.

Nowadays the word 'inferiour' would be regarded as an 'offensive', 'professionally inappropriate', and 'politically incorrect' way of describing women, or men of any skin color, or patients of any type. Apart from other considerations, peoples identities are made up of a lot more than one feature, and all individuals need self respect and dignity to feel good about themselves, despite whatever problems they have. We don't refer to Albert Einstein as an 'inferior human' just because he failed at grooming, and it is inappropriate to greet all people in wheelchairs with baby talk, because some of them were former athtletes who broke their neck in a car accident.

The obvious Lack of confidence of my two critics

My two critics who were treating the disputes in Wikipedia as a sort of horse race, as if I had won all previous races , and they had lost all of theirs, so they needed to make things difficult for me in order to give themselves a chance of winning. For example, they always worked as a team of two, and they told me to obey all the rules while they were ignoring all the rules, and they kept on moving the finish line each time I won 9 of the 10 distances (or disputes), from 1000 yards, to 1100, 1200, and 2000 yards, and in the last instance when I asked the judges where the real finish was (thinking that it was 2100 metres), the two ponies ran past and one of their friends told the judges to go home and declared them to be the winners at the 2050 mark.

 

MY CRITICS MADE TWO MISTAKES OF JUDGEMENT

 

1. THEY MADE THE MISTAKE OF THINKING THAT MY USE OF PLAIN ENGLISH WAS EVIDENCE OF IGNORANCE.

2. THEY MADE THE MISTAKE OF THINKING THAT MY COURTESY WAS EVIDENCE OF WEAKNESS.

 

Wikipedia criticism continued on Part 2 here