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

I am an intelligent member of the public

My purpose in searching for, and providing the evidence and proof that two editors named WhatamIdoing and Gordonofcartoon were prolific liars and cheats, who broke many of Wikipedia's major rules, was because I expected responsible administrators to permanently ban them, but nothing has happened. See here.

The original administrator who banned me called himself "Moreschi" and had only participated in one brief discussion, and a few months later barged in on an arbitration discussion and used the "ignore all rules" policy to ban me. See my report here.

The administrator who has currently blocked me from returning to Wikipedia has the Username of "Madman" which is typical of the type of childish and insolent cheekiness and duplicity which I have been subjected to. See here

I am an intelligent adult, and I am supposed to tolerate editors who tell lies, and accept the decision of an anonymous individual who ignores all the rules, and another one who calls himself "Madman"?

See also - the Username policy here.

 

 

This page reports on the lies, damned lies, and statistics by by 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

 

If you don't know the facts you won't recognise lies when you see them!

Hence, before you start, read the complete history of Da Costa's Syndrome here.

See my report on their biggest lie here.

See also "Straight from the horses mouth" here

 

Introduction and summary

While I was in Wikipedia I added information about a medical condition called Da Costa's syndrome. However, two editors deleted most of it and replaced it with their version of the topic. In the mean time they spent twelve months continually insulting me until they managed to get me banned and their version remains. A summary of the differences can be seen below.

 

DaCostaPainting

 

A portrait of a Da Costa's syndrome patient showing the typical thin and stooped physique

My version

Da Costa's syndrome involves a set of symptoms that includes lower left sided chest pain which is caused by postural compression of the ribs. It can be relieved by injecting a pain killing drug into the area of soreness.

It also includes breathlessness that involves an abnormal pattern of breathing which becomes more abnormal as the level of exercise increases, and fatigue which is due to the inefficient flow of blood between the feet and the brain. See my full article here.

Their version

Da Costa's syndrome involves a set of symptoms which are considered to be the manifestation of an anxiety disorder where clinical examination does not show any evidence of physiological abnormality, and treatment is primarily behavioural. See their full version by scrolling down here.

 

Other names for the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome include costochondritis, and orthostatic intolerance, and the chronic fatigue syndrome.

 

What the dispute is all about

Many people experience the symptoms of chest pains, breathlessness, and fatigue, which are very similar to those of exercise, or fear, or heart disease, and for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries doctors were trying to determine the cause. Some of them argued that the patients were imagining things, or that they were just complaining about the normal symptoms of exercise, or that they were caused by fear of some sort or another, such as the fear of sport, heart disease, or people.

I had all of those symptoms by the age of 25, but I didn't know anything about any of those ideas because I had never read any medical books, and when I asked my doctor the cause he couldn't explain them. He had prescribed various medications, but none of them were effective in curing the symptoms, so I began to study medicine myself.

The only thing that I knew was that the symptoms would tend to occur at some time or another when I was leaning forward, so when I began reading books of anatomy I soon concluded that leaning forward was compressing my chest to cause chest pain, and compressing my lungs to cause breathlessness etc.

While I was trying to determine the cause of fatigue I found a definition of a procedure called Valsalva's maneuver, and was soon able to draw the conclusion that leaning forward was compressing the air in my chest to slow the flow of blood between my feet and brain and cause faintness. I then concluded that it was also straining the blood vessels below my chest and producing weaknesses in the flow of blood which was responsible for the fatigue. At some stage after that I was curious about my own posture, and when I looked in the mirror sideways I noticed that I had a significant forward curvature of my upper spine.

I was then invited by the head of the South Australian Institute for Fitness Research and Training to design a research program to study the response to exercise and was able to prove that it was a physical condition.

About 20 years later I joined Wikipedia and added that information to a page called Da Costa's syndrome. However, two anonymous editors started telling me that they were important people because they had been to university, and, had been editing Wikipedia for four years, and that I was just a patient who meant well and needed to be banned for "conflict of interest".

They replaced my article with one which describes it, in the first paragraph, as an anxiety disorder which has no physical basis and needs to be treated with "behavioral modification".

However,they kept the essential elements of a section called "Treatment" which I wrote, and which is based on my theory of a postural cause, and my research, and how to manage the symptoms effectively, and it has been in Wikipedia, virtually unchanged, in the three and a half years since. See 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 have 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.

 

As you can see, they have essentially deleted scientifically proven facts and replaced them with opinions, which is the type of undisciplined and sub-standard intellectual behaviour that lowers the quality and reliability of Wikipedia as a source of information.

 

However, 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 one of my reports about the neutrality of information here, and one about the lies they told to get me banned here.

What the shameless liars want you to believe

I set about the task of presenting Wikipedia with a good article about Da Costa's syndrome which was based on information from more than 60 top quality research journals and books, and represented many points of view, and neutral point of view.

For example, the ailment can be genetic, and run in families, and some people were born with it, or had it for so long that they don't know when it started. It is common in children, and more common in women than men in civilian life, and can sometimes start during pregnancy, and men who developed the condition during the war are generally found to have already had the minor symptoms many years before joining the army, often as volunteers, who were heading off to war for adventure.

 

However, my main critic wants the public to believe that it is a mental illness caused by the fear of battle, so she spent a lot of time very carefully deleting, with great precision, each and every one of those verifiable scientific facts.

 

She then proceeded to slant the topic with extreme bias. I will describe one typical example.

There must have been hundreds, if not thousands of books written about this topic, which covered tens of thousands of aspects and ideas, but she chose one about financial compensation paid to soldiers for injuries and illnesses incurred in the war. It had 241 pages, with thousands of sentences to choose from, but she very carefully, and precisely cherry picked one sentence from one page to include in the notes of her reference number 13 here, which I quote . . .

 

"Being able to attribute soldier’s heart to a physical cause provided an “honorable solution” to all vested parties, as it left the self-respect of the soldier intact and it kept military authorities from having to explain the “psychological breakdowns in previously brave soldiers” or to account for “such troublesome issues as cowardice, low unit morale, poor leadership, or the meaning of the war effort itself.” (end of quote).

 

You need to understand that my main critic thinks that is clever to make the most offensive remarks, by couching them in compassionate words, and that is why she chose that one sentence from that 241 page book. See also here.

 

She has many skills at deceiving people but I will mention 3 here.

1. If you knew that some people were born with the ailment and some were pregnant women, then you would have reason to doubt that it was due to the fear of battle, and would look for a more sensible explanation. However, by deleting that information, my critic is making you take it for granted, and believe it without question.

2. My two critics didn't want the other editors to know that they were deleting verifiable information to make their bias look neutral, so they told them that I was biased, and that I had to be banned for pushing my bias, and interfering with their most wonderful, honorable, and glorious attempts at producing "a little gem of an article" that represented neutral point of view. e.g. here.

3. You, as a reader, also need to know that Da Costa described thin soldiers who were carrying heavy knapsacks up and down hills while being poorly fed, in cold and wet weather, and suffering from typhoid or malaria, and dehydration, and they fell out of line with total exhaustion from the physical effort needed to keep up with other soldiers. Some people deliberately misrepresent that type of exhaustion as "psychological breakdown" with a "psychological cause". They also misrepresent the chronic fatigue which follows as a mental illness caused by fear.

The reason that my two critics were able to fool other editors because they were deceiving them in every way, at every level, and in every discussion, and they were deceiving the readers by deleting the information that they didn't want them to see.

 

I was always trying to get neutral editors to step in and make "neutral decisions" about the content of the article, but my main critic would tell the that they were incompetent, tell them lies, boss them around, and tell them what to think, what to say, and what to do. She was NEVER going to give neutral editors the opportunity to decide anything unless, or until they agreed with her version. e.g. see here.

I put all the clues together, and my two Wikipedia critics stole the combination

When my doctor was unable to explain the cause of my health problems in 1975 I began studying them myself by making detailed observations of the symptoms, and reading the best research literature in the world. I soon found that nobody understood the cause, but, over a period of many decades I was able to piece together the clues which enabled me to identify the cause and treat the symptoms effectively.

I was the first person in the world to piece all of the clues together from over 100 years of research in medical books and journals. However when I added that information to the Wikipedia article about Da Costa's syndrome two editors described me as a fringy kook, said that my ideas were nonsense, and banned me. In the meantime they copied and pasted my ideas into the treatment section of the page, and attributed the methods to the authors who provided the individual clues, but were not able to tie it all together into one concept.

 

My two Wikipedia critics told lies about the value of my contributions to the article about Da Costa's syndrome?

I am providing proof that my two critics are liars but they want people to believe that they gave me a lot of trouble and woe in Wikipedia, and that the evidence should be ignored because my reports are just revenge. Those two idiots are kidding themselves, because they don't have enough strength of character or brains to cause me any "woe", but I do intend to protect the public, and other patients, by getting them banned for telling lies, and I don't care how long it takes.

According to my own ideas from "The Posture theory" of 1980, poor posture can strain the spine to cause a variety of backaches, and compress the chest and abdomen and the internal anatomy to cause a diversity of other health problems.

It can also compress the air in the chest to slow the blood flow from the feet to the brain and produce a tendency to faintness. It also strains the blood vessels below the chest to produce some chronic symptoms. In such cases, when the person stands up suddenly the blood rushes to the feet under the influence of gravity, and may cause the weak blood vessels of the legs to swell, and take longer to fill, and cause a temporary delay in the return of blood to the brain which causes faintness. That problem can be treated by improving posture, by avoiding bending and stooping at the waist, and by standing up slowly if necessary.

I also mentioned that the ailment was more typically seen in men who had thin and stooped physiques with long, narrow, or flat chests, and that improving physique would be useful. See here.

I also designed an exercise program for a medical research institute in 1982 in which I gained scientific proof that the ailment had a real physical basis, and recommended that patients could prevent symptoms by staying within their own physical limits. I also followed with the idea that the capacity for general lifestyle was also restricted, so lifestyle should also be kept within individual limits. See here.

I mentioned that poor posture compressed the chest, and added that several other factors could do the same, such as tight chest and waist straps, and found that Jacob Mendes Da Costa made a similar observation that tight waist belts seemed to aggravate the problem, in his research paper of 1871. The aliment was named in his honor.

However, two editors described my theory and research as nonsense and crap, and on 27th December said that it was "not notable enough to justify even half a sentence on Wikipedia" here, and two weeks later, on 14th january said that it was " not notable enough to justify any space at all in this article" here, and they later told other editors that I was a fringy kook who wasn't very valuable, and needed to be blocked and banned.

I would like the other editors, and the administrators, and Jimmy Wales, and the readers and members of the public to know that those two editors added a lot of academic jargon to the page, but absolutely nothing of any use to patients and readers.

I would also like you to understand that the most useful information that any person can add to medical pages in Wikipedia is a "Treatment Section" which had practical ways of managing the symptoms.

There was NOTHING about treatment in the four lines of text when I started editing it, and my two critics added NOTHING to it in the next 12 months.

I was the only editor who knew what I was talking about, and I was the only one who added anything of any useful and practical value to readers and patients, and I was the one who set up the "Treatment Section". My 2 critics added NOTHING to it, and I added everything, and they kept some of it, and EVERY WORD IN THE TREATMENT SECTION IS BASED ON MY OWN OBSERVATIONS, IDEAS, AND RESEARCH, and the evidence which i used to support and confirm them.

I was banned in January 2009, and the treatment section, and the words that I wrote, are still there, more than 3 years later.

 

This is a quote from the current "Treatment section" of 17th April 2012 . . .

"Treatment . . . The report of Da Costa shows that patients recovered from the more severe symptoms when removed from the strenuous activity or sustained lifestyle that caused them.
Other treatments evident from the previous studies were improving physique and posture, appropriate levels of exercise where possible, wearing loose clothing about the waist, and avoiding postural changes such as stooping, or lying on the left or right side, or the back in some cases, which relieved some of the palpitations and chest pains, and standing up slowly can prevent the faintness associated with postural or orthostatic hypotension in some cases." (end of quote).

 

The administrators have banned the most valuable contributor to that page, and kept the two useless and worthless liars.

I want them to check the evidence, and admit it, and fix their mistake by banning the liars, and I would like support from members of the public who don't like being lied to.

They were liars who defamed my character

When I began studying an illness in 1975 I was not aware that it had been the subject of research for more than 100 years. However, I made my own detailed observations, and drew conclusions to gain a good understanding of the problems and what to do about them. In that process I was also searching the relevant literature for additional clues, but also to confirm that my conclusions were not just consistent with my own experience, but also with the observations of other people. In some cases I found many years or decades later, that various researchers had identified useful facts about aspects of the study, but that no-one had tied it all together as a coordinated concept.

However, while I was in Wikipedia, two individuals were telling me that my ideas were not published in the right type of journals, and they used that as their excuse for calling me a fringy kook, and for deleting my name, my theory, my research, my publications, and links to my website. They then said that I could only add information that was verifiable in top quality, independent, peer reviewed research journals.

I therefore mentioned the names of researchers and publications where I obtained some of the clues to my ideas, which included authors like J.M.Da Costa, who distinguished the ailment from various others, and Sir James MacKenzie, who referred to abnormal blood flow as being the cause of the fatigue, Paul Wood, who discussed the thin and stooped physique reported in the "typical" patient, and Mandel Cohen and Paul Dudley White, who provided many useful clues to the nature of the problem.

If you have a look at the article which my two critics used to replace mine, you can see that they have deleted everything about my research which ties all of the information together, and used my sources of clues in their article, and as their reference numbers 5. Paul Wood, 6. Cohen and White, 8. J.M. Da Costa, and 17. Sir James MacKenzie. See here.

They are a couple of disgusting liars who know that my ideas are good, and who knew that my sources of information were top quality, and yet told other editors that my ideas were nonsense, and that my sources of information were unreliable. They were definitely not intelligent enough to produce an article of their own without using the same authors.

 

A brief biography

In 1975 I had a lot of health problems which had been getting worse for several years. My doctor was not able to explain the symptoms, and none of the treatment methods had any benefit, so I began to study the problems myself. Within the first year I tried to cure the symptoms by exercising, and joined a fitness research institute, and found scientific proof that I had physical limitations. I also developed the concept of exercising within those limits, which has enabled me to understand and control that aspect since. Five years later I designed a program for that organisation and easily established the same scientific facts, and confirmed the effectiveness of the principles in other patients with the same health problems.

Meanwhile, in the first four years I had three relapses of severe fatigue which persisted for about three months each time, before I was able to develop a method of explaining and controlling the symptoms, and although I cannot cure the ailment I have not had a severe relapse in the thirty years since.

In the meantime, it took me five years to conclude that most of my symptoms had one common cause, which was poor posture due to spinal curvature, and postural pressure on my chest, lungs, and stomach etc.

It took me another fifteen years to identify that the symptoms due to poor posture were the same as those which effected nineteenth century women who wore tight waisted corsets, and that pressure on the internal anatomy was the common cause in poor posture, tight clothing, and other factors.

However, I was still having problems with abdominal pain occurring repeatedly throughout every day, and often, usually more than once a year, it would be quite severe for months at a time. It took me 23 years to solve that problem, which I did by learning to type, and noticing that the pain was less severe than when I typed than when I leaned toward the desk to read and write. I then started standing at the desk and typing on a keyboard at waist height, with the screen at eye height so that I didn't have to lean forward. I have only had one problem with severe abdominal pain in the fourteen years since, and was able to treat it effectively within 2 weeks.

I also found that these health problems are among the most common, and affect 2-4% of the population, or up to 200 million people, so as I developed methods of relieving my own symptoms I published them, so that other people could try them out, and get the same relief of symptoms.

While I was involved in Wikipedia two anonymous editors who have done absolutely nothing to solve these problems, had the cheek to call my ideas nonsense.

If those two ridiculous and offensive individuals did not copy my methods of treatment they would be useless to the readers of Wikipedia.

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 Hawthorne 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

 

How my two critics lied and cheated their way through disputes

This is a quote from a Wikipedia essay on how to lie and cheat and deliberately annoy other editors in order to win disputes . . .

"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) . . . 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.
In the last resort, it is very advisable to use warning templates as early as possible (go there now and pick one or three) and to cite any convenient [[WP:POL|policies]] that you think will be useful to your cause. (Vandalism templates are usually the best). After all, one template says more than a thousand words, and it's an elegant way to get the last word in case the other bastard user just won't concede the ground." (end of quotes 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. See my list of 65 excellent quality references below.

`

 

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

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.

Functional disorders of unknown cause

Before I started studying Da Costa's syndrome in 1975 there was the general view that there was no conclusive scientific evidence of a physical disease in the body. However it was known that there were abnormalities in breathing patterns and pulse rates particularly in relation to exercise.

Hence the body was not functioning properly so it was deemed to be a "functional disorder".

In the absence of evidence of a physical cause the dominant view was that there wasn't one, so the problem was deemed to have a psychological cause. Hence the prevailing views were that the patients were imagining things, so their ailment was called hypochondria (now called somatoform), or it was thought that mental factors were causing the body to malfunction, so it was called psychosomatic.

As you can see above (in the "Symptoms" section of the article), I provided Wikipedia with all of the scientific proof that Da Costa's syndrome involved abnormalities in breathing function and blood flow, and were most likely due to undetectable physical changes in the body, with causes such as viruses, extreme exertion, or poor posture.

My two critics told other editors that I was a 'fringy kook', and deleted all of the scientific evidence of abnormal function, and replaced it with emphasis on imaginary (somatoform) causes, and psychosomatic, post-traumatic causes, and mental factors.

She managed to get me banned on the basis of her lies about me, and by arguing that my ideas were worthless nonsense.

She also argued that Da Costa's syndrome was not related to the Chronic fatigue syndrome.

In the process she and her friends stole a lot of my ideas and seeded them into other related articles in Wikipedia to make herself look useful, and because the other articles would be inferior, wrong, and useless without them.

Five months after I was banned she set up a brand new page called "Functional disorders".

This is a quote from her description . . .

"A functional disorder is a medical condition that impairs the normal function of a bodily process. Definitions vary between fields of medicine, with orthopedics using it to describe a structural defect, such as a misshapen bone, and psychiatry and neurology using it to mean an emotional disorder. Sometimes, the term functional disorder is used to describe physical manifestations of psychological problems.1 Generally, the mechanism that causes a functional disorder is unknown, poorly understood, or, occasionally, unimportant for treatment purposes."

Notice how she is trying to act intelligent and create the illusion that she useful to Wikipedia by describing the undetectable nature of functional disorders, and by saying that they are generally considered to be psychological disorders.

However, notice in addition that she is also trying to make herself look intelligent by adding that in actual fact the mechanism is unknown, and poorly understood. She also linked it to the chronic fatigue syndrome, but not to Da Costa's syndrome. See here and here.

She is an extremely unethical and deceitful individuial.

Some Comments on the improvements that I made to the article

While I was involved in Wikipedia I saw an article about Da Costa's Syndrome with an invitation to improve it.
The most important and relevant reference for information is the original research paper of Jacob Mendez Da Costa published in 1871. It described his observations of a set of symptoms which he saw in 300 soldiers during the American Civil War, and which he also reported was commonly encountered in his civilian practice for eight years afterward.

HIs research paper was so important that the ailment was named after him, and studied under that name for at least 100 years, and is still easily recognised today.

The topic had been in Wikipedia for over a year, but it only had four lines of text, and absolutely no references at all, and one of the editors who later became my main critic had only made two minor changes. e.g. See here.

I therefore improved it by adding the Da Costa reference, and two by Sir Thomas Lewis in 1919, and 1933 who had been knighted for his contributions to that study, and who was obviously one of the most useful sources of information about it.

However, two editors started criticising me, and one of them claimed to have an annoyingly high IQ, and to be capable of becoming an "instant expert" about many articles. That individual also started putting on "a big act" which was aimed at convincing the other editors that she was some sort of world authority, or, at the very least, the most knowledgeable authority on that subject in Wikipedia.

Amongst the most offensive and ridiculous criticisms which were relentlessly made against me, repeatedly, in many different discussions, to many different groups of editors, for a year, was that "most" of my references were "unreliable" sources of information, because they were "old", or "obsolete", or "out-of-date", or "from before most editors were born".

That ridiculous individual also told me blatant lies about the reference policy, by arguing that all of my sources must come from research journals and books which have been published in the most recent five years (2003-2008). I was writing about the subject, including it's research history, and the actual policy says that contributors can use older references in the history of articles for obvious reasons.

I eventually added about 60 top quality references here, but my main critic, who had added NONE before I improved it, kept the "old" one by Da Costa, and deleted the one by Sir Thomas Lewis in her version which included only 18, including several of mine, and her choice of "old" ones, and dictionaries and website's here.

That individual continued to argue, and was obviously up-to-date with the "modern" "jargon", but actually had a rather shallow, and useless understanding of the problem, and the other editor who criticised me, was obviously even more ignorant.

For example, they started arguing about my use of a research paper, without even bothering to read past the first paragraph, and without checking the reference list at the back, and they later tried to promote their own bias by using a "novel" which they didn't bother to read past the title on the cover, or know that was a "children's fiction story" or that none of the symptoms of the ailment were mentioned in the entire text. e.g. see my report here.

Also, after telling me and everyone else that my references were "old" and "out-of-date", and therefore unreliable, my second critic actually learnt something useful. Namely that the syndrome was named after Jacob Mendez Da Costa. He then tried to make himself look knowledgeable and "useful" by "sneakily" going to a completely different topic page, about the biography of Da Costa (in the hope that I would never find out), and added the fact that the syndrome was named after him.

Their arguments were ridiculous.

 

Two Neutral editors suggested how to produce a truly neutral artricle but my two critics refused to co-operate

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.

See a humorous YouTube video by John Cleese which makes fun of the style of editing used by my two Wikipedia critics below . . "contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of everything the other person says"

 

The Ridiculous Nitpicking by one of my critics

My main critic is one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever encountered. For example, she pretends to be a prim and proper person who has the moral authority to give other editors advice about whether or not it is necessary to give references for every single statement in an article. However, in actual fact, she is one of the most ridiculous nitpickers that anyone is ever likely to meet.

This is a quote from a discussion where she gives another editor advice that it is not necessary to provide a reference for obvious facts.

"Editors do not expect or require that common knowledge, like whether an apple is a kind of fruit or the number of fingers on the typical human hand, be supported by inline citations." WhatamIdoing05:38, 1 March 2012. here.

This is what that editor actually does

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.

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:

 

I used old books because the best of modern ones did not have the answers to my questions

When I was 25 years old I had many health problems which were becoming worse, and it became obvious to me that my doctor could not explain the symptoms and that none of the medications or treatments were having any beneficial effect at relieving the symptoms at all.

Within a few years I had read the general books, and some of the latest and best medical research journals in the world, because I wanted the best information I could get. However, although some of the articles filled in some of the gaps in my own ideas, nobody had any good explanations or any effective methods of treating the symptoms, so I decided to extend my study more broadly. I began buying books at garage sales and antique shops until I had more than 300 covering every decade, and every medical specialty going back for at least 100 years. I also extended my study back to the Ancient Greeks the Seventeenth century, and the nineteenth century, and found an enormous amount of useful information that was not available in modern books. Some years later, after I lost interest in medicine, I sold about half of those books at my own garage sale, to nurses, medical students, chiropractors, and the public. The only ones I regret selling were the 12 volume set of The British Encyclopedia of Medical Practice by Lord Horder. It was a storehouse of useful knowledge in one place. In much the same way I tried to make my 1000 page book called The Posture Theory a useful storehouse of all knowledge about posture and health.

However, some years later, in 2007, I joined Wikipedia, and was soon confronted by 2 editors whose attitude I can sum up like this . . . "We are the most important authorities in Wikipedia, and our most NOBLE MISSSION in life is to make our encyclopedia the best source of information from the most reliable, top quality, independent, peer reviewed scientific journals in the world that have been published in the most recent five years. We want you to stop editing because you are an insignificant, worthless, fringy kook, who writes nonsense based on old, out-of-date, obsolete, superseded textbooks that were written before most editors were born, and do not even meet Wikipedia's most basic standards.

Needless to say, they come across to me, as a couple of snotty grubs who were born with silver spoons up their arse, and have accomplished absolutely nothing of any value in the real world, and are using Wikipedia to elevate themselves to a position of status and power, and they don't give a dam if their articles are useful to readers or not, as long as they are filled with jargon and sound important to ignorant idiots.

 

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
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 (See also 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 crticism of my use of a medical consumers website as one of my 61 references

(When I first saw Melissa Kaplan's website it contained a list of more than 80 different label which have been used to describe the chronic fatigue syndrome in the past, and since then more labels have been added. Another site which lists 57 outbreaks of chronic fatigue can be seen here.)

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 here, as number 15 in my list of 61 which can be seen here.

Note that the full title of the Website is "Melissa Kaplan's Chronic Neuroimmune Diseases: Information on CFS, FM, MCS, Lyme Disease, Thyroid, and more - The disease of a thousand names"

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 here with 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

Dorlands medical 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 published in 2007, 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

 

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.

 

There are many problems that result from relying on dictionaries for information

For example, the 1976 edition of Dorland's redirects Da Costa syndrome to 'neurocirculatory asthenia' in the sub-headings for asthenia, indicating that it was the standard label used in that period, and it states that it is chiefly seen in soldier's in active war service, but doesn't mention that most of those soldier's already had the minor symptoms before they enlisted in the army. It states that it is also seen in civilians.

The current edition is the 31st edition dated 2007 which also redirects to neurocirculatory asthenia, indicating that it is still the current standard label, and it mentions that the symptoms are brought on by exercise, "even slight effort". However, that has been known for more than 100 years and wasn't mentioned in the 1976 edition etc.

It also states that it is "considered by most authorities to be a particular presentation of an anxiety disorder" and attributed to the autonomic response to anxiety and hyperventilation. However the word "considered" is used in a sensible way when something is not proven, and the word "most" is not specific. It could mean anything from 51% to 99% but not 100%. In other words there are many "authorities" who don't think that anxiety is the cause, and there is evidence that hyperventilation may be a feature of the breathing pattern, but is due to a physiological abnormality which is not caused by the anxiety or the autonomic nervous system.

The current (2007) edition only contains one paragraph of information which does not include enough space to mention any of the other to possible causes, but they are obviously discussed in the wider medical literature, and Wikipedia is not just a dictionary. it is supposed to be an encyclopedia, so it can, and should cover the topic more comprehensively, but my two critics were confining it to those ideas which suited their own bias.

Also, I told my two critics that neurocirculatory asthenia was the most widely used alternative label but they tried to give emphasis to the label of Somatoform autonomic dysfunction by setting up a brand new page with that title and merging Da Costa's syndrome into it. However they failed on the grounds that the rules advise against using the type of obscure jargon that ordinary readers don't understand and are never likely to look for. They later tried to change the emphasis to the label of Soldier's heart by mentioning it on the top line and in the first sentence, and used a different link and references to support that particular argument. See here. They lost that argument when another editor deleted the top line on the grounds that it was inappropriate here.

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 and balanced 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
(their trick of turning the tables)

 

The Predictably Negative Response to My Positive Contributions

Two neutral editors suggested that myself and my two critics produce separate essays outside of Wikipedia, and then post them back for them to independently combine into one page which complied with their "Neutral Point of View" policy.

However, I was the only one who agreed to do that, and my two critics did nothing.

When I posted my version back, a neutral editor said that it was "a lot better and far more detailed" than the existing one, and that there was no evidence of bias. (See the third sentence here). Nevertheless my main critic then "invented" a barrage of 80 criticisms. (See here).

If you read my reports below you can see how the same two editors put a negative spin on almost every word I wrote.

The examples include my use of a top quality reference by Sir James Mackenzie to cover the period of history from 1871 to 1916, which my main critic invented multiple faults in, and my criticism of their use of a childrens fiction novel in a medical page, where they invented several ways of making it look as if I was at fault.

 

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.

 

A recent example of her spin (three years after I s banned), is when I gave evidence that she was telling lies, and instead of denying that she was a liar, or providing evidence that she was not a liar, she accused me of being insuling, disruptive, soapboxing, and block evasion. See report here

 

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???

 

If you do the crime and get caught - you do the time

In Wikipedia it equates with

if you tell lies and get caught - you get banned

I had been studying Da Costa's syndrome for more than 30 years and at one stage had a collection of more than 300 medical books which included some from each decade of the 20th century, and had access to university libraries and research journal indexes.

Consequently when an anonymous Wikipedia editor started telling lies about research which happened 90 years ago it was instantly obvious to me.

However other editors and administrators didn't know the facts and would say that they had just checked a dictionary and it seemed to them that the editor was telling the truth. Other editors would read one research paper and say that Da Costa's syndrome wasn't the same as the effort syndrome, or that it looked like, or seemed to them to be something else etc.

Other editors would say that they didn't have time to go to the library and look up books which were written fifty years ago to check the facts, and that I must make it easy for them by providing information online so that they can check it instantly with one click of the computer keyboard.

It was therefore difficult for me to "prove" that my main critic was a "massive" and "prolific" liar who was deliberately deceiving them and the Wikipedia readers.

First of all I joined Wikipedia to add useful information, not to waste my time arguing with stupid liars.

Secondly, I had to remember or find which book contained the facts and provide online links to verify them.

Thirdly my main critic could invent lies at the rate of 6 per minute and edit up to 300 items in one day, and yet it would take me weeks to prove that each statement was a lie, and then I would have to prepare a summary for each of them.

I would then have to remember which discussion and which day that editor told each lie, or search through the history of edits to find them, and then learn how to link to them using the Wikipedia methods.

I would then have to respond to editors who would argue that my reports were "too long to read", or that the evidence was "spread over too many discussions".

I would also have to discuss individual facts from 100 years of history with editors who had only read "one article"on the "history".

It was obvious to me that my main critic was going to keep on telling lies to editors who didn't know anything about the topic until I was banned, and that I would have to find and provide the evidence afterwards.

The fact remains that while I was in Wikipedia my main critic was a prolific liar and was getting away with it, but since then I have gradually provided the evidence on my own website.

I have provided an index to that persons lies here . . .

and an example of a set of lies written about Sir James MacKenzie here.

As they say 'If you do the crime and you get caught , you do the time", or in Wikipedia you get banned.

(if you are trying to cure your own illness you need to stick to the facts. There is no room for lies or errors)

 

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

 

In order to get me banned from Wikipedia my main critic told a massive rant or ridiculous lies to a group of arbitrators. She was trying to convince them that I was a disruptive editor who was providing poor quality information about Da Costa's syndrome from unreliable references.

One of my references was a meeting by Sir James MacKenzie from 1916.

The following quote shows the lies which that editor told in just in one small paragraph, and I have then provided a table to explain each of the lies one at a time.

 

The lies told by my main critic

This is what my main critic wrote about Mackenzie"s meeting. . . "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.)" (end of quote) WhatamIdoing 04:42, 28 January 2009" here

The truth as quoted from the actual research paper

One of the speakers at the meeting was R.M.Wilson who wrote these words . . . "I must call your attention specially to the paper by Da Costa, published in 1871 in the Medical Journal of the American Sciences. This paper is the best known contribution to the subject ." (end of quote)

This is a quote from Sir James MacKenzie's closing comments . . . "I am hoping that we shall get from the Government a heart hospital whcih can be devoted to these cases; and that we shall get a number of men . . . who are specially qualified to work out all the problems, and who will investigate this subject thoroughly". (end of quote).

 

Number The Lie The Facts
1

"it wasn't a "major" medical conference

I was writing the history of the subject, and MacKenzie spoke at a meeting in 1916 which decided to set up separate hospitals for the sole purpose of studying the ailment. It didn't matter if I called it a major or important meeting, because it was still very significant and contained very useful information about the topic. Furthermore, my main critic knows exactly how relevant and important that meeting was because she kept it in her own very small list of references after I was banned, and it is still in Wikipedia 4 years later (on 12-12-2012). See reference number 18 here.

2

"it wasn't aimed at "anything in particular"

The meeting was aimed at discussing the topic of Soldier's heart which had previously been called Da Costa's syndrome, and I was writing about it in Wikipedia in the history section of their page about Da Costa's syndrome.

3

"it was just another normal meeting"

There have been thousands of meetings about that topic, but it was one of the British Armies main health problems in World War 1, and MacKenzie's meeting recommended setting up specific hospitals to study the subject. In other words it was a turning point in the history, and one of many useful things to choose from when writing about it.

4

"MacKenzie read a paper"

MacKenzie didn't just "read a paper". He opened the meeting with a discussion of about 400 cases studied by himself and R.M. Wilson, where 90% had the problem.

5

"to the assembled members"

They were not just a random set of assembled members. The speakers at that meeting were there for the sole purpose of discussing that specific ailment.

6

 

"Back in the day"

Nowadays highly qualified people are elected to such organisations, and in 1915 MacKenzie had been knighted for his contributions to medicine, but my main critic was trying to imply that back in 1916 any hillbilly could walk in off the street and join up.

7

"That's how all scientific papers were published"

There were many different research journals, books, and publications in 1916, not just one type.

8

"you joined a society"

MacKenzie wasn't an ordinary man who just "joined" an ordinary society - he had been knighted for his contributions to medicine, and was "elected" to the "Royal" society.

9

"showed up at a meeting"

He didn't just show up at an ordinary meeting. It had been planned, and MacKenzie gave the opening and closing speeches.

10

"read your paper"

MacKenzie paper was not just a talk about general items, but was a report on his study of up to two hundred soldiers who had the ailment, and R.M. Wilson's study on a further 200, and mentioned Da Costa's previous study of up to 300 cases 45 years earlier, in 1871.

11

"answered their questions"

The members who attended that meeting were not just ordinary people asking ordinary questions about local issues. Each person at that meeting presented information about the specific topic..

   

See my index to the other lies told by that editor here.

 

 

 

This is a quote about James MacKenzie from the website of the Royal College of General Practicioners, which gives an indication of his reputation. . . "At the age of 49 . . . he had become the world clinical authority on heart disease."

 

See also a book review by R.M. S. McConaghey in The Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 1974 July; 24(144): 497-498.

The book was called Sir James Mackenzie, M.D. 1853 -1925 General Practitioner, by Maire, Alex. Edinburgh and London: Churchill Livingstone. 1973. This is a quote from that review . . .

"There are two professorships and two lectureships named after Sir James Mackenzie. The outlines of his life and work are well known and the annual lecturers of the Royal College of General Practitioners have kept his memory green . . . and . . . in 1892 he published The Study of The Pulse which rapidly brought him international fame." (end of quote) See here.

 

 

My critic is an utterly disgusting and treacherous liar

As time goes by I gradually learn more and more about the extreme nature of my main critics deranged practice of telling absolutely ridiculous lies.

For example, that liar got me banned by telling 12 arbitration editors many lies, including the statement that Sir James MacKenzie just joined an ordinary meeting and had a chat about nothing in particular, and that the notes of a meeting which he attended in 1916 were an unreliable source of information. See here.

If an ordinary medically uneducated person said that I would assume that they were stupidly trying to discredit me without knowing what they were talking about. However, my main critic had spent several months trying to give everyone else the impression of being a world authority on the topic by nitpicking minute details in my essay.

It was therefore obvious to me that the editor was telling lies. Furthermore Mackenzie has the title of "Sir" in front of his name, which should be enough to establish that he had been knighted for something, and that the most likely reason would be for his contributions to medicine. Also, it would be easy for anyone to check the facts in any library, especially in any university library, or on Google.

I therefore concluded that there must be something very seriously wrong with that editors personality to tell such blatant and obvious lies, and yet expect to get away with it??

If that isn't enough evidence of that editor deranged personality, then a further fact is that Wikipedia itself has a page on the biography of Sir James MacKenzie so it would only take a few seconds to check the basic details. It states this on 25th January 2009 . . .

"He left Burnley for London and set up as a consulting physician in November 1907. His reputation grew rapidly. His polygraph enabled Mackenzie to make original distinctions between harmless and dangerous types of pulse irregularities. He also demonstrated the efficacy of the Digitalis in the treatment of arrhythmias. In 1915 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society and he was knighted (end of quote) here

i.e. that information was already in Wikipedia itself when that editor told lies about him on 28th January 2009 here. The current information can be seen here

 

There would be many editors and administrators who knew the facts but are sitting back and playing dumb and doing nothing to criticise that liar or ban them.

If the public, especially people who don't like liars and cheats don't do anything about it then all I can say is that they deserve to be lied to, and should not complain about it when they are lied to without someone like me warning them.

I would like a respectable administrator or member of the public to get that person thrown out.

Note also that I started adding information to the page about Da Costa's syndrome on December 9th 2007 here, and added a significant amount of information in the next few days (see here), and a few days later another editor set up a brand new page about MacKenzie on 26th December 2007 here.

 

 

 

 

How tried to convince other editors that MacKenzie was an unreliable source of information

 

Your question - Who was telling the truth about Sir James MacKenzie?

I regarded MacKenzie's comments at a meeting in 1916 as a reliable source of information about Da Costa's syndrome because he was one of Britain's top medical researchers at that time, and the meeting was about the subject of "Soldier's heart", which referred to the health problems which had previously been studied by Da Costa. (See my reference list as number 23 here).

 

Here is a quote from by J.D.Howell(1985) (Reference number 12 on my list here),

"Early in 1916, Sir James MacKenzie opened a session of the Section of Therapeutics of the Royal Society of Medicine with a paper on "The Soldier's heart". (end of quote)

 

The studies were about the types of chest pains and breathlessness which affected soldiers, but did not appear to be due to heart disease, and many researchers used the same label to mean the same thing. For example, Da Costa's syndrome (after Da Costa), and Soldiers heart (when it was seen during war time), and the Effort syndrome (in the U.K.) and Neurocirculatory asthenia (in the United States).

 

My main critic tried to give other editors the impression that Sir James MacKenzie was an unreliable source of information by implying that he was an ordinary doctor who just showed up at a meeting and gave a talk about nothing in particular. (Scroll down to the 10th paragraph here)

See more detailed evidence below..

 

James MacKenzie was one of Britain's top medical researchers who had been elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1915, and Knighted later that year. See here.

In 1916 he gave the opening speech at an influential meeting which had the specific purpose of discussing Soldier's heart, an ailment which was also called Da Costa's syndrome, I used it as a reference for an article about Da Costa's syndrome.

However, my main critic told a group of 12 arbitrators that I was writing nonsense, and that most of my references were poor quality, and did not even meet Wikipedia's basic standards of reliability.

In order to convince them of that she used that references as an example.

This is a quote from her exact words . . . "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."

 

She then told them this . . . "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 Proceedingss." (end of quote)

 

My main critic used the Wikipedia name "WhatamIdoing". and that quote can be seen by scrolling down to the tenth paragraph here.

 

Time frame to prove my main critic is a disgusting liar

(I can try to protect the public from two Wikipedia editors who are liars, by providing proof that they are liars, but I can't succeed unless the administrators or the public does something about it).

8:50, 27th January 2009 - I placed my final version of the article called "Da Costa's syndrome" into Wikipedia, and I used the meeting by Sir James MacKenzie as number 23 in my list of 61 references here.

18:12, January 27th January 2009 (about nine hours later) - My main critic deleted my version and replaced it with hers which was half the size of mine, and where she CUT and PASTED the MacKenzie reference and used it in her small list of 18 references as her number 17 here.

20:25, 27th January 27th January 2009 (2 hours later) - She told a group of arbitration editors that most of my references did not even meet Wikipedia's basic standards, and used the MacKenzie reference as an example by telling them that . . . "it wasn't "aimed at" anything in particular: it was just another normal meeting of the Therapeutics subsection of the Royal Society of Medicine" here.

 

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 cut and paste it from my reference list and use it as one of their own references, 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.

 

My full report on their massive flood of lies, including those about the MacKenzie, reference, can be seen below.

 

The manipulative deviousness of my main 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.

Note that I used 60 references, and that she was deliberately trying to annoy me by threatening to ask stupid questions about all of them, one at a time.

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 she would pick on another one and tell absolute lies about it to create the illusion that they were all unreliable. See how she told lies about the MacKenzie reference 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".

Also, in 1916, 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'.

'Soldier's Heart' was one of the earlier alternative labels for Da Costa's syndrome, and one of the speakers, R.M.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 added . . . "but the best known contribution to the subject was that of J.M.Da Costa who made the same observations from 300 cases".

"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".

The minutes of that meeting were published in the Therapeutical and Pharmacological section in the Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine so 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.

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 conference that made no claim of being focused on this condition. "WhatamIdoing 19:14, 26 January 2009 here.

(Note that WhatamIdong was telling those lies to an editor named Jayen who would think that the term "Soldiers heart" referred to any ailment affecting soldiers, and would not know that it was an alternative label used for exactly the same set of symptoms as Da Costa's syndrome?.

 

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) (page 36, reference number 12 on my list here), 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 ". The disease was found not only in soldiers, Mackenzie claimed, but also in "workpeople subject to severe muscular exertion".

Another quote from the same research paper states clearly what MacKenzies role in the meeting was with these words . . .

"Early in 1916, Sir James MacKenzie opened a session of the Section of Therapeutics of the Royal Society of Medicine with a paper on "The Soldier's heart". In it, he discussed the examinations of some 400 soldiers invalided with heart disease. MacKenzie thought that the cases were overwhelmingly non-cardiac, the most likely being he strain and exhaustion of life in the trenches superimposed on some "toxic influence" caused by infection" (end of quote).

One of the other 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

 

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.

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 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.

 

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 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 15-5-08 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.

 

PaulaIsRight . . .

When a woman sent me an email praising my book I sent a reply advising her that I had joined Wikipedia where it was recommended that authors do not present an account of their own ideas as they might be blocked on the grounds of conflict of interest. I said that I could do a brief summary of my 1000 page book to make it easy for her to write an accurate review in her own words and she agreed. She joined up under the name of PaulaisRight.

However within a short time six editors rushed in and recommended that it be deleted for various reasons including "breech of copyright".

I joined that discussion to confirm that I was the author of the book, and that I had given her permission to write the article. The discussion continued for about a week, and I answered all of their questions but it was deleted anyway by an editor who did not give a reason.

In the meantime the editors were asked to give their recommendations about the article and PaulaisRight wrote . . . "Do not delete This could help a lot of people!" ( end of quote) here.

 

Guido den Broeder . . .

These are some concluding words from Guido den Broeders comments between 13-5-08 and 20-5-08 when my two critics had invented a variety of reasons for blocking me, including violation of the "conflict of interest" and "original research" policies.

"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". (end of quote) Guido den Broeder

 

SmokeyJoe . . . After joining a discussion and reading some of my contributions an administrator named SmokeyJoe gave his opinion about me with these comments . . . "This user has made many non-trivial contributions here . . . "He is contributing to wikipedia. The fact that his contributions are contentious only means it is more important that his talk page contributions remain accessible. If we delete (not just blank) them, then we open ourselves up to accusations of editorial censorship" . . . "I am assuming that Posturewriter is a well qualified academic individual." (end o quote) here.

 

None of the millions of neutral Wikipedia editors ever said that any of my hundreds of factual statements were wrong

At one stage I read that Wikipedia had several million editors who have contributed to their encyclopedia in many different languages, and while I was involved for about 2 years, I assisted another person to provide an accurate and precise page of information about my own theory. I also contributed a paragraph or two to each of about 6 topics, and a full article about Da Costa's syndrome, which would have included hundreds of statements of facts which were supported by more than 60 top quality references.

During that time, my main critic argued that "no-one had ever supported my view". However, as far as I am aware none of the millions of editors ever said that what I had added was wrong, not even one of those hundreds of facts, and none of them ever tried to prove that anything I said was wrong because they couldn't.

All they did was say that my theory was not notable unless I could provide proof that I was the author of the book. None of them went to their local hospital or university library to check the nurses journal indexes, and none of them phoned the Australian libraries or newspapers where the items were available, and one editor deleted the page without giving a reason. He did not say that any fact on that page was wrong.

Furthermore when I was made aware of the deletions of some of the other small items, and checked them, I got the impression that they were made by anonymous teenagers who did not understand the level of physiology that you would expect from a first year medical student.

For example, when I said that poor posture was a cause of chest pain they deleted it because I linked it to my own website, and they wanted an independent reference. When I said that tight leg garters caused varicose veins, they deleted it on the grounds that the reference was old and they wanted a newer one, and while I was still new to Wikipedia I made a mistake in the coding which I used to add a reference, and they deleted it because they couldn't find one.

According to the rules they are not allowed to delete "obvious facts" but are required to be helpful and co-operative by looking for modern references themselves, and if they find any minor editing errors they are required to make themselves useful by fixing them, rather than being useless and disruptive by deleting the whole item.

As you can appreciate I didn't do anything particularly wrong, and the other editors didn't do anything useful.

However more importantly, in two years, NONE of the millions of other editors ever said that even one of my hundreds of statements were wrong. They just said they were non-notable, non-neutral, original research, or not referenced according to their interpretation of the finicky letter of their rules and codes.

However when two neutral editors said that the three of us should produce an article outside of Wikipedia and put them back for them to merge into one, my two critics did nothing except criticise my article,h and again, they couldn't prove that any one of my statements was wrong. See my fuller report here.

 

Avnjay . . . 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 links 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 the only person who was "scrutinising" it was my ridiculous nitpicking critic, and 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. 

 

What the neutral editors said about one of the arguments that went on for months

Napoli Roma At a later stage my 2 critics moved a novel called "Soldier's heart" to the top line of the page to give exaggerated emphasis to their opinion about the nature of the illness, so I read it, and found it to be a children's fiction story which did not mention any of the symptoms in its text, so I asked them to remove it.

They argued incessantly about that for several months and claimed to have won the dispute but this is what the neutral editors said

First Napoli Roma could see that they were extremely hostile in arguments when he said that he knew he was "stepping in it".

He then told my two critics that. . . " a link from this page to another page named "soldier's heart" does not perform a disambiguating function." . . . and . . , Ithat he "would not include a hatnote pointing to "soldier's heart" .

He also told them that . . . their "superfluous hatnotes are distracting at best, and in (their) case actually took (them) off on a completely fruitless tangent. This is the opposite of improving usability (including accessibility)." See here.

 

Anchovy essence Another neutral editor named Anchovy essence, who specialised in deciding what could and could not be put on the top lines said . . . "their hatnote was not performaing a legitimate disambiguation." See again here.

 

El Imp Another neutral editor named El Imp removed their words from the top line which said

. . . "This article is about the medical condition also known as "soldier's heart". For other uses of the term, see Soldier's heart.".

Since that editor has deleted their words nobody has put them back. See here.

 

Paul Barlow After I was banned another neutral editor deleted their link with these words "no point in linking to a disamb çge that points back here and lists unrelated usages". See here.

 

The massive lies that WhatamIdoing told to 12 arbitrators

As you can see, I told them to remove their link to their children's fiction story, and four neutral editors agreed with me, and two of them actually deleted them until the top line and the link to the story were gone.

However my main critic was always telling lies from start to finish an argued that nobody ever agreed with anything I said.

She even had the cheek to tell lies to 12 arbitration editors by giving them the false impression that everyone agreed with her and that she had won that argument when she made these comments . . .

"There's a novel named Soldier's Heart, so we provided a link to the article about the book. Per WP:LAYOUT, this link should be in a hatnote instead of in a See also section. Posturewriter complained at length and repeatedly about the disambiguation link being "in the lead" and a "reference". Posturewriter never seemed to grasp the point, and ultimately, it was resolved only because Soldier's heart became a regular disambiguation page."(end of quote) See here.

Note the facts again. I won the argument because I had the support of four neutral editors, and she lost because two of them deleted all links to that page and that novel. She knew that she had done something stupid and lost, but she told them that she won.

 

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".

As they say she sent every other editor a "subtle" message

It was obvious to me that my main critic was sending every other editor a message.

Namely, that she was prepared and capable of doing up to 300 edits in one day, and if they supported her in her attempts to get me blocked or banned, she would reward them with a "barnstar". e.g. See here.

However, if any neutral editor ever had the audacity to support me she would hound and harass them relentlessly until they gave up or were banned. She arranged for Guido den Broeder to be banned, and the editor named Avnjay, who was co-operating with me on a neutral version of the article, was harassed with months of relentless criticism and eventually stopped before the task was completed. e.g. See here and my report on the banning of my support here.

 

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

MY CRITICS QUALIFICATIONS

One of my critics claimed to have an annoyingly high IQ here, and to have university qualifications, but admitted 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

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 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 editor 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 cause of stigma and prejudice in Da Costa's syndrome

The stigma and prejudice that affects patients with Da Costa's syndrome (chronic fatigue syndrome) is produced by the false argument that there is no scientific evidence of physical or physiological abnormalities which can explain the symptoms.

While that belief exists it is possible for other people to argue that the patients are just complaining about normal tiredness, and that it is simply due tolaziness or the lack of exercise, or the the fear of exercise, and that it is just a mental illness caused by anxiety etc.

There are also people who prefer that the stigma exists so they act like the "merchants of doubt", and whenever somebody finds more scientific evidence of a physical or physiological cause they argue that the evidence is about another ailment, or that it is not good enough, or that they need more proof before they will be convinced etc.

However, people with thin and stooped physiques and abnormal chest shapes are more likely to get the problem, and there has been scientific evidence that most of the symptoms are related to physiological abnormalities since the 1950's. Furthermore, I was able to scientifically prove that there was a physical explanation and a reduced capacity for exercise more than 30 years ago. See here.

More recently, when I was involved in Wikipedia, I added some information about my own research, and two individuals used various excuses to delete it, and argued that, according to the rules, I was only allowed to add information from top quality, independent, peer-reviewed research journals and books.

Nevertheless, each time I added such information they reacted with hostility and devised an excuse for deleting it (to hide it from the public), and replaced it with the statement that there are "no physiological abnormalities causing the symptoms".

They were obviously fuelling the flames of prejudice.

If patients want to remove that prejudice effectively they need to clearly recognise how is is being produced.

Who is paying my two critics to deleted information

e.g. Who would financially benefit from convincing patients that their symptoms were imaginary?

My two anonymous critics claim that they don't have a conflict of interest and that nobody is paying them to edit Wikipedia. However, regardless of whether or not they are being paid, the fact is that some organisations would benefit from their editing practices.

I will give the example of an insurance company who has to make payments of compensation to patients who develop the chronic fatigue syndrome. Bear in mind that if you are reading this now, it is possible that you or one of your family members or friends could develop these sorts of problems in the future and end up having to deal with the same arguments.

My two critics deleted scientific evidence of a physical cause

The insurance company could say therefore there is no scientific evidence

They deleted a lot evidence of physical cause on the grounds that the source of information was old.

The insurance company could argue that there never has been any scientific evidence.

They deleted the scientific evidence of physical cause

The insurance company could argue that the symptoms are minor, and that the patient is just complaining to get sympathy, or that patient is just lazy, or faking to get money.

They replaced the physical evidence with psychiatric labels.

The insurance company could argue that the symptoms are "all in the mind", and that the patient isn't really sick, but just thinks he is, or that the symptoms are due to anxiety, fear or depression, or any one of a thousand different mental illnesses.

They wanted to fill the page with jargon

The insurance company could rely on the fact that most patients wouldn't understand the illness, or even recognise that they had it.

They deleted a 20 year follow up study which showed the the illness persisted

The insurance company could argue that it was a temporary problem which would be cured on its own with the passage of time, and that the patent should wait before making a claim,

They could then, after twenty years, argue that it was too late to make a claim, and that the patients should have done so earlier.

 

They put the ailment in the category of Somatoform disorders which is the modern label for hypochondria

The insurance company could use that argument to discourage the patient from reading medical literature to find the scientific facts for themselves, and to discredit the evidence.

   
   

How to bring an end to the prejudice

Note also that the name of the condition has changed more than 100 times in the last 100 years here. The most common label now is the chronic fatigue syndrome and it's subtypes. Those patients are having exactly the same problems with prejudice, and some are attempting to avoid it by changing the name again, but that won't change the fact that some people will continue to argue that it is still just normal tiredness, or that the fatigue is due to laziness or the lack or exercise, or that it is mental and not physical. The only way to stop those lies, and that prejudice is to provide the scientific proof of physical cause, and to stop other people from deleting it and denying it's existence.

Apology demanded

Some years ago I hard about a psychologist who made public statements about the chronic fatigue syndrome being "all in the mind". Within a few weeks he had received 10,000 emails from patients demanding that he publicly retract his statements and apologise. They also sent emails and letters to his local medical authority demanding that he be taken off their register and banned from practicing, and they sent emails to his local politicians etc demanding that they stop paying him the percentage of his fees that comes from the government funds. He was forced to apologise.

An article by E.M. Kigma et. al, reported on a survey of 184 patients to determine how the labels for undetectable illness affected their interpretation. "Functional fatigue, chronic fatigue syndrome, psychosomatic tiredness, and medically unexplained tiredness were given to choose from. The chronic fatigue syndrome were considered to be the least offensive, and psychosomatic tiredness, was interpreted as the most offensive. The authors concluded that "terms for medically unexplained tiredness that refer less to a psychological basis are most acceptable for the patient." (end of quote) here.

My comment: Regardless of how any one interprets the labels, there is actually a lot of difference between the chronic fatigue syndrome, and psychosomatic tiredness. Chronic fatigue syndrome is a condition which persists regardless of any other considerations, whereas psychosomatic tiredness is where a person is tired during the day because of worry and insomnia (the inability to sleep at night).

The difference between the chronic fatigue syndrome and normal tiredness is well established by long term follow-up studies which people like my two Wikipedia critics delete in their attempt to hide the evidence from the general public.

The biggest lie in Wikipedia history

The scientific evidence that most of the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome are due to physiological abnormalities was proven by the 1950's. My main critic deleted that evidence and then said, in two places on the page, that there wasn't any.

My main critic was a massive liar who told a lot of blatant lies, but also used calculated and very devious methods to deceive the other editors, administrators, and readers of Wikipedia. Those methods included systematically, and precisely deleting scientifically proven facts, and replacing them with misleading statements.

To explain how she did that I will provide some facts.

One of the purposes of research into Da Costa's syndrome was to determine if the symptoms were real or imaginary, and by the 1950's there was a substantial body of scientific evidence of physiological abnormalities which proved that they were real.

I mentioned such findings in the text and in two sections of my version of the article. One of which was called "Physiological Abnormalities related to exertion". I referred to the abnormal patterns of breathing during exertion, and the abnormal pooling of blood in the lower part of the body, and the fact that the chest pain could be temporarily relieved if an injection of pain killing drug was given in the precise location of the pain. I also provided top quality references to verify that each statement I made was true. e.g. See here.

In order to deceive the readers my main critic deleted those two sections from the text, and replaced it with a much smaller version of the article which included the following misleading words in the opening paragraph . . .

"a physical examination does not reveal any physiological abnormalities. Da Costa's syndrome is considered the manifestation of an anxiety disorder and treatment is primarily behavioural, involving modifications to lifestyle and daily exertion" (end of quote) . . .

and again the following words in the section called "Symptoms" . . .

"Symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome include fatigue upon exertion, shortness of breath, palpitations, sweating, and chest pain. Physical examination reveals no physical abnormalities causing the symptoms" (end of quote) here.

That editor arranged from me to be banned so that I couldn't put the correct information back, and the same misleading information remains in Wikipedia more than three years later.

Note that I have had this ailment for more than 30 years, and that in the earlier stages several people tried to argue that there was no physical basis for my symptoms. However, as I acquired medical knowledge I was able to present the scientific evidence for the real causes, and those discussions would cease because it was obvious that the person disputing my evidence was either ignorant of the facts, or telling lies, and they became too embarrassed to continue the conversation. My objective is to provide other patients with the facts so that they can defend themselves from such false and defamatory accusations.

More details can be seen below.

A quote from Wikipedia

"We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge . That is our commitment—and we need your help." here.

THE SPECIFIC DISCOVERIES AND EVIDENCE THAT WERE DELETED BY MY TWO CRITICS

and replaced with opinion and jargon

Time in history The evidence that the Wikipedia editors deleted.

 

Deleted information
Policy reason used as an excuse for the deletion

1916

Sir James MacKenzie's 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 on the 14th May 2008 here

Deleted with the comment "Remove original research".

1919

 

Sir Thomas Lewis changing the name to the "Effort syndrome"' because of the relationship of the symptoms to physical exertion.

Deleted on the 14th May 2008 here

Note that Lewis was Knighted for his contributions to the study of Da Costa's syndrome which he renamed as the "Effort syndrome" because the symptoms were related to exertion. It became the most widely used label in Britain, as distinct from the U.S.A which preferred the label of "neurocirculatory asthenia".

Deleted with the comment "Remove original research".

1939

S. Caughey's review of the literature of internal medicine on the subject of cardiovascular neuroses in that period.

I included the following information to show what the general medical literature was saying about chronic fatigue in the 1930's. It presents evidence of the typical physique of patients, which is correct, but says that the symptoms are normal, trivial, or imaginary, which has since been proven wrong.

 

Deleted on the 14th May 2008 here

Caughey discussed the topic of cardiovascular neurosis, and stated that the earlier label for it was the "effort syndrome".

He mentioned the generally thin physique of patients and the fact that they had many illnesses when young and "had always been nervous and easily fatigued". He attributed the ailment to the fact that they had never been allowed to participate in sport and did not develop the normal stamina for exertion. He concluded that the symptoms were not related to the level of exertion but to the fear that the patient had that the exercise tests would harm his heart, and suggested that there were two groups of patients - those who never developed the ability to persevere against the challenges and adversities of life, and those who tried but gave up.

 

See the report about my 1982 research project which scientifically proved that patients were not afraid of exercise, but would train if the program was designed appropriately, and that the symptoms were related to the level of exertion here. See also my report that such patients were not protected from the dangers of sport, and that in fact, many had previously been very athletic here, which proves that Caughey was wrong.

Deleted with the comment "Remove original research".

 

Those two editors don't want the readers to know that the medical ideas of the 1930's were wrong, and that I proved them wrong in 1982, so they deleted both pieces of evidence.

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.

1950

Edwin Wheeler's 20 year follow-up study of 173 patients published in the Journal of the American Medical Association

This long term follow up study of 173 patients with the "effort syndrome" showed that it involved varying degrees of disability which persisted for the 20 years being reviewed, but all patients tended to improve with a low-stress lifestyle.(It provides clear evidence that chronic fatigue is completely different to the problems of normal tiredness etc.)

 

Deleted on the 14th May 2008 with the comment "Remove original research". here

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" Chronic fatigue syndrome)

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 misrepresented 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 statement that the left-sided chest pains can be immediately relieved by injecting Novocaine between the ribs.

The fact that the pain can be relieved by injecting a pain killing drug in the correct spot proves that it is real and entirely physical.

e.g. I Added it here

Gordonofcartoon deleted it here etc.

(Novocaine is local anaesthetic 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.

I added that information here

WhatamIdoing deleted the physical measurements, and kept the idea that the symptoms were due to the "fear for their hearts" here

And later deleted the entire comment and the reference which contained the full information. e.g. See here.

 

Note that that I was able to scientifically prove that the symptoms were not due to a fear of heart disease, but were due to the abnormal physical and physiologicsl response to exercise. (See more here). My two critics didn't want the readers to know that I am the person who proved that the previous ideas were wrong.

The measurements were deleted after Gordonofcartoon called the entire article cruft and said that it needed to be abbreviated.

Soon after that WhatamIdoing removed a lot of the information, including Volkov's study on the grounds that it was "original research".

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 Streeten'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 criticising 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 military 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 discussion 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 British 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 deleted 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 occasions, 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

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" here

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" here

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" her

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.

See more about how the lost the hypervenyilation argument here

The Removal of Relevant Statistics to create false impressions

Insurance and chronic fatigue syndrome

In1975 I was experiencing health problems which were not responding to treatment so I decided to study medicine and determine the cause and treatment myself. At that time there were disputes about the nature of my illness and I was required to attend a tribunal to justify why I should be granted my entitlements. However I was too ill to pursue the claim at that time, and now it is essentially too late to do me any good anyway.

In the meantime I have been able to develop methods of treating the symptoms, but have also found and established scientific proof of physical cause, and it's long term affects.

However, more than 30 years later, while I was presenting that information for a Wikipedia article it was obvious that two editors didn't want the readers to see it, so I now provide the following explanation.

People take out insurance policies and make regular weekly payments into a fund so that if they become ill in the future and are no longer able to work for a living they can claim compensation for the financial cost of medical treatment and the loss of income.

Of course, some people will fake illness so that they can get money for doing nothing.

However my two Wikipedia critics act as if they are highly paid professional liars whose job is to swindle genuine patients out of their entitlements so that the companies can maximise their profits.

In that regard they edited the article about Da Costa's syndrome in the following manner.

First they carefully and thoroughly searched through the article and systematically deleted scientific evidence that each symptom has a physical basis which proves that it is a real illness. e.g. See here

Secondly they deleted a 20 year follow up study from a top quality scientific journal which showed the real disabling affects on the persons ability to maintain normal employment.

They also argued that the chronic fatigue syndrome is not related to Da Costa's syndrome so that modern patients who are diagnosed with chronic fatigue cannot trace the history of scientific research and find all the evidence and proof that it is a physical ailment.

They also tried to hide the statistics on how common the ailment is, and tried to give the false impression that it is trivial and rare.

Deletion of disability statistics

Without such information it would be virtually impossible for anyone to get compensation or insurance for the ailment.

See 00:54 on 29th December where a treacherous editor named Gordonofcartoon deleted information about my 1982 to 1984 research into the measurement of exercise capacity in chronic fatigue patients, and the effects of exercise training here

See 1:05 on 29th December where he suggested removing the statistics from a 20 year follow up study.

See 21:12 on 10th February 2008 where the editor named WhatamIdoing, who teamed up with that unscrupulous individual, betrays chronic fatigue patients by deleting scientific evidence of the long term nature of the ailment from a 20 year follow up study of 1950 here.

See 20:46 on 20th february 2008 where WhatamIdoing, the same treacherous editor, deleted the scientific measurements of chronic fatigue which had been produced by a Russian researcher in 1980 here.

 

See also Insurance & CFS and burden of proof and how they deny people their entitlements and the consequences and a law to protect claimants and here

 

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 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 be 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. (Notice how Gordonofcartoon is trying to trivialise that information by adding "kind of thing" to the end of his sentence).

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'. See here.

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 instead. . .

"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). That sentence was intended to mislead the readers by implying that it is just the opinion (self-reports) of patients, and that the symptoms are caused by stress, and all you have to do to relieve them is avoid stress.

Note 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 Gordonofcartoon's comment here

The summarising process can be seen here

See also my report on the deletion of Volkov stats here

See a letter between the Countess of Mar and Simon Wessely here and my rerport on the John Maddox Prize here

Gordonofcartoon is a shameless and disgusting liar

My two critics were absolutely prolific liars who would tell lies about anything to suit any of their grubby purposes. For example, Gordonofcartoon would tell blatant lies about Wikipedia's rules for the type of information which should or should not be put into articles. In one instance he wanted to delete information from the page about Da Costa's Syndrome so he invented the following absurd and ridiculous excuse which I quote . . .

Gordonofcartoon wrote this .. . . "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 a thing). This is an encyclopedia article for general readership, not a med journal literature survey. I've also posted it to WP:COI/N." (end of quote) Gordonofcartoon 01:05, 29 December 2007. See here.

 

Any intelligent adult could quickly check other articles to find examples where such detail was provided, and nobody commented on it, and nobody invented an excuse for deleting it, and it is still there. For example, the following quote comes from the page about Arthritis . . .

"More than 70% of individuals in North America affected by arthritis are over the age of 65. Arthritis is more common in women than men at all ages and affects all races, ethnic groups and cultures.In the United States a CDC survey based on data from 2007–2009 showed 22.2% (49.9 million) of adults aged ≥18 years had self-reported doctor-diagnosed arthritis, and 9.4% (21.1 million or 42.4% of those with arthritis) had arthritis-attributable activity limitation (AAAL). See here.

 

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.

They lost the argument about hyperventilation but won't admit it

In the very first sentence of the discussion page about Da Costa's syndrome my main critic wrote these words . . .

"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".

That editor also wrote these words . . . "Most of them have a problem with habitual hyperventilation, which may or may not be triggered by anxiety. HVS explains all of the symptoms. It also explains why fitness training helps some patients, because when you exercise, you change (improve) your breathing patterns. See here.

I told them that they were wrong in every respect because the patients don't habitually hyperventilate, and hyperventilation does not explain all the symptoms, and it does not explain the benefits of exercise. However they argued about it relentlessly until they eventually lost, and all mention of that aspect quietly disappeard from the page and isn't there now. In the meantime they did not admit that they were wrong, or apologise for their ridiculous criticism, and continued to "put on a big act" as if they were correct and I was wrong.

This is a quote from a reference book by J.W.Hurst . . . "It was found that during a standard exercise test, patients with this syndrome had a lower oxygen consumption and greater rise in blood lactate level than normal controlsy. " Reference: J.W.Hurst, 1974 The Heart 3rd edition, McGraw Hill, New York.

Note also that that Wikipedia has a page about the biography of Simon Wessely who was recently granted the John Maddox Prize (in November 2012) in relation to his research into chronic fatigue syndrome and exercise, and this is a quote from that page . . .

"Other work on CFS included . . . establishing the lack of relationship between hyperventilation and CFS". See here

hypocricy and prejudice in Wikipedia

The point to be made here is that when I made such statements they called me a non-medical person and a fringy kook, but when Simon Wessely said exactly the same thing Wikipedia reported that he had been awarded one of the worlds most prestigious prizes for research excellence.

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

 

A quote from Wikipedia

"We want you to imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge . That is our commitment—and we need your help." here.


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.

 

This is a quote from that editors comments about my contributions . . .

"It's deleted. Complain. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat . . .

and . . . every single contribution outside of Da Costa's syndrome deleted . . .

and . . . practically every contributed sentence inside that article either deleted or substantially revised"

signed WhatamIdoing 23:50, 27 July 2008 " (end of quote) here

 

(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.

Some quotes from the Universal Studios movie called Spartacus; "This campaign is not to kill Spartacus; it is to kill the legend of Spartacus . . .
and . . . I want Spartacus buried alive; Leave no marker on his grave.".

Damnatio memoriae

See how my main critic "lurked" over discussions "obviously" to "control" them here. A person who arrogantly uses such an expresson is showing evidence of their ridiculous attitude and personality.

 

For a quote from Wikipedia . . . "Damnatio memoriae is the Latin phrase literally meaning "condemnation of memory" in the sense of a judgment that a person must not be remembered . . . The intent was to erase someone from history, a task somewhat easier in ancient times, when documentation was much sparser ". here. Note that with people like my main critic controlling inmformation in Wikipedia, it is actually a lot easier to obliterate someone from history nowadays than it has ever been before.

 

Introduction: When I joined Wikipedia is was to help it to improve it's range of knowledge, so I thought it was a good idea to link to my book which has a thousand pages of indexed information about posture and health. It would be good if my book was mentioned in Wikipedia but I definitely didn't "need" Wikipedia, as it has already been presented in lots of places.

When I was being criticised by two of their editors I didn't care, and when I was banned I didn 't try to rejoin, and since then I have become a critic of the liars who banned me.

However this is what a melodramatic editor named Doc9871 wants other people to believes that banned editors think . . .

"A Note On "Retiring" - You put a lot of time into the project. You want your efforts to be rewarded by recognition, naturally. But now you feel "alienated", and want to let the world know just exactly why you left. Well, tough shit? No one really cares, and they never did. "It was just so much nicer when I joined initially!" Wrong. By leaving, you've only proven that you cannot evolve with the project, for better or worse. You're extinct. Your influence is all gone. You've elected to become a memory that few will remember. Ozymandius. The wiki existed long before you, and will exist long after you. Be here, and be proud while you're here, or just go away. And don't cry "wolf"; soap operas are to sell soap. Come back when you've reconciled all the evil and imperfection in this world.

Note that I existed, and my theory was written long before Wikipedia was even thought of, and that edtior has the attitude of a worthless snotty grub who thinks that he can decide who is important and who is not. With that ridiculous attitude he will never ever do anything of significance himself.

I didn't try solve problems because I sought something as shallow as fame or a sense of importance. I did it because the ailment affected me, and nobody else could understand or treat it effectively.

Essentially, I solved the problem, so any other 'rewards' such as recognition, are not the real event. They would just be the icing on the cake.

Only shallow people like my 2 critics would value 'status' for it's own sake.

 

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" here

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

To see another editors response to hounding and harassment on the subject of the 'chronic fatigue syndrome' see here

and where that editor discusses hatred and conspiracies here

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

 

The logical and sensible facts which I added to Wikipedia

In March 2007 I looked through the Wikipedia articles to see if there was anything which I could add to improve them, and saw one called "Human Position". I therefore added a link to my website called "The Posture Theory" which is based on my book that contains 1000 pages of useful information on that topic. See that addition here.

On 28th November the same year I went to the page about Chest pains and saw that there wasn't any information about postural cause. I therefore added a paragraph which said that poor posture involves leaning forward which puts pressure on the ribs to cause occasional chest pains. See here.

About an hour later I found a page about the Chronic fatigue syndrome and added a small section where I explained that many of the patients had stooped spines and long, thin and narrow chests. I then gave a brief account of my own theory with the total edit being only about 125 words plus a reference from a book by Paul Wood. See here.

Also during the next 24 hours I went to the page called Kyphosis (which refers to the hunchback posture), and noticed that it didn't mention that it could be caused by rickets. I therefore added the fact that the lack of vitamin D during infancy can cause the child's bones to soften and bend under it's own weight. See here.

About a week later, on the 9th December, I did a quick search through the topics again and found a page about Varicose veins and noticed that it didn't mention that tight leg garters were one of the causes. I therefore added that fact, and mentioned that in such cases they typically occurred below the garter line. See here.

About an hour later on the same day I found a page about Da Costa's syndrome and started adding information from top quality references, and later added a section about my own ideas which were soon deleted. During the next twelve months I added information from top quality independent sources, and in that period virtually all of the criticism and deletions were made by the same two editors.

My main critics ridiculous rant of criticism

The following words are a quote from a ridiculous raving and ranting edit by the editor named WhatamIdoing who was trying to convince another editor named SmokeyJoe that I was a worthless person whose contributions were nonsense.

"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 " (end of quote) here

Note that some of the information that I added to the page about kyphosis is still there more than four years later. and can be seen in the Wikipedia page of 26th Sept 2012 here. My website which contains a list of many more causes of spinal abnormalities than Wikipedia can be seen here, and the list here.

 

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

The Cause of Chest Pains. . . The Posture Theory ebook contains information on the major cause of chest pain here.See my other reports about the chest pains and costochondritis here and here.

Modern research as of October 2013 . . . On 13-10-13 Tom Kindlon provided a Twitter link to a Youtube video by Dutch Professor Dr. F.C. Visser, cardiologist, who presents his report on the "modern" investigations into the chest pain of CFS which he says is common, and in his studies affects 40-5-% of patients, but other studies show 80%.. He also refers to the cause of the breathlessness, and orthostatic intolerance in chronic fatigue patients, and gives the impression that the research is new. However, exactly the same set of symptoms are seen in Da Costa's syndrome, and CFS is just a "new" label for the same ailment (EXACTLY). He suggests what has been said for over 100 years, that the cause is not due to heart or lung disease, and that patients need to be reassured about that, which is reasonably sensible, but definitely not "new".

He also gives suggestions about the pain being squeezing or stabbing in nature, and presents three possible causes. The first is irritation of the small joint between the sternum and lower ribs, the second is related to the lymph vessels which drain the area, and the third, which he favors, is that it is not the result of affects on the local anatomy, but is due to an affect from the brain sending signals to that region. He notes that it can be relieved by pain killers if it is bad enough, but is not usually necessary. (Although most modern researchers don't know that, it is NOT new). He concludes that they symptoms are not produced in the local anatomy of the chest, but result from the brain.

I could make some further comments but because my ideas are being plundered and pillaged by every man and his dog who does research, I will choose to keep my ideas to myself, but I can say, that it is highly unlikely that the brain has got anything to do with the chest pain, or the other symptoms in any direct way. You can view the video by Professor Visser here.

The paragraph above was written on 14-3-13, and the paragraphs below were probably written about 6 years ago when I was involved with Wikipedia, or shortly after, and is based on my research 20 years ago, and some of my observations and conclusion about my own symptoms 35 years ago. (note that Dr. Visser appears to be a sincere man who is trying to help CFS patients and I wish him the best in his endeavours).

 

My research from the past I added to the Wikipedia Chest Pains page by including poor posture as one of the causes, and used my own book "The Posture