User talk:218.215.41.143

November 2023
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Da Costa's syndrome—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Materialscientist, thankyou for your comments on my recent contribution to the Da Costa Syndrome page where you referred to the aim of Wikipedia to be courteous and respectful to foster a collaborative editing climate.
 * I was aware of that in 2008 when I added the treatment section to the page which is still there virtually unchanged 16 years after an editor secretly used the ignore all rules policy, WP:IAR to ban me.
 * I would therefore like to respond to your comment with the utmost respect for you intentions.
 * You have just deleted my contibution instantly without having time to check the facts, and that is not fostering collaboration. I would therefore respect you if you first checked the facts and reinstated the information as instantly as you deleted it and didn’t require me to go through a more elaborate alternative process.
 * The source of information for my edit were Jacob Mendez DaCosta’s research paper from 1871, and Sir James MacKenzie from 1916, and Sir Thomas Lewis from 1919, and Paul Wood O.B.E. from 1950-56, and Paul Dudley White, Harvard professor Emeritus 1919-1972.
 * You can easily check those papers because I added them to the Wikipedia reference list in 2008 and the actual papers by those authors are still there 15 years later in 2023.
 * The two editors who criticised me relentlessly as a tag team systematically deleted all the evidence of a physical cause and saturated the page with psychiatric labels. I would like you to note that the physical treatment method was entirely my edit, and there is no mention to psychotherapy which you would expect if they were consistent.
 * In respect for you I do not wish to waste your time or mine by discussing the many ways they tried to discredit me, but one of their comments was this “his references do not even meet Wikipedias basic standards of reliability and are old, out of date, and before most editors were born” (end of quote). The other editor didn’t even know that the illness was named after Jacob Mendez DaCosta until I told them.
 * After you have checked the facts I would respect your courtesy if you put the edit back as instantly as you deleted it and did me a favor and tidied up the layout and the headings.
 * I would be even more grateful to you if you supervised the article to ensure that nobody else deleted the edit instantly unless they could provide proof that any detail I wrote was wrong, and check with me to defend against the criticism.
 * Before I end I would like you to know that I had 39 essays published in the online version of the British Medical Journal between 2013 and 2016 and was invited “as an expert in my field” to join their peer review team to comment on the best research papers presented to their journal in my area of expertise. DaCosta’s syndrome, now called the chronic fatigue syndrome, is my main area of expertise.
 * I look forward to your courteous and respectful collaboration and to seeing the edit returned to the main page promptly. Max Banfield, Banfield Research, former Wiki ID Posturewriter 218.215.41.143 (talk) 23:49, 16 November 2023 (UTC)