Talk:Bogdanov affair/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Bogdanov affair. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

→

Igor no longer banned: now editing as User:Igor B.

Igor has indirectly responded to my plea above by editing the article as Igor B. (and has improved the article by uploading and inserting a personal photo). He is no longer banned from editing the article, but edits on the same conditions as everyone else. I ask everybody to refrain from sterile edit warring, and to work towards consensus on this talkpage. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Good. Thank you Bishonen for having removed my "banned status".

since Igor never submitted to his "banned status", what difference did it make in the first place? (when us honest editors are blocked for 24 hours, we don't edit for at least 24 hours.) what law is there for someone above the law? r b-j 02:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that EE Guy, E.Shalow (for the photos) and yourself have really improved the article and it is now a faithfull and well balanced informative article about the "affair". If it is not subject to a new wave of changes or perturbative actions we (Grichka and myself) have no more reasons to modify it (except, perhaps, for minor details like "Honorable mention" and the number of citations).

Since the very beginning of this "editing war", we did not battle for a blindly "positive article"

that is decidedly a false statement. what we normally call a "baldface lie".

(which would have been ridiculous since it is dealing with the "affair") but only for an objective and balanced "compte rendu". There are some things that are obviously unpleasant to us (CQG statement, Hawkins report, last Motl's citation) but we accept it as it is : a faithfull image of the reality surrounding the "affair". We hope that certain of the most "determined contributors" will also accept the positive informations that are balancing the negative ones.

Thank you again for all your efforts in the matter.

Thanks, Igor. Note that your name account will be especially useful for you (and convenient for admins and others) if you log in for all editing — editing on this page, too! One big advantage is that logged-in, you will get the "New messages" banner pointing you immediately to messages posted on your own talkpage, User talk:Igor B.. Also, you'll have access to the useful "Watchlist" feature, that can tell you immediately when anybody edits Bogdanov Affair, for instance. (Just click the "watch" link top right on any page that you'd like to keep an eye on.) Bishonen | talk 18:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

yeah, like Igor's gonna pay any attention to those "New messages" that he's been blocked for any reason. why bother, when he can just get another IP and edit away? r b-j 02:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Igor, please complete the copyright information for the image

Igor, please add the {{GFDL-self}} tag to the image description page for the image you uploaded and put in the article, see my message on your talkpage. Seriously, you need to do it yourself, I don't get to do it. I've checked with the copyright cops on IRC, and the image really will get deleted soon if you don't get round to it. All you have to do is type {{GFDL-self}}, just as it appears here, and it'll expand to an appropriate Gnu Free Documentation Licence statement when you save. Be sure you're logged in to your new account when you do this. Bishonen | talk 21:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

As a Commons admin, I'd like to suggest that the image also be double-licenced with the Cc-by-sa-2.5, it will make it much more convenient to use it (see [1] for more details). Many thanks ! Rama 07:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Article extension proposal

How would the honorable editors of this article consider the proposition that Alain Riazuelo's text posted here be a sub article (with a link to it in the article itself) ? If Igor and Grichka Bogdanov will give once some scientificaly relevant answer to it, this answer could be append to the sub article as well.

See the answer above "To whom it might concern" --XAL 23:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the concept of "subarticle" in the sense "Not an article that can stand on its own as encyclopedic" is not accepted on Wikipedia. And obviously a text written in the first person--an argument, yet--wouldn't be an encyclopedic article, so I'm afraid creating it would be a waste of time. I foresee that it would be briefly discussed on WP:AfD, where it would be condemned (for Wikipedia purposes) as "an essay", then deleted. Counterproposal: why not publish the text somewhere outside Wikipedia--on the web--and put a pointer to it in the External links section in Bogdanov Affair? Bishonen | talk 06:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

YBM did that : he created a page on his web site and put an external link to Riazuelo's article. But do you (Bishonen) see how he did it ? By using Wikipedia's design and imitating its style, in such a way that most readers will think that it is an article of Wikipedia ! And the illusion is even stronger that in this page there are a lot of links which point to articles of Wikipedia, exactly as if it was one of them !

I don't know if he has strictly the right to do that : Wikipedia's style can be free of copyright, I don't know... But I hope you will appreciate at its true value YBM's sense of manipulation.

I remind you that Riazuelo and YBM are personal enemies of the Bogdanov brothers, two of the most relentless ones among people who harass them on all the fora for monthes and monthes. YBM's site has been made only in order to criticize and insult them. Thank you of taking this into account, even if you don't want me to write about the problem of harassment on the article "Bogdanov Affair" - in spite of the fact that it is an integral part of it, and despite the role of this harassment on the article itself.

Laurence67 18:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Archived again, please let's stay on topic

I've archived again, for recent posts see Archive 3. Please try to stay on topic so we don't have to archive so often. Long rants make the page difficult to navigate, as do vague headings. Personal outbursts have no place here, please take them to the talkpage of the person you wish to address (and even so, I remind editors that Civility is policy everywhere on the site). Use this page only to propose and discuss changes to Bogdanov Affair. Please write in English only, unless there's some special reason for inserting an original text in French (in that case, you need to supply a translation). XAL, inserting Danish phrases in your posts is pointless on the English Wikipedia, it's uncommunicative. Please take the time to look them up in a dictionary. Bishonen | talk 13:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

What about those inserting french phrase to begin with? As far as I am concerned I didn't insert any danish phrase at all. I have put a word, but never a phrase and never where it was of mening for the text, but only as an answer to the insults of EE guy. --XAL 17:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Inserting new message from Laurent s after archiving

(follow up to : archived posts)

Good afternoon,

I am normally a very patient and comprehensive person but I can no longer stand the repeated wrong assertions of XAL concerning my qualifications nor her constant raving about quite everything, especially in science. Once and for all, XAL, I do NOT have a Phd in physics even if I have some moderate knowledge about it. I wrote some remarks on usenet that I still consider perfectly well- founded in order to rectify certain points about the criticisms of ALBB by YBM, that's all. For the other points (not only in ALBB) concerning Igor and Grichka Bogdanov I think it is preferable for them to answer themselves since, of course, even if I've had some conversations with them, I cannot always tell exactly what they had in mind when they made some affirmations.

It‘s also time for you, XAL, to come back to Earth and realize that Alain Riazuelo IS A COSMOLOGIST and that he is perfectly qualified to discuss about early cosmology.

BTW can YBM be more precise when he pretends that I lied in order to protect cranks? I suppose it’s only a bad expression .

Laurent s 13:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not know who you are, and this family name was given by YBM, thought you only appear on the internet side I refer to as, Laurent. So I don't give a damn about your comments, and concerning Alain Riazuelo, I do maintain that he don't have a thing to do with cosmology, and that he know nothing of the subject and that he prooves it by staying away instead to present his academics and his area of research, which he has fail to do for 2 months now! :-P

You are not the one I refer to, so your comments are displaced here.

I didn't ask for you to pretend being somebody else.

I quote Laurent and not Laurent Sacco or something like that.

You are quiet late by the way? Staying too long on Rio Brava? or just never used before by ybm?

I also wondered how ybm could suddendly talk of a Laurent family name Sacco when he just had denied any knowledge of it and denied laurents' article in june 2004.

I don't buy this crap!

--XAL 17:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

XAL, I hope you know who I am and that you can trust me. Laurent S is indeed the same Laurent you refer to. --CatherineV 18:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you here, and to see someone from the "pro-Bogdanov" side explain to XAL how shamefull his behaviour is. I would have appreciated, though, that Igor would have done the same, but apparently he doesn't care much on the correctness of some people's conduct as long as they are on his "side" (same applies to some Laurence67's edits). Such rants are, nevertheless, eventually hurting his cause.

I've been a bit rude when qualifying your usenet post as lies, in fact there are some in it, but quite minor relativily to your purpose. Basically your post was a rhetoric escape, ignored most of the real problems with ALBB and had to rewrite part of the book to give it any sense.

Completely wrong, you didn’t understood what I wrote. Laurent s 18:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Then, you'll have to rewrite what you wrote in order to give it another sense that it have. --YBM 18:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

They were lies,too. Here is one :

> YBM : Du mot « imaginaire » qui renvoie à l'imagination, laquelle renvoie à la production de la pensée,

> et finalement à l'information les Bogdanovs partent de l'invention de l'eau tiède pour se vautrer sur un

> grossier contresens. Il n'y a rien de spécialement lié à l'information, au sens mathématique, physique ou

> informatique du terme, dans les nombres imaginaire

YBM,YBM . ta colère incontrôlée te fait vraiment perdre tout jugement !

Il n'y a rien dans le livre d'Igor et Grichka qui indique qu'ils tiennent un tel raisonnement .

It’s completely ridiculous.

There is a deep connexion between complexe numbers, quantum mechanic and gravitation as pointed by Penrose in ‘The road to Reality’ or ‘The Emperor new mind’ for example.

Lot of peoples (like ‘t Hooft ,Wheeler etc…) think actually that a proper understanding of quantum gravity is closely related with questions of information theory, that what we can guess with the connexions between imaginary time, entropy and black holes established by Hawking.

They didn’t think (IGB) ‘imaginary number, ah ah! If it is called imaginary that’s because there is a link between those numbers and the imagination and consequently the thoughts!’.

Penrose thinks that there is a connexion between the physics of mind and quantum gravity so we can think there is a deep connexion between information, imaginary numbers and the brain.

It remains to be really established of course, what they say is only about that.

For them there is a deeper level of reality that we can have some glimpse at in the Euclidean regime of quantum field theory, farther there is maybe something like the pregeometry of Wheeler (last chapter of MTW).

As an illustration of what I said.

http://xxx.soton.ac.uk/abs/quant-ph/0501135

http://www.sciamdigital.com/browse.cfm?ITEMIDCHAR=79508D6F-2B35-221B-6A42C8CA21EE1ECF&methodnameCHAR=&interfacenameCHAR=browse.cfm&ISSUEID_CHAR=7935C8F4-2B35-221B-61F1030A5C6B32EF&ArticleTypeSubInclude_BIT=0&sequencenameCHAR=itemP

In fact every body reading what I said and ALBB will clearly see that what you say about my supposed 'lies ' is false.

We can disagree about our reading of ALBB, of course, but if you really want to claim that I wrote lies prove it!

You should think twice before using such an inappropriate and dishonest term.

BTW, I don’t want to discuss anymore neither on wikipédia, nor with you; this is not the appropriate place and I think it is useless.

Laurent s 18:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You are again trying to rewrite what they wrote (this is the kind of trick used by charlatans who pretend to found some particle physics in the Veda) : "The time is imaginary. What does it mean ? Simply, that the evolution of the system will no more be real, as in our world, but imaginary, as in the information world." (there are no context problem, I even gave the whole page or so in my french article).

So I was right by saying you lied. --YBM 18:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

To YBM and Laurent

The way imaginary numbers are mentionned by the Bogdanoff in this part of the book is extremely ambiguous, to say the least. YBM does not give them the benefit of doubt there, whereas Laurent does. There is definitely some links between complex numbers and many areas of physics. Everybody agrees on that. It is 99% sure that the Bogdanoff heard about it. There is however nothing that guarantees that any of these connexions they might have heard of was clearly understood by them. Moreover, there are plenty of others parts of the book which show in a much more definite way their poor understanding of many areas of science. For example, I think that both YBM and Laurent would agree that mentioning that the size of the Solar System was sensitive to the expansion of the Universe was incorrect (well, that becomes true soon before the Big Rip, but that's another story). So it is useless to argue about this issue imaginary numbers/imagination stuff. I do have the impression that Laurent was honestly trying to figure out some serious stuff they referring to, but contrarily to him, I think that even though they are right to point some connections between complex numbers and this or that, they do not understand them at all.

Alain Riazuelo 21:02, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Dr Riazuelo.

Laurent s 22:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess that your opinion on the behaviour of Igor and his sock puppets (the forgery of the preprint with quotation marks, the intervention of Amelie de Bourbon-Parme, etc.) and on Alain Riazuelo's "Journey in the Bogdanoff universe" would be appreciated. Do you have a idea why Igor, while crying for a real scientific debate, did not say a word about this text ? --YBM 15:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll let Laurent speak for himself, but regarding your last question, I don't think a "real scientific debate" belongs on Wikipedia, and definitely not on this Talk page where insults and disdain corrupt the discussion much too often. Besides, this particular editing system is not very practical either for such a purpose (but that's a detail). CatherineV 15:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right : this place is about the article content. But there are a lot of places where Igor and Grichka could respond to, or comment on, Alain Riazuelo's text, on their own web sites, on your web site, on one of the fora they've posted in the past... It would be a bit more scientific or constructive (not to say honest) than to falsify their book with Photoshop or try to make people believe that the french government special services are supporting them (this idiocy will make me laugh for years) --YBM 15:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Definitely worth more than a thought, yes. CatherineV 16:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) However :

I just saw the page you formatted to host Alain Riazuelo's comments. One question : if I was to host the Bogdanov's reply on my site, should I also keep the Wikipedian lookalike format so as to maintain a similar illusion of wikipedian patronage ? This is definitely not off to a good start. --CatherineV 20:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with Catherine, and I've explained why above, in the section #Article extension proposal.

Laurence67 20:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Hadn't seen your comment (it's not always easy to track down every new post on this page). But I see we share the same unease --CatherineV 20:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Come on girls ! I had to import a large part of Wikipedia CSS in the document in order to make it appear correctly, as it make an intensive usage of special style class, especially in order to have mathematical formulas correctly inserted in the text. The whole Wikipedia stuff (logo, sidebar, tabs, header and footer) is not on the copy of the text. Anyway, if you are so scrupulous about these kind of unlikely confusion (you'd better have the same attitude with Igor and Grichka usual behaviour, when it has been a real problem), I will try to change part of the style so that the page appear even more as not a part of Wikipedia), there's still some glitches I'll have to correct.

It is indeed very impressive how you can talk about the CSS style of the document so lengthly without having any relevant comment on its content... Well, Laurence67 reversed the cause/effect by stating that Alain did write this document because he was attacking the brothers without realizing that if any honest or educated people attack the brothers it is because of the very actual content of this document... and others. --YBM 20:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just alter the stylesheet in order to make the page quite less wikipedish, could the surscrupulous gang check if it is enough ? Or should I make it as white text on a white background ? --YBM 22:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I can't honestly say I'm wild about it (the Wiki references bother me more than the actual lay-out), but I suppose you're right, I can't be too picky about it. In any case, if I am to host any reply (not my decision), I'll correlate both articles. --CatherineV 08:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

As I told you this morning ybm, you cannot use photoshop to that kind of purpose, even with the help of JP Voyer who don't have a clue about this program and do believe that it is used by newspapers for their preprint!!! As I told you this morning, and you avoid answering to it but choose to reinsert the same article again and again, you cannot use photoshop to that purpose, as you cannot use an iron to make a phone call. You are so naïve to support the estonishing theories of JP Voyer, and of Alain Rialuezo, when in fact the guy has been bluffing you since the beginning. He isn't at all a specialist in cosmology and he hasn't read the thesis nor understood them. He simply don't have the level of expertise, as it can be seen in his lessons of physic given by him in your "previous " forum, before you made a copie conforme of it, without the disturbings contains..(((-:>.

The article is finished and agreed upon by both part. What are you still doing here? It is finished, game is over.

Goodbye,

--XAL 17:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I wonder what proportion of you mind is insane and which is dishonest, and if the sum is more than 100%. It is Igor who pretented first that Photoshop was used to compose pages at Grasset, then he realized how stupid it was to say so, and found another, contradictory, line of defense. Anyway, the forgery of a preprint of their book has been confirmed by Grasset. --YBM 18:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Really? I would be curious to know where and when Grasset "confirmed a forgery of the preprint of our book". Can you provide us any proofs of this? Of course not. As usual, you are diffaming without any grounds (except your own words). I talked to the people from Grasset this very morning : they are very surprised you pretend that they took position as you make them appear to have. This is another aspect of your person : if the reality is not the way you wish it to be, you will distord it untill it appears as you would like it to be. But there is a major difference between your "model of reality" and the reality itself. In this particular case, YBM, you have to know that your assumptions about "Grasset confirming...etc" are of no value. And you should stop right here.

Igor

I feel you are a bit worry on this issue, aren't you ? Are you sure you talked to the right people at Grasset ? --YBM 13:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrong!

Igor sayed to have use Photoshop to make a scanning of the document in order to can insert it on the internet, as it is the purpose of photoshop program beside its use for digital photography. I use it often myself, but I can see that you have no knowledge of this basic. Understandable since it is a very long time since you obtained your degree in informatic and the world of IT do have changed a lot since...((-:>

Proove of it is also your compleete ignorancy in regard of IP adress and server network system. I use also a portable computer, with a blue tooth integrated internet connection system, and my IP will therefor change from a place to another. Anybody travelling from a city to another and using cyber café computer or librairy computer, or any internet access from a public place or access by capting the signals through blue tooth, will have a different IP adress. In order for wiki to follow up with the IT devellopment they will have to found another system than this IP signature as the iP is not controlable by the user but depend on where the user is to be found geographically. I have 47 different IP adresses, and am obliged to only send to wiki from my home base in order to avoid controversy and "socket puppets" accusations. Thought it was made anyway... Thats also why private mails can only be received at home base unless using a general mail box like yahoo, or msn, or any international mail box accessible from any computer with an internet connection. Upgrade your knowledge and your vision. As regarding my "more than 100%" (how scientifical!) degree of insanity and dishonnesty, this answer clarified it all and if in doubt, I learned it from you master lyer.

--XAL 18:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It is indeed very scientific, in the limit case where you would be completely insane and completely dishonest, it would sum up to 200%.

You'd better read better what Igor wrote here.

Anyway he failed to explain why the photoshop file layers show that the image has been heavily processed around the offending sentence - thus proving that the "«" and "»" has been copied and pasted as bitmaps, and why the spacing is irrealistic.

What the hell are you talking about IPs and Wikipedia now ? You should know that Wikipedia does not relies on IP in order to track editing, but for non authenticated authors. Explaining you a bit of TCP/IP and modern client/server technology is probably far beyond my capabilities, even if I use to teach them, I've never tried to do so inside a psychiatric hospital tough. --YBM 19:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact being that you don't even have a clue as what I am referring to as you don't know a thing about new computer technology. My knowledge in this area is far more up to date than yours, and you can't hammer up with my know how in this area.

So go back to school instead of blaring. The Ip is the alone way through wich wiki can trac the editor so your rant is a confession of your ignorancy in this domain. You have never been able to advanced any prooves of your completely far out accusations about this photoshop scanning. Your bit map story has not a thing to do with what they used this photoshop for, and in fact a scanning with photoshop insure that the copy is as close to the original as possible, unless you wish to make a lawsuit against the editions Grasset..be my guest :-P

Regarding the psychiatric hospital I am very sorry but not so surprised to see you confined in such a place. I know it is going to be a very long time before you can come out and see the sun rise on Quimper again, but as long as they provide you with a bredband connection, I think you shoulf be glad and not so much aware of the change anyway..<:-))P.

Not to forget, the insanity from your friend JP Voyer in the departement above yours, "restrain dpt", who had the vulgarity, with your permission, to insert those atrocities inside my own text. So I duplicate it here, for all to witness how far out you all be, thy god might have pity on your poor souls! Good I ain't God, 'cus I haven't this view on you both. He think he is General de Gaulles, also sign with this name (!!!) and believe that I am the reincarnation of Simone Veil (its getting creepy out there)))-:)

Also in his numerous mails to me, I let the other users to be judge of it, but in my mening they should put up the dosis, some Lindanaum, might do the trick. <:-))P

PS: Bishonen it is in french and it wasn't me who inserted it in my own text. So if it was this you ment by "not inserting danish sentences on wiki english", I ain't to be blame, Thats YBMs' gurou, mister Voyer or de Gaulles, I ain't completely sure yet. But feel free to ask him directly for his identity, which he seemes to hide. Ashame?

--XAL 19:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

_________________________

En effet on peut lire : « aucun éditeur n'utilise Photoshop pour mettre à jour des épreuves de texte : c'est bien assez difficile comme ça sans utiliser, de plus, Photoshop, qui est réservé, comme son nom l'indique, à la mise au point des photos et non pas la mise au point des textes. »

Mais c'est une téléologue ! Elle ne comprend pas ce qu'elle lit.

Si donc, aucun éditeur n'utilise photoshop pour les textes, c'est bien la preuve que ce sont les frères qui ont bidouillé les scan des épreuves. Pour prouver qu'il existait des guillemets sur un certain jeu d'épreuve, il suffisait de scanner l'épreuve et de la livrer au format .jpeg ou .tif par exemple. Nul besoin de Photoshop pour cela, et encore moins besoin de livrer des fichiers au format Photoshop, fichiers lourdement retouchés. Si les frères avaient eu deux sous de jugeotte, ils auraient retouché le scan puis ils l'auraient enregistré au format .jpeg depuis Photoshop et ils auraient publié ce document. Ainsi le tour aurait été joué, toute trace de manipulation aurait ainsi disparu.

Général de Gaulle 80.9.55.195 09:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

_________________________

Thanks for the tip mister Bidouillet! We can see that it isn't your first time and that you have been fordgering texts for a very long time. Congratulation for this and for sharing your experience as maquisard with us. I suppose that you do speak english? If not, who told you what was the subject of discussion here and how did you found your way? With a little help from your friend YBM? Bah! he is a translater too, thought it is long since he made his Linux 3 page translation, so let him give it a try. You better stay backstage, for your unlucky comments are raining on his parade. Cheers!

--XAL 19:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sure, your history of editing wikipedia and the way you were unable to find your own past edits here show how deep is your knowledge... ROTFLOL --YBM 19:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It shows that I am an honnest person who do not try to pass over rules even if it is possible and do not use multiple access to build a fordgery and cheat administrators with it as you did. To be able to infrindge the wikipedia 3RR rule, isn't a sign of high knowledge in iT but of a degenerating use of a basic knowledge. How dare you mention this when the arbitration ABOUT IT is still rolling? Don't you believe that the administrators and arbitrators of wiki will be clever enough to see pass your tricks? Don't be so sure of your untouchability. The veil will soon fall. You didn't answer concerning photoshop real purpose and the mix of your friend, in french. Do you have any explaination for this behaviour, and do you mind staying on the subject, and stop making personal attack to divert from the real matter? This is the ninth time you make attempt do bring me in disgrace by making personnal attacks. Are you finish with it now? I believe this photoshop story and guillemets story and transcendental numbers to be over now. Case closed.

--XAL 20:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop!

Please have a lool at Wikipedia:Talk page. Please create a YahooGroup or something like this to for incooherent chatter. It's very tempting to revert the latest posting on the talk page, but perhaps they are needed as a warning to any stranger coming here. --Pjacobi 19:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it will be better to have YBM stopping to make personal attacks on me to avoid the questions. He called me alier, insane, dishonnest up to 200%, from a psychiatric hospital, an idiot, a teolog with no understanding, an ignorant of IT, a socket puppet of Igor Bogdanov, and accused me for not delivering answers when I did deliver answers in order to avoid to take a new stand point on the basis of those answers. I chose to send him back the ball straight and smooth, with elegancy, to avoid any escalation of it and to make him understand that it wasn't going to work. I think you should point it to him from the beginning. Also to this anonymous person posting here under the name of general de gaulle and who is a very dear friend of YBM. I don't know what it is he is after, and his words make no sense at all.

--XAL 20:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I see the mudslinging continues on this page; ban warning

Thank you, Pjacobi. My appeal above to stay civil and on topic didn't have much effect, perhaps I should have given an example. I pick an exchange between YBM and XAL and give a cleaned up version:

~~I wonder what proportion of you mind is insane and which is dishonest, and if the sum is more than 100%.~~ It is Igor who pretented first that Photoshop was used to compose pages at Grasset, then he ~~realized how stupid it was to say so, and~~ found another, contradictory, line of defense. Anyway, the forgery of a preprint of their book has been confirmed by Grasset. --YBM 18:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Wrong!

Igor sayed to have use Photoshop to make a scanning of the document in order to can insert it on the internet, as it is the purpose of photoshop program beside its use for digital photography. I use it often myself. , but I can see that you have no knowledge of this basic. Understandable since it is a very long time since you obtained your degree in informatic and the world of IT do have changed a lot since...((-:>

--XAL 18:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup rationale: Rhapsodies about the other person's supposed ignorance have nothing to do with suggestions for improving Bogdanov Affair. XAL's whole IP discussion is out of context, it's merely there to illustrate YBM's supposed IT ignorance; as YBM points out in his next (equally rude) post, it's actually XAL who is mistaken about IP identification on Wikipedia.

I didn't pick these two posts as the worst, but as examples from two editors prone to personal attacks and (in XAL's case) irrelevance. I hereby warn both of them (and anybody else who feels like getting involved in this type of exchange): look at my example and stick with my cleaned-up style, or you'll find yourself banned from this page. One more crack about the other person being insane or an alcoholic, and you're out, too. Sarcasm is a no-no. I'm completely indifferent to who started what, btw: from now on, don't let yourself be provoked into answering in the same vein if you encounter rudeness, that's all. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

PS to XAL: I can read French. I can read Danish. I decline to get into an absurdist play by arguing with you about which is which. Bishonen | talk 20:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

XAL is banned from posting on this page until further notice

I'm the first to regret that it's apparently impossible to warn XAL without setting her off. Rather than archiving yet again from the top, where there are some posts of general interest, I am excising the entire bloated irrelevant exchange between XAL and YBM that followed on my appeal against bloated irrelevant exchanges and pasting it into both their talkpages, where they're free to do what they like with it (except change anybody else's words, of course): delete it or cherish it. XAL, I'm sorry, but since you don't seem to take on board what the warnings mean, you are banned from Talk:Bogdanov Affair. That means that you no longer get to post here. No posts on this page, until further notice. If you break this injunction you will be blocked. If you have anything you deem important to insert on this page, you will have to persuade some other regular editor of the page, via their e-mail or talkpage, to "adopt" your edit and insert it for you; there is no objection to this. You are free to post everywhere else on Wikipedia. You are welcome (as far as I'm concerned) to continue the argument with YBM on user talkpages, where it belongs. YBM, you are enjoined from arguing against or referring to XAL on this page. Please try elsewhere too to avoid stirring her up into wanting to post here, that would be most unfair. Bishonen | talk 04:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion continues

just to let you (Bishonen) and everyone else know that i have not decided to "bow out". (it was wonderful temps here in New England and the rest of the Northeast U.S. and when i go out into the elements of nature, i assume there is no wi-fi there.) the deletion (or "suppression" as Igor would call it) of factual data, namely what identified physicists themselves say about the Bogdanov work is simply what it is, the deletion of relevant factual data that the B brothers do not like. it will go back in, but i am working on another section where these brief statements plus links to expanded statements are made. that is part of the affair.

another part of the affair is the dirty tricks. we'll be spending some time to document them (essentially identifying from first person accounts on various blogs and web pages) examples of creation of bogus personalities (at least one of which Igor has admitted to here) and, most damningly, the ostensibly deliberate mistranslations of criticism (particularly dismissive critique) into praise of the B brothers published "research" and inclusion of that misappropriation on their books. that is, in and of itself, scandalous by the mores of most true scholars and deserves to be included.

otherwize, this article is a whitewash. r b-j 02:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

You're right. In the current version the article address the affair as it has been revealed in 2002. What happened from 2004 to now is not correctly addressed. --YBM 14:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will be clear : if you want to write about this (among others), I want absolutly to write also about what has happened on the forums, it means about the harassment, the insults, the difaming accusations etc. that the Bogdanovs have been victims of, and still are. I will write also about the attempts of YBM, Riazuelo etc. to destroy not only their reputation, but also their career, by trying to have them fired from France 2 and to have their theses cancelled !

That is also - and above all, I think - the "Bogdanov Affair" ! And I'm pleased to learn that Bishonen can read in french, because for at least one year (and more) this affair occurs in France, in french language, and between French people who know the Bogdanov brothers as famous people, not only as scientists. Needless to say that it affects everybody, not only the ones who are "for" them, but also some malicious people who would never have used up such an energy harassing "anonymous" scientist. I think that this situation is hard to understand by confining oneself to the texts written in english.

Laurence67 11:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"defaming" ? Please, name at least one case.

Of course that the affair would have been close to nothing if the brothers weren't public personalities, making a public use of a low grade Ph.D. in order to trick people and sell them a cranky "theory". You are reverting the cause and the effect. That two cranky thesis has been submitted in a near to dead lab in a small university is not especially an affair. Did you know that people from there tried to dissuade the brothers to publish their book ?

When TV showmen pretend to present science on TV, but, in reality, are only doing self promotion and illustrating crackpottery, when most of their shows are wrong on basic issues (you should have a look on the way they explained time dilatation and compare to any popular introduction to SR), it is perfectly right to write to the guy at the TV channel who is in charge of such problems (the "mediator"), to protest. In fact the brother had then to produce a forgery in order to save their pants, it won't work next time. --YBM 12:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

YBM : nobody with a minimum of "moral sense" would follow your actions : do not forget that the chief of the magazines departement (as such responsible of our program in France 2) had to tell you that she would undertake a legal action against you. As a result, you stoped immedialtly to send her any emails. You are not competent to speack about a partition function as you are equally not competent to speack about the good way to present the "time dilation" phenomenon in large audience TV program.

Igor

You did well to surround "moral sense" with quotation marks (this time at first shot), since we all know what meaning it has in the Bogdanov's world ("Anything in support of you is moral, anything deserving you is not"). You are giving a quite innacurate version of the real story here, actually it is your responsable who stopped sending me e-mails. BTW, I received a lot of support from numerous people for having warned the mediator of France 2 of the way you are making popular science on french public channels a joke.

I'm not incompetent to speak about a partition function, but I wonder why you are incompetent to speak about what an algebraic curve is (to pick a sample out of many). --YBM 17:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

IT's true, thanks to you! --XAL 02:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Rbj : what you call "dirty tricks" is only the consequence of some things that we wrote, based on our full liberty as authors, in our book. Two remarks here :

1. Peter Woit : The slight mistranslation concerning 1 word of his text ("certain" instead of "certainly possible") was made by the translator of our Publisher and it was minor (did not change anything about the content of his text).

2. Schreiber : He made a good "step by step" analysis of our "démarche" and (except on 1 or 2 points) proposed a rather faithfull image of what we did. This is the reason why we decided to publish his text : as a good technical synthesis. Not for his conclusion that reflected a personal opinion (we beleive his conclusion was negative because in the paroxysm of the "hoax discussion" he had to claim "I do not agree with their work" in order to stay within the "conformal group"). This is what we beleive. Because his analysis was far too acurate and exact to "bear" such a conclusion which came from the context. If only you understood the definition of a partition function and the role it plays in our theory you would also understand why Schreiber's conclusion was not based on any technical point of view but on some contextual feeling. As authors, we decided not to publish this conclusion in our book because it was not relevant. You have not read our book. The Schreiber text was not published in the book itself but in one of the "annexes" of it (as a minor element). This is why we only went to the "essence" of it (a good technical analysis) and not to any personal conclusions. This is not a "dirty trick".

Here is what Schreiber might have seen in our theory. This is what should be discussed (don't hesitate to ask some theoretical physicists what they think of it : this is more important than asking Riazuelo what he thinks of quantum groups when he does not understand a single word of it).

Our partition function is quite general and corresponds to the sum on all the possible states of the metrics (in terms of signature). This partition function is written Z = trace of minus S exp minus beta H. When beta goes to 0, this partition function, clearly, does not diverges and is reduced to a topological invariant (exactly the same topological limit considered by Witten when H goes to 0). Of course, as far as the physics is concerned, there is a divergence around beta = 0; but note that our supergravity lagrangian is :

L = beta hat R + 1 over g squared R squared + alpha R,R dual.

So when beta goes to 0, we have showed that this lagrangian is reduced to the topological term alpha R,R dual, dominated by zero-size gravitational instanton. This result has been validated by all the string theorists involved in the committees (Kounnas specially). Instead of "puzzling" together the so called "dirty tricks" we played in our book, why dont you ask Kounnas (or Motl or whoever is competent in that field) what they think about our partition function and the form of our lagrangian?

Igor

"this is more important than asking Riazuelo what he thinks of quantum groups when he does not understand a single word of it" : Anyone with a pregraduate level in maths can fully understand how incompetent you are in basic algebra (not to say about quantum groups), by reading this note from a real mathematician] or even by reading you showing that you don't know what an algebraic curve is.

Did you even notice this text from Alain Riazuelo. You've been asking desperately some scientific debate for monthes, when it happens you escape as a rat in front of a cat. Even some of your supporters (quite a few, those who care about science) would like you to respond or comment honestly this kind of critics. --YBM 14:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Lubos Motl wrote: Dear Igor, good point that one can also ask the people you mention (which does not mean that our opinion is more important). I would have to look at the Lagrangian and especially your form of the partition function again, but sadly to say, my understanding of your work is not deep enough so that I could reliably connect your intriguing formulae with anything that we consider meaningful in physics.

The gravitational instantons based on the topological action could indeed be an important part of a dual, "quantum foam" description of quantum gravity. Nevertheless, it is hard for me to agree with your statement that the Lagrangian "reduces" to the topological term. In the full Lagrangian, if written properly, there are also higher derivative terms that are expected to exceed the "R squared" topological term at ultrashort distances, near the big bang you study, much like the Einstein-Hilbert action, which you write among your terms of choice, wins at long distance scales. These terms appear even if you have 32 supercharges in supergravity, and they are the main reason why we normally believe that the usual geometric and topological intuition should not be trusted at subPlanckian distances.

If you think that there are no E-H and higher-order non-topological terms in the action in your limit, you would have to give more evidence for this statement. In that case, it would indeed be an extraordinarily interesting observation. More generally, my feeling is that the brothers at least approximately know what the Lagrangian and the partition sum are, and their work deserves to be respected as an attempt to uncover some interesting gravitational short-distance physics - an attempt that has not quite succeeded yet. And this discussion looks, because of their contribution, as a legitimate discussion about a speculative idea - and no one has the moral right to humiliate them just because their route to physics was unusual. Best wishes, Lubos Motl, --Lumidek 12:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not about "humiliating" them, but about making public the way two cranky TV showmen are trying to present themselves as genious in front of the public, and are using the most dishonest tricks in order to do it. --YBM 14:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

About Schreiber : you cannot deny that by inserting his post when removing two sentences in a popular science book, you reverse the meaning readers will give to his text. Moreover, you know perfectly well what Schreiber thought of your conduct, and promised to restablished his text on later print of you book. What you didn't : you only add the lacking conclusion while mistranlating it deeply, and forgot the first removed sentence.
You forgot some other people you misquoted completely :
- John G. Gioris
- Shahn Majid

--YBM 11:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

YBM : About Schreiber : his text (published in the "annexes" and not in the book itself) was - as I wrote above- a technical "step by step" analysis. Schreiber's personal conclusion was totally irrelevant. It is one thing to say "here is the technical construction" and another thing to add "here is what I think". Because what "Schreiber think" was a personal and simple opinion that was not argumented and demonstrated on scientific basis. The only thing that was a little argumented was the "step by step". If Schreiber had developped the reasons why he thought our approach was wrong, why did'nt he demonstrate it explicitly in his text? In this case, we would have probably published it. But since it was not the case, we treated his conclusion as a simple opinion not relevant and therefore not acceptable as a scientific statement.

Regarding the other translations, you seem to neglect the basic fact that all the translations of english material were made by the professional translator appointed by our publisher (who wrote an official statement on this point) who took full responsibility for these texts (for instance he explained why he translated "interesting" by "important" which seemed more appropriate in the context of the french reading). You have to admit that all these elements are details and that we certainly did not ask the translator appointed by Grasset to translate these texts in our favor (in fact we did not even read these translations which were done by a professionnal and published in "annexes" of our book, not in the book itself).

Igor

Schreiber technical exposé is about illustrating how cranky was your "construction". It is especially dishonest to remove his comments, since you were sure that for non-technical readers, such exposé will appear as a support.

Moreover : you didn't comment about the facts which prove even more your bad faith :

* You didn't restablish the full text, and translated very very badly the conclusion you eventually added

Let's have a look at Giorgis text and the way it is "translated" in your book :

(cf. http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1441745 )

These papers claimed—well, it is not clear exactly what they did claim. And therein lies the problem, for all

were published in well-respected peer-reviewed journals. That means publication was conditional on the say-so

of independent and anonymous expert referees. Nonsense is not supposed to get through this process—certainly not

five times.

[...]

Nonetheless, l’affaire Bogdanov might give post-modernists justifiable cause to snicker. And it leads you to

wonder what else is getting through the supposedly foolproof net of peer review.

In the Book "Avant le Big Bang", Giorgis opinion is quoted as :

Tous les articles des Bogdanov ont été publiés dans des revues à “referees” extrêmement respectées. Cela veut donc dire que dans chaque cas, la publication a été rigoureusement soumise à l’approbation d’experts indépendants et anonymes. Des articles incompréhensibles ne peuvent pas passer au travers d’une telle procédure, et certainement pas à cinq reprises !

(complete paragraph, note that the Bogdanov began to translate in the middle of a sentence and the words they added up and changed, the result is a complete reversal of meaning)

All Bogdanov's papers has been published in well-respected peer-reviewed journals. That means therefore that publication was rigorously submitted on the say-so of independent and anonymous expert referees. Nonsense cannot get through this process—certainly not five times.

It is not a translation issue : you had to remove half a sentence, change context and add words in order to reverse the meaning of Giorgis statement. You're right that a translator from Grasset has no reason to falsify a text, we all know who had interest in such forgeries, don't we ? --YBM 12:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

YBM : since you are so certain that Giorgis was mistranslated, why don't you send a letter to Grasset's translator? You are free to do dit. But stop filling this discussion page with your endless non relevant comments.

Igor

Typical "jelly"-like evading :

YBM> It is not a translation issue : you had to remove half a sentence, ...

Igor> since you are so certain that Giorgis was mistranslated...

Anyone can compare Giorgis' paper to your "abstract" of his opinion, as well as anyone can compare Schreiber post to you various translated versions. Your deep and disgusting dishonesty is a public fact for quite a long time. --YBM 13:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

YBM has nothing else to do than being obsessed with details. He is aware of that. What is he gonna do later ? Will he spend his whole life trying to destroy the work of other people or will he one day try to do something constructive ? This question about translations is one aspect that he is obsessed about for most than a year. Igor is too patient. LLL

Of course, members of the "fan-club" and/or sockpuppets consider all of this as "details". The problem is that when you remove from their book every quote of scientist which is not forged or misquoted there is not one left, the same if you remove every scientific innacuracy or stupid blunder, there is no content left.

BTW, if you consider that quoting scientists while making them say the contrary of what they actually did is a detail, you should be much more interested by the critics against the scientific content of their book/TV shows/papers/thesis ? Curiously noone never heard you on these subject (even if Igor said you're involved for a year or so, I only saw you popping up some weeks ago) --YBM 20:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

YBM, each and every time that someone disagrees with what you said is immediately qualified as member of a fan club or sockpuppet. It's a pity that you cannot simply imagine that I may think you are obsessed. On my own. LLL.

There is a very simple criterion which can applies to any such situation. Someone who disagree with an argumentation based on facts and actual content without giving any comment on these facts and contents is a fan or a sock puppet. For instance, you, Laurence67, A. de Parme, and XAL are "fans|sock puppets", CatherineV, and most other here are not. The point is not about agreeing or not with me or anyone. --YBM 21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

We can make progress by examining these quotations one by one. Summarly dismissal is hardly more useful than misquoting without any distance. Rama 20:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a section on this at the end of this page. --YBM 21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please see discussion on my talk page before editing

Everybody, especially rbj, is invited to please see this discussion on my talkpage before editing further. Bishonen | talk 18:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

About the new campaign of quotes injection by Igor

We have to be very carefull about the quotes Igor is now injecting again in the article. Forging, tweaking, reverting quotes is an habit of Igor and Grichka, they did it numerous times in their book, on Usenet and here.

The one supposed from Massimo Porrati is completly unauthenticated. As a matter of fact it has been quoted on Usenet only once, on fr.sci.physique, and it was in a post from "Huang Lu" one of the numerous fake identities of so-called scientists Igor admitted to have used.

The second one, from Roman Jackiw is part of the thesis reports. It should be noted that :

We have no other source of this reports than Igor and Grichka
They have not been authorized by their authors to be published
They are very conventional texts, and should be read "between the lines", as Shahn Majid explained when he discovered to have been similarly abused in Bogdanov's book (his report has been published there without authorization and partly falsified).

Same apply to Verbaarschot's report, with even more doubts : Verbaarschot has never been a reporter to Igor or Grichka thesis (but their former director) and there is no way to track down this "report" even at University of Burgundy. --YBM 20:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

An answer to Lubos Motl

Dear Lubos, welcome on this page of discussion. It is really good to see you here.

you wrote : The gravitational instantons based on the topological action could indeed be an important part of a dual, "quantum foam" description of quantum gravity. Nevertheless, it is hard for me to agree with your statement that the Lagrangian "reduces" to the topological term. In the full Lagrangian, if written properly, there are also higher derivative terms that are expected to exceed the "R squared" topological term at ultrashort distances, near the big bang you study, much like the Einstein-Hilbert action, which you write among your terms of choice, wins at long distance scales. These terms appear even if you have 32 supercharges in supergravity, and they are the main reason why we normally believe that the usual geometric and topological intuition should not be trusted at subPlanckian distances. If you think that there are no E-H and higher-order non-topological terms in the action in your limit, you would have to give more evidence for this statement. In that case, it would indeed be an extraordinarily interesting observation.

Indeed, it is perfectly true that in the general string context D = ... , the theory generally induces non-perturbative corrections and a coupling with higher derivative terms expected to exceed the R squared term. But here, the context in slightly different, since we consider the low-dimensionnal sector of the theory. Indeed, D=4 (and N=2). In four dimensions, the expansion of derivative terms can be limited in a natural way to the R squared term (see for instance Kounnas and al). This is also true in our Kaluza-Klein context (viewed here as the D=5 superposition of the D=4 Lorentzian + Euclidean gravitationnal theories). So, on the ultra-violet limit of the theory (associated to the coupling constant g goes to zero) the Einstein term and the R squared term are exponentially supressed of the Lagrangian. Consequently, the only effective contribution on this 'topological limit' comes from the topological term RR dual. In this case of course, the time-like direction of the theory is compactified on the circle of radius zero (where we find the instanton sector, dual to the monopole sector of the 'superposed theory'). From this point of view, the ultra-violet limit (beta goes to zero) and the infra-red limit (Planck scale) represent two sectors of the same theory and can be seen as related by a duality relation of the T-duality type (which, in string theory, exchanges the scales of the theory). Then, in our approach, the so called 'zero-scale' (initial singularity given by the topological term) is dual to the 'physical scale', given by the Einstein term.

This is a brief hint and can be of course more detailed and referenced, if you wish.

Thank you again for your kind attention and your precious comments about our work.

Grichka B. 194.206.212.1 03:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm planning to add the following paragraph, but since this is a controversial subject, I'd like to get some comments on it.

I would be very curious to find out who this "Ze Miguel" really is.

Internet Discussions

The Bogdanov affair has first been discussed extensively in the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.research, then on fr.sci.physique, various english and french-speaking blogs and web forums, and Wikipedia. The Bogdanov brothers have frequently taken part in these discussions, presenting vigourous defenses of their work. However, it has been demonstrated that in many of these discussions, they used countless pseudonyms and fake identities (sock puppets), invented to pose as respectable mathematicians and physicists, such as Roland Schwarz, Petitot or Liu Yang.

All of the postings on Usenet by these pseudonyms were done through Google, and their e-mails originated from dial-up accounts in Paris, France, or through anonymous relays. Invariably, these identities agressively defended the Bogdanovs' work, launched ad hominem attacks against their critics, and urged people to buy their book, before disappearing as quickly as they had been created. The Bogdanov brothers have acknowledged using these pseudonyms in order to protect their privacy.

Those tactics, after they were exposed, did further erode the credibility of the Bogdanov brothers. See for instance Talk:Bogdanov Affair.

sources:

(There are more sources if needed). -- Ze miguel 10:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Obviously this "Ze Miguel" post does not contribute in any manner to the present article. In itself, the uses of a "Ze Miguel" pseudonym here illustrates what happens all the time on internet : people are constantly hiding behind pseudos to convey their messages or their position. I have explained extensively last year why I used pseudos myself in response to these kind of stupidities. It's time for "Ze Miguel" et al to realize how far they are from reality.

Igor

Mr Bogdanov: I updated the paragraph to mention that you acknowledge using pseudonyms. While I'm not a theoretical physicist and certainly would not be able to judge the correctness of your work (I even enjoyed your shows on French TV when I was a kid), I was astonished to see the behaviour you have been displaying towards your critics since the beginning of the controversy in 2002. I think this behaviour is quite relevant to the discussion about the Bogdanov Affair, and has been sufficiently documented to justify inclusion in the Wikipedia article. The tone of your reply to me merely proves my point. Ze miguel 11:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

___________ Again, WHO ARE YOU? if you are so "certain of yoursefl" why don't you disclose your real identity? So who are you? You know my name, what I do, where I work, you know almost everything about me. Therefore, it is normal that I ask for your name. Specially if you aim to criticize my use of pseudos. You could be as well a "sock puppet of YBM" or anyone else. It is indeed because of behaviours like yours that I used pseudos some time ago.

Igor

I'm quite certain you realize that what is the target of criticism here is not your use of pseudonyms on public forums, which could be understandable, but the unethical behaviour associated with that use: multiple pseudonyms, creation out of thin air of real-life scientists endorsing your work, personal attacks on your critics, and so on. As for my identity, there's only one thing to say: "If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger." Ze miguel 15:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Igor, it is perfectly acceptable to edit anonymously here, as long as the nature of the edits is not a disturbance. Ze miguel does not have to disclose his identity for his edits to be valued, not any more than any of us here. If the content of his statements becomes problematic, you are welcome to say so, but your attempts at discrediting his remarks because of he is anonymous are worthless. Rama 15:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I support Ze miguel's proposal, some significant part of what these sock puppets have actually written in posts could be interesting as well. Still about the unethical behaviour, I'd suggest to add a summary of how scientists are quoted in Avant le Big Bang in order to make them appear to support the authors' work even when the don't. --YBM 12:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

________

I do not subscribe to this part of the article. I reduce it to its minimal part.

Igor

Cite-Mania

Obiously it isn't the encyclopedic style to add a whole pile of cites to the article. I see, why this is happening: We cannot agree on how to paraphrase and weight all these cites. But we should definitively give it a try. One condemning an done laudating cites could be left on the page, for illustration. --Pjacobi 10:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I have always said that such an accumulation of cites would be of a very bad effect on the article. Here is what I wrote to Bishonen on her "talk page" this morning :

"Good morning,

I just added some more "positive" comments in reaction to all the "negative" material collected by rbj. As I said, I do not think that it is a good idea to put together all these comments. I have 2 remarks and one proposal.

Remark : Rbj is now obliged to collect private emails (ie the one between the journalist Fabien Besnard and Urs Schreiber) in order to feed his "negative" tank. How far can we go like this? I observe that, at this point, we have far more "positive" (and argumented) material (it all comes from scientific discussions or reports made by mathematicians or physicists about our work) than rbj. If we continue like this, his material will come from YBM and other "internet anti Bogdas" that are haunting various forums. I really do not think that this will improve the article, far from it. As it is today, this article is really less good and clear than yesterday. Does rbj really care about it? Does Ybm care about it? I do not think so. Their only aim is to hit their target, by all means. As soon as we try to have a scientific discussion (ie our last answer to Lubos Motl on the discussion page) they promptly invent another pseudo to pollute this discussion with the same old "rengaines".

Proposal : I propose to come back to the version we achieved yesterday (with only the 3 "positive" additions to the 3 "negative" rbj's). At this point, every Wiki reader would have understood the controversial content of the "affair. This way the article would still be clear and readable. What is your opinion?

Best regards to you,

Igor"

"If we continue like this, his material will come from YBM and other "internet anti Bogdas" that are haunting various forums."

There is already Riazuelo's quote, and his long text (against you, of course) published on YBM's site, in a style which still looks like Wikipedia, and whose link is in the "external links", as a reference...

I hadn't seen the article since yesterday, it's too funny : we are all losing a lot of time for an article that nobody will ever read !!! I've never seen anything so boring and bad, as an encyclopedic article. It will be an excellent example for the journalists who want to write a negative article about Wikipedia's system...

Laurence67 11:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Before we could imagine cleaning up the cites, could you please precise what is the status (origine, date, reference, context, authorization of publication, etc.) of each of the ones you inserted ? --YBM 10:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The same applies to you, no? The material I put together was published on many websites since 2002 (most of it comes from the thesis reports, as you should have noticed). Igor

Of course, but I didn't insert such material in the article, only in the talk page (always with full references). Most of the material you've inserted has been published on a few website or Usenet articles... but most of the time by you. It is a quite a weak reference. Most editors won't accept such auto-reference. Moreover some of these documents could be unauthorized to publish or in conflict with Wikipedia licence terms. --YBM 11:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Before to satisfy your request (and mainly to save some time) I propose to cancel all these cites : I never agreed with this kind of avalanche and never will. If rbj understand that he is destroying the article and accepts to go back to the initial state (1 or 2 "anti" and 1 or 2 "pro") then it will be OK. And we will fully document the cites left in the article.

I quite disagree. There's not so much different documents quoted in the article right now. Keeping part of all of them could have some interest for the article. --YBM 11:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I do agree. Because this hudge river of cites that lasts for too long will never be read. LLL

Exactly my point, too, and I've said so weeks ago. This makes for a long, tiresome and confusing reading, which is not what either party wants. --CatherineV 11:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Eventually quoted or not, fully or not, it is of the highest importance to get references and status of these documents since all of them are available from the article by following direct links. --YBM 11:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Too many pieces of information kill the quality of information given. LLL

My request is, of course, about providing references, status, etc. on the Talk Page. --YBM 12:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

So, provided we do point to the Talk Page where accurate references would be posted, we could clear most quotes off the article but summarize a couple of them in a nice, neat and balanced way. Is that what we're aiming at ? --CatherineV 12:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Giving references and status of every quoted or linked document is a prerequisite to anything. Then we could discuss how pertinent it is to include some in the article. I don't buy the "balanced" argument, balancing between truth and lies, honesty and dishonesty, science and pseudo-science is not Wikipedia's goal. --YBM 12:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The real logical and democrative way of talking especially here is of course in a balanced one. LLL

Wikipedia is not a democracy. And the article does not attempt to be "balanced", but to be precise and correct.

I would recommend that every citation be documented (who exactly said what, where, when and why) and when this will be done, that the relevant, illustrative and appropriate quotations be put into the article. Note that citing exact quotation in misleading ways (for instance citing a politeness said during a PhD attribution ceremony as a full endorsement of a work) is not relevant, illustrative and appropriate.

Also mind that this article and this talk page are not a Theory Physics newsgroup. Thank you. Rama 13:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Hang on, discussing science should be paramount to the affair which, I remind, was initiated when scientific articles were claimed to be a hoax. The content of these articles should therefore be discussed whenever possible. I agree that this is not the best platform for a scientific discussion, but you can't dismiss such valuable inputs either. CatherineV 10:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Informations about the Citations

Here are the elements regarding the cites I am responsible for (I suppose rbj will do the same on his side).

Note that none of this cites are polite comments said during our PHD attribution. I indeed have such documdent (the "defense report") but I never used it and never made it public. I only use the written official material that was issued, at the request of the University, by experts to technically evaluate the thesis. I also used the official reports issued at the request of the Editorial Board of various physics journals, by experts to technically evaluate our scientific papers.

Here are the elements :

2. Classical&Quantum Grativity (CQG). referee's report

Author : Anonymus referee appointed by the Editorial Board of Classical & Quantum Gravity

Where it was published : The copy of the report was sent to the journal on Feb 15, 2001 and we got a copy by email from CQG the same day

Date : 15.02.2001

Purpose : Evaluation of IG Bogdanoff paper "Topological Field Theory of the Initial Singularity of Spacetime"

2. Chinese Journal of Physics (CJP). referee's report

Author : Anonymus referee appointed by the Editorial Board of Chinese Journal of Physics

Where it was published : The copy of the report was sent to the journal on Jan 10, 2001 and we got a copy by email from CJP the same day

Date : 10.01.2001

Purpose : Evaluation of IG Bogdanoff paper "Topological Origin of Inertia"

3. Comment from Massimo Porrati, Professor of Physics at New York University

Author : Massimo Porrati, Professor of Physics at New York University

Where it was published : An email dated Oct 30, 2002, which was largely distributed amongst physics community

Date : 30.10.2002

Purpose : Informations about the "Bogdanoff Affair"

4. Thesis Report requested by the University of Bourgogne

Author : Roman Jackiw Professor of Theoretical Physics at Massussets Institute of Technology (MIT)

Where it was published : This report was sent by Prof Jackiw to the University of Bourgogne and published on various internet sites (among them : http://igor.bogdanov.free.fr)

Date : 11.04.02

Purpose : Evaluation of I.Bogdanoff Thesis "Etat Topologique de l'Espace temps à l'Echelle 0"

5. Thesis Report requested by the University of Bourgogne

Author : Jac Verbaarshot, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Stony Brook University (New York)

Where it was published : This report was sent by Prof Verbaarshot to the University of Bourgogne and published on various internet sites (among them : http://igor.bogdanov.free.fr)

Date : 18.09.99

Purpose : Evaluation of I.Bogdanoff Thesis "Etat Topologique de l'Espace temps à l'Echelle 0" and acceptation as co advisor of the thesis

6. Zcechoslovak Journal of Physics (CJP). referee's report

Author : Anonymus referee appointed by the Editorial Board of Zcechoslovak Journal of Physics

Where it was published : The copy of the report was sent to the journal on Apr 17, 2001 and we got a copy by email from CJP the same day

Date : 10.01.2001

Purpose : Evaluation of IG Bogdanoff paper "Topological Origin of Inertia"

5. Thesis Report requested by the University of Bourgogne

Author : Costas Kounnas, Professor of Theoretical Physics at Ecole Normal Supérieure (ENS)

Where it was published : This report was sent by Prof Kounnas to the University of Bourgogne and published on various internet sites (among them : http://igor.bogdanov.free.fr)

Date : 22.02.99

Purpose : Evaluation of G.Bogdanoff Thesis "Fluctuations Quantiques de la Métrique à l'Echelle de Planck"

6. Thesis Report requested by the University of Bourgogne

Author : Jac Morava, Professor of Theoretical Physics at John Hopkins University (JHU)

Where it was published : This report was sent by Prof Morava to the University of Bourgogne and published on various internet sites (among them : http://igor.bogdanov.free.fr)

Date : 29.05.02

Purpose : Evaluation of G.Bogdanoff Thesis "Fluctuations Quantiques de la Métrique à l'Echelle de Planck"

I have all the copies of the original documents or mails subject to the above description.

Igor

Request for a third party inquiry

Given that almost every of these documents were only published by the Bogdanovs and therefore we do not have any trustworthy source, so we could only have quite a relative trust on their complete veracity. I ask for someone not involved in the debate to check with all of their attributed authors (whose e-mails are easy to obtain) :

Their veracity, exactitude and completude
Their meaning, given the context where they were produced, relatively to the merit of Bogdanovs' work
Their status relatively to public divulgation

--YBM 15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

YBM : I really find your above proposal totally insane. It shows how far you are prepared to go : the one who suspects manipulations and dishonesty everywhere is himself...a manipulator and a dishonest person. What else can I say? Did I propose to double or triple check your own posts?

And beyond all this dispute : are you unsain enough to think that I would take the risk to publish this material on a public page like Wikipedia without having all the proofs that these documents are for real? Do you seriously think that if these documents were "forged" (an expression you apply to us ALL THE TIME) their presumed authors would not react and confirm the fraud?

I do not know in what world you live. But let me tell you that beyond what we think of it, your proposal is also embarrassing for all the people that you will contact for confirmation : how do you think a serious professor like Roman Jackiw (or anyone else who certainely does not pass his time on internet) would react if someone abrutly asked him "to confirm the authorship, dates, veracity meaning, status, etc" of their reports? Can you imagine the effect of it?

Perhaps. And this is why you request such a proceedure.

On our side, I propose to send the copies of the originals to whoever accepts to be the "proof referee" of these documents. Once more, if there was any doubt regarding their authenticity, be sure that the reaction would fire immediatly. This is a "self evident proof".

Igor

YBM must be kidding. LLL

It is a public and proven fact that you've been publishing before :

Unauthorized documents (Majid's report)
Incorrect report on private conversation (Majid)
Heavy cut documents, changing their meaning (Schreiber)
Out of context documents (thesis reports)
Forged proof of academic institutional support (th-phys.edu.hk with HKUST street address put there by the registrant, use of the same address in an e-mail sent to the physicist Jacque Diestler from Igor's home in Paris in the name of the IIMP, with a working th-phys.edu.hk reply-to address)
(Unargumented) claim of support from inexistent scientists (1, 2, 3)
Deeply modified/mistranslated documents, reverting their meaning (Giorgis, Majid, Woit: 1, 2, 3)
Forgeries (your so-called book preprint, Heudier's letter)

It several cases "copies" were not copies at all but forgeries.

It's nothing but common sense to ask for author's confirmation when we're about to quote/link to such documents in an encyclopedia, even a free one. --YBM 16:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that there is any humour intended. Given past incidents, such as the one documented here for instance ("The following was my summary of the ill reasoning of Bogdanov & Bogdanov as originally posted here, which is reproduced in a distorted fashion in their book"), I think that we would be wise to acertain the context of quotations. Rama 16:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I was ironic, of course, but you had understood, had'nt you ? Why would Igor propose the referencies of what he and his brother published if that would dangerous for them ? Think about. LLL

LLL, if half of the quarter of what YBM cites is true (and I have no reason to believe it is not), then the Bodganov have already taken several actions which are "dangerous for them", be it for their scientific reputation or even for their legal security.

We here at Wikipedia are forced to take into account the possibility that some other errors or mistakes could be made here as well. Rama 16:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Rama, did you REALLY read the last post of Igor. I really doubt about it. LLL

I did, and I stick to what it said. There have been in the past, apparently, instances of erroneous quotations for one reasons or another.

That these quotations are authentic (in the sense that the said person did say exactly that) proves nothing if they are taken out of context. Besides, the argument that a misuse of quotation would be too dangerous would also apply to these previous instance of actual misquoting. So I am left with the impression that we do want to carefully check every quotation, absolutely.

This being said, LLL's reaction, and Igor's intimidating "how do you think a serious professor like Roman Jackiw (...)" or categoric "This is a "self evident proof" could leave readers with the impression that there is a strong will for these checks not to be made. I do not understand why; the worse which can happen is some time begin taken about it, and Wikipedia is not on a hurry. Since Igor is so categoric about the validity of his quotations, I have not doubt that he has nothing to fear of a close scrutiny, and the article will have much to gain. Rama 17:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Such precautions are really having "double standard"... On the other hand, the fact that YBM has wasted such a time to create a blog and 2 forums against the Bogdanov, and have taken part to such a lot of discussions doesn't seem to worry you a lot... The fact that Riazuelo is quoted 3 times in the article, including a whole article of his own that he wrote especially for Wikipedia, apparently doesn't disturb you either, as you reverted my last edit (I was 84.226.133.252, I had not noticed I wasn't logged). If you want to take into account of the "past" and the context of the Bogdanov affair, you have to do it for all aspects, including the harassment and the insincerity of the Bogdanovs' enemis. It's too easy to be very suspicious for the Bogdanov and to pretend to not notice that some other people who take part to the writing of the article are "not completely impartial" about them, and try to make an article as negative as possible, by using all tricks for it.

Laurence67 18:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I do totally agree with what Laurence67 juste wrote. If the DOUBT is ONLY expressed about what Igor writes or publishes, and the TRUST is ONLY felt about what YBM repeats, what Riazuelo says, it's obviously too easy. LLL

I have seen YBM adopt an improper behviour in terms of civility, but I have not yet seen him feed informations which turned out to be gravely incorrect (for one reason or another). The same standard would apply to him, of course, if we were forced to have the same reserves about the veracity of this sources. For now it is not the case. Rama 08:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You forgot a small detail : facts and scientific arguments can be directly checked as long as evidences and chain of reasoning are provided, what is in this case done every time, and the reader is invited to check himself, on the contrary indirect quotes and arguments of authority (which is the only line of defense of the Bogdanovs - many having being proven faked already, they especially evade scientific debate) cannot. --YBM 18:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I stick to my position too. I do not think that YBM's proposal to double check the content (or even the mere existence) of the reports and comments I published in the artcle is innocent and "clean of bad intentions". YBM knows that the simple fact to disturb again the authors of all the reports issued on our work will (no doubt) have an "irritating effect". Once again these academics will be extremely disturbed by the "nth" question about what they wrote, why they wrote it, etc. To complete the picture, these questions will be inevitably associated to the vague suspiscion that what they wrote could have been...manipulated? or false? or faked? or forged? etc.

All the reports went public in 2002. All of them. Don't you think, seriously, that if these reports had been forged (even for one word : we are not speacking of any problem of translation here), we would have gotten some reactions?

Let's face it. We do not fear any "close scrutiny". All we fear is to disturb once again people who gave lots of their time to analyze our work.

But if you really do not see any other way, fine. Let's ask these scientists "if what they wrote about the Bogdanoff is true or not".

Igor

You see ? Is that clear enough for you, YBM ? Do you need more light ? LLL

I've read that before (for almost every sample I've provided sooner), and checking was indeed a good idea. --YBM 19:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

A good idea? It was before anything else an enormous manipulation of your kind. Let's take your "examples" one per one.

YBL wrote : Unauthorized documents(Majid's report)

It is true that Majid did not appreciate that we published his report in our book as endorsing the whole content of Grichka's thesis. Majid is a mathematician. His evaluation only applied on the quantum groups part of the thesis. He said to Grichka in the phone that his reaction (about the publication of his report in our book ) would have been different if Costas Kounnas had also been published for the physical part. But we did not publish Kounnas (or any of the 15 reports issued on the 2 thesis). You know why? only because we thought it was not appropriate to publish too much material of this kind. That's why we picked only 2 reports : 1 for Grichka's thesis (Majid) and 1 for Igor's thesis (Jackiw).

Now, if Majid was very irritated by the publication of his report, he never asked to withdraw it from the book (which we offered). So please stop speaking all the time about "unauthorized documents". It was a mistake to have published Majids report (especially without Kounnas report) but it is not an "affaire d'état". Unless people like YBM wants to promote it as an "affaire d'état".

YBM wrote : Incorrect report on private conversation (Majid)

What are you taking about? are you referring to the heated conversations that developped around the "Ciel&Espace" bad journalism?

YBM wrote : Heavy cut documents, changing their meaning (Schreiber)

How many times shall we repeat that no author is obliged to quote someone else's comments "in extenso". We quote the documented and argumented part of Schreiber's technical analysis of our work. But as far as his "personal views" were concerned, since he could not provide any arguments in favor of his "opinion", we considered his opinion as non scientific and not acceptable for a scientific text. That is the reason why we did not publish it.

YBM wrote : Out of context documents (thesis reports)

What do you mean by "out of context documents"? Where did we publish "out of context documents"?

YBM worte : Forged proof of academic institutional support (th-phys.edu.hk and HKUST street address)

This is a good illustration of your way to proceed. You are distording and twisting reality untill it looks as crooked as you are. Once more I will tell you that this "so important address" that you quote at each corner of a phrase WAS GIVEN TO US BY THE HONK KONG REGISTRAR!!!!!! I remind you that we legally bought a domain name that we created ourselves (th-phys). It never existed before us. Can you at least understand this? We did NOT EVEN KNOW on what address our site was referenced on the registrar's page. This was not even our problem.

Now the fact that you dare to call this a "forged proof of academic institutional support" is a shame. No other word to qualifiy your attitude.

YBM wrote : (Unargumented) claim of support from inexistent scientists (1, 2, 3)

Here again you manipulate the reality. You know perfectly well that everyone (including you) is using pseudos on internet. We publically explained why we did it and under which circumstances.

YBM wrote : Deeply modified/mistranslated documents, reverting their meaning (Giorgis, Majid, Woit: 1, 2, 3)

Here also you abuse reality. Why? simply because I wrote some days ago that ALL translations from french to english were made by the professional translator appointed by Grasset. This is a fact. The translator wrote a specific statement about this point and explained, line per line, all the translations he did from the Majid's or Woit's text. And contrarely to what you pretend, his translation is, in its essence, exactly conformal to the original text.

YBM wrote : Forgeries (your so-called book preprint, Heudier's letter)

About the preprint of our book you have created all by yourself all the "proofs" that it was a forgery. You and only you has created all that and you know it. We have a written statement established by our publishers that evidence the authenticity of the page you pretend to be false. The shame is that you still continue to pretend that you "uncovered the truth" (when you only manipulate the truth). Next week you will hear some news about this particular problem you have created.

About Heudier's letter, it is a shame (once again) that you still dare to pretend that it was forged. You and only you is writing such an outrageous lie. Can you even produce a beginning of a proof supporting your claim? No! And let me tell you one good thing : if you continue to throw such lies on this discussion page you will have to justifiy them. One way or another. And not by links sending the reader to your Epiphysique website. You know that you are falsifying the truth. Heudier wrote his statement as it was sent to France 2 and you also know that we hold the ORIGINAL OF IT!!! What else do you need?

YBM wrote : It several cases "copies" were not copies at all but forgeries.

In several cases? which cases? can you even document your lies?

In a more general way and as a conclusion I would observe 1 thing :

In the case we ask such or such scientist if he indeed wrote such report, he should of course confirm it. But at the same time I fear that this scientist will add that he does not wish his opinion to be published in any polemical article on internet. Regarding this point, you should ask rbj if he ever got ANY REACTIONS FROM CQG. I am 100% certain that CQG DID NOT CONFIRM ANYTHING REGARDING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE EMAIL MADE PUBLIC BY KUPPERBERG ON NOV.1ST 2002. Do you know why? because (as all other scientists authors or reports) CQG does not want to be caught once again in a public debate regarding the so called "Bogdanoff affair". This is a simple fact. Ask RBJ : he will tell you that he NEVER got any answer from CQG.

on 10/03/2005 11:04, Judith Adams at judith.adams@iop.org wrote:

> Dear Dr Bristow-Johnson,

> Thank you for your e-mail. The statement you refer to was issued to

> Editorial Board members of Classical and Quantum Gravity in 2002, as a

> working document to provide them with information that they might find

> useful to refer to when approached by journalists or other members of the

> scientific community regarding this topic.

> Best wishes,

> Judith Adams

> Publisher

> Institute of Physics Publishing

> Dirac House, Temple Back

> Bristol, BS1 6BE

> United Kingdom

> E-mail: judith.adams@iop.org

> Tel: +44 (0) 1179 301212

> Fax: +44 (0) 1179 200818

two points. 1. i am not a "Dr" but i assume Ms. Adams didn't want to risk insulting a "real" Dr (like our friends Igor and Grichka) by saying "Mr". 2. i figure that this is a wash. CQG is embarrassed and they want to have it both ways. they want to distance themselves from this paper that they published, but they don't want to draw attention to it with an explicit repudiation. the problem is then, their reputation actually gets lower by trying to cover it up and hoping it goes away. (sorry, i forgot to sign this yesterday r b-j 20:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC))

Fantastic. Every single shred of (even slightly) positive evidence in this affair is a wash or a lie. Conversely any negative quote or document is crystal clear and beyond reproach. This is getting seriously out of hand. --CatherineV 06:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Catherine, your weakening the inference of the statement is unjustified. if you insist on weakening the shortened synopsis, then i insist on including the whole statement again so you cannot distort its meaning. the Adams reply to me did not get your dishonest friends off the hook. not in any manner. we are doing precisely what the CQG intends. they issued the statement for "journalists" (like us, here at WP) to refer to. and it was supplied to us by an editorial board member for this purpose. r b-j 20:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

And the same rule should apply to any kind of "enquiry" about such or such text written by such or such scientist. It's simple to understand. Igor

The more you are losing your temper, the more irrelevant and contradictory are your responses. It makes you write more lies and irrelevancies. (I can prove every of my statements with written and authenticated evidences, as a matter of fact it is what I just did, just follow the links). --YBM 21:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

--- No, you did not. You did not authenticate anything about Heudier. You did not authenticate anything about the preprint page (except you forged the page yourself). You did not authenticate anything about "several cases copies", etc, etc, etc.

As soon as we ask you to produce evidence you come back with empty words (which is a gentle definition for "lie").

Igor

The server of the CERN is not an academic support

Igor Bogdanov has pointed that their theses were (not any more) available on the server of the CERN out. But it's the Bogdanov themselves who put them on it! And there is no reviewing. So, i don't think it's relevant to add this. --Luis A. 21:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding ? If the Cern is not an academic support, tell me which is ? LLL

Put the things into context. I never said that our thesis were available on the CERN server. I never said that because we never placed them there. I only wrote that the discussed papers were available on CERN server since 2000 (in response to John Distler who said that we wanted to "fly under the radars" by hiding our papers before publication).

Igor

Ok Igor, it sounds rigth to me. I misunderstood the way it has been presented. --Luis A. 23:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, do you know why they are not there anymore ? --YBM 22:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

For a so called "ingénieur en informatique" you demonstrate that you are not even able to find our papers on the CERN server (I checked a minute ago). You have 2 options :

a) Either you lie flatly when you pretend that our papers "are not there anymore" (suggesting that some "scandal" may have occured and triggered their removal)

b) or you are an idiot.

Pick up the right option.

Igor

Please, could you avoid personnal attack against editors ?

Did I say "paper" ? Hmm, let's check Wikipedia history... No, I said "they" as a reference to the word thesis' you and Luis A. did wrote a few lines above.

You'd better provide a link then, the old one doesn't work for monthes :

  The record has been deleted.

(Using the search engine gives four papers of you, but no thesis)

They disapeared from CERN server around May/June of 2004 :

"Update (6/11/2004): Lambchop Lehnardt, in a comment below mentions, but fails to provide a link to the Outside Examiners’ reports on the Bogdanov’s PhD theses. The Bogdanovs have made them public and they can be retrieved from CERN [removed from the CERN server because they had, apparently, been “doctored” by the Bogdanovs]. They are both amusing and depressing to read. Being an examiner on a PhD Defense, where the student is marginal, is a painful and awkward job. But these Examiners have to do the “I just stepped on a fire ant mound” dance.

Posted by distler at June 5, 2004 08:18 PM" (from this comment on the article Bogdanorama on the Musing physics blog).

I'd say you read what I wrote too fast, I wouldn't want to pick another option. --YBM 23:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Personal attack against editors'? Because I left you an option to pick up?

Don't forget that you qualified me as "bastard" on this page. Do you remember?

This is a real personal attack. And I am not ready to pass this.

Igor

You asked me to do so, so did I. By the way : You are not an editor.

Well, you forgot again what it was about some lines ago : Why have your thesis been removed from the CERN server ? --YBM 23:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

---

No. I did not ask you to insult us. But you did it. As I did not ask you to qualify us (Grichka and I) as "salauds", which you did on "La Toile" about 6 months ago. As I did not ask you to be treated as "crooks", "charlatans", or who knows how many other insulting names.

Is it a normal way to behave? Is it a normal way to "build an article"? Is harassement your only "code de conduite"?

Igor

PS. For your own knowledge I remind you that our thesis were never put on the CERN server. Never. Go to the archives : you will never find any traces of them. Because we never placed any thesis there. But that's not the problem. The problem is your chronical insulting attitude. The problem is your way to attack the two of us by all means.

Well, Luis A. did write thesis where he should have written papers, let's quote the current version of the article : "Nevertheless, the bogdanoffs observe that their articles were available on the server of the CERN since January 2000.".

Apparently you don't know very well yourself what you put on this server since you didn't point him out that it was not the thesis but some papers which were there.

Nevertheless, something else you put there did indeed disappear, the "thesis reports" we were talking about today. So let's me rewrite my question (you're taking as an attack for some obscure reason) : Why have these "reports" been deleted from CERN server ?

(P.S. about some french adjectives that were perfectly suited to the case, anyone reading french can go to the source on fr.sci.astrophysique, basically Igor spent days "relating" what Majid told him on the phone on Usenet, especially stating that he would have been "abused" by the journalist who wrote a very complete and reasonnable paper on the Bogdanovs last year. Igor was in fact lying for days when Majid himself reacted on the group, there are far more strong words applicable to such a behaviour). --YBM 00:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I do perfectly agree with what Igor said last night about YBM's behaviour : his only way of reacting is the harassment. And when he feels he hasn't got any to say, that occurs very frequently, he insults. He said things to Igor and Grichka that should have been apologized for, which has never been. And when persons say things which are in the same direction that the B's arguments, they are, as I was, treated as sock puppets. Poor YBM. LLL

General and last warning

I have issued a number of hints in the past about civility, proper behaviour, reverts and such; these warnings were usually met by a short-lived truth, and I am sorry to see the level to which the discussion has fallen again.

Since I dislike the idea that the article itself should pay for the behaviour of the people who write on it, and since a good deal of the disturbance takes place on the talk page anyway, I warm you all once more and for the last time. From now on, I expect people here to behave like civilised beings, or suffer my displeasure. Rama 08:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't suppose to post on this page, since I'm interested by science (which is absolutely not the point here...), but I have a proposal as well, let's say one comment and one proposal :

1/ Wikipedia isn't a kindergarden (and this is adressed to all editors, except for administrators, to whom I adress my condolences for being responsible of this page)

2/ CLOSE THE ARTICLE and don't let anybody start a new one about this so called affair. There's nothing of any interest either on this page neither on the article. I bet that nobody is interested by reading two contradictory POV. Has anybody read an article in an encyclopledia saying one thing and the contrary, both presented as the true?!?

None of the people here are objective, therefore the article will never meet the criterias of Wikipedia.

This being said, I bet the administrators (Rama, BIshonen) to take this proposal into account. You'll never find any conscensus that makes sense and offers some interesting material.

Julien Alexandre (I'm not a registered user, I posted at 3:17pm, 5 october 2005)

It's surely the most sensible thing which has been written since the beginning... Of course I agree completely : the "affair" itself is already not fascinating, and the article is even less... Nobody cares about it, and nobody would remember any more that a "Bogdanov affair" occured if it was not fueled artificialy for years by some people who apparently couldn't live without that.

Laurence67 10:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm laughing at the new banner on top of the article : "This article needs to be cleaned up to conform to a higher standard of quality." Who's even thinking of quality here, lol ? CatherineV 10:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Why not "science", also ? ;-)

Laurence67 10:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

About CQG Email

So now, grace to the message of Julie Adams, we finally got the confirmation of what we constantly repeated since the beginning of this discussion.

I wrote many times the following:

1. The so called "statement" (as rbj liked to qualify it) has never been issued as an "official" document. It was only a private email sent as a working document to a few (not all of them, and we know it) members of the editorial board of CQG.

2. We also know (because we discussed with many people from CQG at this time) that CQG did not wish this email to become public. It was only because Kupperberg, acting on his own, put it on Usenet that people became aware of it. Upon various discussions, we knew that CQG was against it.

During the frenetic discussions surrounding a possible "hoax" published in the journal they had to find a way to control the fire. This private email was nothing else but a possible solution of compromise.

3. CQG issued this private mail to certain members of the Editorial Board but did not withdraw the article (i) neither from their internet site, nor from the journal itself. A withdrawal of a paper happens when there are real reasons to do it. It happened several times in many scientific journals. In our case, CQG did not even consider to do it because they knew that their referees had seriously done their work and that our paper could be "sound and original" (as written by their referees).

Some time later we discovered the real identity of the second referee (the one who suggested to modify our paper 2 times) : this referee (whose name will never be disclosed) is a highly reputed theoretical physicist (in fact one of the best and most cited ones) and (contrarely to what was written in many forums) he continues to normally work as one of the most reliable referees for CQG.

In conclusion : today CQG obviously intents to "turn the page" on this incident provoked by Niedermaier for non scientific reasons and protect our article for what it is : a paper seriously written, cautiously refereed, and that could contain interesting new ideas about Plansk scale physics and topological states at initial singularity.

In that view, I think that the best solution would simply be to suppress the CQG private email from the body of the article (the same with CQG's referees report).

Igor

I still think the article would benefit from a serious shrinking procedure, but seeing that it will provoke another revert war, I have modified the article in keeping with Ms Adams' email (see here). I trust this is a substantiated and evidenced edit. CatherineV 16:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism : article on Wayne Rooney

Has somebody noticed that there is an article on Wayne Rooney in place of "Bogdanov affair" ???

Laurence67 10:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You bet I have. I saw Pjacobi trying to revert back to "our" article, but it was only on for a minute or two before it was reverted back again. This is weird... CatherineV 10:37, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It's called vandalism. Some prankster replaced the article content with a redirect to the Wayne Rooney article. Such stupidity is usually reverted quickly. Lupo 10:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm surprised at how quickly three of you reacted. An efficient patrol, you are. CatherineV 10:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but now it is Rooney again !

Laurence67 10:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Choosing references

I know that this is not always going to be possible, but can people try to use external sources and references that are written in English. In particular can people not replace English references with French ones, as this is written in and for the English language and doing this makes large chunks of the article unverifiable by most editors. Thanks. --Apyule 12:32, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand the problem, but as the harassment and the insults on the forum have all occured in french, it's impossible to write about that without citing only french sources !

Laurence67 12:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

As I said, I accept the need for some references in French but there are English references out there, some of which have been removed and replaced with French ones as happened in this chain of edits. It would be really nice if this didn't happen any more. --Apyule 06:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert

This has been placed at Wikiquette alerts so that we can get some outside views of this. --Apyule 12:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

STOP

Well, I wasn't supposed to post on this page, since I'm interested in science (which is absolutely not the point here...), but I have a proposal as well, let's say one comment and one proposal :

1/ Wikipedia isn't a kindergarden (and this is adressed to all editors, except for administrators, to whom I adress my condolences for being responsible for this page)

2/ CLOSE THE ARTICLE and don't let anybody start a new one about this so called affair. There's nothing of any interest neither on this page nor on the article. I bet that nobody is interested in reading two contradictory POV. Has anybody read an article in an encyclopledia saying one thing and the contrary, both presented as the true?!?

None of the people involved here are objective, therefore the article will never meet the criterias of Wikipedia.

This being said, I bet the administrators (Rama, BIshonen) to take this proposal into account. You'll never find any conscensus that makes sense and offers some interesting material.

Julien Alexandre (I'm not a registered user, I posted at 3:17pm, 5 october 2005)

Reverts

Igor, please do not revert or remove large pieces of imformations like you did ([2] [3] for instance). You are kindly required to provide sources to back claims such as "Prof. Yang revealed himself as a real scientist and was identified as such by many internet users. Yang declared that he knew the Bogdanoffs for a long time and wished to defend them (...)". Given the sort of behaviour regarding quotations, references and support that we have witnessed from your part, I am very much afraid that we cannot accept such statements if they are not verifiable. Thank you. Rama 15:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Igor, you have reverted again the article, removing significant content and restoring an unsubstansciated and doubtful [4] [5] part which I have specifically ask you to back up.

So you and other people here start taking me a little bit seriously, I have blocked you for 24 hours. When you come back, I expect you to address this sort of questions and raise problems in a constructive manner.

That my first block happened to fall on Igor's should not be interpreted as me taking side; I do not say that quite as much to avoid the turmoil of criticism by Igor's supporters, than to advise his detractors to behave as well. Rama 15:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Rama, Igor does not submit to being blocked. he'll just edit from another IP or sock puppet. so what's the use? (just thought that i would ask.) r b-j 22:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

It's strange : the version I proposed for the "Internet Discussions" part, at 10:13, was completely reverted, in spite of all the links I had given, and it didn't seem to disturb you a lot. It's strange also that you feel a need to precise that your blocking must not be interpreted as you taking side, as if your behavior could let suspect that you are partial... In fact you are incredibly partial, and it's a shame, for an administrator. It's not the first time that I think it, but I would never have thought that you would do such a thing : blocking an editor because he has reverted more than 3 times, or because he has comitted strong personal attacks, OK, everyone knows that it can happen. But for such a poor excuse... disgusting ! You don't seem to believe yourself to what you write !

And where were you when YBM wrote to Igor : "You are cheaters, liers, fraudster and incompetent in almost any field." and "Your are a bastard", in the talk page ? For such insults, for how many days should he have been blocked ? But it was against the Bogdanov, so, in spite of the fact that you don't take side, no matter...

In fact Wikipedia is like everywhere : it seems to be subjected to regulations, but the ones who have a power do what they want about it. This discussion and this article are a real parody, and your last act is just a kind of parody of this parody. What a shame !

OK. Now you can ban me also to punish me for my insolence if you want, no matter : anyways, with such an administrator anything I can write will be reverted without any problem, so it's a waste of time...

Laurence67 17:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Laurence67 just asked the GOOD QUESTION : why is YBM NEVER BLOCKED ? He keeps insulting Igor (and with very serious words, totally unacceptable) and over people without any kind of trace of beginning of problem. And you say you are not taking side ! What would it be if it was the case ? This is a complete parody. LLL

it's a parody because some pseudo-scientists insist on clothing the emperor when it is clear to everyone that the emperor is naked. that is why this is so ridiculous. r b-j 22:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest to add a banner to the article :


Despite numerous verified facts and the illustrated scientific incompetence of the Bogdanov brothers (verified many times), two individuals, Laurence67 and LLL, both without any clue regarding scientific issues and unwilling to comment on the scientific side of the affair, consider Igor and Grichka Boganov as genious and faultless.

--YBM 18:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

YBM, what you wrote is so stupid that I prefer thinking that you are kidding ! You say all the time the same things. You must be so tired ! LLL

Of course I was, somewhat, kidding, but what I ironicaly proposed is not so stupid, regarding your contribution to this page. What have you to say on the present affair but "I don't believe it. period." ? When you were chating with Alain Riazuelo you said once that "no Ph.D. could be given to cranks", then when faced with the astrologist case E. Teissier, you said it has nothing to do whith the B.'s case. It is a point of simple logic : Teissier's case is a counterexample of your first general assertion, so it has been refuted. period. Now if you want to argue rationnaly about the Bogdanov you should consider facts : what they wrote in their thesis, papers, book, what they said in their TV show, what they did in order to promote themselve. People who consider them as charlantans, don't do so because of their own belief, but because they read the papers, they read the thesis, they read the boot, they saw the TV shows, they even try to find sense out of the crap by talking with them.

If you had any interpretation which could give to their blunders (let's take the golden number, or the algebraïc curve definition, or the solar system issue, whichever you want) any meaning outside absurdity, you could at least explain it. Did you ever say anything else than "I disagree" even in front of facts ? --YBM 21:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You should read once again, in an attentive way this time, what I responded to A.R because you did not understand what I told him. Nothing. What I told him was very logical and very clear and you did not understand one word of what I said. Such a pity. LLL

I did with the higher attention, here are you last words there "Je ne crois pas aux thèses de complaisance." (Alain responded, you not).

What you told him says that whatever facts could be true, you won't even have a look at them. It is very clear indeed, it is by no way logical. --YBM 21:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I said and I repeat "Je ne crois pas aux thèses de complaisance" because a these can be refused. There are some examples every year. And there are students who give up before finishing there these every year. That's more than logical, that's the way it is in the university. If you had tried studying that long, you would know that for a long time. LLL

That a these can be refused does not mean that every bad work lead to a refusal. If you had really read thesis in your work you'd know that. Note that there is no scandal behind every bad thesis, the real refusal in to bloc academic career (what has been done in the case of B&B). In the Bogdanov's case the first error was to allow them to subscribe at university for so long with so poor competences, at the end it was a kind of justice to allow them to get two toys Ph.D., the scandal is what they did then with these toys, what was probably their goal from the very begginning : the prentended to have Ph.D. years before they began their thesis. --YBM 22:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW, I'm not here to convince you of anything, you are a 'fan', science has no meaning for you. Very well, have a good time in your futile world. If you have nothing to say about the article,

what the hell are you doing here ? --YBM 22:01, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Who are you actually to pretend that the teachers in university who decided to allow Igor and Grichka to work on their these made a mistake ? Who do you really think you are ? Do you lead a department of research somewhere in France ? Or are you only frustrated ? And as I told you many times I am not a fan of them. I don't live in a futile world at all, but the fact is the only and so easy thing you do all the time is insulting persons who disagree with you. You must be so alone with your anger in front of your little computer. LLL

YBM, for Goodness shake, stop putting oil on the fire. Next time you "ironicaly propose" something, I'll bloke you, however small the pretext. Your knowledge and contributions are usually valuable, but if you can't help upsetting people, we can find other people who are able to both contribute well and behave. Rama 08:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

SECOND STOP

Looks like nobody is paying attention about some "rationnal" proposals... So, again :

1/ WIKIPEDIA ISN'T A KINDER GARDEN (and this is adressed to all editors, except for administrators, to whom I adress my condolences for being responsible for this page)

RAMA ==> This being said, I bet you to take this proposal into account. You'll never find any conscensus that makes sense and offers some interesting material. Julien Alexandre (I'm still not a registered user, I posted at 11:22pm, 5 october 2005)

Noone is paying attention because your proposal makes no sense : the Bogdanov Affair exist and deserve an article here. As a matter of fact, this article existed far before Igor tried anonymously to turn it into vanity.

Consensus can be found between people who consider seriously facts and scientific evaluations of their work. Not only from people who consider the brothers as cranks, but from the badly called "other side" as well (well, I can only think of one : CatherineV). Consensus with people who consider their irrational feeling to be more important than reality, and are only trying to rant against who inserts facts on the page has no meaning. If it had some, no article could survive on Wikipedia. --YBM 21:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Because you really think that your way of thinking and talking and insulting and harassing is absolutely rational ? It is only a very efficient demonstration of madness. LLL

Thanks again to all the editors for illustrating themselves, giving precisely the example of what I just said. This isn't an article, this will never be, there's no Bogdanov affair, there's nothing to win. CLOSE THE ARTICLE. Julien Alexandre

Would it be too outrageous to ask to someone who don't even bother to register why "there is no Bogdanov Affair" (given the few facts that have been stated here) ? (you don't have to respond with capitals though) --YBM 22:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

You have my name and you know who I'm since I posted on your website, asking some technical questions to the Bogdanoff (btw. I'm still waiting for my answers to come...). About this "affair", you brought some elements, that's true. But how do you think it will end up... Igor and Grishka will finally abandon and accept that their papers are worth nothing? Certainly not. You'll just go on and they will defend themselves, and vice versa. Thinking that this issue is leading somewhere is, in fact, non sense. From the very first beginning of your "affair", what changed? Nothing, they still have their thesis, are still working on television and selling their book full of mistakes. And you won't change this. But they'll never publish anything anymore about science, they'll just go on doing their tv show, and that's it. . The scientific community doesn't care about it anymore, since things have been stated already - and not in a positive way. And honestly, who will read an article on the EN wikipedia about an "affair" concerning two totally anonymous french guys? So, as you kindly asked me : there's an affair, but it's in fact a personal affair between you and the Bogdanov (including the satellites on both sides). Is this worth an article on Wikipedia? Julien Alexandre

It's worth writing an article about the "Bogdanoff affairs" as soon as this story has involved (at least) scientists from France to U.s.a and has centred on important issues about sciences(pseudo science,peer reviewing,popular science, etc). --Luis A. 04:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Julien Alexandre, I have read your previous suggestions (it's not that I ignore or despise people if I don't answer to everything, but I just don't have the time to answer every tiny bit.

The Bogdanov Affair is, in my opinion and I daresay in the opinion of many, notable enough to warrant an article. In this light, your suggestion is not a reasonable solution to the matter at hand.

However, I would like to call the attention of everybody on this: this article is becoming such a quagmire that even uniterested third parties get inconvenienced. This is one more opportunity for me to call everybody to

tone down. I am particulary thinking of YBM, but also of Laurence67, for instance. Wikipedia is a place where all work together toward a better article, not one against the other. The way that the discourse is polarised here turns the argumentation in nothing more than a shouting match, and this is a waste of time, ressources and peace of mind, and I don't think that I need to say in what sort of esteem I hold petty attempts at forcibly putting uninterested third parties in one "side" or another, as Laurence67 tends to do.

If you don't like that, don't protect some editors to the detriment of others, and above all don't commit abuse of power by blocking Igor for anything ! Anyways it was a good initiative of your own for "the other side" (even if it doesn't exist, of course, as we are all brothers-and-sisters...) : each time that I try to put my version of what happened on the forums, someone from the other side reverts it, and as they are more numerous I can't revert it back too often cause of the 3RR. So I understand better the interest of blocking one of us, and especially Igor, of course, who is more symbolic than us.

With such practices, the article will be fine : 100% against the Bogdanov ! And viva Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia !

Laurence67 08:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Laurence67, I fear that this is quite precisely the sort of state of mind I do not wish to see here.

I think so, but it's exactly the sort of state of mind there is here between all the participants ! Didn't you notice that there were really 2 sides, that the Bogdanov had not only defenders, but also enemies, who are able of anything against them ?

Laurence67 09:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

our appreciation of the 3RR, for instance, is very wrong. The 3RR states a limit about the reverts, it does not say that reverts are fine in the general case, and it does not grant a right to revert 3 times. That people start using their "3RR" like ammunition ship-of-the-line style is a symptom that things are going astray.

I didn't revert only, I wrote a text with a lot of precise references and links, I edited it and it was imediately reverted ! And nobody seems to worry about it !

I suggest that you discuss a commons version with the other contributors rather than reverting and making inflammatory statements on the talk page.

How do you want me to "discuss" with YBM as I write about him, as he is the main protagonist in the problem of the harassment against the Bogdanov ? Which consensus do you want us to find together ?

Laurence67 09:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This is true for everybody on this page. Rama 09:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You write that, but it's just theory, you never react in concret terms against the others' abuses (insults, incessant reverts, etc.), you do it just against Igor, and to a lesser extent for us.

Laurence67 09:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

adopt a sound methodology. I am think particularly of Igor: for instance keeping saying that Yang is a real person, for instance, is not convincing. There are innumerous instance of improper information given by you, which you confessed to; this does not make everything you say void, but it certainly forces us to adopt a strict verification process when it comes to some of your claims. This "Prof Yang" is contested in numerous pages on the Internet; that you could claim that Yang proved himself to be a real person without citing any institutional web page, papers or biography makes me wonder whether you have measured the sort of accusations that have been casted on you. Rama 08:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Another proposal

Dear Rama, thanks for your answer. I understand your point of view, but let's be realistic. I've been following this "affair" for almost 3 years, and despite the efforts of many people involved, like me (means without being on one side, which is my case and maybe yours on this page, nobody else), they never managed to state on anything definitely. Therefore, even if I do respect the willing of Wikipedia, I firmly doubt that any administrator will be able to make the pros and antis come to a normal discussion. The antagonism is far too deep to imagine any conscensus between them.

So, here's another proposal : ban YBM, Igor, Rbj, Laurence, LLL, Sophie, Alain Riazuelo, and all the people participating in the revert war. Don't let any user edit the article. Leave it blocked for a while, and then if it of such interest as you think it is, somebody else will edit it.

Otherwise, I wish you a very good luck and a lot of courage and tenacity. Julien Alexandre (still not registered, and will never be since I'm not editing any article, 9:25, 6 october 2005)

It's great : you are not registered, you have never edited anything, but you suggest to ban 7 people ! I dont't dare to imagine what you will do if one day you become an administrator !

Laurence67 09:33, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Laurence, I'm sorry if you feel agressed by my proposal, it's not my goal. I've a lot of consideration for all users,and I'm not attacking anybody. Therefore, I consider there's no reason to be agressive in return. But as far as I can read, you just added some comments in response to Rama saying that there's no way to get a conscensus. Just to remind you what you wrote about my first proposal :

"It's surely the most sensible thing which has been written since the beginning... Of course I agree completely : the "affair" itself is already not fascinating, and the article is even less... Nobody cares about it, and nobody would remember any more that a "Bogdanov affair" occured if it was not fueled artificialy for years by some people who apparently couldn't live without that. Laurence67 10:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)"

You changed your mind? If nobody cares about it, why should this nobody be allowed to edit?

So, in order not to be taken as a target because I'm proposing something, I want to make clear that I do not search any agreement with editors of this talk page, just a reasonable action from the administrators, which are considering that this affair is worth an article (a respectable position), but slowly start to realize that the conditions required to make such an article are not present right now. Cordialement, Julien Alexandre 10:22, 6 october 2005)

Julien, a number of people have displayed questionable and irritating behaviour, but I dont know what you could say against Alain Riazuelo; I would rather cite his edits as an example of the sort of contributions I expect people to make. Rama 12:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Rama, I do consider Alain Riazuelo and deeply respect his work in the cosmology field. But it's impossible in this case to separate any of the speakers, without being presented as a pro or anti. This article, if you want it to be one, needs to start from scratch, with people not involved in any maneer. It's just my opinion. Julien

A word or 2 concerning the Julien proposal

Salut Julien!

I know that I was the one who initiated you to the story of the Bogdanovs Affair, of which you knew absolutely nothing, in early august, and that you already had some very clear preferencies thought you din't knew a thing and was about to write an article on wiki about the subject with a bagground Zero to do so.

For you knowledge I have NEVER EVER REVERTED ONE SINGLE ARTICLE ON THIS TALK PAGE NOR ANY OTHER ONE ON ALL WIKIPEDIA FRENCH AND ENGLISH AND GLOBAL.

So that I am sure that the point is really clear for you anf for all. I was thought blocked several times and for long period of time for reverting too much, thougjt i had no idea at the time what reverting was all about nor how to do such a thing, and personal attacks, thought they were perpetrated by YBM agaisnt me.

He has been reverting since the word exist and has done it on a daily basis more than 3 times a day, more like 12 to 20 times a day at the time, and not only on the article but also on the talk page where he hindered me to place a single article during 7 days at the end of august, and managed to get away with it by complaining at the same time to Bishonen, who didn't knew a thing about this talk page at the time, about MY vandalism, and pretending like if all those overreverting on the talk page were my doing and not his.

He was NEVER investigated, and from the beginning got 3 admi to support him in all his doing, as we got 3 admi to deny us all essentials rights, like the right to express oneselve.

I had a mediation done,giving nothing, and now an arbitration running about this subject. I prepared for it since the 7th of september, I had to wait a month, but now it is rolling, finally.

All the others never asked for mediation nor arbitration, I have been working in the background on my own making contacts and stating the problems to hundreds of people, administrator and leader board, before something happened.

RJB was not there at the time it all begin, he and YBM met each others at the Bishonen - YBM - Geogres' meeting on the wiki chat room, the night YBM got me blocked for his crimes. They are since unseparable.

So don't be so complaisant with yourself to dare accuse me for revert war. There must be at least 2 individual to make a war. To insert a text and get it reverted is not being part of a revert war, but being the victim of a revert maniac.

When this goes on during a week, and the maniac also revert and move some of the other users articles, beside your own, and then on bright day light accuse you, to them, for having done so, and convince them to also report you for vandalism on wiki, as you watch and cannot interveen because he is reverting your articles immediatly, then you have reach the bottom of frustration and the top of angryness.

He has in fact successfully ban me access to the talk page for more than a week, using the revert function, and since blocked and baned me using the "Admi function", who is also a button who function very good for him, and who respect him in return very dearly for ab-using of it so often, so don't you dare comparing me to him nor setting me in the same mafia gang and reverting and control freak as YBM!

Another point, I have made proposal of concensius in the past, the first concensius here was my work, and recently invited all parts to work together to get the real opinion of real specialist on the matter, as you can read it on the article " Settlement Proposal" Archive 3 or 2. I was blocked 3 days 20 minutes later. Thats how pro Bogdanovian get payed if they dare to make more sens that YBM or to contradic him or to proove him wrong: blocked! And in fact i just got a ban for having prooved him wrong, so that all the articles prooving it so, could also be removed from here for nobody to see. As it is ususal for admi to do, on this wiki side of a talk page, since the beginning of september. 20% of the problems originate from rjb, 50 % from YBM and 40% from corrupt or partial admi/admi doing favoritism. And when only rjb is there, 80% of the problems emanate from admi favoritism, actions, insults, and remarks and side taking on the talk page, and 20% on rjb, if YBM is there alone thats a 50/50 collaboration between him and admi. I never saw an impartial admi here, thought I know plenty outside this talkpage. The wiki equivalent of this affair in french never ever got this kind of bottle neck problems, nor any edit nor reverting war ever. There was one changement who occured and that was it. The admi was never unjust and never took side. He was a model of impartiality and a person one could count on and reliate on. Not like here, where they block you just as your arbitration begin, by aphhazard most certainly.. and ban as the other one begin, and can't get you unban for "technical uinknown reasons" and asked you to register as a socket puppet, just for the time being,(!) or get you mediation deleeted by contacts, or deleete your entire talk page because YBM suddendly made strange and interesting confidences about the real background for this Affair. Vupti! All gone! Not his text only, it will have been to visible, but the whole talk page, for ever. No revertion to original possible not even for an external admi, it was not to be found, evidencies desintegrated into thin air.

Now to your suggestions above:

YBM should know that there is no these "de complaisance" since his own thesis was refused after the first year, so bad it was.

It says also much about his real motives in this affair and his level to can evaluate the thesis of other people, who them, got it!

It is also good to remember that his attempt regarded a thesis was in language and that he has no academical degree what so ever in physic nor math.

All he got is a very ancient diploma in informatic, (from a local informatic ingeneering school who isn't officially recognised) who is now regarded as an antic as IT exams don't pay in the long run.

Regarding yours, Julien, and Luis remarks, correct, this pretended article and the discussions about it are indeed a stride between ybm and the Bogdanov, who has nothing to do with the pretended motiv of wether those thesis are good scientifical stuff or just crank.

Proove of it: YBM is not interested in the opinion of the worlds greatest specialists in cosmology, just in his selvmade websites "prooves", and his archeological founds from 2003 and 2004 in his own blog site and divers forum site from 2004.

With selectiv choices and a very selectiv memory of the events.

This combine with hatress and the compleete unknowledge of basic Theoretic Physic can only give what we see here: fight and twisted argumentations.

What I call: "Argumentation with missing central links", in the field of "Argumentation Theory", where I have my roots.

I am doing the right thing, I am communicating with those real cosmologists, not the fony ones like Rialuezo, and get the pertinent answers I am after, and that this antibogdanov side pretend to be after: salients prooves, and the truth and light about this whole affair.

I am getting positiv results, they aren't.

--XAL 12:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear XAL,

"I know that I was the one who initiated you to the story of the Bogdanovs Affair, of which you knew absolutely nothing, in early august, and that you already had some very clear preferencies thought you din't knew a thing and was about to write an article on wiki about the subject with a bagground Zero to do so."

I'm glad to learn that you initiated me to the story!!! I'm glad to know that you're reading my mind about some "preferencies". I'm glad to learn also that I don't know "a thing" about the scientific matter exposed in the Bogdanov academic work. And I'm also glad to learn that I was about to write an article in Wikipedia.

I bet you're mistaking me with someone else. If not, and even if I don't get the reason why you're inventing this, don't worry, I don't mind your mistakes, and allow you to invent whatever you want about me.

As I just said before, my remarks aren't to be taken as personal attacks, but simply as the only way (according to me) to find a way out. Julien Alexandre

You are not julien Alexandre but julien Aleg------, to begin with, and as your proposal you will achieve nothing believe me. ((-:>

Notheless if you are interested to understand the stuff, so reaf the proposal I made in archive 2 or 3 and see the welcome it receive. You can also look at, not interveen!, the arbitration there:

[6]

[[7]]

and on my talk page,there:

[[8]]

[[9]]

[10]

[[[11]]]

[[[12]]] at the end, where you will also found some interesting elements to guide you better on this journey of yours. You think you aren't there, but you better think again, you are already in up to your neck, so get registrated and make life simple for you. (or much more complicated?!).

good luck for wikis' and this talk pages' beginners

--XAL 13:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Clearance on commonly imposed and admitted YBMs' myths

I won't point out every of the lies and inventions in your post here and there, only one, which is very illustrative :

XAL>YBM should know that there is no these "de complaisance" since his own thesis was refused after the first year, so bad it was.

It is also good to remember that his attempt regarded a thesis was in language and that he has no academical degree what so ever in physic nor math.

All he got is a very ancient diploma in informatic, (from a local informatic ingeneering school who isn't officially recognised) who is now regarded as an antic as IT exams don't pay in the long run.

All these three sentences are not only irrelevant but wrong.

I do think that your lengthy posts would have much more interest if you tried to write real facts and not the random dreams that run through your mind. --YBM 13:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

All right then, proove me wrong!

You can't deny that an old exam in informatic has no worth today as the area is mooving constantly and new and better systems are founded every single day, in programation and in control unit systems.

As for your thesis and lack of academical references, it is the simple truth and as relevant as the discussion about the doctor degree of the Bopgdanov was obtain through mean of complaisancy or was the result of 10 years of hard work. And as relevant as wether or not their thesis is a crank or not, and as relevant as wether or not Rialuezo is a cosmologist or not, which he is definitely not.

So come with your proove regarding your academical degree, I am waiting and very exhilarated about it!

--XAL 13:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You're the one who affirms, the burden of a proof is yours. I was kind enough to answer when you first asked me about my degrees in math and physics. You are now forging a fantasy cursus out of your mind. The fact that you lied about your scientific background, and been caught, does not mean that everyone do the same.

I you had been able to address (or at least try to) only once, only one scientific issue on this affair, you'd be in position to ask something. I have coined Igor numerous times on basic maths and physics (he does not even know what an algebraic curve is for instance, nor what [Dense_set|dense] means in topology), I could have done so even without having graduate degree on math (what I definitely am). --YBM 14:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

No No No

You din't answered the question but avoided to do so.

Why?

You cannot proove it?

You never prooved your degree in math other than a high-school level, which is not an academical degree, and as for physic, you have none.

I never lied about my background, that you have been able to check, so why do you pretend the opposit now? But you certainly hide yours plenty! I gave access to my research field, but you were unable to deciffer what was, in my meaning, very obvious!

So it should be it, concerning your supposed academical degree in physic, or math.

I have done nothing else but adress the scientifical part of this affair, which you have avoid to do all along, and denied plenty to have done so.

I stay on course and do not change of one degree, my ship is sailing to the right shore and there is nothing you can do about it, but observe.

You never ever coined Igor nor Grichka Bogdanov on any physic nor mathematical matter. You will be unable to even ask a question who could even approach the level they have, because you do not have the level of knowledge they have in those fields.

You do not know what you are talking about. You even managed to make a fool of yourself without knowing it for very long with this algebraic curve of yours. You don't see why?

Ask a real specialist in the field, but it will crave from you a certain level in math and theoretical physic, who will take years of activ learning from you, to can grasp it, and fully understand why, and on what point, you made a mistake. And quiet a fool of yourself, which Igor din't abuse, keep this in mind.

You just don't have it in you, but prefer to hold onto the believe that you understand it all. It isn't a way who able one to learn more, nor to access knowledge all together.

Why, tell me why then, it will take at least a month for great men as Professor Stephen William Hawking, and Professor Holger Bech Nielsen, to read those thesis and understand them fully?

Why those thesis interest them both so much?

And you think you can just stand there with your gullable of math-basic and critisize the work of Doctor in Theoretical Physic Igor Bogdanov, and Doctor in Mathematic Grichka Bogdanov, and surpass the level of understanding of the 2 greatest professors, and eminent scientists, in the world in the field of Cosmology?!

Get real.

--XAL 18:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

XAL, there is absolutely no reason to doubt Rialuezo's references. He provided a position, a thesis and links. He behaved in a very appropriate and scientific fashion. Putting his good faith into question without good reasons is not only a breach of the "assume good faith" principle on Wikipedia, it is downright libel.

I warn you that further comments of this nature will be retributed. Rama 13:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear XAL, I'm kindly inviting you to contact me at : julien.alexandre.pro@free.fr , regarding your comment about my identity. Thanks in advance. Julien Alexandre

Dear Rama,

There is no reason to doubt the credentials of Rialuezo in a field of research for the CNRS and for working with physic, but he is absolutely not connected with work in Theoretical Physisc nor High Energy Physic, which are the credentials required to call oneself a Cosmolog.

Dito Rialuezo, also known from the french wiki equivalent of this talk page as Alain R., has not the background attributed to him by YBM on this talk page, for his good and loyal services in YBMs' private forums.

Thats a fact not an invention, ask him and you will see.

--XAL 13:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Laurence67 blocked for 24 hours

I have blocked Laurence67 for 24 for excessive use of reverts and insufficient discussion and negociations.

I will suggest that further editions be made in a genuine spirit of collaboration; in particular, and though I do not mean to interfer in the writing process itself, I think that there are some elements in Laurence67's version which can rightfully be mentionned, notably the harsh nature of some criticism against the Bogdanov.

That said, censoring the HKUST story is utterly inacceptable of course. However, I expect some work to be done to merge what's good in the two versions of the article (and to soften the tone of Rbj's version a bit).

Further reverts to the article will be treated just the same as this one was. I regret to have to be so unpleasant with everybody, but that's how it is apparently. Rama 13:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked Laurence67 for 24 for excessive use of reverts and insufficient discussion and negociations.

No, you're a hypocrite : you have blocked me because you didn't like what I wrote you. I wondered if you would be as dishonest as doing that, now I know it.

Yesterday I wrote a text in which I described what occured on the forums. I know well the subject, as I have taken part to these forums for more than one year. My version was reverted each time I edited it, very often by YBM, of course, and nobody tried to have any "discussion" or "negociation" with me. I just restored my version which was reverted without any explanation. You know it perfectly, I precise that as a matter of form.

Bravooo ! But you should have written that earlier, and above all before blocking me ! So I wouldn't have had to restore my version after each revert ! But as an administrator, in a system which is supposed to be fair, in which the rules are supposed to be the same ones for everyone, you have to pretend to be impartial and to treat everybody in the same way. You don't, as one can see, but you have to pretend to !

Sure... that's why you have blocked me : to ensure a great balance to the article ! It is the best way, indeed... I find your hypocrisy even more disgusting than your unfairness.

Further reverts to the article will be treated just the same as this one was. I regret to have to be so unpleasant with everybody, but that's how it is apparently. Rama 13:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

With "everybody" ? "Everybody" means Igor and me, stop fooling me !!!

I won't edit this article any more, I'm fed up with loosing such a time to fight against malicious people who are protected by a partial administrator. I know that it is exactly what you wished to get by being so strong with us and so lax with YBM, rjb, etc., but in such conditions there is no point to continue. But it's not over, you can be sure of that.

Laurence

I sympatize with you Laurence, now you know almost exactly how I have been feeling since the first week of september, when I warn you all about this but got no reactions at all. I was already telling that something was definitely wrong, but I found no tools and nobody in wikipedia to help with this current abnormity, thats also what the running arbitration is about.

There is already 3 users asking for a clarification about this, and for the definitiv banishment of RJB and YBM.

Without changes in those 2 areas this talk page cannot goes on and the article not be accepted.

We are not going to repeat all the irregularities here, but concerning your deletion of very pertinent articles by YBM I have also observed it, and also done by administrator Bishonen, with a very opinionated reason/observation.

I have heard that there has been cases on wiki english of lawyer intervention so far it had gone, so it isn't exactly a new tendencoes, or other admi will have reacted, and fast, instead they just assure the continuation of the crime and make even a cover up for each other. Like when bisho is access denied here, she set a buddy in her place to perpetrate her own wish and doing. maru exemple was definitely one to remmeber, he insulted users and made several personal attacks with no reason at all, and was named administrator on wiki a few days later. I heard that one of the voters was Bishonen, Georgre, rama, ....well we all see the picture, and Bishonen has already received a ban star for her "good work" on the Bogdanovs Affair Talk Page!!!

Yes, and no, you are not dreaming. So certain people view of reality and set of value and ethical background and mentality are not the same as one could wish for nor the same as mine and i suppose yours.

And thats why this talk page suffer of a major disfunctionement since administrator Bishonen appeared on this stage, with huge help from ybm and later on rjb, of course. But who help whom the most, is difficult to say. 50/50 from both side is now common.

Do you now understand why I litterally exploded in late august early september?

Being vandalized 100% by ybm and accused of vandalism by him, and paying for his wrong doing. Again and again. That was the top, and that is why he has and feel no shame in reverting intensively the article: because he just can, so he do.

Thats also why I got blocked for saying that i had contacted specialists to evaluate those thesis for good, and that this chapter was soon a closed one and a new was about ot beckon: because they cannot accept that, and because they know what they say is a lie, and that htose specialists will proove it very soon. Thats why they faint to ignore this very good news and disregard it, prooving that all they are after is a fight, and not the truth, and certainly not an agreement about the contain of this article.

I have now no doubt about that, as I tryed it all. Rjb even accused Igor for having white washed the article as soon as he heard that Igor accepted its stand no matter which version, meaning of the 4, where 3 of them were the work of rjbs' industrious revert abuse. So even when agreed with, they disagree and accuse and insult.

Often of their own crimes, that's like a basic rule for them.

Bishonen ban me for saying that Igor had agreed with those version and that the article was now a closed chapter! but he had sayed it a few hours before on this talk page, No it had to be wrong, the war must ABSOLUTELY go on and on and on.

--XAL 16:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Rama, after you've blocked Laurence and Igor, you ask for some work to be done to merge what's good in the two versions of the article (and to soften the tone of Rbj's version a bit). Well, with me being the only editing supporter left, guess who feels this task weighing heavily on her shoulders? Do you think someone else will try to tone down rbj's version? And yet, no, I won't spend another half hour trying to write what I think could be a correct text because, come tomorrow morning, it will have been reverted without a word of explanation. And without blame either. The last time I did, I commented my edit on the talk page. I practically paraphrased Adams' mail but, yet, three hours later, rbj reverted without any justification (not his first time either). Same thing occurred with the now ridiculous "spires cites" competition list. Talk about enhancing the quality of the article.

Isn't it time rules were applied to all? --CatherineV 17:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Reverting of redirection

A obvious role account(3RevertRule (talk • contribs • block • block log)) has been redirecting this page without explaning on the talk page. I have requested e to to explain here, and I will keep reverting until e does so. Then I will stop, and leave it to more knowledgable editors to continue the discusssion. Thanks to everyone for contributing to the 'pedia! JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's petty vandalism, revert and block on sight. What a bore. Rama 22:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

About Internet dicussions

Since I regained so far my faculty to edit the article again, I reformulated the section about "Internet discussion"/

Two remarks :

1. Grichka never (or almost never) posted on forums and threads of discussions. Why? because he did not beleive (and still does not) believes that it is possible to discuss real science on internetm (especially in the Bogdanoff context which is twisted by passions of all sorts). Of course Grichka never used any pseudos.

This had to be corrected in the araticle and I did it.

2. About the "th-phys.edu.hk " domain name : I created and bought this domain name from HK registrar for the International Institute of Mathematical Physics whose president is the reputed mathematical physicist Ark Jadczyk. It was me (and only me) who invented the domaine name (th-phys).

When I undertook the necessary actions for the payment of this domain name, the HK registrar explained me that every educational HK domain name remained the actual property of Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and was officially seated at the adress of the university. The registrar added that it was not a problem and that we could use our domain name as if we fully owned it. It was only a year later that YBM (again) created a big mess around this official ownership and started to accuse us to use a domain name without any rights to do it. YBM went so far in his accusations, sending dozens of emails to the university, that we finally had to cancel our domain name/

This is the real story about this domain name and I wrote it.

Igor

Fact 1 : you pretended on fr.sci.*physics that the domain was owned by HKU
Fact 2 : you said to David Fossé from Ciel & Espace that the "operational center" of your "International Institude of Mathematical Physics" (in fact a simple private association) was in Hong Kong (just check the paper in the magazine)
Fact 3 : Mr "Yang", whoever he is - you or an hypocrite friend of yours - posted several e-mails and blog entries from your home (as you admitted) with an reply-to address from this very domain, and pretented on several e-mails to be from Hong Kong University, he did the same on Usenet
Fact 4 : What you've just said makes no sense regarding the real administrative structure of the DNS and WHOIS databases.
Fact 5 : This is your third contradictory explanation of the HKU(ST) reference in the th-phys.edu.hk : first you said to be affiliated to HKU(ST) (and even bet on it), then that it was randomly added by HKDNR, now it is added because of the .edu.hk uplevel domain. All three are false, moreover, all three are in contradiction.
Fact 6 : During about the same period you registered maths-phys.edu.bs with, this time not the adress but the name "Paris Univ. 4," (this is nothing less than Paris Sorbonne. You were prudent enough to never pretend, afaik, to be related to this prestigious university. Are you about to pretend that the .bs TLD registrar asked you to add a French university in the from for some nonsensical administrative reason ?
Fact 7 : here is an excerpt from the Rules for .hk Domain and Sub-domains

  2.9 .edu.hk Domain Name
  
  Registered schools, tertiary institutions and other approved educational institutions in HKSAR
  are eligible to register a .edu.hk Domain Name. You need to provide a copy of your Certificate
  of Registration of a School from the Education Department of the HKSAR Government, or other
  documentary proof to us when applying to register a .edu.hk Domain Name.

About Grichka : a lot of your internet activities have been committed under the name "Igor/Grichka", you confirmed several times on fr.sci.*physique that your brother endorsed whatever was written under that name. --YBM 01:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you added this when reverting again to your fancy version : "you provoked the loss of our domaine name.", which is a blatant lie : I wrote to HKU, HKUST, HKDNR to ask if they knew about the domain and its relation to HKU/HKUST months after the domain expired because you didn't pay the second year ! --YBM 01:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)