Talk:Bogdanov affair/Archive 4

message: Igor, please add the  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 , 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)
replies: text: 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  for more details). Many thanks ! Rama 07:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Igor, please complete the copyright information for the image

message: 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)
thread_title: Archived again, please let's stay on topic

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stop! 

message: 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)
thread_title: XAL is banned from posting on this page until further notice

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  About the new campaign of quotes injection by Igor 

message: 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)
thread_title:  An answer to Lubos Motl 

message: 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: 
* http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000034.html
* http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/~distler/blog/archives/000375.html 
* http://ybmessager.free.fr/wp/index.php?p=9 (in French)
(There are more sources if needed). -- Ze miguel 10:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Internet Discussions 

message: 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)
thread_title: About CQG Email

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Another proposal

message: 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)
thread_title:  A word or 2 concerning the Julien proposal

message: 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)
replies: text: That's petty vandalism, revert and block on sight. What a bore. Rama 22:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting of redirection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: About Internet dicussions