Talk:Bogdanov affair

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Igor B. (talk · contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Sophie Petterka (XAL) concerning my qualifications nor her constant raving about quite everything, especially in science. Once and for all, Ms Petterka, 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, Ms Petterka, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sophie, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 lecture 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you Dr Riazuelo.

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Laurence67 20:30, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

_________________________

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)[reply]

_________________________

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]