XAL~enwiki

Talk page deletion

User:XAL, here is an explanation for what has happened. Your user talk page (this page) was not being used by you to communicate with any other users.

Wrong- I was answering one user, ybm, that I begged not to harrass me here, and one admin, Bishonen, that I also begged not to harass me here.

Other than the Welcome Wagon greeting, all of the material on this talk page was invective that had been removed from the talk page to a single article and pasted here.

Wrong! I din't remove my own article from the talk bogdanov affair, to put them here, your dearest friend and admin Bishonen did, which make your action very impartial and your statement here a very personal vendetta. Those articles were not invective but constitute a series of answers made to out of subjects comments from bishonen,and almost requested by Bishonen. I do not believe that it is legal to block me for the actions made by an admin and that I did disapproved, especially in the light that the site was and still is under a mediation. it is simply uncorrect to do so.

The removal of those comments from that talk page was entirely within Wikipedia procedure, as any personal attacks on a talk page are supposed to be removed. It is merely courtesy if the person removing them also pastes them into the user's talk page.

Wrong! If it was entirely a part of Wikipedia procedure why bother sentencing me for it? Your statement is unclear. The personal attack was utterly by Bishonen who omitted to put those together with the answer to them, making it a very out of context chain of statements, but the reason for their content will have gain in clarity if she didn't have omit to do so and present the full version of the articles, her comments to a Bogdanov affair article, and my answer to her comments. This way there will have been no doubt for anyone. I was in fact doing Bishonen a favor in answering her comments, thought I was not very interested in it, and some of the articles you removed from here were not taken from the Bogdanov's talkpage, but were an ongoing discussion between me and Bishonen, where I believe to have been reaching the hand to her. You should have get your informations straight before acting

You did not communicate with the people who did the cutting and pasting of personal attacks on your talk page (this page), as is required.

Wrong! Yes I most certainly did, and the people as you call "them" are/is no more than Bishonen, who received enough answers, so I don't see the reason for this commotion. I do not believe that I am obliged to answer anybody anyway, I am not an admin, in case you haven't noticed, and I answer to whom I want and when I want. For your knowledge this talk page has exist for only 48 hours when you closed it down, so it didn't gave me much time to work with it. I wonder how long you were at getting yours rolling, and if this is of your business at all!

Instead, you continued to attack, personally, and accuse people on the talk page of that article.

Wrong! I was attacked, assaulted, harrassed by Bishonen and YBM and asked them not to visit this page again as I didn't wish this kind of communication and situation to continue, but they seems to enjoy it, and came again and again.

I am not sure of what you are saying, am I blocked because I didn't answer them or because I answer them but to your dislike?

I am not answering people to please you, they ask for my mening and they get it.

I don't understand either what you mean by acusing people on the talk page of that article.

What talk page are you refering to and what article are we talking about?

If you speak about the bogdanov affair talk page, well I do not have visit it since some days previous to your blocking, so you are inventing things.

On the other hand, I was accused of a lot of deeds by Bishonen and YBM who were plain lies, and they knew it, so I found it very perverse of them to harass :me to this extreme and here on that point of the story, who I believed to be already very negatively charged.

I was asked to assess whether this particular talk page (this page) had any function other than to propagate insults.

Wrong! You planned in advance together with your dear friend Bishonen and your new friend YBM a way to cut my throat and prevent me to ever get a word utter again on wikipedia. Essentially because of my request on the mediation cabal to have Bishonen withdrawn as administrator of the Bogdanovs Affair Talk Page, and my request to forbid her and YBM to meddle in the mediation as her and his previous attempt to do that didn't result in a fruitfull debate, but on the contrary blundered the case even more, and it had to be redrawed all together.

Given the fact that only Bishonen who dislikes me profoundly, and YBM, who has me blacklisted, were the only one to have come here uninvited, and that their "questions" were undisguised insults and provocations, and given the fact that YBM asked me to answer to a message from a friend of his, through a website which link he gave me here, regarding a different story, in a very provocative way, and asked me to answer to questions regarding an ongoing mediation, and consisting in data of utmost confidentiality, I do not think that I insulted anyone. My answer to this Jean Pierre Voyer was put in between "guillemets", a stof that YBM is very fond of at the time, and concerning another person than those visiting my talk page, so I can conclude that your evaluation is all together uncorrect and had no reason to be. If some by personal preferences judge my answer to this web site out of line they can avoid to visit it, and as it is not on wiki, it can't be taken in consideration for the sentences you uttered on me. As for the part of this answer that I showed here, it was as stated before put in between quotations marks, and was only by courtesy on my part to answer a seemingly important matter to YBM, who also wished me to do a service to his friend. Which I did. I can't be sentenced for that either, but receive a wiki star instead. If thought you should disagree with that, why didn't you blocked YBM as well, as the contained of his friends message was a serie of insults and attacks towards me, with among many accusation stating that I should have mix a writer with the 3rd Reich. It was maybe ment as a joke, but I wasn't in the mood for it.

It was my determination that it was not being used for any legitimate function. Therefore, I deleted the page under the speedy deletion criterion for "attack pages."

Answer: Wrong!

I would profoundly like to have your definition of legitimate as i consider your actions as being outrageously unlegitimate, we might gain by reseting our definitions.

I would also like to know whom I was attacking?

If you mean Jean Pierre Voyer, so you are by that aknowledging your preferences for this person believed to be the brain behind the Bogdanovs affair case, and the leader of a very criticised branch of the Post-situationist movement, of which YBM has become the outside figure of, and in that way you have confessed your true motives behind this deletion. You have in fact take revenge on me because of my disagreement with the methods of mister Jean-Pierre Voyer, and not because of all those strange reasons that you have advanced. I think that the right criterion ought to be: Attacked pages", I feel very much under assault since 4 weeks, yours, ybm, bishonen, and rjb, the perfect quartet against me and Igor Bogdanov. Perfection has a price, you didn't pay it yet, maybe you don't deserve it.

Be aware that this is an online encyclopedia. It is not a place to negotiate Absolute Truth, convert the unbelieving, or rally the troops.

Right! I agree completely with that, why don't you use it on ybm instead, or to your own talk page with your sonnets, and on the communication page?

My talk page is not an encyclopedia, I don't think I ever pretend doing that in 48 hours, so what is your point exactly?

Your own psychological state and affect are irrelevant to the single purpose of the online encyclopedia: to propagate neutral point of view articles that are built entirely upon explicit references. Wikipedia is a tertiary source of information, and not a place for personal essays or advocacy of any issue whatever.

You could use that advice yourself! Very interesting, for I saw the exact opposite in your own talkpage, so your rules are only for other to follow and do not apply to you?

What is my psychological state? Is this an insult again?

À propos neutral, I don't think that you can be bold enough to dare use this concept here, especially in the light of the ongoing sabotage you are perpetrating on me. I do not see any neutral articles build up on explicit references in the articles posted here, and about those that I posted in the talk page about the affair, I can most clearly see that you never read them, or you will know better.

You have as far as I have seen and read, published your personal essay here on wikipedia, and you also have been advocating different issues based on your personal affect and psychological state. So, what is left of your argumentation? Nothing.

You have also wrote sonnets of a very insulting kind on your own talk page, where you ridiculise me and Igor Bogdanov, who is a writer and a Doctor in Theoretical Physics, and where you call me his Socket-Puppet, and make fun of the war you are having against me and the way you manipulate me.

You are by this way doing much worse than any of the crimes you accused me for on this page, and proving that your actions were perverted and are part of a personal vendetta against me.

Your applause on your talk page come from rbj and Bishonen, which say much about the objectivity of this case and of the debates on the Talk page about the Bogdanov's affair, as he is one of the users there (since you begin your attacks on me at the end of august) fervently anti-bogdanov, thought he never heard of them 3 weeks from now, and Bishonen act as admi and police officer against pro-bogdanov only. That should be it concerning the objectivity, neutrality,explicit references criterions, and "not a place for personal essays or advocacy of any issue whatever."

Further, having seen warnings, exhortations, and admonitions given to you on more than five occasions, as well as blocks of various duration, I note that your only edits of September 14 were more insults on talk:Bogdanov Affair.

Wrong! Those warnings have been already followed by a all week banishment so they cannot be used again and again, or I will be banished for ever which is surely what you wish to do.

As for the latest warning from Bishonen, it was not at all justificated, and I was smelling some kind of staging for a negative purpose, but dind't know what yet. I certainly didn't expect her to mean you when she talked about having the site looked after, as you can't be said to be neutral in the story, as you are the person who instigated my banishment the first time I was blocked for 24 hours from the Talk:Bogdanov Affair portal, without having investigated properly the matter, as looking into the history to see the edits previously made on that page, and the more than 15 reverts that ybm had done during the few hours before he contacted bishonen.

Instead, you had a fun chat together with rjb, bishonen, and ybm, about me and how you were going to sentenced me.

The same occured, for my banishment for a week, exactly 48 hours later, and you didn't think one second of looking seriously and in a professional way about it. Instead, you disclaimed my complaints as being laughable, and made jokes about the 1st amendement, and jokes about "the american" as you thought I was at that time because of my attachment to the freedom of speach. You then gave your sentences without appeal: 1 week ban! under the applause and laugh of the others came to join you with their sterile and uninformed statements.

All together not a very encouraging background concerning your involvement in this sad affair, your partiality, and your degree of responsability in having actively participated in the degradation and build-up of the crisis at hand.

At the time when she mentioned having contacted another admin to see this documentation through, there was only the texts she had parked here from the talk side and a cryptic message from ybm, and this talk page had only exist for 24 hours, so this trick to have my talk page evaluated for closing it was sound completely far out.

You were simply building a case against me, sending provocations, and probably making jokes about it all in the discussion page or in your own, as you use to.

I do not have write any insults on my article in the talk page mentioned above, and would like to see prove of it immediatly. This is pure invention from this person, to justify an unjustifiable block, which has the sole purpose to hinder me to participate in the ongoing debate, and in the vote about the category in wich the Bogdanovs affair must be placed under in wiki, and that you know I have even made it a part of my mediation request.

It is simply scandalous that you dare come here with these kind of accusations.

I shall remind you that the block was of 24 hours and has now exceeding it by 12 hours already because you artificially changed the hour of block registration twice: once last night,from 5PM the 15th, to 3:56 AM the 16th, and once again yesterday morning from 3:56 AM the 16th, to 7:43 AM the 16th, which prolongs the ban until 7:43 the day after, and is absolutely illegal.

I had already mentioned it in my mail to you but instead to make you stop the block yesterday at 5 PM you just decided to show your power and prolongate it even further.

If I were to decide, I would fire you.

It is one thing to laugh at users, make plans in their back, cooperate with other admin in doing so, sabotage a talk page by inserting own preferences and give users priority to others, it is agravating enough to deleete a user page based on your personal dislike and prejudices, and in mean of retaliation in close cooperation with other, at least one, administrators, and users, but it is inadmissible for an admin to also abuse his access to security functions inside of Wikipedia to change again and again the hour when this blocking began, to hinder a user from participating in a vote and to can answer those attacks and to can seek help and to can performed the necessary transformations of my mediation asked to me by the mediator. Your actions ask for direct and visible sanctions, and an evaluation of your moral and ethical habilities to remain an administrator on Wikipédia in the future.

That is why I issued a 24 hour block.

Wrong! the block is now 38 hours, and there is still 2 hours before it stop, unless you decide to artificially extend its time again, without warning or explanations.

You are free to state your opinions of the facts, but not of other authors.

Right, and I surely did it too! I do not see where I have failed in that, but maybe you could put some light on what "authors" you do have in mind.. If you are again refering to this Jean-Pierre Voyer, I was asked from YBM to answer to this guy who has no business on wikipedia, so ybm came with a link to this person's website, and whatever happened on that website is none of wikipedia's or your business. If you mean that in that case it has not its place here, I agree, but shouldn't you then have talked about it to YBM, as I couldn't dare not to answer to your friend, as the consequences could be as dradefull as when I answer wrong. I didn't realised that it was a test, or i will have learned the right answers by heart before opening my talk page.

Again you are in fact stating that the alone reason why you are so upset with my page is because of this Voyer thing, and that you are feeling some affection for this writer and his ideas, and came here to defend him, so your actions were based on exactly what you just forbidden me to act as described above. You could also remember it yourself, in your own talk page where you are humiliating and making indecent references and nickname of the Bogdanovs brothers, not knowing one single fact about them, which doesn't seems to stop you. You are not being a critic of their ideas but of the authors themselves, and the same about me.

You should also remember that it is better to make your point to people directly, giving them a chance to respond and defend themselves, than doing it in the recesses of your talk page, or indirectly by pretending of being "just" a servant of the law, who applies the rules, who are pretty mutable depending on the user and the User...Talking about abusive treatment....

So take your own advice first, and I am sure that this debate and conflict will have never occured.

Respect people more than you would like to be respected. --Geogre 18:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Get real! You will have to give me an exemple of your own making, as I don't see why I should respect an utmost disrespectful person, hidding behind the shelter of some precious words, devoided of their meaning, as their original aim is being distorted and abused. Is respect what you are doing here? Is it respectfull to write sonnets about people that you have power to hinder from expressing themselves and to laugh at how you abused this power on them and how bad they were feeling about it? Is it respectfull to ask other to follow your good moral and ethical point of view that you couldn't dream of following yourself, and certainly not toward them? Is it respectful to abuse the tools who are given to you in trust as administrator on wiki to change the registration time of the blocking hour to artificially extend the length of the already abusive unfounded penalty? No, I don't think so, and you know it perfectly, you talk precious but act gross, and it is in its action that a man is to be recognise for what he truly is. --XAL 05:09, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Xal's Reply to Geogre

You blocked me yesterday for a 24 hours period and the 24 hours are now passed. I couldn't adress the right people because of it, and I think your actions were out of line, especially in view of the sonnet who figure in your talk page and who are extremely insultings, and who are accusing me of being a socket puppet for the Bogdanovs. So I will advise you to take of your own medicine and block yourself for 24 hours for use of abusive language. About the block, I saw that you officially registered it at 3:56 am on the 16th of september, which is funny, because I sent a mail to 2 admins about this block at 8 PM the 15th of september, which mean that this block is to be removed right away, as the 24 hours period has passed.

Your close connection to both bishonen and ybm and your sympathy to their views in the affair, and your inabilities to distinguish between puttin in application the rules of Wikipedia and using them for your private retaliation, make you unqualified to edit a block on me as your preferences play a huge role in your evaluation of the situation. In my eye, this was a set up, planned between the three of you and consisting of uttering provocations towards me so that you could use my reaction to it against me. In your text, it is not visible if you mean that I was blocked because I answered their attacks on my talk page, thought I asked them not to insult me here, or because I didn't answer them. I adressed their questions but they didn't adressed mine, and your deletion of my page is a mark of abuse from your part. You know very well about it, and you are an hypocrite to come here playing the balanced and impartial judge when on your talk page and on the open communication page everyone can see that you are insulting me. So your rules about wikis contains who have to be encyclopedics does not apply on you, or are you so blended by your own selfworth that you forgot to see your failures as well? I expect you to remove the block right away according to wiki rules about 24 hours blocks, which shall not exceed 24 hours, and certainly not exceed it with 8 extra hours. --XAL 18:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

In Reply to your comments

Hi Sophie: I've begun reading some of the comments on both your (deleted) talk page, your former anonymous talk page, the WP:TINMC page, and on Talk:Bogdanov Affair. First off, the page is now protected, so I don't see how User:Bishonen was removing your edits. Also, per Wikipedia guideline found here, Bishonen removed the personal attacks found on Talk:Bogdanov Affair. By placing these edits, she was merely doing you a courtesy of preserving your words. Because of these comments, User:Geogre deleted the page, which is also permissible. If you would like, I can restore some of these comments onto a user subpage for your historical reference.

My comments were genuine and didn't contained anything who could explained their removal.

Your temporary bans were permissable under Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Disruption, personal attacks, and legal threats are all serious offenses, and your bans are quite legitimate.

I didn't cause any disruptions, as I was answering an article adressed to me by the admin Bishonnen. If she meant that adressing her charged and unrightful comments directly adressed to me, was disrupting, she shouldn't have adressed me on that talk page in the first place, as the article she was adressing was an ongoing follow up of the discussion on that talkpage.

It is fraudulent to pretend otherwise, and I will add to my defense that the articles placed here didn't show the reality as to her comments to which I was answering where not placed here, and the final picture is therefore misgiving, to say it light.

Personal attacks were made to me from Bishonen and from YBM, of a provocative art to say the least.

I do not se what you refer to by "legal threats" as I didn't made such to any parts, but I do believe to be very visible up to now, that such legal threats have been made against me from both Bishonnen and geogre, in a very abusive way, in a attempt to hinder me to express my opinion in the talk page about the Bogdanovs affair, and here.

As for the interventions of YBM on this page they were 1) a noticed and questions about data concernign a mediation matter and ahould as such have been placed under mediation cabal where it belongs, unless the perpetrator had wishes to keep it under cover and for my eye onlt, which put his announcements here under serious question in regard to their credibility and intentions.

2) another of his intervention concerned informations he was trying to get from me about a subject also concerning a mediation and who will be made available when this mediation will be achieved. It was also pernicious from him to try to get tools by sneaking around here. This same article was also containing a link to a Voyers web site completely unrelated to wiki, and to that matter, and that he sayed contained a message to me that I was supposed to answer to.

He did anyway by this action prooved his connection to this Jean Pierre Voyer and to its very disputed interpretation of the postsituationistic mouvement, which is believed to stand behind this making of a Bogdanov affair at a time when this affair was already out, due to the redrawed of accusations made by 2 scientists against the Bogdanovs thesis.

This alone could explain why Geogre deleeted this place as it could have been used in the ongoing mediation against YBM as well as on the ongoing dispute in the Talk page about the Bogdanovs Affair.'

It seems further more as if this ban about the contain of this talk page here, was in fact a diverted way to block my access to the bogdanovs affair talk page, as a vote was taking place there about the character and category this affair should be put under. Geogre unlegal and artificial prolongation of the ban by registering it 8 hours after it effectively took place, bend in favor of this scenario.

I would like to see the proof of serious offenses that I should have made recently in this talk page or in the Bogdanov talk page, as there is not such, and I shall mentioned that at the date of this ban I didn't have made any interventions on the talk page for several days, and in fact you wil have to grave your way into archive 2 of the site to found anything signed by me in that talk page.

If you refer to my edits in the user page, this was assigned to me during the one week ban, and can therefor not be use to excuse my banishment who was made previous to the writting of those articles,as a minimum of chronology and cause/effect must be kept in order to give a minimum of legitimaticy and credibility to the attacks I have been subject to from Geogre, Bishonnen, and YBM.

As you mentioned it yourself, they carefully deleted the trace of their deeds and wrong doing, in an effort to utter accusation with no led in reality, bud impossible to state as the key evidencies to make any assesment about it are no longer available.

I will take it as a proof bending in favor of a not guilty as charged statement in my favor, as any person, as you, making an attempt to evaluate the righteousness of Geogre and bishonens accusations, is doomed to fail due to lack of evidencies and lack of the prime material that those accusations were based upon.

This ban is therefor unlegitimate, as it is also unlegetimate to ban a person from a site who is under an ongoing mediation, and when the person banned do not have make any intervention on the site since days.

I wish also to insist on the fact that in the article removed from the site, I was reaching to bishonen and not attacking her. That her private understanding of it has been otherwise is probably bound to her prejudicious understanding of me and of my intentions in that matter, and maybe a secret wish to harrass me for the pure delight of it, as can be read in Geogre own talk page, than it has to do with any factual attack from my part.

Another point to remember is that I specifically expressed my wish on several occasions in this talk page of mine and on the mediation page, to Bishonen and ybm, to don't place anymore comments and attacks here, as they had done enough of it on the talks page and mediation page. You will also notice that only those two persons have make an intervention here with the sole purpose to harras me.

I accuse them and geogre of harrassment, and insist for them not to interfere with my doing anymore, as the credibility of their partial judgement is seriously damaged by their latest actions for the past 2 weeks, as well as their cooperation and private exchanges about the subject, where they do not hide what their true motives and objectives are, do not plead on their behalf.

But let's let bygones be bygones, and move ahead. I trust that these were simply the mistakes of a new user and all is better now.

No, it is not that simple and I though we were moving ahead but it seems that this is exactly what they are unable to do. I have for my part made enough compromises with them, bending in their favor, and coping with banishments who should have been directed at the person that they defend, as the 3RR was absolutely not respected by him but rather abused for a very long period of time, and that he was never inconvenienced by it, which I found profoundly agravating and illegal in that case.

Therefore further interventions from ybm and bishonen and geogre against me are very dishonoring harrassements, who are follows up of an unsettled dispute who took place 3 weeks ago, and that I had tried to forgot and place under mediation for others to evaluate objectively.

But they have made this impossible to forget by their constant harassements.

If you wish to make progress with your edits here on Wikipedia, I suggest keeping your talk page messages shorter. This way, other editors are more apt to respond to you with respect, and not dismiss your words as an uneducated rant, which I'm sure you wouldn't want.

I do not see how the length of a message has to do with being uneducated! So analphabets mut be very educated?!

And Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, and James Joyces' works were nothing but "uneducated rant"s!?

I didn't knew that the respect we are untitled to was depending on the lenght of our messages.

So the less one has to say, the more respected they are.

I will say the less one has to say the more respectful and opened should they be towards those who do have something to say and know how to present it so that all can enriched themselves with it.

There is of course those who talk much, but do not live by their words and do keep them either, and those who say nothing at all, but keep much buzy at doing so.

Also, it is important to keep in mind that we are trying to build a gigantic encyclopedia, one that is free to all. In this vein, we need to keep articles neutral and sourced. See Wikipedia:Five pillars for the tenets of editing and communicating. Another great policy is Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Don't immediately assume that editors are acting in a coalition against you if they say something contrary to your opinion.

This is exactly my point, and I would like the 3 harrassmen to understand that. I am trying to keep my articles closest to the truth which is difficult when the person who started the bluff on the internet 2 and ½ years ago is using the page about it as a method to keep his hoax running, to the point that it developed legs of its own.

My sourced are checked, his are non-existent and proven to be so.

I never assumed so, I made the faithful constestation based on empirical study, that the user YBM is voluntarily obscuring the truth by presenting an identical set of elements and paradoxes, that he wish to utter as arguments but who will be better place under the category of sophismes, which I am sure Georgre know about, and has the latin list of them, as any routine admirer of philosophers and fan of Wittgenstein with respect for themself, is in possession of, and know by heart, and can blindfolded spot any hole in any text or argument. --XAL 21:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I hope this help in your editing here on Wikipedia. Please contact me with any other issues you might have. Regards, Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 21:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Bratsch, you have misunderstood the whole thing. I am not blocked now because of that , which happend in the end of august, but because of some post in my talk page, made very recently and that I am explainning above. I was blocked for 24 hours but it has now been 40 hours due to violation to the rules made by Geogre. As for what you are mentioning I have never threaten Bishonen with jail but was talking about the user page I was assignated to under my banishment for a week, for which i had no explaination. EVER. It is under mediation and it isn't for nothing, that why I will councel you to take a look at the mediation cabale page under bogdanov affair instead. Regarding statements made in capitals, there is a very simple reason for that: YBM had consequently deleeted all my articles from the site and was using the revert function each time I posted one, and was even encouraging the other users to do so each time I should post anything. He was performing between 7 and 20 reverting per DAY, which is a is a huge abuse of the max 3RR wiki rule.

But he wasn't sentenced for it ever. Instead I was accused of having done it, vandalised the site when in fact he had. But he was able to get in touch and to convinced an admi of it. From that day she worked at his sold on the site. So the reason why I put my statements in capital letters is that I didn't knew about the revert function at all, and was obliged to reinsert my all my articles manually by rewriting and reinserting them again and again and again. I was de facto blocked from the talkpage by a user! simply using the revert function. It was very frustrating and enraging to be treated this way, and he managed to have some of the users believe that I was vandalizing the page, by removing some of my articles from a place to another, pushing users articles on another place after my article instead of before, so that they will think that it was me who did that, and this way get another one to report me for vandalism!!! That's what I am making a mediation about. Because not only I have been suffering by his treatments, but i have also paid and been punished for HIS actions, which i found very choking, also that those who supported him are still harrassing me up to today and haven't yet watched those history pages properly but on the contrary try to hide them. So by using capital letters I could more easely found where and if my articles had been removed, and easily replaced them. I was also trying to address the other users, to warn them about what was going on. I also tried to warn Bishonen about what really happened but she had made up her mind and wasn't interested at all to hear the truth, and ignored me completely, on the contrary she even accused me of having deleted her answer who crossed an article I was writing at the time she posted hers, and something probably happened with the server, I don't know. But she so put her article with the title"SOPHIE DELEETED MY ARTICLE" which I found very agravating in those circumstances where I had been the victim of this vandaliser for 10 days, then got penalised for him 1 day, and straight after called for having deleted! this time by an admin, it was really an impossible and untolerable situation, and even after having recognised that she was wrong in her accusation, she anyway banished me for a week because I asked her to redraw this title. And that's it.

But she didn't stopped there, each and every time I wrote anything on that talkpage, she just came to threaten me of banishing me again and again, and even for all eternity, and even here. All I wrote as I was banned for a week doesn't count as I had all reasons to feel opressed, supressed, betreated, and outrageous. I was really mad at what had happened and at the impossibility to communicate, as it crave that both part are ready to listen...

So you can see that on this light what is going on here to banish me all the sudden from this page and wiki because of something on this page is quite extraordinary! It is completely perverse and insane, they are harrassing me for no reason at all.

About your comments about using sarcasm, I dont know what you are talking about, if you are refering to "the emperors new clothes" it isn't me who wrote that, certainly not! it is YBM himself! and he wasn't banned.

He was sarcastic all the time, and even insulting.

I have deleeted some of his sarcatics comments after 4 days of his deleting-and-reverting game to hinder me to write anything, but he just reverted again. I was trying to make him understand how irritating this was, to make him stop, without luck..

As for anonymous, wrong, i never wrote anything in wiki anonymously, I always put my real name, and my IP adress, this YBM has often wrote without puting his signature thought he was registered, my ip was 213... and my name Sophie, or Sophie XAL.

I hope that you now have a better grasp on the situation at hand. Best regards, --XAL 06:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Block extensions

Inasmuch as User:XAL does not appear to understand or read up on the policies and procedures of Wikipedia, let me take a moment to explain. Attempting to edit while blocked resets the block duration. Thus, if User:XAL is under a 24-hour block and attempts to edit, then she will restart the 24-hour block time. Otherwise, the block expires and is lifted automatically. --Geogre 21:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

And how was I supposed to know that as I was been made aware of my block when trying to edit? Beside, I have also get the message block in my attempts at getting in touch with other admins, and also with you, so it isn't very clever to do so, and a warning about this "detail" should definitely shown when one try to access a place not accessible when under block.

Another thing is that you do not have answer the rest of the facts that I have been pointing at you in my thorougly dissection of you message, and that you had no reason what so ever to block me from the talk page. I would definitely like to know what kind of thing can explain that? I will also warmly recommend you to read the content of this talk page about the Bogdanov affair as ybm and rbj users have been inserting stuff and language that I thought you and wiki condemned buy not been made aware of it.

YBM has also made intervention in the middle of my articles again, which was as I recall it the reason why I was blocked a week, and made threat and insults to me which are as I recall it, also reasons to block a user.

RBJ has called Igor and me and other users for excrement and socket puppet, but of course as you yourself have been teaching him that, it become untangling for you to do something about it, the same words having been uttered by you on your own talk page as sonnet!!!, as well as on the communication page. And what have you been thinking of doing about all that?

It could be time for a brainstorming and a reevalution of the case, in the light of the latest events.

One last thing Geogre, did you knew that YBM had been block for vandalism on the french wiki page about the Bogdanov's affair, and this a few day before he reported me on the english one for vandalism!!! and that he did so on a 5 days interval, and that he had threaten me on the french wiki, insulted me, deleeted several of my texts, deleted part of other articles to put his own anonymous comments in it, and appeared 2 days after his ban there on the english wiki and begin immediately to perform several sabotages of my articles?

It will have been better, savvier, quicker, and assured that the right thing were actually done if you had been in contact with the french admin on the same subject page. It will certainly be in the future a very good idea to do so, in order to warranty for a better security on wiki. A communication between admi across border, is I think a minimum to have, considering the internationality of the web and of wiki.

This way the recalcitrant and recidivist vandaliser will get caught and stopped in good time.

Best Regards, --XAL 05:06, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

"YBM had been block for vandalism on the french wiki page about the Bogdanovs affair" This is a lie. Very easy to check. --YBM 14:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

You were seriously warned to stop your vandalism of the page on several occasions, and the admin had to make several interventions. As the french wiki does not block people as easely as on the english site, you were able to avoid that, as much as you did on the english one in fact, this time in using a little weakness of the system: the overload of user and not so big staff of admin to respond to this user storm. And the fact that it is difficult to see on an edited post if it was a revert of another user text, or a simple correction inside the user's own text, unless one look the historic thoroughly, which is rarely the case due to lack of time and sufficient number of admin. They have to relate on the sincerity of the user who make a complain and contact them, as a vandeliser asking admi for help is quite unprecedented, as well as blaming his victim for being the source of vandalism. It is a gross accusation. Thats nonetheless what you did to me, and took care to buttered up this little group for the sole purpose of harrassing me by abusing of their confidence in you and in your motives.

Do you feel ready to apologize, or shall we go through a compleete mediation? --XAL 23:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding ? Enough of your lies and abuses has been caught by admins to ban you for a century. I've had to post a mise au point on the Cabal page in order to save you.

Anyway, you admit to have discover the history page weeks after begining to post here. Just imagine how much means the average educated dude who've just read the wikipedia manual have got in order to check your lies and confusions ? Now, try to imagine how much of them is of current use for the average admin?

BTW, I asked you a very elementary question on one of the rare part of your text where one could extract some meaning, where and when did anyone write a relevant rebuttal against the proof I've made public that Igor & Grichka ogdanov faked the DSN system by introducing fradulently some universities' adresses in it. You only gave a bunch of irrelevant links, all timestamped before I made this part of the affair public. So what ? Are you afraid to be caught lying ? You've been numerous time before, go on. --YBM 00:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Igors' correct use of DNS and your vain accusation

Ia: You were certainly not the one to make this affair public!!! It is the person who received a mail that he attributed to Igor Bogdanov who did it! http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000045.html You first appear in his discussion with other people 3 days after. And 2 days later, Igor, that nobody had thought of contacting, appeared in the discussion and made a clear and unattackable statement of what happened. Later on, it is the person who indeed had send that mail who mixed in the discussion and was well surprised of the commotion his mail had created. So this completely annihilates your argument about my links showing stof previous to your "public making of the affair", as well as your accusations about me being the source of lies. But isn't it like this that an affair has first to exist and an act to be done before anyone can make it public??!! or are you so used at creating make believes and gossips, that you forgot the real chronology of existing events?

You have yourself, on several occasions given links to this page, so I don't see nor understand why you make a fuzz of it and why you even pretend not to know about it, or that I am lying. I, in fact, came to this page by following your own link! You've got a memory problem of dimension, that's all there is to say about this case.

II.

No admin has ever caught any lies nor abuse for the good reason that I didn't lie nor commit any abuse. There are admins on wiki, other than the 2 that you happily managed to seduce, and those have made a compleete investigation and arrived at all-together different conclusion than those who merely followed your leadership and advices in that matter. They could clearly see the chronology of events and that you had violated the 3RR rule among others.

III.

Concerning my knowledge of the history page, I don't see how it harms me, it is rather a proof that I do not participate in discussions on wiki by mean of deleting others articles and covering my track afterward, as you did. Nobody in fact should be allowed to do so without the authorization of an admin, and then only allowed to revert their own articles but never others. Anything else being unethical. You didn't need my "confession" to know that, as you used the fact that I never use the revert function, and didn't knew about it, to supress all my contributions before anyone could read it, and that you used the seemingless blind evidence of my reinsertion of own text, that you had deleted, to make it seems like if I had reverted my pages, when it was in fact a correction of your reverting actions.

IV.

I do not see what it is that you mean to save me from, and would certainly like to know what "mise au point" you are talking about. You were covering your back at the cost of the admin you seduced, but you would never save anybody, it would go against your own instincts. And don't play idiot by doing like if you didn't know that I was the one who asked for mediation 5 days before you posted your request, and that you did it in order to be provocative and show yourself. I know how important this matter is for you, as if, and when, it will be settled that you have been fooling some trusty admin, and that you reverted like crazy night after night, you will run very short of arguments against the Bogdanov concerning your accusations stated on the mediation page of yours, and will be facing definitive block from wiki.

V

In contrast with your accusations stated above, mine has substance to it and are not bare pretenses to impress some imaginary court. You are still trying to induce some more people and it will not play to your advantage in the long run.

VI

Concerning your story of fraudulent IP-adress to fake the DNS system, you most certainly know what you are talking about since you are a Linux specialist, knowing that 94% of all phishing and frindge of IP adress to access the system using another person IP is done using Linux server. Which put you on line number one as guilty as charge for having faked the DNS of wiki using an Admi IP adress that you had phished on wiki french: Cereal@Killer. You are the one responsible for that, as nobody else was on that page at that time than you, and nobody else had both the knowledge of this admin identity and IP adress, and the knowledge in informatic, and the required inside knowledge regarding phishing, a Linux server-to-Linux-server connection, and the mean to do so. Not to mention the mentality this kind of action crave and the motives.

I.b.

For your accusation regarding IP adress on university computers, I do not see why you bother, didn't you use your computer at university to post blog or articles, or other texts in different forums ever? Now for the IP of Igor, when one is travelling a lot, it is better not to sign with IP as it will change each time and will worsen the debate around the subject. If I was in his situation, I will most certainly guard me from revealing my IP adress, specially with the kind of unbalanced fox like you circulating on those forums and on wiki, and having both the tools and acces to hacker space, with detailed description about how to phish and fake, which by the way don't require much basic computer knowledge to can do it, as it is described so well and can even be done for one. All one has to do is to ask for it. I have a cooperation with a Danish firm developing software against this kind of attacks, so I know how fragile the security systems are in front of those "do it yourself" kits available on the web. Faking an admin identity is pretty aggravating, you might not be sourced, but you also might be, so if I was you I will be more humble with my words, and avoid to transgress the rule of making wild and unfounded accusations against me. The list of arguments I have listed above have all been presented to, and discussed with, an administrator of wiki, and are therefore legal to adress. Yours are not.

I.c.

As astonished you seem to be at reading my affirmations about the proof of non-fraudulent doing on the part of Igor, as astonished as I was when reading, for a month ago, the contain of those discussions about this pseudo false mail adress, with roots in Hong Kong, supposed to be a falsification created by Igor, but containing the express warranty of his compleete innocence, all that through a link given by you as evidence of...the opposite!

I thought: is he sane? Isn't he able to understand what is clearly stated there, or is he doing so in hope that:

1. Nobody will take the trouble to verify.

1. Already persuaded that it was a proof of culpability, those who will make the effort to read the page will misunderstood at best, or be unsure at worst.

1. You blundered yourself and were unable to understood properly the statement made by Igor and the 3 guys discussing the problem, including the man who did made this accusation.

The one thing who still surprises me about it, is that none of them even thought about apologizing to Igor. I also remember that you still tried to write more of your known vindictive prose, even after the ride had ended, which could point that explanation 3 is the right one. You were also doing it pretty much solo, as all others original accusers had left the field.

Maybe you should reread it in detail and with more attention, it could be that you had miss one or 2 important steps in the argument, and therefore have been since convinced of Igor Bogdanov's fraud.

http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000045.html

I remember to have pointed that to you in your own forum for 5 weeks ago, but you choose to oversee it. Try not to repeat the same mistake this time please, as all will gain by it. --XAL 04:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Gosh ! How could you write so much words with so few insight ? Clearly you don't even understand what the DNS faking by Igor was, what an DNS is, not even what an IP is. What the hell is the relation between the wiki system and HKU/HKUST DNS fake entry ? You haven't provided any link or quotes about this point. I'm curious to know what you could have misunderstand about this issue.

Your accusation that I'd have hacked wikimedia or whatever on the ground that I am using and working with GNU/Linux will be reported to admins. --YBM 16:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I already have my dear, I already have. What more links do you want when you just deny them anyway? And when and if I dare copy/paste directly its contents, so you will be all over my face again for inserting something from the non wiki pages, or because it isn't in english, as you did before. And I will report your insulting ways of answering me by stating that I don't know this and that and that I present no insights... Read, and answer to what I do say, instead of pretending to don't see the obvious. Or leave this place altogether. --XAL 19:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

So you admit being unable to give a single related link (all you give were unrelated to the DNS issue) nor a signle quote about this issue supporting your point. --YBM 19:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

(hint: not only the DNS faking is impossible to deny, but Igor did indeed admit it !)

Who are trying to fool? Yourself? --YBM 19:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Whereabouts of a link

I have already gave you this link and I don't see why you keep saying that I didn't. I feel the urge to tell you that you are mixing 2 different matters. The one with Igors use of a pseudo on a public forum, like everybody does, and the other regarding the use of a spoofed ip adress, and accusation of giving oneself for being another, in short ID theft, and phishing. This last one has been proven wrong; see the link I gave you to it, and where you did actively participate. The other one has been already discussed on Talk: Bogdanov Affair wiki Page, and positively concluded that it is not an unusual way to communicate on any internet forum: using an alias, as 98% of the people there do, and as you do yourself using the pseudo of YBM all the time and sometime having another one, depending on the forum. Igor didn't acknowledge having fooled anybody, nor faking any DNS, but simply spoke openly about his use of a pseudonym, and I do not see what the heck this has to do with the story, nor why you make such a big Bang out of that dust. http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000045.html Try in the future to use a more admissible tune when adressing me- by not being insulting, by not making remarks about how ignorant I am supposed to be in different departments compared to you, and to cease immediately your patronisation of me. Our DNA do not match, so keep the necessary distance to avoid clash, for everyones benefit, and keep on the subject without going off on less relevant tangents. --XAL 00:30, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Incoherent babbling, put still no link. --YBM 05:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"(...)keep on the subject without sidespring on less pragmatics comments." Here is your link, again, so don't assume anything beforehand, but read it this time: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/blog/archives/000045.html --XAL 14:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you confusing Latvia and China ? This is about phys-maths.edu.lv not about th-phys.edu.hk.

Igor and Grichka faked the identity of HKU/HKUST (even the street address !) when registering this last one, then pretented publicly that their web site "IIMP", and the IIMP itself as a research center, was linked to Hong Kong University. As did their 'old friend' "Yang". This was a lie and a fraud. --YBM 16:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned it to you before, you have to read all those posts more carefully. The thing you say here are the same ones that you said then, and had no worth, as you were mistaking by not having read the provided data thoroughly. You need to do that now in order to see what you failed to see then. It is very clear in fact, I saw it the first time I read it, but it can be that you had a "proove-me-right" set of glasses then. Now you have the possibility to see what you failed to see so long ago, so please seize/rise to the occasion, and read it one more time. I am confident that you are able to see it through now. --XAL 18:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

1. Igor and Grichka Bogdanov registered th-phys.edu.hk at HKDNR (the .hk registrar) putting Hong Kong University name and street adress in the form.
2. They put a web site on this address with the ghosty "IIMP" content.
3. Neither HKU nor HKUST have never been related to this domain (I got official response from both CS dept, then Igor admitted to faking the DNS registration).
4. If you have problem with facts you should leave Wikipedia and science. You've never heard of the former anyway. --YBM 19:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

5) Igor intervention to explain the error this was and come with prooves

6) The person having registered with the data you come whith made an intervention and declared he was the person having send the message.

7) End of story for all, but you still kept talking about it on the same page.

With you on wiki, and science, the statement should be:

"If you have problems with lack of facts, insults, dishonnesty, and arbitrary doom, you better leave wiki and science."

You see, I am here to restore the truth or at least try to make some damage control in the storm of facts crossing a forest of lies, that you left behind you.

You are still insulting me, as you have insulted all person no matter what grade and what PhD, on all forums, who dared presenting you some facts you didn't like seeing, and especially to be seen by others. So you simply insulted them and adress them in a way as if what they said was irrelevant, or not true, or by questioning their qualifications or their identity, or their sanity, or by calling them idiots.

Most of the opponents simply left as it isn't normal nor good tone and etiquette in Science to adress one another on that way. But how should you know? You never sensed the boundary between you and the rest of the world, just like a baby. So baby, it is time to wake up now, and show some more respect to the world at large, and have a touch of humility in your uttering. Except the fact that you are lying, all facts in wikipedia are as good as it can get, in the given conditions. Make amend for you insults, or please do not make any more interventions/provocations here. --XAL 08:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

5) Igor intervention to explain the error this was and come with prooves

6) The person having registered with the data you come whith made an intervention and declared he was the person having send the message.

7) End of story for all, but you still kept talking about it on the same page.

5 is false, 6 is false, 7 is false. It's probably why you didn't even try to pretend it nor provide any reference but an unrelated one. --YBM 18:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You have been blocked

Crossposted from Talk:Bogdanov Affair

All right, that's it. The following line is the only part of XAL's long post which is relevant on this page and not simple abuse:

"You have inserted a title on my article [meaning "my post] and you do not have the right to do so."

There. That line gets to sit here, I'm removing the rest of her post, anybody who likes can consult it via the History. XAL has been warned many times about insults and irrelevances on this page. I've been tolerating a lot of these things from her for the reason that the overall tone on the page is far from the ideal of civility, with some personal attacks by others, too. But this last post does it, as far as I'm concerned, it's time to free up the page for actual discussion. I'm blocking XAL for three days. Bishonen | talk 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration has been requested

Arbitration has been requested in a matter you are involved in. Please see WP:RFAR for more. Snowspinner 19:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Response to Bishonen's block message

Dear bishonen, here you are again, weren't you forbidden to pollute this talk page anymore by your corupted interventions and arbitrary deleeting and bans?

Your actions, as they have always been, are completely discussfull and under all criticisms. You are nothing but a little stupid idiot coming and called by ybm as he was ban and not by you! of course, for going again against the 3RR rule, and for having insulted enormously people. You know of course that people following ybm are called by him and his Voyer "Idiots"? or did you forgot? so pay a visit to his website and get a free trip to wake-up land.

All my interventions were absolutly relevant and I am the alone person on this talk page acting like a real admi would! I came as you certainly didnt read it, with a proposition who was suppose to bring an end to all this mess, but ybm and rjb and your friend snowspinner and Maru just made it worse. I have responded to attacks,and certainly not in the same distorded way who is so familiar to them and to you to express themselves, and your removal of my post is a censorship, a compleete censor of my words who are the truth but who disturb you, You are the valey of ybm and nothing else and seems to enjoy it. YBM has called Igor Bogdanov a Bastard twice a short time before you blocked me, you have no rights to do so and your excuse about having warn me a lot before is working a little thin don't you think? i do not have been warned ever ever ever ever by you. Post warning is no warning. You should be kicked out from wiki as you are absolutely unable to work as an admi. This latest action of yours is so discustfull and after you and your boyfreind Geogre alredy did against me this is a Hetz and compleete harassement that you perform only because you know Nicky turnbull to be away for a wild. You are so disraspectfull of the minimum of ethic and morality, and the minimum of truth and honnesty that I have no business talking with a "person" with such a low standard. You are completely corrupted and a stain on wikis'reputation.

Shame on you!!

--XAL 21:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Softban

Hello, based on a couple of conversations on the IRC channel, I and another user believe a so called "soft-ban" is more appropriate. This, in essence, means that you will be unblocked however only under the understanding that you are only to edit your own talk page and the relevant WP:RFAR pages until something can be worked out (as is only fair). If these terms seem agreeable for now, I will summarily lift the ban. However, should you violate my trust, you will be reblocked. Regards. Sasquatcht|c 00:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

BOYCOT THE CORRUPTED AND ILLEGAL ARBITRATION

AND WHAT IS IT I DID EXACTLY TO BE BANNED? WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN?

You are obviously not aware of what is going on, I am ban for not contributing at all with the talk page!! what ? I am the one who asked for this mediation for more than 2 weeks ago and it was for something else than that and this Snowskinner who was asked to bring the arbitration knows it perfectly. And I am the one working out ot bring the two best cosmolog in the world to look at those thesis, Stephen W. Hawking and Holger Beck Nielsen, and I am the one who did contributed the most in this affair together with Igor Bogdanov, at the refute of those falsifications of evidencies presented here by ybm and his acolytes.

I was ban because ybm had been ban and couldn't stand it. But where he was ban 24 hours for insulting repeatidly people and calling Igor Bogdanov a bastard 3 times in a minute and for having on several occassions oversteped the 3RR rule, I was ban 3 x 24 hours for having presented an article who was evaluated by Bidhonene - who is a very endeared friend of YBM, for not being as usefull as she wished. What ever that evaluation mean comming from the mouth of a corrupted administrator.

An article containing of course a serie of evidencies who didn't have been shown before, and who constitute a major block against the conspiratorial arguments of ybm and his gang. Just as she did it here on my talk page when she deleeted it all, and never reinserted it, thought proven illegally done, a precious document proving the ´factual connection between YBM and this Voyer who infatuated this whole affair.

It was YBM who had invited his friend on my talkpage, until he realized that I had an mediation {the supposetly comming arbitration} going on that was about this.

Bishonen blocked me 20 minutes after her protegé had been blocked. I dont see any of her interventions in this talk page concerning the insults of rjb and ybm, nor concerning their cynical and very empty and longs comments about my mediation on the talk page tonight. You can read my articles yourself and see how hard I was fighting to make sure that the situation will not degenerate further, and to calm down the spirit. She didn't make an intervention there to ask rjb and ybm to stop their acction and provocating attitudes, nor accused them for saying nothing nor removed their articles for not improving the talk page, nor contributing with anything on it. She has already been told to don't interfeer anymore on this talk page because she is unable to differentiate between her liking and her work as an admi. She does not follow the rules and do a very destructiv work, using retaliation and arbitrarious judgement all the time, and always something who arranged ybm very much. She even do revert for him and use her status to commit illegitimate stuff. The arbitration should have been about this too. They are using the fact that mediator Nicholas turnbull is out for a week to do their bad deeds. And this snowsnippers know that what he does is out of hand, and that he should never have done it. He even insulted Nicholas turnbull. Easy when people aren't there to defend themselves. Wiki english is a spot on the face of Wikipédia, admi are behaving like sabotors and vandaliser and encourage riot, and abuse of their knoledge and power to undermine actions made to refrein their wrong doing.

This has to stop. I asked for a mediation and an arbitration comity for more than two weeks and Snowspinners actions are completely unlegitimate. He has stollen MY mediation and MY arbitration request.

This don't go and has to be aborted. I do not recognise the actual arbitration for being legitimate, and thereby ask all to boycot it.

None of the involved administrator can in anyway be part of the arbitration comity or of the arbitration. It is a close debate and not an arena game. THis arbitration was supposed to be hold secret, as snowspinner knows very well, and took some very unlucky initiatives from the very beginning. He is an idiot to have done that, and has no sens of responsability, nor of maturity, and cannot be trusted. He must be removed as well. i dont accept what happened tonight. There was absolutly no reasons for me to be blocked and certainly not for 3 days. If I say fuck! like ybm nothing happen, but if I bring precious evidencies, so I am ban and the evidencies confiscated and destroy yes, and detroyed as they have been alredy here several times. This is the sign of a totalitarian system, and wiki english has became a totalitarian system, where the judged perform the judgement, and were all proofs are stollen and destroyed and were disturbing people are threaten for their meaning and impert to say more, and blocked away.

To say what you did, you can only be one of those people who repeat non stop what the one before them just sayed, but will not dream of looking at the matter himself, just as bishonene did fronm the beginning and will not dream to do even now. She is a liar who know perfectly the degree of illegitimacy of her actions and who nonetheless pretend as if it was all perfectly legitimate. She should be definitively banned from wikipedia and so should Maru be who has constantly provocate people and insert insulting commentars together with this rjb, empty statements, and dirty tricks like using admi tools and pretending being one, when in fact he wasn't and had been placed there by Bishonnen to put the mess. Bishonnen is forbidden on the Bogdanovs talkpage and has there fore absolutely no rioghts to come on that alk page to banish me as I have an ongoing arbitration against her deeds against me and her lack of objectivity.

I do not accept what happened and asked for an excuse, the total removal of my ban and the reinsertion of my article. It is the second time in one month that an a very informativ and corroborated article of mine is removed from the talk page because of his very informativ contain and the danger that those represent for the validity of YBMs' pretended Bogdanovs Affair. He made this affair up through manipulations. I communicate the following message to a person who will take the case into own hands:

---

<< Dear XXX

Nick Turnbull went away for a week last night, and immediatly a admi Snowspinner baned igor for ever from the talkpage.. I had just made a proposition where I was informing that I had contacted Prof. in theoretic physic at Niels Bohr institut Holger Beck Nielsen, to stude the Bogdanovs thesis and by this way end all this affair by having a definitiv evaluation of it by the highest specialist on that matter in the world, together with Stephen W. Hawking. To this user rjb answered with cynicisnm and very useless and insulting commentars... The same from ybm, who also called Igor a bastard 3 times and other insults, and reverted like a maniac, and rjb called me and all users who diagreed with him for socket puppet and what they sayed for being excrements. I also had doen a lot to calm down the fights who were going on like creazy. YBM was blocked by an admi, at 5:15 PM, for revert, and bishonen blocked me without reasons 30 minutes later..!!??! She also removed my article who seemed to disturb YBM a lot. They both had made series of intervention on my articles, in the middle of it, too, so that I had on several occassions to remind them about wiki rules regarding that, and to undo their actions later on. Also user Maru, with some kind of admi permissions, did the same and also made some really discouraging and stupids comments to my proposition settlement, and it was really hugly. At the same time that Bishonnen blocked me, admi snowspinner open an arbitration of the page.. Now it comes: I had asked for the arbitration comity since two weeks and was working on it with mediator Nicholas Turnball who had taken care of the mediation and closed it down a few days ago exactly because I was going to bring it to the arbitration comity. He wrote me yesterday, telling me he was away for a week, and snowspinner recognized having been asked by Nicholas Turnbull to bring my mediation to the arbitration comity.

He sayed, inside the talkpage about the bogdanov, that he didn't do so because he figured out that by banishing Igor from the site it will bring an end to the story...!!!!!!!!!? But, as I told you, short time AFTER bishonen had blocked me, so snowspinner opened the arbitration but not about the case I had presented for arbitration 2 weeks ago, but about the ongoing war on the talk page who was very much pushed up by Maru, snowspinner, and latest bishonen. It is absolutely unconceavable that an arbitration I have been asking for since a month, is now made about an all together different subject by a newbee just arrived on the site, having banished Igor from the moment he entered the site around midnight last night . Bishonen did as if she didn't knew, and asked if she should upheav my ban. And guess what, Mardu answer no, a user who put a big mess there since the 22 of sept saying he was an admi, placed there by...Bishonen! And I thought that this kind was finished but it is continuing over and over again and again. Nobody believes me. The same people who are doing it in fact, so no surprise.

I ask for the suspension of Bishonen.

This is going too far. Do you know what they gave as a reason not to upheav my block? that "I didn't participate with anything usefull to all the talk page and that all my articles are rant and that my stuff is useless anyway" exactly what they used before, a month ago, and what bishonen again and again use as reason for removing my articles, without any proove for that, and even for removing my mediation on the first place, and deleeteing my personal talkpage!!! And this is say by people who didn't contribute to the talkpage with anything else but insults and bad taste comments on most intelligent articles like mine and igors and this person from the french government, who was first called a socket puppet for Igor, as anybody daring to emit any supportiv comments concerning the Bogdanovs on that talk page or making any truely gratifying interventions.

I have been standing over and over again since the 25th of august that this should be put to an end, but it is blooming again, and it is the same gang of people involved, the same similarities, language, tricks,. Like YBM, when my mediation page was deleeted, asked for mediation, so here, knowing I had asked for arbitration comity and it was secret until it will have come true, it was dispelled by this snowspinner, and truly I have been trusting the one admi after the other for no reason they are all liars who just pretend doing a good job but in fact are doing dirty business all the time. If they do it it is because they know they can and will not be punish. How could they be so naiv at believing to this bishonen and Geogre? I mean, the guy is writing sonnet about the Bogdannovs on his talkpage! and sonnet making laugh at me for beeing bannished...by him!!!! and at the same time deleeting my talkpage for not contributing enough to wiki!!!! or ... wasn't it for containing an intervention from Jean Pierre Voyer, the man behind YBM and all this papaffair, brought there by YBM, on my talk page, and very much disturbing for ybm, as it constituted a proof for my arbitration against this plot behind the bogdanov affair.

I tell you before and to all: there isn't a forum or a website that YBM has visited and who didn't became polluated and a battle field after a short time. You speak you speak but do nothing and the alone person left to help me is a guy who in fact isn't an admi and that those admi do not respect and don't care about, and refuse even to call for a mediator.

How could this affair go so far?

Because nobody listened, nobody took action, and EVERYBODY tried to drown the fish all the way. You all refused to understand what was the matter, and thought it is repeating itself you refuse to act upon it. One month that I ask you wiki, to consider what I am saying. Only the people for the bogdanovs are blocked and sanctioned all the other can insult and revert and say meningless things it is all right. I asked for somebody able to be an admi there and all they send is imature teenages, completely unable to distinguish right from wrong, and who participate in the problems they were suppose to solvem support the wrong doings of vandaliser, perform it for them if needed, indulge themselves to outrances, and nobody try to put a stop to it.

I am disgust from all of this and all should be ashame of themselves to let it happened and to be part of it. It is all corrupted, you can openly see who is working with whom, that bisho came to block me send by ybm, because he had been blocked!! The admi who block him is not someone from the site I don't know who it is, but it had to be somebody from outside, 'cause it is the first time ever that ybm finally pay for his deeds.

Why do i have to pay when I put so much effort to put an end to it???!

This is a compleete and indecent manipulation of events and a set up, its a circus.

Who has time? It is about time to found out. I am so disgust by those events with all the work i put in this mediation and this arbitration, and it is stollen away from me. Those admi have plenty of time they just use it for the opposit than what they are suppose to. I want this blok out and an explaination.

Using the fact that Nicholas was out of town is really incredible and cheap.>>

---

--XAL 02:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

blocked

it appears a softban isn't working, I've blocked you for 48 hours for disruption and vandalism due to that massive rant you decided to post on the middle of the, you've had your chance to respond to the RFAr as was given by the softban and you have abused that chance. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

After discussing with several other editors who are more familiar with your previous actions I have decided to extend your ban to 72 hours (3 days). Please note that if you continue your disruption and vandalism you may be blocked until the end of your RFAr. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur, perhaps you should have listend more carefully to what the softban was about... Sasquatcht|c 03:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Pasting in your post that was removed from Talk:Bogdanov Affair

Hello, Sophie. You say several times above that your post to YBM that I removed from Talk:Bogdanov Affair was very informative and corrobated, and that my deletion was a malicious attempt to hide precious new evidence. I feel you may be mixing the deleted material up with something else, but here it is in full, if you value it:

Isn't it what you ususally say each and every time? specially when dévoilé? and isn't it also what you do together with imposing a title when I write a thing who is too true too close to what you can't accept? You have inserted a title on my article and you do not have the right to do so. It is exactly what you did for exactly a month ago to my article concerning your cooperation with Jean pierre Voyer, calling it repeatidly garbage, deleeting it and having me banned for telling the truth. Thats how you met your énglish connection circle of friend on wiki admi board, like Geogre, Bishonnen, snowboard, Maru, and rjb.

All I say is always prooven right, and if "so easely proven false" so why didn't you do it so right away, we all know that if you really could thats what you will have really done...not talk about doing., and that when you pretend to can but dont do, it means that you can't do it, you can't proove it wrong, but you can rename it revert it, call it garbage, and the like, braf, you are acting like an impotent thinker!

And all my links are statements from laurent and yourself: his scientifical destruction of all arguments and evidencies stated above, and your answer to it, very known answer I should add,: "I don't care if I am wrong, and I don't care about what you say, I will always stand the same things no matter what!". YBM - june 2004 -

Well, clap, clap, and life goes on, my dear, with such a statement we do know whith what we have to do, like say my friend, a french psychanalist that I put on your case, and who has been studying your profile on the network for a little while.

Gee! you are sô on!

That's the post I removed, all of it. Anything else you posted is still on the page. Bishonen | talk 14:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Goodbye everybody

And what on earth is wrong about this article, specially if settet back where it originally belongs? I do not accuse people to be socket puppet, I do not insult them with harsh and very illustrativ words, I do not call their articles for garbage or for saying nothing usefull, or for being idiots, nor ignorant, nor do I pretend that they do not contribute with anything on the talk page and never did, nor do I revert other users contributions, as YBM and rjb specially and mainly, as well as some other new users on the page like Maru that night and previous days did, and som other users belonging to the same side of the story. If I had to be banished for that so had ybm and rjb and maru too and for a much longer period of time and their text to be removed, in fact all of them that night, as they didn't say much else but cynical and fruitless comments on other people works and destructiv critiscism who wasn't justify. I tried more than 4 times to make them come v´back to ttheir mind and to sopt healding oil to the fire, but it didn't helped. They just had too much fun harrassing users all around the talk page, unpunished. An objectiv analyse of the page will not only take much time but will most certainly show how true what I state here is. There is a text that I do not found, an article with the copy/paste of the writting exchange between me and mister Jean Pierre Voyer, where he clearly stated his doing in this affair and his cooperation with YBM in the making of falsification of evidencies, and his arrogancy and proudness in doing so, added some discrepencies in his words and a major amount of respectlessness, and you have the picture of the person behind this all story. I also received private mails from a mister Rupley, who is (which is) the name of one of YBMs' web site with plenty of litteracy of the kind of Voyer, and with links to Luven, also an ybms' website of the kind. It does not concern the Bogdanovs affair, but concentrate on the theories who corroborate the making of such a fake story and its justifications in doing so. It's a hobby of some sort, like some like Shakespeare or a special branch of philosophy or politic or a sub for us mostly unknown special branch of a political - philosofical - opinionated - with social ramification kind of organisation, touching a very small group of individuals inclosed in their believes. There is plenty of the like all over the world, their reason for adding to those ideas are those people life and choices, which I do respect, but in that case, those idiosyncrasies (thats my own choice of denomination and not theirs)are being punched ininto the reality of a lot of people and involved real ideas. I think of course about the balancing act of inplanting those high flying ideas to the reality of the thousands of internet users by imposing their vues inthis Bogdanov affair. By vues I do not mean the apparent version of the fact given by YBM about the validity of the actual thesis. No. It isn't what it is about. It is more complex than that. It is about playing with people reactions in a situation of confrontations and playing with lies. Creating stories, ideas, like gossips who have no bund in the rality but who will nonetheless create a reaction in the people who are witnessing it at the time, and build on further from those reactions, and add more and more stuff to keep the tension and the artificial affair going on. It might not be as complicated as it sounds to bring those ideas to live, as it very quickly get a dynamic of its own who keep repeating itself, if some element are implemented along the way. It has roll this way for 2 years now, and the scenario are pretty much the same from a Forum to another. One can see the same scenarios coming up, the same elements who keep coming back, the same strange behaviours at odd time, and the same surprising reactions when prooven wrong: a war take place, fill with denials, wild accusations, insults, personnal attacks, anything goes type of scenarios, with a lot of drama and tension in it, and many people getting injured, and leaving too. mostly those who came with the unbeatable arguments as I saw it so many times on fr. physic, from june to november 2004. Looking at it after without having a part of it, give the priviledged view of the whole thing in a very short period of time , in one view, and here all those flaws are very obvious and it seems estonishing that nobody noticed it at the time. The game is very clear that way, and it was clear for me that there was something wrong going on, something who wasn't right, a mismatch. And i seek after what it could be. It was evident that the main person involved didn't have clean floor in his bag, and that he was hidding something but also that he was clearly lying and very "good" at it, very good at manipulating groups and opinion too. It was estonishing to see how easely people get involved in it and how easely they were turned around, convinced, by the most unusual methods. Threats and insults about their level of education, them as a person, their intelectual level, their degree og´f idiotie, and also by understating that he wasknowing much more than all the other and had a higher educational grad in the field at hand. Not by saying it directly, but by leading to it, in a very pompous way. It was amazing, he was really insulting people talking low to them, trating them like inferiors being, and they were saying sorry, and agreeing with him and folowing him. Very interesting stuff for psy students and the rest, but for the time being very usefull to know to understand the whole thing and how it has been building up. References to those forums is the key, to make it looking more real more true. And after 2 years there is a lot of them, mostly build by him, and none of them without the omnipresence of YBM, which is the Hic of the story. For if it is true and happened all by itself without the help of ybm nor Voyer nor max nor Ronulphe, his associates, howcome it diesn't exist one forum previous to those or parallel to those who discused the matter without their presence in it? It should be expected. But the claim is not met. The affair does start with YBm, and with Epiphyse. Before that, it was a closed incident. Many scientifics have asked why should a thesis make such a big mark when there is thousand of thesis presented and defended every year and that not one of them is completely free from errors and that it is expected from a thesis. Why? Because this one was choosen to put in application their post situationistics trip. The second in line, after 2 years exercise on the internet with 2 other writers, YBM was now ready to grab a bigger beaf. The Bogdanov, it was ideal, celebrity, attention warranty, also from the media, and this was taken care of as this Voyer has worked in the media, for a newspaper in France during many years, as he was stating it himself in his letter adressed to me. This letter that I published a few minutes before being blocked, and who isn't to be found now, or so it seems. If Bishonen didn't removed it, then, who did? Those articles were and still are used as proofs by YBM, who have had the kindness to make them all available for us on the internet. It is quiet incredible that so many people eat the story for so long, and understandable that some people add to this kind of way to use and dispense their intelligence, instead of earn for a living. What is disturbing and unacceptable, is the consequences that this joke of theirs had and still have on the first people concerned by it, and on those who were broght onto it along the way. I understand that many people who first heared of it and where practically only given the informations provided by YBM as a main source of information, did believe him, and didn't see a croock in him but some kind of hero of the truth. What I understand less and less is that they can stay seduced by his word when they witness his methods, words, allegations, insults, denials, and can see that all might not be as it seems.

Lets take a recent exemple, who in fact is a replication of what happened for exactly one month ago: I purposed a settlement that I had mentioned 2 days before but who had went unoticed. I explain it better, and its purpose is to settle the affair once and for all by having undisputable best world expert in cosmology to take a look at the thesis and give his opinion about it. The reception was like a joke one hear at the local pub. No question asked, no propositions, no agreement about it, only destructivs comments and total bagatellisation of it. It is the most constructiv proposal ever made here and in this affair, and who seek to cut the chase and be real. Once this expert has spoken, so nothing more need to be sayed. The case will be definitelly closed. YBM and rjb should be glad, all detractors should be pleased to death by this piece of news, finally they are going to be prooved true. Now there is an end to their suffering, the truth will prevail. But no, not interested, opposit I got the very surprising reaction from rjb that he is going to contact his own specialist, like if it was some kind of competition I was at. It estonished me as this reaction made no sens at all. So I tried to explain to him a little better. but no no no, he came with his specialist, a recent figure in YBMs' blackboard of trophee. Un chercheur du CNRS. Who made a very thorough filling of the talk page with a list of errors who had been seen many tiems argumented that way, and contraargumented on some forums, but also on...Wiki! french about the same subject and by the same person. Igors contra kan be seen there but also in the archive of wiki english.

I asked myself why on earth doing this? What purpos does it served when I just sayed that the best expert was going to give his official meaning not only on a list of stuuf precollected by Baez (it is the same exactly) but on the whole thesis, both of them?

Because they were maybe not so happy to be prooven right? Or were fearing to be prooven wrong?! In that case this was the proof of their dishonnesty, and the svane last song. The svane didn't went off without a brass of it all, and a big major arbitration, the most chotic and improvised one in wikis' history.

If you seek the truth, why call my proposition to have a major change in the way things have been done already, a non contributing part to the talk page? If Stephen Hawking and Holger Beck Nielsen have nothing to contribute in a matter of cosmology, so I don't know who can, and it is certainly not any of us. On the other hand, if even those very known and respected persons can be laught away by the same persons who have been arguing for YBM and against the Bogdanovs theories since the beginning and are those who are now expressing their views in the arbitration and choosing the member of the arbitration comity, it don't give much credits to all what they have say until now, and to the rationality of their actions.

Be free to judge of it yourself, I accessed another angle by mean of studying the matter intensively before I begin to take part of it, and I only began to talk when I knew enough to can make my own mind about it. i gained even more insight later on, of the aggravating kind, by getting in contact with Voyer, and I will not lie to any of you by hidding what I feel about this kind of person, and to the group of person who engaged in this and in this kind of fordgery. I found those persons actions and mentality disgusting and in disaccord with basical ethicals views and respect of another human being. I discovered this organisation a month ago, almost at the same time as you took for the first time knowledge of this affair. You were not ready yet, but I hope that you are now in better stand to drink it all and to digest it even if it is the poisonning kind. I will also wish that it never existed, and some time wished I had never took part in this madness.

I will not participate in the Talk page for a wild and maybe very long as I have tried it and it goes nowhere. Instead, I am doing something much more usefull, direct, and with full impact in the future of this matter. Something which effects can be seen, and who is not a waist of my time.

Good luck Bishonen, may this story enriched you as an indivudual and as an admi, and might you not experience it again.

Sophie --XAL 04:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Recent prooves of hetz being made and of the corruption of the admi

Question from Bishonen: an injunction for XAL? Oops. I didn't realize that the Bogdanov Affair affair had made it to RFAR; I just blocked XAL for the third time for unrepentant personal attacks. 72 hours. Should I unblock her so she can respond to this RFAR? I'd appreciate it if she could get an injunction against editing anywhere else, though (especially not on Talk:Bogdanov Affair), for what would have been the duration of the block. I'm not happy about all this vitriol she spreads, and, from past experience, I'd expect it to be worse now that I've gotten her worked up with a new block. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC) PS, re Snowspinner's request above that XAL along with other users be banned from editing the article: she never has edited it. Never edited any article on wikipedia. I want her banned from the article's talkpage.

For what it is worth, I support this motion. XAL has contributed nothing to the discussion, in stark contraindistinction to most of the other users like Igor or rbj or ybm, and often stirs things up. --Maru (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC) Also from an outsider: XAL appears to only rant and to only rant on one topic (user:YBM, whose letters are sequentially one after hers, like IBM and HAL), and to contribute nothing but a negative -- an anti- point of view. Thus, she seems to have come to us from some outside web fight and longterm flamewar. Since coming here, she has demonstrated the grace, understanding, curiosity, and equanimity of a wounded hyena with rabies. Geogre 11:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

What do you know about all that but what I told you specifically, like HAL, and did you read my settlement proposal at all? no did you read the answers being made to it by your idiotic friends rjb and maru? no You talk without knowing like you have always done. You are a gossip, nothing alse but a gossip who never bring any prooves to his accusations nor explain why he removed the totality of my talk page. You are adishonnest lier and being one of the accused person in my arbitration you have no place in it with empty commentars ans accusations against me as well as bishonnen has no rights to mix up in the talk page she was asked to stay away from. She is sick as you are of spendin gtoo much tiem far away from the real world ans only dreaming of retaliation against me as she ans you project on me your own frustration of being so meningless. And ignorants. I am the one who made the firsts conciensius of the talk page and in fact brought that word for the first time in it. It was done by me already in august this year, and you will know it if you could read. You don't know about fact as yu don't know about the scientific methods. You are rants. You speak on an arbitration where you are most unwelcome with the same empty sind as you pass your idiotic sonnet and your fat ass: happy of your ignorancy and passing the marshmallow.

--XAL 22:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

---

For what it is worth, I support this motion. XAL has contributed nothing to the discussion, in stark contraindistinction to most of the other users like Igor or rbj or ybm, and often stirs things up. --Maru (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

No comments, see the art gallery for concret proove that what he say reflect what he is and does, not my doing and being. This is again a projection.

--XAL 22:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

---

All the people who are now playing in the kindergarten called the arbitration, are all without exception people who weren't there when the reason for this arbitration was decided: in august and first week of september. So pack your dirty loundry and found a more constructiv way to wash your personal problems and clear out your relationships issues. This arbitration is about the reality of an organisation having build up this whole affair since nov 2003 up to today, and known as the postsituationists group, under the direction of Jean Pierre Voyer, directing the actions to be taken in close cooperation with YBM. The rest is rant and superficiality. it has been cleared out for a month and a week ago that the subject of the talk page was not wether the theory were validate or not but on the validity of this affair. Since I came with proove of the actions of the organisation, the talk page has became a complete rant and battle field with most participation from rjb who know absolutely nothing from it but who notheless play the all knowing man from day one. A sock puppet for ybm, saying his exact words, and with absolutely no sense of honnesty nor of selfcritc nor suspicious of the gossips he repeat, and absolutely unable to think by himself, like ybm, max,, romnulphe, gregor bishonen, phony EEguy, phony EE anonymous, and super phony doc yin and doc Max epiphysique...9 names and pseudo but only 4 resl person, ybm having here 5 pseudo, 4 socket puppet, plus some more like those he used in the forum La toile and in the Bogdanovs forum. All those people don't have anything to do with this talk page, they werent there before september and ybm only came there in the end of august because he had banished me from his forum for things I had sayed on the talk page!! and who disturbed him. But as he couldn't stay away from me forlong, he came here and tried already after 2 days to erased all I wrote. After 10 days of his vandalism Bishonen arrived after a meeting v´between her him and rjb and gregor who had never heard of this talk page before that time, and decided to believe ybm on his words and to block me without warrent. Thout all the revert are the exclusiv work of ybm, and it is proovable, but you know it and you don't care of it, all you care about is having your little ego save ho´me.

Suck it all! --XAL 22:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Art Gallery last 2 days in wiki

Here is a collection of some of the violations who were never punished but were covereted, and something usefull to compare it with. In reverse chronographical order:

---

(...) this is entirely in the style of Igor. put your creditials out like Alain Riazuelo did, mr./ms. Parme. otherwise your "timely" appearance here can only be considered suspect. Igor is banned from editing an article about him and all sorts of new, unidentified people come out of the woodwork. r b-j 22:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

OH MY GOD Alfredine de Parme, YOU there! It has been such a long time since the ... er, last time we met, hasn't it babe? I'm so glad to have some fresh news of yours, my dear! I see you moved upstairs, you damn little bugger. This is great! You see, I tell you: enjoy your duties, take advantage of everything you can. I will certainly not be the one who will jump here to remind everyone your responsabilities and failures as the secret occult unknown silent partner of the Rainbow Warrior sabotage. Past is past. Anyway, you're still in the process of trying to avoid the French (please, please, please remember English grammar rules concerning capital letters and country adjectives) government (let me remind you the math' lesson I taught you once: [first prime number] < [number of e letters in the English translation of the French word 'gouvernement'] < [number of r letters in the French word 'nourrir', translation of the English word 'feed'] - we had so much fun together!) to wash its dirty linen in public. I bet you're the best for that kinda job. Huge Kisses, my beloved Alfredine, I miss you and your marvelous Thai wheelbarrow as well. Gimme your DotGouv mail, I shall write you! --ProfesseurYIN 00:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[Very contributing article to the talk page --XAL 05:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)]

this is an absolute riot!! :-)

for a while i was really starting to regret getting into this mess, but this moment has redeemed all of the headache and pain in the derrier. thank you, Professeur Yin. thank you very much. (how's Yang doing?) r b-j 00:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

---

There. That line gets to sit here, I'm removing the rest of her post, anybody who likes can consult it via the History. XAL has been warned many times about insults and irrelevances on this page. I've been tolerating a lot of these things from her for the reason that the overall tone on the page is far from the ideal of civility, with some personal attacks by others, too. But this last post does it, as far as I'm concerned, it's time to free up the page for actual discussion. I'm blocking XAL for three days. --Bishonen | talk 18:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Reaction to 'a journey' by XAL

<snicker> (no, it's rotflol!!) r b-j 16:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC) [rjb always very interesting contribution --XAL 05:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)]

The problem being, my friend, that you are not a specialist in that field,

<snicker> (no, it's ROTFLOL!!) r b-j 16:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[YBMs' contributions --XAL 05:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)]

You are bastards. Now, why don't you try to address at least some of Alain Riazuelo's comments as well as some of the ones I did when you've proven not even knowing what an algebraïc curve is (for instance), making you Ph.D. a joke. --YBM 16:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

C'mon guys. I know this is an emotional issue, but is it too much to ask that the few apparently rational participants refrain from personal attacks and calling each other bastards, or salauds or whatever? --Maru (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC) [no block no suppression of the article, very good contribution to the contain of the talk page --XAL 05:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC) or?]

---

(...) did prove you've been using multiple pseudos on Usetnet and on the Web, then you had to admit it. 

As you did before you pretend me to do the same, you were wrong then (and you know it, since you've been in contact with all these people supposed to be me), you are still wrong. Noone care about you know or pretend to know, without any evidence to support it, disguish between your delusion or your lies is not our problem, but your psychiatrist's one. --YBM 17:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I checked with their administrators, it was a proxy which had been installed on one of their computer without their consent : this is a case of computing ressources hijacking) 

Pretending to have degrees at University and working as scientists in several laboratories Defending you work with no other arguments than authority You are cheaters, liers, fraudster and incompetent in almost any field. You'd better think twice before lying again in this page. --YBM 15:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

LLL is only known for a week on the Internet part of your affair He/She appeared at the obvious call from Laurence who felt a bit lonely as a fan of two fraudsters who happen to be tv showmen He/She is a sock puppet. You'd better not talk about objectivity, honesty, and so on, since you don't even know what this words mean. All of you actions are obviously driven by your interest in shutting down the publication of your dirty tricks. --YBM 10:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

(...) call someone who entered the discussion for a week (LLL) or more than a year (Laurence) and didn't write even once, even a word about the scientific content of the affair or the Bogdanov's behaviour ? Another specific of this affair is that we have to deal with "fans" who don't care about science and don't even want to hear a word about the scientific incompetence nor the dishonest tricks Igor and Grichka Bogdanov have been proven to use on a daily basis for years. Just like rock stars, they have some (not much) fanatic bigots making as much noise as possible around anyone contesting their idols. --YBM 10:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

And, worst than anything, YBM's invention: the idiom "human sock puppet", also in order to feel free to revert me! This guy's dishonesty is not a surprise for me, of course, but the fact that other people support him and that administrators let him act as he wants seems to me to be more serious than the fact that somebody like him exists. --Laurence67 09:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I know this LLL, I correspond regularly with him! So you can think what you want, but he's not a sock puppet! But YOU want to believe it is just in order to feel free to revert him! Yes, he "appeard", because he saw that Igor was banned, that you were a lot more numerous than we are, and that according to the 3RR we can't revert more than 3 times per day. So it's easy for you, all you have to do is to take it in turns to revert systematically when we publish. Is it the wikidian neutrality? The majority "wins"?

---

"Sock puppets" I confirm what Catherine (and even Snowspinner) have said: LLL is a "real" person, not a sock puppet.

More generally, I find it is too easy to decide arbitrarily that any contributor who defends the Bogdanovs is a sock puppet, in order to have an excuse for reverting systematically his contributions, "on sight", as rbj has written. It is all the more unfair as he knows that the contributor is subject to the 3RR, while he thinks, rightly or wrongly, that he is not.

Besides, I hope it's "wrongly": it would be the limit, if the rules were not the same for all contributors, and if some of these ones were protected from the sanctions at the expense of some others... --Laurence67 23:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

---

BTW, XAL (or "Sophie" or whomever you are), I usually don't read your rantings (I responded to your post above that ended with the sweet "let's work together as a team" because it didn't sound like a rant), but this was pointed to me. In fact, I was blocked for 24 hours along with Igor by Ral315, for 3RR violation. but there is a difference: I submitted to the block, I didn't go unregistered and find another IP to post anyway, but Igor did not submit to it. he refused to abide by and posted to this talk page above "Dear Marudubshinki..." This suggests that Igor believes he is above the rules. the 3RR doesn't apply to him, does it? this reminds me of a time when i was a kid and we were saying "table grace" before our meal. my parents told us all that we had to be reverend, bow our heads, and close our eyes when we were praying our table prayer. well, i left mine open and so did my much younger brother and when the prayer was over, he immediately tattled on me saying to our parents that "Bob didn't close his eyes for the prayer." geee, how did he know? well, it was Igor who made the complaint of the many reversions of mine and the admins decided (correctly) that he was reverting just as often as i was and the blocked us both. but since the rules don't apply to Igor, he went and posted (using IP address for instead of logging in to his account) anyway. it seems to me that the timing of this refusal to abide by his block was coincidental to when Snowspinner's tolerance for Igor's arrogance hit his/her limit and that's when the "excrement" really hit the fan for Igor. r b-j 20:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

---

The fact you said something is irrelevant as long as it is 1) a stupid line of defense 2) irrelevant since you began to use pseudos far before anyone began to talk about your crappy book on Usenet. --YBM 16:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes. I decide that Igor, who shouldn't be editing the article in the first place, is a good place to start, since he's deleting sourced information. This isn't a revert war. This is one contributor deleting information because it makes him look bad. That's not appropriate. Period. --Snowspinner 00:17, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

---

---

TO ALL:

As those arguments for and against have been dancing in parallel for far too long time, without ever reaching a solid ground of agreement, and as references made by anti-Bogdanovians are always pointed at some unclear statement made by scientific-types a long time ago - where most did redraw it - and as all those people of science didn't knew a thing about Theoretical Physics nor Cosmology, which is what this dispute is about, and as the positive statements, made by specialists in the fields named above, are systematically unaccepted for tricky reasons, as are the statements made on this page by pro-Bogdanovian, who are called socket puppets for giving either a yes or a no, I suggest this affair to be settled once and for all by truly and indisputable specialists in that field, I named Holger Beck Nielsen professor of the Copenhague Niels Bohr Institute of Theoretical Physic, and Stephen W. Hawking, from the Chair of Mathematic of Cambridge University.

I have already made the necessary steps in order to bring professor Holger Beck Nielsen's attention to that matter, and would like to know if anyone would like to try to the same thing in England. I already suggested this approach above, but it seems that my suggestion was drowned in the tumults of the fights and was ignored.

I will ask you all to make a join effort to gather your attention on this particular possibility and think of how each of you could take part in its fullfillment, in the best interest of all parts involved.

Let's work as a team. --XAL 23:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

XAL, I hesitate to address you directly because the tone of this last post of yours is so uncommon to hear (or read). Nonetheless, you said: "I suggest this affair to be settled once and for all by truly and indisputable specialists in that field, I named Holger Beck Nielsen professor of the Copenhague Niels Bohr Institut of Theoretical Physic, and Stephen W. Hawking, from the Chair of Mathematic of Cambridge University." Stephen Hawking?! Maybe i'll get my old friend Jacques Chirac to pitch in. Even physicists who are less public like John Baez, Jacques Distler, Peter Woit, John Giorgis, Eli Hawkins, Steve Carlip are very reputable in the field (Urs Schreiber is a post doc) and they do not concede a centimeter that they are not well enough qualified to evaluate the merit of the B. publications, they say they have read the papers enough to conclude conclusively that the papers are garbage. On sci.physics.research the defense of "I/G Bodanoff" to Baez's and Carlip's focussed questions was pathetic. Eventually these guys gave up saying that Igor (or perhaps Grichka) were simply not answering the questions and were merely repeating the jargon-babble. That is on the record. There are multiple web sites and blogs (set up and used by some of the very physicists I mention above, one with the banner: "not even wrong", and another with the title "Bogdanorama") that have dissected what Igor has said (rejecting it) and also showing evidence of sock puppets ("Professor Yang", "The group of Mathematical physicists", "lehnardt", "Roland Schwartz", etc. - these people are non-existent). Assuming you are n........ Anyway, a French cosmologist has contacted me and he said that he will jump into this here at WP (using his real name) about Monday. I will not identify him prematurely (maybe he'll change his mind, I dunno). ...... But, in the meantime, you go ahead and get Stephan Hawking to come here and say (or type) what he thinks. Maybe, while you're at it you can get Brian Greene and Frank Wilczek, while you're at it. Heck, maybe we can get someone to channel the spirits of Einstein and Feynman while we're at it. It would be good to hear from them about this matter. --r b-j 00:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

---

(...)

There is actually 2 in the world, I have one of them on the line now, in 2 weeks I will have both. I have been working at it for a month, now it is all set. And that will be it with this story. It will happen in the coming weeks. So be there or be dead. --XAL 02:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC) 

---

Well... good luck with that. Personally, I don't think those guys consider this to be of much interest or importance; they are pretty busy already anyways. --Maru (talk) 02:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Igor has been banned

As a note, Igor and IPs belonging to the article are now banned from this article for repeated vandalism. Since there's a wealth of IP ranges, setting up a block would be ineffective, and I don't want to ban the Bogdanovs from contributing to articles where they might be able to edit with some semblence of NPOV. But I, at least, will be reverting Igor's IP contributions sight unseen, and encourage others to do the same. --Snowspinner 21:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Oooh, it's nice to be alive again. Thank you. I presume my encouragement is limited to 3 per day. Snowspinner, you realize there one or two loopholes that, given his pattern, Igor and possible sock puppets will poke through. --r b-j 22:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm not sure how he'll do that. I'm saying leave the article unprotected, revert his IP edits on sight, get on with our lives. I'm not limiting him to three reverts per day. I'm saying he's not editing the article anymore, period. Revert him if he does, don't worry about the 3RR in doing it, just end this crap. --Snowspinner 22:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I question this action. I understand why you would simultaneously ban and unprotect, but I don't think these issues have been worked through to their full and ripe conclusion. For instance, I'm still trying to understand Igor's position vis-a-vis the newsgroup posting repudiating the peer-review which is what the past series of reverts leading to protecting was concerned with, and blocking him sort of impedes that. --Maru (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

He should feel free to edit the talk page, where he ought not be reverted. --Snowspinner 22:55, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

May I know why Igor's contributions are considered as vandalism ? And why r-b-j's reverts are not ? Has Igor no right to stand up for himself ? By banning him and, more serious, by encouraging the other contributors to revert him, you establish the partiality of this article! --Laurence67 23:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

---

He is free to comment on the talk page, and if a non-him user (such as yourself) agrees with his contributions, they would be free to add the information, and they would not be reverted. But I point out that Wikipedia:Autobiography provides adequate precedent for not editing articles on yourself. --Snowspinner 00:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

---

It's too kind of you to let him edit this talk page... so, if some people here wish for the Bogdanovs a completly negative article, they can do what they want ? Unhappily most contributors against them are a lot more motivated than the ones who defend them... Most of these ones left the affair... so what ? Igor must accept the article on him to become a settling of scores ? The article will be written by r-b-j, who suggested as a categorie "excrement" ? This is more neutral and factual ? And he is "advised" by YBM, who harrasses the Bogdanovs for more than one year... that's typically neutral contributors ! And not to mention Maru who agressed and insulted me as soon as he started in the discussion, and reverted me immediatly. So, to sum up : vandalism means "defending the Bogdanovs", so "honest" people have the right to revert any text which would be for them... This case will be a great example for the credibility of Wikipedia ! Laurence67 08:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

---

(...) It makes a difference whether it was a public statement of the editors or only a personal e-mail. It may be still worth mentioning f it only was a personal e-mail, but this is a weaker case. And it must be attributed. (as in "Greg Kuperberg noted in sci.physics.research, that he has received an e-mail ..."). --Pjacobi

---

Greg Kuperberg has replied to me via email. It doesn't nail down the original source much better (he passes it off to Steve Carlip), but his comments are quite damning of both the Bogus brothers published "physics" and of their on-line character. Not pretty. I am now emailing Drs. Wray and Nicholi and will do Steve Carlip a little later. In case you're getting any hopes up, Igor, I don't think this is gonna get any better for you. --r b-j 00:33, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Good evening,

I am historian and I recently discovered this article with interest. I did not benefit of any particular scientific education but as a PHD in history I defintitly have some ideas about what should be considered as a valid document and what should not. Considering the lack of precisions surrounding this email presumably addressed (no recipent name, no references, not even a date) as a private correspondance to someone, it should certainly not be seen as a valid document. Here in France, when a document is not bearing any date it is not legally biding and has no status.

adb This is 82.124.82.72 (talk • contribs)

---

Welcome to Wikipedia, adb! I assume we all aware of the problematic status of an email as source and we are trying to find a better reference. --Pjacobi 22:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

---

So much for Igor refraining from usage of sock puppets.

---

May I ask who you are? --Maru (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

---

OH MY GOD

Alphonse de Bayonne, YOU there! Geeez! This IS incredibly astounding! If I hadn't check by myself, I wouldn't have believed it. Someone (a little bird, to put it clear-cut) told me I shall found a few nuggets in Archive 2 of Talk:Bogdanov Affair. Indeed. And guess what I've found. Your very message, indeed. Pure magic. You wrote you discovered this article with interest. This may be the very first time you've ever discovered anything. Just kidding. Anyway, I'm so pleased you've at last decided to make yourself public once again, after you sweared 12 years ago to never ever publish your opinions on any subject and announced your irrevocable decision to retire because of all the fuss about your theory assuming all of the human history known so far was pure crap since there were no e-mail announcing the Big Bang and, moreover, that very non-existant e-mail did not bear any date, thus being an invalid non-existant document, thus Big Bang having no status, thus the Universe being not legally binded, THUS neither Earth nor you being real. That were the very words of your very theory and that was rather... interesting, if I may paraphrase Mr Majid. Well, as for me, I'm now Chief Engineer of the Head Office for the Scientific Research Laboratory Department on Riemannian Cosmology at the International Institute of Mathematical Physics, located at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology 1, People's Republic of China. I applied there because I wanted to investigate their buildings for my famous colleague Pr. Yang. Dead corpse probalby, by now. Poor Old Fellow. There are five people, including me, who are presently working at the IIMP: Arkadiusz Jadczyk 2, who comes from Cassiopeia, Igor Bogdanoff and Grichka Bogdanoff, who never come, and a gibbon, which comes from Borneo. Bogdanoff and Bogdanoff are even crankier as you are, dearest Alphonse, but still they hired the gibbon because they promised him to do so as a reward for it writting their thesis. Let's stay in touch, mail me at yin@th-phys.edu.hk!--ProfesseurYIN 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

XAL is banned from posting on this page until further notice

Crossposted from Talk:Bogdanov Affair. 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 exchange between XAL and YBM and pasting it into both their talkpages, where they're free to 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 04:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Exchange from Talk:Bogdanov Affair has been moved here

---

I am not playing any stupid game but asking you, and if you really saw this text and did nothing about it then you own me an explaination. I am getting tired of your cycling game f attack against me and of dir´sregarding the other one involvement in it. So explain to me why you have and are still ignoring the statement in french made by this guy and who make no sense at all? I do not know of what danish sentences you are talking about and do not recall to have been using danish sentences at all in my post so please help me to remember that.

I am not the one to have posted about ybm lack of knowledge but YBM who has posted about my lack of IT knowledge as a proove that I wasn't able to argue about A VERY RELEVANT subject for this talk page namely the fordgery or not of the guillemets on the word "transcendant" and the actual use of photoshop for the purpose stated by YBM and his friends, and the actual reality of socket puppets posting here for Igor and reason for his non registration, whcih I exposed clearly above,a nd that Bishonen deleeted! god knows why. it isn't an attack on YBMs' lack of knowledge it is a clear statement about how the system using Blue Tooth technology work and how the IP adress system is today no insurrance for whom the user is. By Ip adress I also include the server and LAN connection. Both subject extremely relevant. I do not see any of your comments on his insinuations and direct attacks as my comments where barely defense to those, and I do not see either any critic from you for the posting in french and very insulting, from his friend "general de gaulle IP number.". If this is not discriminating so what is? And as not being provocated to answer so, it is difficult when it take so long for you to react. He has been doing so since last night and the night before wth EE guy, using very vulgaire language and very macho. My stating about IP adress and server as to identifiy people is relevant, as any one registered here cannot sign properly unless giving its new IP and they might not be intersted to have people knowing where they actually are for privacy and security reasons. So stay closer to the truth and you will see that my statements are perfectely right and I have also discussed this point with an american admi for more than a week ago, as Igor also explained here why his IP was random.

I think that YBM turn the conversation in personal attacke´s with purpose as the given answers do not suit his goal and try to provocate until this here happen and he hope this way to achieve or the block or the deletion of the post so that no trace of his errors is to be found. I don't see how I was suppose not ot react to accusation of being in a psychiatric hospital and being 200% insane and dishonnest, and this twice. Any one will have reacted and it is at him to controll this kind and not me. He has alwas called other people for idiot or creasy or ignorant or they writtings for irrelevant or rant. What do you know yourself in iT to call my remarks for wrong or irrelevant. I am an Ingeneer in programation and computer Hardware and in electronic, so I do know about this type of connection. There is nothing wrong in my statement concerning wikis recognitions system.

--XAL 20:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

About IP registration and adressing questions... and not denying that the questions have been adressed

A technical explanation (let's try) : When you authentify yourself on Wikipedia, the Web server ask your browser to store some information on variables called Cookies (it happens inside the HTTP MIME header). These variables are enwikiUserID, enwikiToken and enwikiUserName. Your Web browser will (unless you configure it otherwise, or uncheck "remember me" in the authentication form) store these variables and there values on you hard disk (usually in a text file called cookies.txt). Later when you'll ask for a page on Wikipedia again, your Web browser sent back these cookies and their values to the server (still in the HTTP MIME header), who can then authentify you without asking for a login/password.

It does not, obviously, depend on the IP adresse neither of the client, nor the server (as long as the server IP is in the same direct DNS zone for the same domain name the cookies has been initialized with, what is the case for all Wikipedia Web servers).

When you're not using the same browser configuration you did before (e.g. when changing browser, account, computer) these cookies are not set, so the Wikipedia web server cannot "remember" you, so you have to authenticate again with your usual name and password. Got it ? --YBM 21:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

XAL: Wiki's IP recognition system is less a technical issue than a matter of the privacy policy here. Perhaps you haven't noticed that Igor has taken on board my response to his comments about dynamic IPs and, as a result, registered a name account. As for my ignoring statements on this page, yes, indeed I am, many of them. I'm not a nanny to the adults posting on this page, work things out among yourselves. As I stated, I give one example each from you and YBM, and I only do it in order to concretely illustrate the courtesy and relevance that I expect the discussion to be conducted with from now on. I see your attitude that "it is at him to controll this kind and not me" as a problem. Please take responsibility for your own posts, and I say this to everybody: I really, really don't care if the other person was rude first. Bishonen | talk 21:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Which is exactely what I have been telling you from the start! and if you do not wish to be identified, let say where you are connecting from?... So you will avoid the dobbel registration, as the original one will have been deleeted and replaced by the new one..resulting in your plural ip identification as you have accused Igor of since a long time and not only on wiki. To this you must add, unless you don't know about it, and you seems to have "forgotten" it or not know of it, the filter system of anti spyware and adware who filter all cookies, of course recognition cookies wished or not. So there is here a problem. You just confirmed that I was right. Got it?

--XAL 21:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Well... You didn't get it. Why don't you try to read it again, or to get a course on Web dynamic content development ? BTW, spyware or adware (or viruses) filtering have nothing to do with cookies filtering which is a privacy issue (or a dissimulation one). If you don't want cookies to be stored on you hard disk, just fill the form with name and password. I wonder if you are not confusing these kind of software with anonymous proxies which were a common use of Igor sock puppets on Usenet (Roland Schwartz, etc). Your IP could get logged (what are you afraid of ?), but as it has been said numerous time, the official policy of Wikipedia is to not allow even admins to know such IPs, for authenticated editors. --YBM 21:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Spyware and adware filtering have nothing to do with virus filtering. Very communly any adware and spyware filtering will filter ALL cookies, as cookies are a must for adware and spyware to can install themselves on the hardisk and stay there even after removal of the spyware or adware program. By filling the form with passsword you are allowing for cookies to be there. How else do you imagine the receiving unit to recognize the sender if not using a cookie? What disturb you so? Using the name of Richard, or YBm, is not being a socket puppet, unless you, by that, recognise being such. But a socket for whom? oneselve? thats a joke! We are all using a socket for ourselve unless we use our own name. And who do so, appart from namely Igor Bogdanov who always sign with his name? Using another name or pseudo on a public forum is more the rule than the exception, so why bother and give it such a magnifiying glass? there is nothing more to see anyway. A pseudonyme is a pseudonyme. One name to replace another with the same person behind. You could very well have several pseudonym on this wiki talk page as identification, moving from the one to the other, unless you can proove not to by having them all in simultan communication leaving no doubt as for their different origin. Which don't have happen yet by the way.

--XAL 22:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I won't respond about the imaginary link between spyware and cookies since it is not the subject of the article. So, if you know admit that the link between IPs and names is not an issue here, why did you talk about it in the first place some paragraphs ago ?

Just a small recall : Igor Bogdanov did edit the article ten times more often under IP than under one of the three names he've registered on Wikipedia.

Why don't you try to address, at least once, some aspect of the affair ?

--YBM 22:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I shall remind you that you are the one who have brought the subject into this talk page one too many times and who also started with it tonight. So I found your accusations misplaced here. Spyware and cookies are linked not imaginary but in the real world it it does not require any special degree in IT to know about this. If you have doubt about this I think you should ask to better knowing some place else, but my statement stay that antispyware programm do filter all cookies. I should know I have such, and crave to be disconneted through registration to aloud it to be performed, as I did it. I had to register several times before I get properly registered because of it. I know because I have learned it and experienced it, but you obviously don't have any of those, so I suggest you to ask some one you can trust about it or consult on the internet as this conversation is going no where. He did it under different IP as i have been adressing it for at least 3 weeks now, and as you have been denying it to have been ever adressed for at least as long time, and as Igor has also adressed it before many times, the iP are changing automatically depending on where he is when connecting and whcih server system is available in the area where he is at the time he make the connection. He does not have registered himself under anyname until now, except the one he registered under since only yesterday and use only to make edit on the article but not on the talk page. As for why and how, and bla bla, so why aren't you at least as chocked and wandering as why your friend Voyer sign with an IP and hasn't registered himself yet. It is after all a long time ago he is on this rabbit, so why not aknowledge the fact onto the open? I have always adressed the affair, but you have always ruunned away from it like a snake, and odne as if you never saw it. If My concensius, the first one ever emitted in this talk page is not about it so what is? and the same about my explaination of the theory to EE anonymus, and also my proposition of presenting the theories to Holger Bech Nielsen and Stephen William Hawking. It was answered with rant and cynisism, and even accused for being non contributiv to the case. Whcich I found extraordinary. The statements of Rialuezo after that are a way to drown the fish as this talk page isn't about the validity of the thesis, as stated many many times in the past and today again by Catherine and other contributers. I have told you as you can read it since yesterday, that the Bogdanov are satisfied with the article as it is and that the case is now closed. You do not have answered to any of my contribution made yesterday, and disputing about some corner is not good enough. You have to adress the more central issues, and to stick to it. Repeating non stop that I am the one who don't adress the issue or repeating the same questions again and again by ignoring my answers is counter productiv, and not a contribution to the page. Copying an entire article of yours and inserting it again 2 times is not either a way to improve the page. None of my questions, answers and even proposal from last week were ever adressed. But arent you known for exactly doing such? reproaching the other to do what you are doing yourself to divert attention and gain time and a status you dont have earned?. You just prooven that you are as kyndig in this matter as you are in IT, and as insisting thought prooved wrong. I can answer your questions but I can't cure you. It is your job to do so, not mine.

--XAL 23:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I pointed out issues related to IPs several times, that's true, but none of them is related to the authentication process in use at Wikipedia you seem to begin to understand tonight. I still don't understand what issue about IP you are talking about :

• Igor did register first as User:Igor_Bogdanoff, then User:Bogdanov and finally User:Igor_B.. Meanwhile he has been editing the page under IP (I mean, without being authenticated - what he could have done in every case - even if he did sign as "Igor" on comments and talk page) in order to evade his editing ban.
• Elsewhere (mainly on Usenet, but on physics blog as well), Igor and Grichka did use anonymous proxies in order to post as imaginary scientists without being caught (well, they were eventually)

The fact that you antispyware software is too doing cookies filtering does not prove that cookies filtering has to do with antispyware by itself. Did you know that there is a flipper game in Excel ? You'd better ask this software to stop filter Wikipedia cookies as your privacy is not at risk here. BTW, if you were as professionnal as you pretend in the IT field you wouldn't need such software at all, as they are useless.

People has been laughing when you talked about contacting Stephen Hawking and Holger Bech Nielsen, because it is very very unlikely you'll get any response if you write them the way you write here. Nevertheless, if you'd get some, even explaining that the Bogdanov's brothers are incompetent cranks, I wonder if you will be honest enough to post this response here.

What will remain of your "answers" of yesterday, is that you wrote some factual accusations against me, forged a quotation, and evaded when asked for some kind of reference. --YBM 23:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I can't have evaded the references so well as you pretend as this reference did appeared today on his own person, and gave you all the references you had asked for, and had received too on many occasions, and denyed to have received in twice as much occasions, and evaded again when you received it again from the source itself of it this very morning.

Try to work this out first.

Concerning antispyware they ALL have as a function to stop cookies and I don't think that your defenition of cookies is as up to date as one could hope it is...

Your evaluation of what will remain of yesterdays answer is not for you to decide and I will say that you are the last one anyone will think of asking about this to get an objectiv evaluation. The fact that you still, don't understand what this IP adress is about says it all.

As about contacting Holger Bech Nielsen and Stephen William Hawcking, I have contacted them and I have received an answer already. i can inform you that the first, due to his foreign research activities at the moment will not be able to deliver his answer immediatly, but will eventually do it as soon as he is back on shore, and as for Stephen Hawking he has to read the thesis first and then write his evaluations of it therefter, which will take some time du to the fact that he has to use his equalizer to do that, as he told me so. Nonetheless, he is informing me of the current progress.

Regarding everybody laughing about it I have no comments to add. Everybody being a large word, I counted only two, the rest ignoring it all together. Not because my input are irrelevant or non contributing, but not something any one could think of doing, or will feel capable of doing, or will be able to understand, or to answer properly to.

It is not enough to say a project is impossible before even have been trying it.

Regarding you remark, of how I could get an answer from those specialists using my writting style, you don't suppose the results will be better using yours or EE Guys, do you?!

Shall I call Stephen Hawking "mon chou chou" or "Mon Allumeuse" or "ma pépéte" as EE guy did? or call him a "Masochist" and "200% insane and dishonnest" as you did to me? or accuse him of being "incompetent and a crank" as you just did?, and "a bastard, and a lyer", as you did to Igor Bogdanov the other day? or call his work for "excrements and rant" as r-j-b did to all of us a few days ago?

I will stick to my own style, thanks, and it did already produced the expected results. If you had read my answers the way I read everyones contribution here, you will know about it, as I have already made it known...for 2 days ago.

Wiki article is now a close chapter, and a new chapter is on the verge of beckoning.

--XAL 00:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Renewed ban warning

"Wiki article is now a close chapter, and a new chapter is on the verge to be open." I'm delighted to hear it. Please, then, take your ancient flamewar off the Wiki article talk page, both of you. If you want to keep open the option of posting here, for when you have something to say that belongs here, then please continue any discussion of IPs, cookies, bad language, and each other's character flaws in a Yahoo group, as PJacobi suggested, or at least on your user talk pages. Is there anything about these subjects in Bogdanov Affair, or do you propose inserting it there? No? Well, then. I'm serious. Don't post about anything else than Bogdanov Affair here again, not even once. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I would like to know what I have say who might have obsess you!? Igor has indeed declared yesterday that he agreed about the stand of the article and I have say it already many times to YBM, so what is the problem? I am not using bad language, nor am I making any character flaw, if you have to make accusations so keep it adressed to the right person and not just to both as if I was the one doing so! The story about IP has been florishing for weeks on this talk page and it is only the second time I do mix in those discussions in fact, but it seems to be reason enough for you to make it an out of subject story, all the sudden. I would like some more explainations about it too, thanks.

There is no flame war speach at saying that the article is finished and that a new chapter is about to be open, when I have just say that Stephen Hawking is about to give his opinion about the whole affair. If this isn't to be consider a new chapter on this affair so please give me an idea of what could be one.

As far as I am concerned I have done nothing else but answering the questions and allegations of YBM. He asked about IP, I answered, he asked about Igors' post I answered, he asked about my settlement proposition made last week at contacting the worlds greatest cosmologists and best specialists about the question here at hand, and I answered. Are those area out of the affair? I don't think so.

You see, the affair being based on the evaluation of the thesis, as being greate for some and crank for others, it is of course essential to have a clear and definitiv view on that matter that the best head in the scientifical community are able, and about, to deliver. If this is out of subject, so are all the discussions we have seen on this talk page since weeks and months, concerning if yes or no a certain text from a certain journal of science should be included or not, and if the comments of this and this physisist and a paper should be or not included and in which degree, and in which chronological order, all of them concerning positiv and negativ evaluation of...the Bogdanovs Thesis. So, yes, it is of the upmost interest for all interested and for the quality of this page to hear that this dilema is on the verge to be once and for all resolved after 3 years of stride!

--XAL 02:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

---

And what is wrong about this who could excuse a banishment from the talk page? You didn't imposed banishment on ybm who did insulted me and Igor bogdanovs, AFTER you had emit 2 warning. I think that this is only an excuse to remove those texts from the talk page because they were disturbing for him and his pseudo argumentation, and that you did it on his demand and not on your own, as for the 4 last times. The text above your warning and starting with "oh alphonse de bayonne" and put there by me as a copy of some articles from the talk page and never removed nor never receiving a warning, are the proove that you are making absolut favor treatments on this talkpage and should be absolutely removed from it. As an exempel, everybody can see insults recently posted by YBM and small talks about the wether in new Englan posted by RJB a few minutes after Bishonen had clearly asked for no more out of subject articles, and who is also insulting people, just take a look to a small par of the latest post on this talk page:

Your deep and disgusting dishonesty is a public fact for quite a long time. --YBM 13:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bogdanov_Affair"

And he isn't banned nor warned and it is like that all the time: no ban no block to every day recidivist of insults, opposit, encouragements and ban of their adversary who are able to demonstrate them wrong using logic and plain argumentation.

--XAL 12:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Your problem is that you spent your live issuing irrelevant statements about questions you don't even understand, even when indeed very simple. I asked you to provide references for a few very factual statements you wrote, and that I know to be false, you failed miserabily. In case you will decide to retract some of your lies, or (quite unlikely) to provide real references (and not random irrelevant links), feel free to add it up on A failed attempt to communicate with a nut. User YBM 14:30, 3 october 2005

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

This page is now unlocked

This page has been unprotected, on the condition that it is not abused. I would like to draw the attention of everyone who posts here to Wikipedia:Civility; all users posting here are instructed to be civil and polite. I would like to remind posters here that user talk pages are intended for communication amongst Wikipedians, and are not intended as a forum for ideological debate nor a soapbox for the expression of points of view. If this page is further abused, I shall protect it again immediately. Thank you for your cooperation. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) (e-mail) (cabal) 22:46, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ban on editors involved in Bogdanov Affair

All user accounts used by participants in the external controversy (involving the Bogdanov Affari) are banned from Wikipedia pending resolution of this matter. The criteria for determining external involvement shall be a review of their edit history, it being presumed that if the vast majority of their edits were to the Bogdanov Affair and related pages such as this arbitration that they are not Wikipedia editors but persons involved in the external dispute. This group includes: YBM (talk · contribs), XAL (talk · contribs), ProfesseurYIN (talk · contribs), Igor B. (talk · contribs), CatherineV (talk · contribs), 82.123.187.53 (talk · contribs). Laurence67 (talk · contribs), EE Guy (talk · contribs), 82.123.46.149 (talk · contribs), 82.123.57.232 (talk · contribs), Luis A. (talk · contribs) and all others who meet the criteria. Rbj (talk · contribs), a regular Wikipedia editor, and Ze miguel (talk · contribs), a new editor who has edited other areas, are banned from editing Bogdanov Affair, pending resolution of this matter.

A less restrictive injunction Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Regarding_The_Bogdanov_Affair/Proposed_decision#Ban_on_editing_Bogdanov_Affair is under consideration and may replace the total bans. Fred Bauder 19:07, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Turning to danish

I have mooved to danish wiki, we understand each others much better, and we have the same good mentality, with no denial of a problem, but sane discussions towards a solution. They are more nature like, less distorsed, and I flourish better under that kind of weather. Might come back to undo the whole article about the templars "by Huldra" thought, it need a care and SPA treatment ASAP: wrong dates and wrong happenings and wrong names, all to bring an historian into a state of deep koma. Or the opposit ((-; I have been working about and with templars since 1978, lived at "La Couvertoirade" so I dont think a norvegian newbee can beat that. Thought I understand him, there is no litteracy about the templars in Skandinavia, and specially not in skandinavic languages. The fellows are basically unknown there. They know as much about the templars there, as french know about the quakers.

Tell Huldra that it isn't a scandinavic name, and that he made 10 stavefejl in his list of names of known skandinavics designer. His favorit subject. Sorry Hussard, but that gulerød wont stich.

--XAL 06:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Final decision

The arbitraton committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair case. →Raul654 03:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Halosean

Wow --Sean (talk) 14:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello XAL, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

XAL, good luck, and have fun. – Muazim Balwan (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called XAL. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name XAL~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

03:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

20:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)