User talk:YBM/Archive2
Please edit civilly and without making personal attacks. --fvw* 16:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Arbitration has been requested in a matter you are involved in. Please see WP:RFAR for more. Snowspinner 19:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- You've been temprarily blocked for breaking the three revert rule on Bogdanov Affair. You can return tomorrow for editing. -- (☺drini♫|☎) 17:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
- You've been temporarily blocked due to 3RR on Bogdanov Affair: [1] [2] [3] [4] -- (☺drini♫|☎) 23:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
A failed attempt to communicate with a nut on Talk:Bogdanov Affair
editI 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
edit- 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
edit"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)
Personal attacks again
editHow many times have you been asked to stay civil? This is still not acceptable. Pouring oil on the fire is not the way to quench it. Sam Hocevar 16:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)