User talk:Bm gub2

Cold Big Bang
-- Censorship -- The reader may judge by himself. The source is a valid one.

Vandalism, supressing information for the readers. Censorship!

Hello anon user and welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum for untrammeled free speech---nobody can prevent you, or Assis, or anyone else, from writing about Assis's theory on your own blogs, web pages, etc. Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary source that reports widely-known and multiply-referenced views in the field of interest. Wikipedia is not the place to put up Assis' theory so that it can be "judged" by readers---that has to actually happen before it shows up on Wikipedia. That's what the journals are for. Please come back in two or three years, and at that time, it would be appropriate to report on what people have actually said about Assis in review articles. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 18:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I invite you to discuss the issue at Talk:Cold Big Bang. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 19:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Unorthodox (Cold) Big Bang Cosmology
Road to Stockholm? I am not the author. The author is Assis. I am Carol. I do really think the Assis' work is very important and correct, since I do catch the GR theory. I do not agree that this work cannot be inserted as unorthodoxical, since you had used this classification regarding the Assis' work. Wikipedia policy is difficult to understand, since it accept fringe, alternative theories, in some cases and do not in other cases? Well, how difficult is the knowledge among the scientific fellas... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolingfield (talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The policy you really need to try harder to comprehend is WP:RS. I'm quite certain this has been mentioned to you before. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Beeblebrox? Is it Bm gub2 page? Sorry, i think I am within the wrong talk!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolingfield (talk • contribs) 02:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think that Assis's work is "important and correct":
 * Talk about it in the articles you publish to Astrophysical Journal, Phys Rev Letters, etc.
 * Talk about it at scientific conferences and try to convince the astro community to start using it.
 * Call up "Scientific American" and see if they're interested in writing an article about it.
 * Think of what the Wikipedia article on Assis would look like after that's happened. It would say "This guy wrote a theory (citation #1, PTEP).  Experiment A seemed to support it (citation #2, ApJ) but experiment B disagreed (citation #3 PRL).   The New York times (citation #4 NYT) reported about the controversy which generated five talks at a meeting in 2013 (citation #5, APS).  A new experiment is proposed (citation #7, A&A)."   Do you understand the difference between that sort of article, and the article you keep trying to write?   It's not complicated.   Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 03:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

More Assis spam
For future reference: I stumbled across this:. What is it? Why, another instance of an unpublished, uncited Armando VDB Assis document that got repeatedly spammed to Wikipedia by an anonymous single-purpose IP editor from Assis's university. Just like every other Assis-related edit on Wikipedia (see 150.162.246.64, 150.162.246.163, etc.) ''Who is this Assis? According to the department web page, he appears to be a Ph.D. student at Santa Catarina U. (UFSC) in Brazil, and he's listed as having written a Master's thesis in 2010. He has written no refereed papers and recieved no citations.''  Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 17:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify the above: the text in italics above is a comment relevant to evaluating Assis-related science content for inclusion on Wikipedia---i.e. a comment on whether any Assis papers pass WP:NN or WP:RS. It is not a comment on the anonymous UFSC editors, which are relevant for discussio nof WP:COI.  I see that this could have been unclear before, and I apologize. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 16:23, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * In virtue of some misinformations from you, apologies accepted. You may understand each country has its internal policy. In Brazil, the internal path related to specific careers within a Federal University, regarding post-doc scholarships, regarding teaching positions, requires public contest, requires merit, from which one deserves a specific position if approved in this public contest. I was approved (second place in one contest and first in another and fourth place in another) and assumed a position of substitute professor in Physics Department of UFSC. Hence, my students related to the disciplines of Theoretical Physics, Mechanics, Modern Physics, Optics, Elecromagnetism, all Engineering Classes and Pure Science Classes, Mathematics and Chemistry. Now, I am dedicated to the pure research, I am starting my career and, for your information, I do have got papers under review. I wish you a good time. God bless You all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.229.107.188 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A. Assis. 200.229.107.188 (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Good luck to you.  I hope that your students (or whoever the anons were) can learn something about Wikipedia and not repeat the spamming, etc., behavior that tried to advertise your articles.  Rejection from Wikipedia is not at all like rejection from a journal---Wikipedia does not try to see whether your ideas are right or interesting, it only reports on what unbiased, verifiable reliable sources have said about your ideas.  In the future, by the time the average cosmologist has heard of your work (through normal channels, presumably), there would be such sources in the literature, and I would welcome Wikipedia coverage of it.   But remember that the world is full of alternative-cosmology papers and most of them never get that far. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 00:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This infamous, difamatory content, without proof
I think Wikipedia will not enjoy it, since it appears to be against the Wiki policy. I will contact a professional to solve this issue, since your words are violating my rights. I give you one hour to erase this accusation against my name. No legal threats, but You are forcing me to move a l-w---t against W-dia. I am politely saying: erase my name from this infamous accusation.

For your information I taught classes in Physics, Mechanics and Electromagnetic theory, from which I've got students, people informed about my results related to my paper on cosmology in the UFSC, within my family, within my set of friends etc. I am not the unique person in the UFSC, the unique person over the world.

A. Assis. 187.88.70.10 (talk) 11:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I reverted this as Wikipelli (via huggle) and then thought better of it and i undid my deletion - not realizing that I wasn't logged in. Just wanted to make that clear.  Wikipelli   Talk   11:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Mr. Assis, there are two important points:
 * first, Wikipedia has a strict policy against legal threats; mincing words does not get you around it.  If my comments are actually out of line, please report it to Wikipedia administrators at WP:ANI.
 * Second, I did not defame you; you have written a paper and posted your name and UFSC affiliation (that's public, and a fact); UFSC has you listed as a Ph.D. student (that's public, and a verifiable fact); the various anonymous editors who advertised your work on wikipedia have all logged in from UFSC (that's public, and a fact). I do not mean to accuse you of these edits; it could be a friend or a student of yours.   If the UFSC web page is mistaken, please let me (and them) know; I could not have known.  Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 16:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits
Dear Bm gub2 thank you for adding to the Santilli's page the section on Lawsuits. Several people who have a grudge against arXiv have written to us asking how we were successful in having the objectionable articles removed by arXiv! You were able to add the web site on the Committee on  Scientific Ethics. Nobody was able to add this source before as it was removed by the editors controlling the page because  it was not  considered a notable reference. Good job. Now the word is out and even a section on Wikipedia which was removed in the discussion, is now available. Santilli.Carla (talk)Santilli.CarlaSantilli.Carla (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC).