User talk:Zach Lehman

It is less cited, but that is not the scientific criterium. What counts is the fact that the paper I repeatedly want to introduce in this Wikipedia item, precedes several years all the others cited (expect Jacobson), was published in an important and widely read referred journal AND, despite all these facts, people like you (apparently defending some tribal cause) systematically want to deny the truth and the spirit of science itself. It is amazing. Why you do that?

Alias?
Are you and the same editor? Let me know. Thsnk you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 10:59, 4 February 2017 (UTC) == No == MJPin is a colleague of mine. He is mainly concerned about plagiarism cover-up. Being not cited, doesn't mean not being red... The facts are there: use of same equations and concepts, with Pinheiro being more consistent than the following cited individual, in my point of view (Pinheiro open a public post at Facebook, you can join him there with some other scientists); published in two of the most highly regarded sources in the scientific community; and, damn!...from an almost unknown individual and a forgotten country. Pinheiro told me he have sent a few years ago an E-mail to Erik, calling his attention to the forgotten link, with no response from him. This should have, must have a resolution, and with MJPin I also believed that the unfairness could start to be repaired here. I see we were both wrong.