Friday, December 21, 2012

El Naschie outraged at Wikipedia article

Reader PassingByAgain directs our attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Adhamwaleed and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tiggerjay#Mohamed_El_Naschie where amazing screeds by El Naschie and sockpuppet M. Abdel-Hamid are found. We reproduce these in full below the fold.

PassingByAgain tells us that

In fact, there is more than meets the eye... He posted the following screed on the talk page of the article (promptly removed by some other editor) and on the "Help Desk" page of Wikipedia:


The content of this article is highly misleading and almost defamatory. This is CV of a person and not the opinion who wish the person ill and who are in unfair competition with him in the Court of Justice. For instance, the person concerned was not represented by any lawyer in Court while Nature-Macmillan the multi-national employed an army of solicitors and paid 5 million pounds to defend the non-defensible. In addition the case is still in the Court namely the Court of Appeal [He's appealing?! He has no shame. --Jason] after a controversial initial judgement reminiscent of Galileo's trial. How come that your article gives the impression as if it was a case brought against the person and not the other way round. All of us scientists and engineers are taken aback that uneducated so-called science and engineering bloggers who are nothing but out of job journalists can tell the specialist what and what not they should write and think. Everyone knows that there is a plagiarism behind the trial and it was a vendetta against El Naschie conducted by financially strong media. Does Wikipedia as a highly used and mostly trusted Internet Encyclopedia want to take sides in such filthy fights. El Naschie has declined an offer by Nature to settle out of Court and he has papers to support their offer and his declination. [El Naschie said he would drop the case if they would only apologize. Macmillan said no apology would be forthcoming. So the case went ahead, Macmillan won, and El Naschie owes them about £1.5 million for their legal costs. --Jason] Writing things about people and damaging their professional reputation without any information that is substantiated lacks in professionalism and undermines Wikipedia's reputation. You say encyclopedia content must be verifiable. Have you verified the information you got about Prof. Mohamed El Naschie? Saying he does not have a Doctorate is pathetic. I trust it is best not to follow what bloggers say because they are not a reliable source of any information. Many of them are hired to defame for money for instance the criminal who runs El naschiewatch and his name is Jason and he is a criminal. It is best to stick to facts and the facts are definitely not contained in what bloggers write. You must have reliable sources. Mohamed El Naschie has been subjected to an incredible vicious campaign to undermine his scientific findings. You even mention his thesis cannot be found? How little do you know. His thesis is there and he has a Doctorate and he had a full professorship. Please please before writing check your sources and verify the information. For instance he just made an historic announcement in Shanghai and Alexandria about an extension and correction of Einstein's famous theory on Relativity.

M. Abdel-Hamid

PassingByAgain continues

Then he wrote directly to an administrator, this time signing with his own name (thus showing "M. Abdel-Hamid" to be just another pathetic sockpuppet):


Dear Respected Editors of Wikipedia

Re: Prof. Mohamed El Naschie Information in Wikipedia

I have read with considerable horror the distortion which has been published about my very own life bio-data, education, engineering and scientific career. Even my most destructive personal enemy could not have written a more malicious, wicked and misinformed CV. I am not talking about my theory and I am not talking about science. I am talking about my very own CV which I guess you would agree with me that I know it a little better than anybody else. To read this trash written eloquently and wickedly about me was a revolting experience. I have only one explanation that a criminal and I really mean a criminal out of work pseudo mathematician whose pen name is Jason Rush purported to live in Seattle, Washington State, USA is the author of all the trash written about me in Wikipedia. [I didn't write any of the Wikipedia article. --Jason] The story is long and I do not intend to tell it to you in any detail. However my work was plagiarized and published in a famous American popular magazine. [He's talking about the Scientific American article Using Causality to Solve the Puzzle of Quantum Spacetime by Jerzy Jurkiewicz, Renate Loll and Jan Ambjorn. See That SCIAM comment archive for more information. --Jason] When my students, colleagues and collaborators objected it became the beginning of a 2008 world war against me. This is 4 years of continuous defamation by the owner of this magazine as well as those who were involved in the plagiarism who are mainly located in Germany and Holland. Nature published upon their instigation through a corrupt journalist a defamatory article about me. I took them to court and not the other way round. I had no solicitor representing me and our ordeal has not ended yet. The case is still in the court of appeal. They were trying to wiggle out by all means. However they had only mean namely infinite amount of money. To protect their reputation and pretend they had not employed thieves and criminals in their organization, Nature had to spend 5 million pound sterling according to the testimony of everybody and one 1.5 million pound according to their own admission in the open court of justice, take your pick. You are an encyclopedia and of course Jason Rush, the proprietor of a criminal site that is forbidden in some countries [Blogspot.com is blocked in China, but I know of no countries blocking El Naschie Watch specifically. --Jason] called Elnaschiewatch is enabled because of your system to post all this filth on the Wikipedia site. However it is easy for you I guess to exclude Jason Rush from using you to earn his kick up money. I implore you to either delete the entire content of the page or you write it according to correct information and objectively and not according to false information of paid criminals. For instance, you should concentrate on my career as an Engineer and an Engineering scientist which is my profession. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals is a journal which I have founded after I was already well established and a well known Engineer. It is one of hundreds of things which I have done and is not the most important in my career. Science was my hobby and nothing more. I am a Professor of Engineering and a practicing Engineer and I had been very successful in both. Also in my hobby science, I do not think any 70 years old hobby theoretical physicist could hope for more than what I have achieved. I have revised and extended Einstein’s celebrated equation E = mcsquare (for some reason the correct equation is not appearing here). [Notice it's not El Naschie being a doofus. It's the equation failing to appear.] I have also established a quantum relativity i.e. quantum gravity formula E = mcsquare/22 (equation fails to appear). The 22 which I found using Bosonic String theory of Veneziano and Nambu can explain easily dark energy away. The fact is 1/22 is 4.5% approximately. Consequently the measurement of Perlmutter, Schmidt and Riess for which they got the Nobel Prize last year (2011) confirms my formula. In other words there is no missing energy in the cosmos. However there is a missing factor in Einstein’s equation. How many other scientists old or young you know have developed a quantum relativity formula unifying quantum mechanics and relativity? I thought this is the aspect which Wikipedia should be concentrating upon and not the gossip and malicious lies of a pack of rats like Jason and the like. For more information about my new theory please consult:


I would be grateful if you could answer me affirmatively to relieve me from the criminal work of a professional paid internet blogger like Jason and to correct my CV appropriately.

Thank you very much for your understanding and effort.

Mohamed El Naschie Adhamwaleed (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

PassingByAgain concludes

Jason, this is really a gold mine for ENW! (you were in a bit of a lull recently... ;-)

BTW, I'm curious to see how the story pans out on the Wikipedia page. Perhaps now we will appreciate the importance of sticking to the guidelines for the biographies of living persons... ;-)

P.S. for the time being, the administrator's reply was non-committal:

"Thank you for your e-mail, if you will please see the comments that were left for you on the Helpdesk page, and were also conveyed on your talk page, you will find the remediation steps necessary to have the article corrected. Unfortunately I am not a subject matter expert on either biographies of living persons, nor on the specific legal situation you discuss. As a result I cannot personally help you edit this page or bring the correction you are looking for. The best I can do is provide the guidance and help that was provided on the helpdesk page. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)"

Other editors, however, replied directly on the Helpdesk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2012_December_13#Mohamed_El_Naschie

“You write, of the libel case, "your article gives the impression as if it was a case brought against the person and not the other way round". In fact the article is perfectly clear about this. It says "El Naschie disputed these allegations and sued Nature for libel."

The statements in the article are supported by the references given. For example, you write "You even mention his thesis cannot be found? How little do you know." Well, we do know – the second reference in the article is to the British Library site, which states "The reason given by the institution is: Institution have been unable to locate thesis in their stock." Maproom (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)”

It appears that User:Adhamwaleed is (or purports to be) Mohamed El Naschie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


Amazing!

In other El Naschie news, Shrink points out that there are new postings on http://e-infinity-energy.blogspot.com/ after a year and a half of silence. They probably deserve their own post on this blog.

Translate English to Arabic
محمد النشائى El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائى محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى
StumbleUpon.com

8 comments:

  1. Readers, please point out any comments and links that ought to be included above.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all ENWatchers. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. This may by slighly off topic, but a similar argument can be followed on the talk page concerning Ito calculus (see the items on stochastic derivative):
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:It%C5%8D_calculus
    The difference is that while El Naschie is clearly a genuine crackpot, the scientist attacking the redactors of the page (via sockpuppets) has obtained some mathematical results, only he feels they are more important than the rest of the community thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. OMFG, on Mustafa's blog there's a post (titled On the shoulders of the giants) in which the Great Man gives tribute (with names and pictures) to the scientists which have inspired him to achieve the 1/22 correction. What amuses me is the fact he's put side by side real scientists with some Brotherhood members and that he's given tribute to Renate Loll whom he accused of stealing his ideas. LOL

    ReplyDelete
  5. Scholars have long debated whether El Naschie is a knowing con man, or simply batshit insane. I think this finally settles the question. He just has no ability to process the world around him. If he had simply stuck to the E-infinity mumbo-jumbo, it would be much easier to fool or at least confuse a layman enough to get the criticism removed. But anyone can see that the E=mc2/22 thing is nonsensical. He's going to lose all his carefully created mystique this way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. And a Happy New Year from Germany! After 21 months of work, http://de.vroniplag.wikia.com/ is at 38 documented plagiarism cases and counting. Follow @vroniplag_wiki http://twitter.com/vroniplag_wiki to be always up-to-date on who's currently exposed for scientific fraud and plagiarism by the voluntary contributors of the community here. There are groups forming in different countries now, it looks like this is eventually leading somewhere. Take care everybody and keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Good to hear from you, Martin. Keep up the good work on vroniplag!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hah, a contributor named "Shii" put into the article the following paragraph:

    "Revision of theory of relativity

    In 2013, El Naschie announced that he had improved upon Einstein's [[theory of relativity]] adding a constant to make it E=(1/22)mc^2, "where the 22 maybe interpreted as the compactified dimension of the bosonic string theory of strong interaction (26 ‐ 4 = 22 where the 4 are Einstein's space time dimension and the 26 are Veneziano's space time dimension)".[http://www.msel-naschie.com/pdf/news/resolution-of-mystery-of-missing-dark-energy.pdf Announcement of the resolution of the mystery of the hypothetically missing dark energy of the universe]"

    which has been promptly deleted with the explanation: "unsourced".

    It seems this guy isn't one of the Great Man's sockpuppets but rather a naive contributor. :D

    ReplyDelete