Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 28

message: I give up.  I see little hope of this article ever being properly finished, and it is clear that certain elements will insist in continuing their OR campaigns.  Price, congratulations.  Your delusions have seen me off.  I have removed these pages from my watch list.  If you want me to receive any further communications, please do so via my talk page.  Dndn1011 23:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Dndn1011, please take a break instead of completely leaving. Wikipedia needs constant vigilance, and tonnes of patience. I know Price can be very difficult sometimes, but I cannot criticize him for expressing his views the best he can. I believe he is sincere albeit a little harsh at times. As far I can tell, he really sees things as he expresses them. Mediator, Dndn1011 has been making good progress here, and I would appreciate if you could call him back to participate in the editorial process. -- Prof. Afshar 08:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to see that Afshar is now assuming good faith; I have always assumed likewise of everybody here.  It's a shame that Dndn1011 did not do likewise. --Michael C. Price talk 19:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "I have always assumed likewise of everybody here" says MP. And then stabs dndn in the back. --Carl A Looper 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not stabbing in the back to point out that someone was not assuming good faith.--Michael C. Price talk 08:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps you won't mind if I reproduce here, your assumptions of "good faith" concerning Prof Afshar (in your previous contributions to the talk page). Not that I can speak, but then I don't go around claiming the moral high ground on this issue. --Carl A Looper 21:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're trying to make a point, make it. --Michael C. Price talk 00:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about both of you discontinue this pointless and aggravating discussion? Neither of you are helping, and only serving to create further strife. Sdirrim 17:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exit Stage Left 

message: I am beginning to fear the negative consequences of Danko Georgiev's behavior both for himself and others. His recent edits here, and vandalism in my Userpage in which he says "I have seen the "New Scientist" NEW PROPAGANDA "Quantum rebellion wins", however in my opinion this is just the beginning of the Afshar's falldown." is extremely worrisome. His unhealthy obsession with me and my work is at best unacceptable, and at worst dangerous, and I wish to have other editors and Wikipedia administrators as wells as Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales know that I am taking this issue very seriously. He needs to banned immediately. Other remedies may be necessary. I would appreciate the appropriate action taken by editors, the Mediator and admins. Something must be done, and soon. Best regards. -- Prof. Afshar 15:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take it up with the administrator. As you (should) know, my "power" here is solely limited to whatever agreements are made to respect my decisions. I have no formal authority. In addition, I must try to remain neutral, but feel free to refer the matter to the administrators. Sdirrim 17:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: *Can you suggest an admin? -- Prof. Afshar 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concern regarding Danko's increasingly worrisome behavior

message: I have posted an OR tag on the section suggesting the lack of which-way information due to the fact that the assertion has not been published in a reputable peer-reviewed source. This article has a large number of non-expert visitors and OR in this section is highly misleading. Mediator, please take action on the removal of that section ASAP. Thank you. -- Prof. Afshar 03:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Afshar, as you know, you should not be making any edits to the article; as previously discussed, you are too close the subject.  Ask here, by all means, but let others act.--Michael C. Price talk 10:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted Afshar's change.  Aside from the personal involvement issue, shouldn't we making changes only with the mediator's approval?  Isn't that what we all agreed awhile back?  Making a change and then calling on the mediator to endorse is not really correct, for anyone. --Michael C. Price talk 10:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Michael, in the absence of the Mediator, I would appreciate if you could "act" when it gets too stagnant. The article is misleading and needs to be corrected ASAP. There needs to be a timely and decisive Mediation process; otherwise errors linger on and responsible editors leave the discussion in the hands of OR pushers. Thanks. P.S. For the record, I only placed an OR warning tag, no other "changes" were made.-- Prof. Afshar 10:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one disputes that "the article is misleading and needs to be corrected ASAP", but we all disagree about the remedy.  Non-consenual changes are going to get us nowhere.  I suggest patience and talking everything out, as we are currently doing.  The stagnant nature of article is actually a good sign that we are using the talk page in preference to revert warring.  P.S. yes the OR tag is only a little change, but an important one.  Rather than single out any particular section, perhaps we should OR the whole article, since there is no agreement about which parts are particularly OR?--Michael C. Price talk 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael is right. We know that the article needs to be changed, we just argue about what needs to happen. How about another idea: We all focus on one change at a time. Address one issue, then move on, rather than arguing on 4, 5, 6, and Danko. It is easier for me to follow, and it will make a lot more sense. For the sake of easiness, how about we all focus on Piece 4, at the bottom of the talk page as reposted by Afshar? Sdirrim 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means let's tackle #4. Thanks. -- Prof. Afshar 15:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Afshar, If you and other editors want to delete huge portions of the article, I personally don't care, and even I will not vote against the suggested by you changes, as I have quited this discussion. However I have my ultimate human right to post on any page where I am allowed access, in cases where personal offences against me, or other people are posted with aim of derogating their basic human rights and human dignity. So I do not agree that my name is invoked in text passages containing insults, while at the same time I even did not participate in the discussion. So just two facts
         Georgiev D. D.
         Single Photon Experiments and Quantum Complementarity  ARTICLE 
          Progress In Physics 2007; 2: 97-103
The mentioned above article officially describes Unruh's setup, Mach-Zehnder interferometer, and Afshar's setup. 
Concerning S. Marinov's paper in the previous volume of PP, it is posthumous re-print of work published early in his carrier. The paper is submitted by Marinov's friend and is to be considered as a tribute to his tragic death [10 years since 1997]. The theory is exactly the one published in Foundations of Physics 1978-1979, on absolute space-time theory.  
I would like to ask you not to offend people who has not direct relation to you, and who you interprete as having involved in promoting my work, etc., etc. Please do not search in internet the first material that you see, and then draw firm conclusions about people. Danko Georgiev MD 06:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I am sorry to report to you that the Marinov affair, and his tragic suicide as a direct result of his alienation by the mainstream academia is well-known. As much as I empathize with his difficult circumstances, working as a horse groomer and conducting experiments in his girlfriend's apartment, there is no question about the fact that he was firmly and correctly rebuffed by the academia and referees due to clear violations of the known physical laws he advocated. Indeed, feeling his pain, I shed tears over his heart-wrenching description of the rejections, while fully agree with the referees reasoning. None of what I have said is an insult, it is simply a recounting of the fact that such fully-rejected ideas have been published in the same journal you have published in; a journal whose editor believes there is scientific Mafia against him. Any reasonable person can draw his/her conclusions regarding the reliability of the publication (Progress in Physics) as regards OR in WIkipedia. -- Prof. Afshar 07:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  dear mr georgiev  congratulation fo your paper even it is a sad day for physics (i will even not spend time to recuse such kind of argumentations). However i would like to mention  that in principle you have absolutly no right for using a picture created by me  ( see arxiv ) without asking me or at least without mentionning the source. You should know that in principle i could complain to the editor. Two solutions: 1) either you send kindly a message by your self to the editor to change the picture ( very difficult ) or to add my reference in the legend (easier), or, 2), I do it myself :this is less pleasant for you and for me. Please act promptly and explain yourself 
PS you should be less lazy the next time and create a picture by your self  or ask some one for that
Drezet 08:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Dear Drezet, I hope the issue is resolved, so you post new message in confirmation that the confusion is resolved. I have NOT used your arXiv figure, I have used figure from WIKIPEDIA released under GNU free documentation license, so I have even modified the graphics under GFDL. You have agreed to this when releasing your image in Wikipedia, so I can refer to the GFDL licence even without asking you for permission. One can use Wikipedia under GFDL without asking permission any of the contributors to Wikipedia, as they have agreed to the Wiki-policy they have released their work for free, and also for merciless editing by others. One when releasing something in Wikipedia, cannot after that blame that others have modified and used in certain way his release without asking him, this is Wiki-policy so if one does not like, then he does not contribute to Wikipedia. Kind Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 06:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OR tag

message: In my opinion this discussion is dragging out too long as the article remains in a relatively sorry state. I urge Sdirrim to be bolder. Otherwise I may not be able to resist the urge to be bold myself, even though that might ultimately have negative consequences. --Art Carlson 13:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree.  Hasty action will only waste time, as the history of this article shows.  --Michael C. Price talk 13:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought you might see it that way. I am advocating "timely" rather than "hasty" action. --Art Carlson 14:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I interpreted "bold" as "hasty". --Michael C. Price talk 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I interpreted "bold" as actually implementing votes, and enforcing probation by asking the violator to cease and desist or be reported to admins. -- Prof. Afshar 15:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I said earlier, Wikipedia is not a democracy.  Debate the issues.  You demanded that I answer some questions with a simple yes/no.  Please reciprocate. --Michael C. Price talk 15:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to Mediator - get moving!