User talk:Tabish q

Hello Tabish q, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 20:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tabish, when you upload your own image, please choose the GFDL license to release it in Wikipedia. otherwise the images are going to be deleted, as it seems to have happened with the uploaded by you pictures. Afshar is going to be much more agressive once you support my edits, or inversely at the time he understands that you support no which way information even if there is no grid. Well, you have said this clearly in your paper, I do not understand why Afshar does not see it. He is with not very high level of understanding the mathematics invloved, so do not expect him to cooperate - rather he will use all kind of arguments that have nothing to do with physics to disprove you. At least he never wrote a single formula or equation to prove there is which way despite I have asked him repeatedly many times for that. If you need any help, please post on my talk page User_talk:Danko_Georgiev_MD. Please update with some information your user page, it is always better for people to know who has been editing the scientific article of interest. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 02:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tabish, it is good that you have created this page about you. If you want to edit the Afshar experiment article, please use the inbuilt laTex in Wikipedia, there is root of n button that inputs the math tags. I have spent a lot of time to make the main article look more academic, so I had to convert a lot of references into a clear and neat bibliography. I have finished with my editing of Afshar promo entry converting it into more objective and balanced entry showing all the various viewpoints (some of which wrong, but nevertheless do exist, so deserve to be mentioned), and now I can move to some other topic. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 07:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Panama Rose.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Tawker 00:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Night Blooming Jasmine.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Nivus^(talk)

Hi, Welcome to the Afshar experiment controversy! As a some-times arbitrator to the dispute, I thought I'd say hello.

A few thoughts for your inspection & commentary. A few years ago, when I first heard of the thing, I casually dismissed it out of hand, remarking that exactly the same experiment could be done with e.g. water waves in a college demonstration ripple tank. Since one could also "image" the slits in a ripple tank, and get the same results as Afshar was getting, it didn't seem to offer any insight into QM. Then someone pointed out that, in principle, the Afshar experiment could be done with single photons and photodector tubes, which is a more conceptually challenging situation. It reminds me a bit of the Hanbury-Brown and Twiss effect: an experiment which is 99% classical, and behaves like a classical wave diffraction experiment, except that it can be done with individual photons. At this point, I realized that perhaps a quick, hand-waving dismissal is inappropriate, and that the correct treatment really does require a careful application of the full set of analysis typically done in quantum optics.

Thus, I gave Afshar the benefit of the doubt; just as in Hanbury-Brown and Twiss, the explanation of the total effect is not exactly trivial, even if it does resemble the classical explanation almost completely. On the other hand, I don't see that one can learn anything "new" from the Afshar expt; since its essentially classical, I don't see how it tells us something about QM that we don't already know. However, I have given this whole thing only a miniscule amount of thought.

My one concern w.r.t. this article on WP is that it should not accumulate half-baked debunking arguments. Sure, anyone with a smattering of education about QM should be able to cook up an argument showing how the experiment is wrong or stupid; what I don't want to see is these amateurish debunkings showing up in the article as if they were golden truths. linas 23:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear prof. Qureshi, please check this entry Tabish Qureshi. Please inform me if I had made substantial errors that need urgent repair. The decision to create the entry was solely mine and I have decided it on scientific grounds concerning your numerous contributions on foundational problems in QM. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 11:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear prof. Qureshi - I have left open wiki-entry on Popper's experiment. Now the link is inactive [red] however you can briefly describe the setup, as you are better acquainted than me. You can help in creating that entry. Kind regards, Danko Georgiev MD 12:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Popper-experiment-1.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Popper-experiment-1.png, you didn't choose a license for it. Since it appears that you created it, would you be willing to release it under the GFDL? The image needs a license tag or it has to be deleted. If you would be willing to release it under that license, please edit the image page and add {{GFDL-self}} to that page. Thanks. --BigDT 04:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tabish, please see this entry Unruh's interferometer, if you are interetsed in clarification the problem that ocurred with interpreting Unruh's claims. p.s. From time to time, you can clean your talk page from unnecessary robot posted stuff, etc. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 06:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my official reply to Unruh.

     Georgiev DD. Exact Mapping of Quantum Waves between Unruh's and Afshar's Setup (Reply to W. Unruh).  Progress In Physics 2007; 3: 44-49. 

I hope you will have the necessary time to read this paper, in order to represent correctly in the future the true claims of Unruh and me. Please note, here I prove explicitly for first time one-to-one mapping between your calculation and Unruh's setup. My *new*(?) equations not written by you of course are something that you also knew, but you did not bother to write down. I am also promoting your work because I understand what you really did, and not because I want to appeal to your authority. I have said Unruh is inconsistent back in time in 2004, so the appearance of your paper is just manifestation of the fact that mathematical truth does not depend on persons, but is "objective" and accessible to everyone who is smart enough to see it. I myself stand against all "authority appealing" in science, see my Wiki home page. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 12:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a neutrality warning, since, unfortunately, the article is heavily biased towards your own views as one of the participants in the scientific and philosophical debate on the issue. Please try to attribute views and declare none of them to be "the consensus". Say the name, do not use weasel words. Further, try to give opposing views due weight. Describing your views at length and mentioning only alongside in a short sentence that "some [Weasel word!] [are] even going to the extent of claiming that Kim and Shih's experiment had demonstrated that there is no non-locality in quantum mechanics" without explaining that as detailed as your view provokes the impression that such opposing views have not to be taken seriously. Thanks for your otherwise high quality work on the article, though. --rtc 06:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:M-mayek.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Jusjih 04:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Journal of Quantum Information Science has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable new journal. Article creation premature. No independent sources, not listed in any selective major databases. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Afshar experiment. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 07:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tabish q. I work on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, and my attention was called here by a filing there ( I just provided you notice of it, above).

I am sure you are familiar with COI issues in your academic publishing - there are some twists on that here in Wikipedia, and they get especially ... nuanced when it comes to academic experts who want to come and contribute to Wikipedia. It is complicated - we love experts here, and some experts are among our most beloved and appreciated contributors. Where things get complicated, is when an expert wants to cite his or her own work, and other disagree. As you can imagine, things can get inflamed pretty quickly in those situations.

Well, there is little new under the sun here, and as it turns out there is a guideline for this, and it is WP:SELFCITE. The guidance is, if you want to cite your own work, bring it to the article Talk page, say its yours, and explain how you want to use it. If folks agree, then great. If they don't, then you yield. That's how it works. Would you please agree to do that going forward? Do let me know. You can reply here, and we can talk more about editing WP, if you like. Oh btw please do read WP:EXPERT, if you haven't seen it before. Thanks for your time. Jytdog (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog I had already brought this up on the talk page of the article. The section which has been removed from the articles, is one of the prominent critique of Afshar's Experiment. It has been cited by many papers on Afshar experiment, some of which are cited on the article page too, e.g.

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0701152

https://arxiv.org/abs/1008.4261v1

The initial objection of David Eppstein was the it was not an authentic published source. I strongly disagree here - it is published in a peer reviewed journal, whose editorial board is very respectable. Check out

www.scirp.org/Journal/EditorialBoard.aspx?JournalID=591

Now the objection seems to be regarding citing oneself. That is a different issue altogether. David Eppstein did not take any opinion from anybody on the talks page before removing the particular section. Tabish q (talk) 08:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tabish q. it is good that you opened a Talk page discussion. No one has responded there yet. What WP:SELFCITE says is get consensus on the Talk page to include; it doesn't say "throw a note onto the Talk page and keep inserting your self-citation". Right? Please know that when two editors disagree there are plenty of dispute resolution processes to use - it never has to come down to two people arguing in Wikipedia. So please give this some time. I will go to the Talk page just to set up the conversation better - I won't get involved in it. I just want to help you understand how we think about COI in Wikipedia so you can do the right thing here. OK? (again, you can just reply here; this page is on my watchlist and I will see your reply) Jytdog (talk) 18:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Siroi sobha.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ECG Weinberg.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]