Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 24

Vote yourself chairman?
Please note that you cannot "vote yourself chairman" as you declared above. Please desist immediately in this uncollegial attitude; there is no basis in any wikipedia policy for this.--CSTAR 21:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That was tongue in cheek. You obviosuly missed the point that by saying I vote myself chairman, I am actually saying something that is impossible.  How can I vote for myself?  What I am actually saying is that I am taking on the role, because no one else is.  In fact there is a basis.  It is called concensus.  We will see what happens.  People can either go with my attempt to assist the reaching of a concensus, or they can choose to ignore me.  I am hoping however that people will give my plan a go.  It is a simple plan.  I will try to organise the discussions so that we can actually arrive at a good article.  It is clear the anarchy we have experienced so far on this has achieved very little.  Perhaps it is time to organise the discussion.  The precident for that is common sense.  Dndn1011 21:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: There is no basis for your selecting (choosing, declaring) yourself chairman. Consensus is just that; unless there is an agreed upon mediator (or arbitrator) you cannot assume the role of chairman of the discussion. Please stop pretending to be one.--CSTAR 21:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

If there is to be a chairman they should be an admin (an Arbcom?) and they should possess a solid grounding in physics. I am not an admin. And Dndn1011 does not possess the level of physics expertise required. --Michael C. Price talk 21:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not pretending to be anything. I am merely trying to organise the disucssion.  That is what I am doing.  All I have done is declared my intent.  My appologies if you can't handle my humor.  I will continue my attempts to mediate regardless. Additionally level of physics expertise is not the point here.  What is required is someone who can mediate and be neutral.  Since no one else has been trying to do that I am.  If someone else is more qualified and is willing to spend the time let them.  Until then, I am attempting it.Dndn1011 21:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

'''Current status: Dealt with

Specific Critiques section
I would suggest that we should remove the quotations from the specific critques section as they unbalance the article. We can place actual points of debate in the ongoing debate section, where a blanced view can be presented. This would tidy the article up and reduce the major areas of contention to one section (Ongoing debate). Dndn1011 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep the quotations. The whole argument hinges on what various critics think about Afshar's experiment and what Bohr thought about complementarity, and some of the quotes are illuminating on both those scores. I agree about merging the two sections together. --Michael C. Price talk 00:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If we keep them they are going to have to be balanced, this has proved difficult. Frankly in the past you have dismissed any counter arguments out of hand becuase you do personally not agree with them, which is in part how we ended up in this mess.   I am not the only one to have noted your difficulty with remaining neutral and with not  verging on OR in your interpretations.  An example is the claim that Unruh's experiment is not equivalent.  This is not just my point of view there are others (including Afhsar) that believe this to be the case.  The danger with presenting too much detail on only one side only in the article is that it will become biased.  I argue it is better to say too little, than say  more and be biased.  We should provide the references and allow people to make up their own minds, or present a few details in balance. But perhaps first we should wait for Afhsar to clarify what his claims actually are.  It may be we can lose some counter arguments because they may not be pertinent to Afshar's interpretation, or the experiment. Dndn1011 00:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I assure my opionion of you and your behaviour is as flattering as yours is of mine. However I should have thought a self-appointed chairman would rise above these things?  As for whether we can lose some counter-arguments, well that is always possible, but each one will have to argued for on a case-by-case basis.--Michael C. Price talk 01:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have merely stated the truth as I see it. A mediator has sometimes to do that.  But I don't put myself above you.  Should I lapse into bias, I am sure you will present a coherent argument to wake me up to it, and I will be grateful to you. Dndn1011 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just bear in mind that I also "have merely stated the truth as I see it" and we'll get along just fine. I inserted some of the quotes to avoid the accusation that I was inserting OR. --Michael C. Price talk 01:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough :). Now which quotes are you refering to? Dndn1011 01:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can't tell then I must be doing my job well :-) --Michael C. Price talk 01:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Er no I have no idea about context. "I inserted some of the quotes to avoid the accusation that I was inserting OR".  When?  Are you talking about originally? Or was this a recent addition?  Or in general?  Am I supposed to go through the history to find out which quotes you claim responsibility for? I imagine that it was just a passing comment anyway, so never mind.Dndn1011 01:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the flippant (although half-serious) comment. I added the quote from Bohr about the formalism being an adequate tool for a complementarity description.  Also the quotes from the critics to the effect that the experiment violates neither the formalism nor complementarity. --Michael C. Price talk 07:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Dndn1011 you are not a mediator in this dispute, either formally within the WP mediation protocol or informally. A mediator has to be agreed on by all the parties to the dispute. Moreover, it seems plain enough that you have some pre-established ideas on this issue. I again request that you please stop presenting yourself as having a mediating role. --CSTAR 01:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have already answered this. Dndn1011 13:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Dino, Mike has inserted the quotations in order to be objective. When I say that Afshar wanted to take back the Nobel Prize of Einstein, and put quotation saying in 1-to-1 wording exactly what I say this is objectivity. So all the quotations are to make the whole article as objective as possible. This is not OR; but when you do not provide quotations, but put only your understanding of what the others have said then you are making OR. So Afshar accuses Bohr, and in order to present objectively why Bohr is wrong or not one needs quotations of Bohr, on which basis you can accuse Bohr, or not. By the way the article of Afshar experiment is almost satisfying in its current form since the main points are clearly stated: [1] Afshar's experiment is well described, [2] Afshar proposes his "own" interpretation, [3] the majority of physicists are not supporting Afshar's "paradoxical" interpretation, and [4] there are two types of objections so far. This is all that must be said. Well, one might ask which one of the two types of objections is the valid one, yet you know my answer, and in order one to be capable to write this final conclusion for the whole article he must be expert in physics. I have voted for prof. Qureshi to insert this final math sketch, yet most of you disagreed. Why? Afshar has only 1 paper published on a single topic, and in Wikipedia has only 1 edit on the same experiment, and in the yellow press he speaks about 1 thing "how great is Afshar's experiment and how it declares the Einstein's idea of photon dead". Compare this to prof. Qureshi's work - numerous publications of foundational issues of QM, pointing out inconsistencies in other published work, and finally but not last has better mathematical understanding than all the participants in this discussion including me. If one is to vote for chairman or arbiter I would like to propose prof. Qureshi. Danko Georgiev MD 02:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Danko for your comments, unfortunately you you are like the proverbial bull in a china shop. You make some valid points but sure the validity and neutrality of each point should be agreed upon. You are also ignoring my suggestion of taking each contentious point and putting them each in their own heading.  As such I can't spend any more time wading through all you points that may seem so obvious to you, but the point of an article is to convey them effectively.  Everyone agrees the current article is a mess.  I am just trying to assist the remedy of that. You could try working as part of a team instead of imposing your view. Dndn1011 13:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Danko, thank you for proposing my name. However, I will not be able to devote time for this, due to my workload. I would like to add that my opinion on the article agrees with that of Danko's. I feel that the article of Afshar experiment is almost satisfying in its current form since the main points are clearly stated. To not have specific mention of the critques, will be to give the impression that Afshar's interpretation is accepted in the physics community by and large. The article should not give that impression, as the experiment currently doesn't enjoy that status of acceptability. The question of which criticism is "valid" and which is not, should not be discussed in the main article at this stage, in my opinion. Although personally I have strong views on which criticisms are valid, I would not like them imposed on the WP article. Having quotes from specific critiques serves the useful purpose of giving a brief idea of what the critique's conclusion is. I would think that it BALANCES the article. --Tabish q 08:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would be very happy if someone else that had the ability to be neutral and mediate would do this. Despite what some people say I have yet to have seen anyone here with a neutral perspective.  Some people question my neutrality and yet I have been asking questions, that is all.  I have not been making claims, just questioning.  I hope you can see that I am attempting to be pragmatic now as well as questioning.  I still maintain however that quotes which are not directly countering or correctly countering Afshar's claims should either be present combined with their rebuttle or not present at all. Dndn1011 13:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

'''Current Status: Under discussion

Edit War and attacks ad hominem need to stop.
This page is for discussing edits to the Ashfar experiment article, not for discussing the validity of the experiment. Please:


 * Don't add original research, either in the talk page or article.
 * Don't make attacks ad hominem
 * Make suggestions and discuss them before editing
 * Focus on improvements to the article, not the validity of the subject of the article.
 * Be positive. Article talk pages should be used for ways to improve an article, not to criticize, pick apart, or vent about the current status of an article.
 * Stay objective. This is not about another member's scientific credentials, the underlying quantum principles, whether or not the results of the experiment are impossible, etc. This is about possible improvements to the article based on verifiable sources.
 * Be concise! It is hard to understand the meaning of a long, rambling post. If you want to be understood, post a brief comment on what you feel should be changed. Then, if your suggestion is challenged, post a summarized explanation. Wikipedia is not a debate/discussion forum. It is collaborative encyclopedia. Please keep it that way.

I'd like for this edit warring and squabbling to stop. Therefore, please respond to this with a brief, on topic summary of your position/proposal/idea. Thank you.

Sdirrim 17:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Are you offering to mediate? Dndn1011 17:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure. Would everybody (or most everybody) agree to mediation? I promise to be fair and impartial. Sdirrim 16:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * OK I was just getting somewhere, I have just managed to calm things down quite a bit. But, I am quite happy to hand this off to you now I have done all the hard work.  OK, mediate away.... have fun... Dndn1011 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. --Michael C. Price talk 17:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Here I reply to request of Sdirrim for impartial mediation on Afshar's article. There are 3 groups of editors - [1] Dndn1001, Mike Price, Linas, Drezet, etc., who care about representing the quantum experiment in some "popular interpretation". This is useless attempt, because such popular wording of science is misleading, inccorect, confused, and shows misunderstanding of the mathematics. So my request is that all this nonsense is stopped, all these people just show their lack of knowledge in QM formalism, so this is wrong direction for development of the article. [2] People like Afshar who are not satisfied without final conclusion "WHO'S VIEW IS CORRECT!". Afshar constantly complains of the fact that the article does not conclude in the fashion " .. and as discussed above, the obvious thing is that Afshar fully deserves a Nobel Prize, and is the greatest scientist of 21st century!" It should be clear that final conclusion of the article who is right is outside the Wikipedia policy. And finally comes group [3] editors, where am I and prof. Qureshi. Read carefully previous posts where we have agreed that Afshar's experiment article is complete!!! [a] The experiment is presented in details, including information of single photon experiment is provided! [b] No interpretations except rigorous mathematical treatment is needed [currently not too good, but can be done only by prof. Qureshi, as expert physicist, and not by Afshar or Drezet, who make simple math errors]. And [c] there is good summary of the two groups of objections against Afshar. It is obvious that mathematically only one group is corrent, and the other represents wrong mathematics. The article however as mentioned early in my post should not conclude who's viewpoint is correct. So I just would like to ask that Dndn1011 stops his editing of the article because it is not a mess, and the fact that Dndn1011 does not understand QM does not mean that the article is a mess. Of course I will not like Afshar state that the article should be "under the dictatorship of truth", and despite that my opinion that the article is satisfying, everyone can edit it anyway he/she likes. I will oppose however Afshar's promo attempts, and his agitations of uncompetent editors to insert changes favouring "Afshar's grand achievements". My article will pass a process of peer-reviewing, so better the whole issue be resolved by peer-reviewed journal publishing. Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 02:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

p.s. A final thought for Afshar himself: if my math thesis was wrong, it would have been disproved easily, and it would have died eventually by its own nonsense, however recently in the years 2006-2007 emerging group of scientists start to publish independently discovered by themselves the same result proved by me. I have corresponded with Reitzner and he admitted that in the beggining when he started to calculate the Afshar's setup he made error which slowed down the process, but then he repaired the calculation and easily verified that the quantum states at the two detectors are NOT orthogonal, so no which way information is there. This was clearly formulated in 2004 by me, but the word "orthogonal states" meant nothing for Afshar. I hope in the next few months he spends some time to read some basic mathematics, since after publishing of his paper an avalanche of disproofs is expected. And I don't think the Rowan University will be very happy about it. Danko Georgiev MD 02:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Danko, please to not tell me what I think, or try to tell others what I think. You interpretation is incorrect. If you bothered to actually read what I have been saying you will see that first of all we should correctly present what Afshar is claiming before we can do anything else. This is because we are trying to edit an article according to wikipedia policy.  We must present the facts of the claims and the experiment correctly.  You have no comprehension whatsoever of what we should be trying to do here.  You are so disruptive in fact that I would move to have you banned from contributing to the article or the talk page.   My level of understanding of quantum mechanics is not relevant. My level of understanding of what Afhsar is claiming is better than yours obviously, because I have managed to actually describe Afshar's claims in a manner that a) anyone can understand and b) Afshar himself agrees is correct.   This is important because it is what we need in the article, together with the cirticisms, etc, in a balanced form.  The article is a mess because it does not even correctly reflect wehat Afshar is claiming.  And everyone agrees the article is a mess except you it seems.  Why?  Because you messed the article up, quite frankly.  I am sick and tired of your pompus, inconsiderate and insulting behavior and it is the utlimate irony that you wade in like that bull in a china shop in a section called "Edit War and attacks ad hominem need to stop".  Danko, you have used up all my patience. Go away, otherwise I will do what I can to get your banned from this artcle. Dndn1011 03:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Dndn1011, Afshar's claim [1] to have violated Englert's duality-relation has been well stated. Also it is clearly stated that [2] Afshar thinks there is which way information plus interference. What more you want to add to Afshar's thesis? [1] + [2] are not enough for you? QM can be understood by everybody, and mathematics can be understood by everybody. For that however is needed hard study, and reading of scholarly textbooks and article, just good will to think over the topic is not enough. By the way whether you will threat me or not is not something that will impress me. As you see, I nhave replied to request by Sdirrim, and if it was not his request I would not have posted anything here. I HAVE WENT AWAY :-)) Danko Georgiev MD 10:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been away for some time, but I was made aware that there was some flare of the disagreement. I do not think that Danko's advocacy as illustrated above is helpful in the least to helping write this article. As such, I encourage other editors to take Danko's comment: "I HAVE WENT AWAY" seriously. If he is to return to this page, I encourage him to clearly state that he will: 1) refrain from personal attacks, 2) maintain civil discussion, 3) keep his talkpage comments limited to discussion of article content, and 4) Verfiably reference his suggested contributions using reliable sources. If he agrees to all these points, then I think we can proceed. Until then, I do not think that Danko should be allowed on this talkpage. --User:ScienceApologist ScienceApologist


 * Thanks ScienceApologist for this well placed statement. I concur with this.  The aim here is to create a wiki article.  Do we need Danko's assitance in this? No.  He is however more than welcome to contribute if he agrees to abide by the very clear and reasonable points above.  Dndn1011 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Confirmation and clarification of Afshar's claims
(moved into own heading by Dndn1011 00:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

Encouraged by Prof. Afshar's agreement, I would like to see if I understand his argument. (With the goal of making his arguments and the counter arguments clearer in the article. That's what we're here for.) I have a few questions, but maybe I should first ask Prof. Afshar if that is a fair, or at least approximately accurate, summary of his argument. --Art Carlson 21:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With one slit and no grid, you have perfect which-way-information because 100% of the photons reach the corresponding detector.
 * With one slit and a grid, the image is degraded by several percent, but with two slits and a grid there is almost no degradation, indicating the influence of the wave nature of the photons when the grid is present.
 * Since the image with two slits and a grid has essentially the same quality as with no grid, we can assume that perfect which-way-information is also present in this case.
 * Therefore the experiment, in contrast to the classical double-slit experiment, demonstrates an interference pattern and which-way-information simultaneously, which may be interpreted as a violation of the complementarity principle because it takes a wave nature to produce an interference pattern and it takes a particle nature to enforce which-way-information.
 * Dear Art Carlson, the bolded by me text is perfect representation of Afshar's reasoning. However I give you one of the most easy to be understood counter-axamples that this bolded statement is false:
 * put vertical polarization filter on slit 1, and put horizontal polarization filter on slit 2.
 * the image at the detectors is exactly the same as the one for the single slit experiments.
 * however if you put now the wire grid, there will be diffraction of light and the image will be corrupted.
 * The image of this polarized case is the same, but there is big difference between this image and Afshar's image. When you have the polarized image you cannot put grid on the path of light without corruption, but in front of the non-polarized image you can put grid without corruption. That is why the polarized image contains the which way information, but the Afshar's image does not contain the which way information. Daniel Reitzner (reference [20] in the main article) calls this second type of image "interference pattern" but looking-like a two peaked which way image. p.s. And yes Afshar "assumes" does not "prove" his claim. In mathematics when you assume a statement, then derive contradiction/paradox from it, then according to basic axiom of logic (called Reductio ad absurdum) you HAVE proved the opposite statement of the assumed one (usually in math logic textbooks it is axiom No.10 in the form ((A ->B)->~B)->~A). Regards, Danko Georgiev MD 08:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the statement you bolded is the crux of the argument. I was hoping that Prof. Ashfar himself would verify that it "perfectly represents" his reasoning. I like your gedanken experiment. Unfortunately, if it has not been performed, or at least published somewhere, it qualifies as original research and cannot be used in the article. I am hoping if we can express Afshar's argument clearly enough (but fairly!) that any flaws will be obvious to the reader. --Art Carlson 10:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I will not make further statements unless and until all editors agree to Sdirrim's mediation, and those that do not are blocked from this and the article page. Danko, please make clear whether you accept Sdirrim's mediation ASAP. -- Prof. Afshar 13:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Afshar, I say "yes" to the mediation, but I directly request you to stop bolding statements that do not have scientific content. Please bold physics, and mathematics, and not your threats. They won't impress anybody. Danko Georgiev MD 03:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Mediation Cabal cannot block users. If any interested party does not agree to the mediation, the mediation will fail and you will have to seek other dispute resolution options.  --Ideogram 15:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that an exeperiment was carried out with individual photons which yielded the same result. Dndn1011 00:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't surprise anybody, does it? --Art Carlson 16:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly! --Michael C. Price talk 16:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)#
 * Whether it is suprising or not is not relevant to it being a fact for inclusion in the article, which is why I mentioned it. Dndn1011 17:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary the information content of a statement -- and therefore its merit for inclusion here -- depends in its surprise factor. This was quantified by Shannon: information = log(surprise factor), where surprise factor = 1/probability.--Michael C. Price talk 15:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh the slippery eel of discussion. Yes ok fine... Dndn1011 18:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation
Okay, I believe I have a general consensus that everyone (or most everyone) agrees to some mediation. I cannot and will not block users. I might be a member of the Mediation Cabal, if it really exists (TINC). As such, I am not a *formal* authority, merely someone who saw a request for mediation on this article. I don't want to come to any false conclusions, as I am not an expert in this field. Therefore, would someone briefly respond with the nature and subject of the dispute, without your opinion on the matter? Thank you in advance. Sdirrim 18:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * There are factual errors related to my claims, and OR cited in the main article. These need to be corrected one at a time. If you wish I can start with the errors in the introduction and make it down the article. See Disputed segments below for details.-- Prof. Afshar 18:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Afshar please point out where is the actual error in your claim. Be specific and paste quotations from the main article, I will repair personally mis-statements, you can be sure of that. Danko Georgiev MD 03:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I request that Danko refrain from editing the article at all. We have a mediator.  The mediator should edit the article ad a result of discussions here.  Dndn1011 11:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be nice if somebody could archive the previous discussions here. -- Prof. Afshar 01:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Meno25 for archiving.--Afshar 03:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Ideogram. As you may note on my user page, I am a student. I am not available around-the-clock, but I will do my best to stay on top of things, especially as it is now the weekend. I do like Afshar's idea of taking the disputed pieces/sections one at a time, discussing them civilly and reasonably, reaching a consensus, and then having me make the exact change as agreed upon. Since we have all seemed to agree that mediation is neccessary, I think this is the best way of hadling it. I would also ask people not to make any edits to the article while this is going on, to avoid conflict and a general repetition of the argument up until now. Sdirrim 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like to make a point. Nobody here is an admin. AFAIK, nobody here has shown that they should be banned under Wikipedia Policy. By the same token, nobody can be forced to go away, disallowed from editing, temporarily banned, or silenced. Nobody has explicitly broken Wikipedia policy, or if anyone has done so, they did it in good faith. Please, do not request for the banning of anyone else without good reason according to Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Sdirrim 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One last comment: I will start a new section like what Afshar started, but I would ask that only discussion of the disputed text be posted in that section, and personal squabbles be resolved elsewhere, preferably not on the article talk page. Thank you for being civil. Once again, Sdirrim 16:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Sdirrim, OK, I will use your procedure. I have yet to hear Danko has accepted your mediation. Has he? --Prof. Afshar

Disputed segments
Below you will find the first proposed text change. First the Current Text (CT) in italics is mentioned followed by a number assigned to that text, so that the first Current Text being discussed is coded: CT1. Then I propose my suggestion for the text as Afshar's Proposed Text (APT, so that like above APT1). The other editors can add their proposed text as the first letter of the username followed by the PT#, so that it reads (first initial)PT#. The suggested change will be in Bold letters. If the actual text in the article is to be shown as boldface, then please mention it after you close the quotation marks at the end of the proposed line. Immediately after the proposed change, a very brief explanation citing wiki rules follows, e.g. as above for Afshar Reason AR1; and for other editors, (first initial)R#. You don't have to follow these suggestions, but I will. -- Prof. Afshar 01:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * CT1: "The Afshar experiment is an optical experiment,"
 * APT1: "In physics, the Afshar experiment is an optical experiment," AR1: Using Wiki template for experiments in Physics named after their originator(s), as per other similar pages.
 * Afshar, please reply to my posts in time order, and DO NOT modify your previous messages, in a way that my questions seem out of sense!!! As you see I have incorporated your request immediately. What else is mis-stated? Danko Georgiev MD 06:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As the mediator seems to be absent at the moment, I took the liberty of checking the history and can see no evidence of Afshar tampering with his posts. Dndn1011 15:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Dndn1011, stop posting if you are not sure of the correctness of your post. Yes, Afshar is tampering his posts after questions have appeared to the post, and not before that. Some editors repair their post in a series so that to remove typos, etc. But once someone asks something, you cannot edit your previous post, you have to put reply saying what was wrong in your post, whether it was typo, etc. So, do you call me a liar, or should I post exact passages repaired (or text inserted) by Afshar? And don't you think that it is not necessary to make comment on my technical claims, just to keep the discussion going on. Danko Georgiev MD 08:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Danko, I reviewed the history and checked Afshar's changes on this page. I saw no evidence of your claim that Afshar was tampering with his posts.  I have related simple facts here.  I did in fact check, and I did in fact not see any evidence.  It is possible of course that I missed something.  So I suggest that if this is important enough to you, you should probably go through the history yourself and point out where Afshfar has tampered with his posts on this page.  I tried to locate the source of your claim and could not find it.  This is not calling you a liar, this is saying I could not find evidence of it.  As for your technical claims, how are they relvant to creating a fair and balanced article that does not contain original research?  Dndn1011 12:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This particular discussion is not relevant to the article and I suggest it be dropped. --Ideogram 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ideogram, but if Danko insists on continuing this issue, I will expose his own misbehavior which I was willing to let go. By the way, Danko, have you accepted the mediation? If not, you should not participate in the section related to corrections under mediation. -- Prof. Afshar 15:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think we can presume his acceptance lacking any statement to the contrary. --Ideogram 15:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually apparently he accepted here. --Ideogram 15:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Dndn1011, lease compare posts 3:46 9 Feb by Danko, 5:04 9 Feb by Afshar here and in the future pleaaaase do not object everything I say just for the sport. At the time I have posted request to Afshar not to make my questions look out of sense the Afshar tampering was very very recent, so I dont know what you have checked. I am not with mental retardation and read very carefully the posts, and I NEVER mis-attribute wrong words to someone, nor I accuse without obviously　anti-ethical behavior. To Afshar, yes I have accepted the mediation, obviously you never read my posts as carefully as I did read yours. Danko Georgiev MD 06:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please drop it. Also, read WP:CIVIL.  --Ideogram 08:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I just changed this back (before reading this, sorry). To me, it sounds a disambiguation page: In physics', the Afshar experiment is such-and-such, but in psychology'' (or whatever) it is something-quite-different. I won't change it back again, if you insist on this, expecially if it is something Afshar and Georgiev actually agree on. I'm sure there are more important things to argue about. --Art Carlson 09:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This was a good test of the mediation process. Where is the mediator? Please discuss changes before making and then reverting them by others. Already Danko is accusing me of something I have NEVER done. Please calm down, there are a lot more substantive changes to come.-- Prof. Afshar 10:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The best contribution Danko can make here is to go away. Danko, let us do what we have to do.  We have started with a new mediator and 2 seconds later you are back again causing trouble.  I am not mediating anymore so I have no problems telling you what I think of your behavior.  You continutally ignore any process that is being attempted to be set up here for making progress with the artucle.  In your efforts to hold on like a maniac to every little point you cause us to waste time and not make any progress on important matters.  Please choose to go away before the decision is taken from you. Dndn1011 11:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do not tell any interested participant to go away. The Wikipedia Way is to welcome all interested participants so long as they do not violate any Wikipedia policies. --Ideogram 13:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Have you been following the threads here? There is history here.  Please read the section "Edit War and attacks ad hominem need to stop" for more information, as well as the many pages of OR pushing, insults and disruption.  Then you will understand why I make the strong suggestion that Danko go away... Dndn1011 15:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The only way you can make him go away is to get an admin to ban him, and the only way for that to happen is for you to prove he has seriously violated Wikipedia policies and will not stop. Other than that, he is as free to participate here as anyone else, and there is nothing you can do about it.  --Ideogram 15:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What I can do is voice my opinion and if sufficient numbers voice the same opinion a concensus can be reached at which point an admin would be able to step in. So what is your problem exactly?  I am one of two people who have voiced that if Danko does not agree to abide by some very clear and simple rules he should be not allowed to contribute.  I am voicing my opinion to remind Danko.  Your original statement was that I should not "tell any interested participant to go away".  Now you have shifted your position to telling me I can't make them go away.  I know I can't do the latter but I can do the former, which is why I am doing it. As part of concensus building we have to share our views, don't we?  If Danko can demonstrate constructive behavior, I have no problem with him contributing.  I have merely made the observation that he has stepped in again and immediately started throwing acusations around, and that given that he can't seem to grasp the idea of constructive discussion, it would be best for him to go. Dndn1011 15:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Read WP:NPA: comment on the content and not the contributor.  There is no way an admin is going to step in just because a number of people share your opinion.  Don't try to argue with me or imply I have a problem.  I am informing you of the rules here at Wikipedia.  My two statements are related, in that it is pointless for you to tell him to go away when you can do nothing about it.  Again, you are supposed to share your views on the content, not the contributor.  You are hardly an objective observer in this debate so no one is going to take your attacks on Danko seriously.  --Ideogram 15:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * So what you are saying is that if someone is disruptive to proper discussion, we are not allowed to mention it, or suggest to that person they stop? OK that's your opinion, it is not mine. There is nothing more to talk about on this subject. Dndn1011 00:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I am always amused by people who claim there is nothing more to talk about while trying to have the last word. --Ideogram 15:08, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You may need to slow down to let the mediator catch up. WP:NEHAMFTAY. --Ideogram 13:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)