User talk:Anjan.kundu

AfC notification: Draft:Kundu equation has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Kundu equation. Thanks! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Anjan.kundu (talk) 12:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC) Anjan Kundu 24.03.2016

I face some problem with Reference of this article. 2 refs. given appear twice in the text (with different contents). Why this is marked as error? Another 2 refs. show some syntax error which I could not identify. Can someone with more experience help? I will be much thankful. - Anjan.kundu (talk) 09:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Anjan Kundu, 25 March, 2016

I face a problem with some of the references in my edited contribution on Kundu equation. I will be very much thankful if someone experienced user/editor can help to fix this problem.Anjan.kundu (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2016 (UTC) 26 April, 2016

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Anjan.kundu. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article Draft:Kundu equation, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
 * instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the request edit template);
 * when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. I notice that your username is the same as the creator of this equation, therefore you appear to have a conflict of interest. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joseph2302
Thank you for your comment on my Draft contribution: Kundu equation. This equation is receiving renewed interest with its appearance in the titles/abatract of many citing articles (with more than 180 citations of the original source article by A Kundu), which prompted my colleagues to request me for contributing a write up on this equation for Wikipedia, since they considered me to be the best person to do so. I finally agreed and submitted my contribution, whiout knowing the clause of " conflict of interest", as was kindly informed by you.

I would request your kind advice under this circumstance, since this contribution is important from scientific/academic point of view.If you suggest, many of my colleague scientists will eagerly agree to put this contribution from their own user account for avoiding the COI clause. Please advise how to save this scientifically valuable contribution.

Thanking you, with best regards Anjan.kundu (talk) Anjan.kundu (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC) Anjan.kundu 12 April, 2016
 * Hi, sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice this question for me. In answer to your question, a conflict of interest is not a reason to reject an article, in fact users with a COI are recommended to use the articles for creation process like you did.
 * Also, the draft has been accepted, it now exists at Kundu equation. I checked with other mathematicians on here who agreed it was notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joseph2302
i am sorry that I I have violated the conflict of interest rule by editing the Kundu equation write up. The reason for this is the following. I found that the Kundu-Eckhaus equation is equated to the Eckhaus equation in the main page. This is however not a correct statement. The Kundu-Eckhaus equation is a generaalization of the Eckhaus equation with an additional cubic nonlinear term and can be derived from the Kundu equation. Therefore Kundu-Eckhaus equation (with its other aspects) should logically be a subsection of the Kundu equation. (Please see the details in the edited text which is now removed). Hope to get your valuable comments. With best regards Anjan.kundu (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2016 (UTC) April 27, 2016


 * I've asked for the opinions of more mathematicians here, to see what they think. After all, you've just stated that the "Kundu-Eckhaus equation is a generalisation of the Eckhaus equation", therefore IMO it should be on that page. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Joseph2302
Many thanks for your valuable suggestion for further discussion in the (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics). I have put some details today on the Kundu-Eckhaus equation for discussion/suggestion/advice.Anjan.kundu (talk) 07:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC) April 27, 2016

Conflict of interest (again)
As the creator of the Kundu equation, you have a clear conflict of interest- I have tagged the Kundu equation page accordingly. The tag should not be removed by yourself, and can be removed by any other experienced editor once the following are true:
 * 1) You've stopped directly editing the page, and instead make requests for additions to the article at Talk:Kundu equation- Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines strongly discourage you from editing the page directly.
 * 2) An experienced editor has reviewed the page and (if necessary) made changes to the page to make it appropriate for Wikipedia.

Also, please leave the note at the top of the page saying "Not to be confused with Kundu–Eckhaus equation." as it is- this allows it to redirect to the main page about the Kundu–Eckhaus equation. Anything relating to that equation should be added to Kundu–Eckhaus equation and not Kundu equation.

If you have questions, please reply here below. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I replied to your message at WT:WPM.  S ławomir  Biały  15:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks. I have responded to your valuable comments at WT:WPM.Anjan.kundu (talk) 05:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)