User talk:Heydan Seegil

Welcome!

Hello, Heydan Seegil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Original research and verifiability

You may find the Wikipedia policy pages on original research and conflict of interest informative, along with the BRD page on the Bold, Revert, Discuss process. Now is the time to discuss whether your innovative harmonic technique fits on Wikipefia, at the Talk:Guitar harmonics page. Regards, Just plain Bill (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

On original research, recordings of the harmonic exist which are verifiable. So just because you don't want to believe that it doesn't exist as a harmonic doesn't mean it doesn't especially when there is a repeatable process and recorded evidence. Furthermore the recordings were published and contain a copy write, so literally no clue what more proof you'd need. Conflict of interest, ok then you post it. Attempting to bar knowledge from reaching the masses because you believe something doesn't exist, even when there is both verifiable evidence and a process to reproduce. I understand that it is strongly not recommended, but I'd rather people knew about the musical effect and how to reproduce it then not. Wiki is after all an educational resource. You can pull it again, but I suggest actually trying it for yourself first as again it is repeatable. If you need I better explanation of what exactly is going on I'll provide one but its a thing, it exists, there is proof, and anyone can do it. Now then if you believe someone else discovered it first then that is another story and I suggest that you update the entry with proof, their name, and the name that it was provided. However to this date and with degree in musicology I have yet to find another source. heydanseegilHeydan Seegil (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The thing about original research is that it doesn’t fly on Wikipedia. Has anyone other than yourself written about this technique? It needs to be published in a reliable source if this is going to stay in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. I have no doubt that you can excite sympathetic vibrations in strings beside the one being plucked; I hear similar things all the time. It’s just that Wikipedia is not for publishing that kind of stuff, until it gets noticed and written up where the rest of us can see it, and count on the reporting being reliable. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The thing is though is that it does not say that at all it only says it is not recommended. As for the Harmonic itself it is cited. Just because you choose to ignore facts does not mean they do not exist. Again there is a repeatable process and proof cited. You're literally acting like a child that will not accept the facts. This exists, it has been recorded, and it can be again. It is a reliable technique that is up there were everyone can reproduce it. If you believe that my edit is false and that someone else discovered it then you need to edit it with that rather than deleting it because you refuse to accept the facts. Please desist from attempting to cover up knowledge and spread ignorance. Heydan Seegil (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I should also mention that because it is cited that if you personally have an issue with me citing it. Then you are more than welcome to re-add the entry as is with the reference under your own name so that you may feel comfortable with the facts. So you know if you feel this strongly then you could always repost it as the facts still stand, because it does exist and it has been written up and recorded even though in your delusion you refuse to accept it. I figure that way you can feel more comfortable about it. Heydan Seegil (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NOR are two of the three core policies at Wikipedia, the other one being WP:NPOV. They are not just recommendations. Your soundcloud reference is a self-published source, which is not considered reliable for Wikipedia purposes. Somebody else adding it does not turn it into a reliable source; it is still self-published. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Bill, please cite how and why the Siegel Harmonic (or whatever other name you believe it to be under) occurs. Please include your source. Until that time the only known recording, which was published on a server that I do not own and filed with a copy right containing a description of being the first known recording of the Siegel Harmonic. Furthermore I did not cite my white paper on it for the specific reasons of avoiding OR and instead provided a copy of the actual sound and method for reproduction so that the source is not conjecture but irrefutable fact. If you cannot provide any other discoverer or explain the process in detail then frankly you are purposefully omitting knowledge from the public sphere due to some rather sever delusions. I'd recommend you see someone about your lack of ability to appraise fact from fiction. As in the fact that this exist, has been recorded, and can be done by anyone rather than the fiction that sound does not exist.

Again if you believe this not to be a thing then please provide a source for what creates it so that the knowledge will not be lost due to your desire oppress the pursuit of knowledge. Heydan Seegil (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I did not claim somebody else published this before you did, and I have no reason to believe it is not a thing. If you have published a monograph on it, you can show a link to that on Talk:Guitar harmonics#Siegel Harmonic and let the WP editing community work with it there. To stay on their good side, have a look at WP:NPA and WP:3RR. Just plain Bill (talk) 22:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll post the monograph when I get home.Heydan Seegil (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Bill, I obtaining the paper from the International Journal of Scientific Research and Publications. Since the phenomenon is in existence, and it is agreed that it is a sound I will be posting the section again. Please use the CITATION NEEDED flag to flag the sections you believe need further citation rather than intentionally omitting knowledge from the public sphere. I believe that is why that flag specifically exists.

Hey Bill, peer reviewed Journal for Siegel Harmonics was added. Sorry about the delay. You should check the acknowledgements. ;D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heydan Seegil (talk • contribs)

That paper in an open access journal shows no signs of peer review. Speaking of other eyes reviewing this, Talk:Guitar_harmonics#Siegel_Harmonic is a better place to continue discussing it. Another suitable place would be WP:RSN. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Bill, you are illiterate. The first sentence on the home page for the journal announces that it is a "International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research is an open access quality publication of peer reviewed and refereed international journal from diverse fields in sciences, engineering and technologies that emphasizes new research, development and their applications.". They do the peer review on before publishing, would you like a copy of the originality report and the copyright? So first you pull it because 'there is no sound', even though there is. Then you pull it because 'there is no peer review', even though there was. What will be your next delusion?

• I think conflict of interest comes into play here. If you discovered it, you probably shouldn't be writing about it, just as if you were writing as the CEO of a company. !dave 17:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

  I guess Sir Isaac Newton didn't discover gravity either? Bill plenty of discoverers write their own papers and then submit them for a peer review as I have. I literally did exactly what you asked, even acknowledged you for it. I'm issuing you a warning for vandalism and if you have an issue with the monograph you should contact the publisher as they did a review and it was internationally recognized.

  That tu quoque argument is not relevant, we have a guideline for conflict of interest editing and it is a really good idea to follow it. I am not Bill, I am someone else. Please also sign your posts and indent your messages, note how I am adding an extra colon to these messages, and to sign, write four tildes (~~~~) after your message. !dave 17:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Please provide proof that the Siegel Harmonic is not in existence through a Peer Reviewed Journal in order to provide factual grounding for your arguments against it. I was asked for a monograph. I provided one. I do not see the problem other than being harassed by someone who is delusional. - Heydan Heydan Seegil (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Dave, I see it was pulled again. So is there a reason or does Wikipedia not accept scientific fact anymore? Heydan Seegil (talk) 18:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. You added something which created yourself and (originally only) with a citation that was your own work. This is egregiously a conflict of interest, I note above you have been told about this above, but you ignored the guideline in the belief that the content is worthy. Great, but you should not edit it directly. This is becoming less about content and more about your behaviour. I seem to be acting as the Grim Reaper for too many people in the past days, do I really have to go here again after all that? You have a right to be right, and it is first thing the mind does after receiving criticism, probably. But it is not always the best thing, see WP:IDHT. The source you had originally added is not reliable because it is not independent -- you did it, and I'm not too convinced by the soundcloud one. You are also on 3RR my friend, if anyone else drops by and removes your content, don't go back and restore it. You will be blocked. !dave 18:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hayden, show me where I said "there is no sound".

Who were the peer reviewers looking at this "monograph" of yours? It's hard to believe they were serious musicologists or acousticians, since it reads like a freshman lab report. The burden is on you to show that anyone other than yourself calls this a "Siegel Harmonic."

One more time, with feeling: the place to discuss this is the article's talk page. Just plain Bill (talk) 18:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not think you understand. I discovered and was internationally recognized for the discovery of a new guitar harmonic. I paid an independent research panel to do peer review of both the technique needed to create the harmonic and confirm that it does indeed produce the frequency as a harmonic as well as a history check to confirm the authenticity of my findings. New discoveries are possible and in your delusions you claim without fact that this does not occur. Several people do this every day not just myself. I even work next to a medical researcher who discovered some minor biological thing* about polar bear mating habits. To deny that evolution of thought and to deprive others of a free and open network of information that could lead to further developments is not only insane but medieval as well. *I forgot what exactly at this moment and biology is not my field.

I may have discovered a harmonic, but honestly there probably are people better suited to do further research into the physics of it as such the public needs to be aware of it. This is the importance of publishing, which is something you are denying because I decided to publish and get my findings verified by the international community; and a independent and scientific one at that?

My research might be first hand, but as per the policy in is was 'published by a secondary source' which is what Bill had asked me to do. I got that when Bill explained it to me and which is why I acknowledged them in the paper and waited to edit the article until that was done. There should be, and was an independent review of the first hand findings to verify them as fact by a credited secondary source.

If you believe there is an issue with the publisher and the peer review they conducted then I suggest you take it up with the publisher, their internationally recognized panel of review or otherwise they have their own contact .

Heydan Seegil (talk) 19:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)