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 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 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 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)
 * You've stuck your fingers in your ears, mate. I invite you to accept that I do not accept your changes (don't know about you Bill), and therefore you should probably stop, per the first Law of Holes. You haven't properly addressed the conflict of interest concerns at all. You are on 4RR, I believe, so I'm taking this to WP:ANEW. ! dave  19:20, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you are not Bill I also understand that You Are Not Dave what you fail to understand is that you are the one that have not only been the one reverting the article as I made the original edit which you then reverted, but I see logic is beyond your capabilities as you've obviously progressed to such a state of delusion that your are not only refusing a verified monograph that received a peer review to solidify the findings as scientific fact. I might be failing the Law of Holes but you are literally denying fact which is the only reason I am calling you delusional. If you persist in going 5RR since again you are the one making the reverts, then I will need to request a refund of all my prior donations to Wikipedia as you have failed in your mission statement and thus defrauded the public by failing as an encyclopedia for the public. Heydan Seegil (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't donate to the Wikimedia Foundation. They have $90 million in reserves. ! dave  19:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. You truly are a archaic denialist hell bent on returning us to the Dark Ages. $90 Million for a world wide publication service is not that much considering the audience it reaches, but if your an indication of the moderation Person who is not Dave then I cannot willfully support it as I support the advancement and freedom of knowledge. Heydan Seegil (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * You are currently blocked, and if you make any more personal attacks, you can expect your talk page access to be revoked as well. ! dave  20:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I have reached out to Katherine Maher on the subject of refunding my prior donations and now I completely understand why the educational community advises against citing Wikipedia. It is sickening and to think that Wikipedia supports Net Neutrality while at the same time enforcing censorship of advancements in the arts of mankind. Thank you Not Dave for pointing out the hypocrisy of this encyclopedia. Heydan Seegil (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. ! dave 19:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a free webhost for personal promotion.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Hayden B. Siegel


The article Hayden B. Siegel has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC."

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. ... disco spinster   talk  20:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

discospinsterI have removed the tag from :, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add back to the page. I have supplied several sources of reviews and calendar dates for performances as well as a Rovi Corp reviewed album credit. I'd like to upload photos of performances but they were all taken by photographers who released the copyright to me that Wikipedia is not accepting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heydan Seegil (talk • contribs) 4 December 2019 (UTC) edited to add nowiki tags &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 15:54, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Hayden B. Siegel for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hayden B. Siegel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hayden B. Siegel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ... disco spinster   talk  21:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Toby Gnuyen


The article Toby Gnuyen has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Local musician who fails musician notability and general notability. Zero sources found under this name, but a move to Toby Guynn might be appropriate, although even under that name, coverage is sparse."

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 notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

December 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war on Forbidden relationships in Judaism; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 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.

WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for personal attacks. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Floquenbeam (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This does not mean "infinite", but your comments to Debresser were egregious enough that you're going to need to convince us that they will not be repeated. You cannot behave like this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * As you have used your unblock request to continue your egregious attacks on User:Debresser, you have now lost the ability to edit this page too. Should you decide you are able to edit in this collaborative environment with civility and without attacking other editors, you can ask at WP:UTRS for that access to be restored. Any further unblock requests must then address your appalling behaviour, and only that. An unblock request is not the place to continue your content dispute. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll add that I have now read over the other discussions here on this talk page, and I see this is not the first instance of your attacking other editors in an aggressive and insulting manner. Even on the relatively innocuous subject of guitar harmonics, I see you accused another editor of "attempting to cover up knowledge and spread ignorance", called them delusional and illiterate, accused them of a "desire oppress the pursuit of knowledge"... and all because they were simply trying to explain some key Wikipedia sourcing policies to you. And in that same discussion you called another editor "a archaic denialist hell bent on returning us to the Dark Age". If you want to have any chance of being unblocked, you will need to radically change your approach to interaction with others. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)