User talk:Synchronist

Welcome!

Hello, Synchronist, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for BLAST (protocol). I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting Started
• Introduction 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

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 ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 14:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Synchronist. You have new messages at Qwertyus's talk page.
Message added 10:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Art & AI

Probably the most pleasant request for a WP:PLUG waiver that I've ever read. Leondz (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Leon, your point is well -- and gently -- made, and I realize now that my stepping upon the WP:PLUG policy is akin to my similar stepping upon the WP:BOLD policy which QVVERTYVS discussed with me at User talk:Qwertyus/archive3. So perhaps I will just go ahead and try to get my article published, and, if successful, stick my neck out and attach it as a reference to Deep learning. But just the fact that a computer scientist of your caliber has spotted it -- and yes, I have been to your Sheffield web page -- puts the fear of God in me. Indeed, I have already realized that my treatment of a "reconstituted" natural language "stack" is more than a bit sloppy, and so I will be posting a rev. 003 to my website in the very near future.Synchronist (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You're very kind. I enjoyed the article, and thought it addressed some important topics in an interesting way. Good luck getting it published (& of course the hard part after: getting it read) Leondz (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Synchronist!

Happy New Year!

Synchronist,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year to you also, Dragan -- and let us resolve to continue our collaboration. Synchronist (talk) 01:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And thanks also for the portal links! Synchronist (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, you're welcome. :) Looking forward to continuing our work into the 2015! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Attempt to Visualize Special Relativity

Dear Synchronist,

I see the paper "Yet Another Attempt to Visualize Special Relativity" is getting ready. This article will maybe contribute. It is in accord with Lorentz’s theory. Please, look at : http://www.special-relativity-simulation.com/. The Poincaré-Einstein convention is also employed in this model, making the one-way speed of light isotropic in all frames of reference. As soon as the moving barge “thinks” the speed of the “information boat” to the barge “at rest” and back is equal and synchronizes clock using Einstein Technique, relativistic symmetry appears – until the last detail. Twin Paradox, Bell relativistic paradox – everything . During the simulation of the twin paradox, two cases of relative motion are considered:

- One of two barge groups at rest relative to the water, breaking the inertia, floats away from the other one, makes a U-turn, and comes back again;

- Two barge groups float on the water beside one another. One group, breaking the inertia, stops,then catches up to the one in motion.

Elementary calculations demonstrate that in both instances time passes more slowly on the noninertial barge than on the inertial one. Simplified paper is at http://www.theoryrelativity.com/EN/all-articles/11-simulation-of-time-dilation-and-other-relativistic-effects-based-on-the-example-of-floating-ships.htm --Olgmtv (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Olgmtv,

I will take a careful look at the articles which you have recommended -- and thanks for doing so! And you can also be sure that I will give you some feedback . . . Synchronist (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

KIC 8462852

Something else relevant to our discussion at that page. You should be aware that using Wikipedia for self-promotion, which includes ones own theories, is something that is very much frowned upon. Geogene (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Dear Geogene,

I totally agree that pure self-promotion has absolutely no place in Wikipedia -- or anywhere else, for that matter -- but the "sticky wicket", of course, is that very little at all can be accomplished without some admixture of self love and self promotion (and please forgive me for trotting out this ancient truism).

In reference to Wikipedia, for example, there can be no doubt that a huge percentage of its content is the result of some degree of self interest and self expression; i.e., the idea of a "neutral point of view" is a total fiction -- and one with which Wikipedia must someday come to grips. No one, for example, is going to take the trouble to research and start an article on the "Amaryllis lilly" who is not already a big lover of this flower! And much of the Wikipedia content regarding detailed and arcane scientific subjects is, without question, a function of the original researchers themselves, and who have somehow managed to conjure up a "neutral" team of Wikipedia contributors.

So the real question for me is whether the self-promotion is raw and ugly -- or is leavened with a significant degree of actual enthusiasm for, and knowledge of, the subject at hand -- and whether there is also at work a significant level of transparency.

And in reference to the current disputed post, I would like to propose to you that my very real interest in the subject of how we might first communicate with aliens -- and the weight of the experience that I can bring to bear on this subject -- marches well in advance of any thought of personal glory.

And let us not also forget the idea of transparency: if you will look, for example, at the talk page of the article on the BLAST protocol, you will see that I have been very open about being the guiding force behind it -- but this has not prevented me from marshalling a quite impressive list of references.

And speaking of those references, if you have the time to read this short article ( http://www.birds-of-the-air-press.com/bota/blast/maritime_satellite_communications.pdf ), you will come away from it with the understanding that I've spent a good bit of my life dealing with the propagation delays involved in space-based communications -- and so I therefore have much to offer when it comes to the subject of events on a star some one thousand or more light years distant!

And now -- if you will indulge an even deeper dive into the particulars of the disputed post -- I would like to explain that Saturday's media accounts of the new dimming of Tabby's Star triggered an immediate intuition as to what might be going on; I put together a concise communication and sent it off to Dr. Malina; but here I must admit that I was totally surprised that his immediate reaction was to broadcast it via the Leonardo/OLATS Space Arts discussion channel.

"Well", I thought to myself, "if this is worthy of the Space Arts network, why not Wikidpedia, with its vastly greater audience?" -- and hence it is that you and I have been brought into conflict.

Can we not find some common ground?

Regards,

GlennSynchronist (talk) 03:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the Wikipedia policy only allows 3 reverts per user per article per 24 hours. I have expended all three of mine in that article, so if the content reappears, I won't be able to do anything else about it. So far as I know, nobody else has voiced objection to it except me. This is not to say I won't revisit it six months from now, which would give time for papers to appear and for the occultation to run its course, but I'm not able to continue removing something unilaterally. I'm removing the article from my watch list for the time being. Good luck in your research. Geogene (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Well (I like starting sentences that way myself!), you have kind of thrown me off balance here, because I think you had a legitimate reason for challenging the post in the first place, and I don't like to think that there has not been a proper resolution -- and so let me make this promise: I am going to attempt to re-post the hypothesis in question; and if it turns out to have some legitimacy (!!!!!!!), then I am going to make it a point of honor to be let it be known that Geogene is the one who, on behalf of Wikipedia, certified the good intent behind it in the first place.Synchronist (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)04:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Your recent editing history at KIC 8462852 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. VQuakr (talk) 06:16, 23 May 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Synchronist reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

VQuakr and I submitted reports almost simultaneously. VQuakr just removed their report. The active report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Synchronist reported by User:Alsee (Result: ). Alsee (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Alsee, given that you have provided a link to your talk page, I am assuming that you would be willing to spend some -- but obviously not an unlimited -- amount of time conversing with me about what's going on here; and if so, would you prefer to talk here or on your talk page?Synchronist (talk) 21:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at KIC 8462852

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. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hi. I see you've done good work on various articles, and you clearly have valuable knowledge in various areas. The purpose of the block was not to punish or drive you away, it's to halt an immediate editing-problem and to ensure everyone can work together collaboratively in the future.

As you've mentioned in your comments, one of the things that helps articles get built is when people have a passion for a subject. While that can be a valuable force for creation, it can also turn into a problem when someone's personal passion, values, or goals, are put ahead of collaboration and the policies of Wikipedia.

Edit-warring back and forth on the article page is corrosive to the project as a whole. We can't allow the most passionate and uncooperative people to try to "win" by reverting 101 times... driving everyone else to quit Wikipedia completely in frustration after 100 futile reverts. It is also undesirable for articles to randomly flip back-and-forth on readers, and we don't want the article edit-history spammed with useless reverts back and forth.

See WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. Don't make an article-edit when you already know someone objects, when it's likely to be reverted. Disagreements belong on the Talk page. If there is difficulty reaching agreement, then other editors can weigh in. We have various options that can help with WP:Dispute resolution. Ultimately we expect Wikipedia Policies and community WP:Consensus to prevail. Is community consensus always right? Nope. It's like democracy, it's the best we've got and it mostly gets things right. Editing against consensus is disruptive. If you disagree with consensus, accept it so we can all just get back to other productive work. There are countless disputes on Wikipedia every day. We can only function when people respect the collaborative, policy-based, consensus-based process.

I don't want to get into the content of your edits here, that belongs on the article_talk. But to discuss it from a general community process view: I know you were trying to improve the article. However it was a problem when you simply went back the article page and added the content a fifth time. You knew everyone else objected, and you got multiple warnings not to do so. When the block expires you can seek more discussion on the article talk page. If you convince people, ok. If you don't convince people, it should not drag on into clearly-unproductive endless disruption. If you really believe the current WP:Local consensus doesn't reflect true community consensus, you can open an WP:RFC. That will call in random uninvolved editors to look over the situation and reach a broader community-consensus. Whichever way the RFC turns out, that's the end of that.

However I advise that you just let this go. The content is not going to go in the article unless and until a significant number of Reliable Sources publishing about it as a significant matter. That's general Wikipedia policy for this kind of thing. You'll just get squashed if you try to fight community consensus policies. Trying to start an RFC after a block is even more doomed to fail, the first thing people will see is a blocked-editor continuing a battle.

You'll be welcomed back if you just move on to other helpful edits. You'll particularly win back respect if you post something at article_talk showing you now understand and accept why the edit isn't appropriate for Wikipedia.

P.S. People will be notified of your message if you post on their talk page, and they will usually catch the message if they have the page watchlisted. However when you reply to people on your own talk page, or if you want to specifically want someone to get a message at article_talk or elsewhere, you need trigger a mention notification. A mention notification is triggered when you link to their userpage (or their talk page), in a signed edit. Something like:

 Hello [[user:Alsee|]] this is a message to you. ~~~~
 {{ping|Alsee}}, This is a message to you. ~~~~

I find it easiest to copy-paste the user link from their comment. Alsee (talk) 14:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Re occlusion theories

Per WP:TALK#USE and your question here, the article talk pages are for discussion of improvements to the article. An astronomy forum (I like Cosmoquest) would be a great place to discuss hypotheses. If you wish to discuss this on Wikipedia, your user talk page would be a more appropriate location than article talk space. VQuakr (talk) 05:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I copy.Synchronist (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Still somewhat in shock from having been blocked from editing on Wikipedia for forty-eight hours, I feel like a puppy learning where and where not it may do its business (and yes, fellow Wikipedians, that's how humiliated I feel about the entire affair!); and so VQuakr himself having created the above heading, and having apparently invited me to share my speculations here, I happily and completely relieve myself as follows:

The renewed dimming of Tabby's Star having been widely announced in the press on May 20th, I was suddenly and irresistably seized with an intuition as to its import -- perhaps not an unexpected experience for someone who has spent much of his professional life dealing with space-based communications; I waited, however, until the negative Liverpool Telescope spectroscopic findings confirmed the possibility of a purpose-made occluding body; and at that point I shared my intuition via email with someone whom I consider myself quite fortunate to have as a correspondent, namely, Roger Malina -- a former UC Berkeley astrophysicist, principal investigator for the NASA Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer mission, and current Exeutive Edtor of the MIT Press journal Leonardo; and the key portion of my 20 May 2017 email to Roger regarding the possibility of a purpose-made occluding body is as follows:

. . . it will indeed prove to be an "alien megastructure", but not of the "Dyson sphere" variety; rather, it will prove to be something of a vast, web-like armillary sphere placed in orbit around its host star by an advanced civilization, and which rotates as well about a second axis such that egg shell-like occluding elements placed in a balanced pattern over its surface will send out predictable -- and perhaps information-bearing -- patterns of stellar darkening in all possible directions over time; i.e., it is a structure specifically designed to reach out to other intelligent stellar civilizations. And it may even be possible that the outer surface of these occluding elements are mirrored such that they could reflect laser beams -- after all, we placed a 100 foot diameter mirrored balloon -- Echo -- in orbit in 1960.

It was my mere hope at that point to have registered my intuition with someone who could appreciate its import; however, Roger replied the next day in a most unexpected manner:

glenn

wonderful discussion ! i am sending this to our space and the arts email list

roger

Roger F Malina

The email list to which he refers is maintained by OLATS, the European arm of Leonardo/ISAST, and which goes out to the not-inconsiderable "space arts" community, i.e., those who are interested in outer space as a venue for the arts. (And how else, except as theater, are we to regard the original Sputnik, which could do little more than broadcast its presence from orbit?)

"Well", I thought to myself, "if Roger has thought this worth sharing with the OLATS space arts community -- and has in a sense published it via their mailing list -- then perhaps I would be justified in posting it to the Wikipedia article on Tabby's Star."

And so, my fellow Wikipedians, I've put myself well out on a limb -- and so it will be very interesting to learn of the Keck spectroscopic results!!!! Synchronist (talk) 05:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

And here's an interesting coincidence -- or not: the globe-like Wikipedia logo represents a perfect starting point for visualizing an armillary sphere-like signalling megastructure. Synchronist (talk) 04:51, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Total number of stars like KIC 8462852

Hi, the article talk page is not the right place for that. Kepler observed about 150,000 stars out of ~100-400 billion in our galaxy, or roughly 1 in a million. Stars like KIC 8462852 cannot be much more frequent than 1 in 150,000, otherwise Kepler would have seen more. That sets an upper limit of about 1 star per 50,000, or 2 to 8 million in the galaxy. The lower limit is 1 star, and with a single example we cannot improve on that limit. --mfb (talk) 01:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear MFB, I've found your analysis here to be quite illuminating -- KIC 8462852, based on our present evidence, is <approximately> only one in a million! -- and given that such an analysis could be useful in elucidating its nature, I'm not sure why something like this doesn't deserve to be plugged into the main article. And given that sources are certainly available for the feedstock numbers, and that the rest is mathematics, surely it could not be considered "original research"? Synchronist (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It can be anything from 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 10¹⁰⁰. In the lower range, it is not even clear how to evaluate this. In the way this star shows it, it is unique in the Kepler dataset, but that is in the article already. --mfb (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern regarding KIC 8462852. I plan on making a new flyby simulation video with more details enabled, then I plan on sharing a link on the star's talk page. My hope is to share a different visual for the rest of the world and to inspire appreciation for the cosmos for future astronomers/cosmologists/astrophysicists as well as for the average person. I am just extremely busy with a row of or string of 12-hour shifts at work, right now.

Zeryphex (talk) 23:49, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Reply re interest in the BLAST protocol

My interest was based on recalling using Kermit and, on a limited basis, BLAST.

To answer what may be an implied question, I'd think you'd get more out of being in touch with Frank DeCruz. Pi314m (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Pi314m, for your quick response; and now, since you seem to be pretty darn familiar with the source material here, I am wondering if you can help me find an online version of a "Data Communications" article which has already been cited from within the Wikipedia article on BLAST, but for which I have not been able to provide a URL? I refer to this article: Smith, G. W. & Rubenstein, P., 1984, The Async Route -- Best Suited for a Microcomputer's Local Traffic, Data Communications. This article, in fact, represents the most thorough public account of BLAST's technical details. Synchronist (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)