User talk:Anastrophe/Archive 2023

Rebekah Jones

Thanks for whacking away at it - I find just reading some of the changes that make it into my watchlist exhausting. Jane (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I haven't done much editing all that recently, but I appreciate your comment. Unfortunately, the user who did a whole lot of edits over the last month has been blocked as a sockpuppet, which complicates fixing or editing the page. Quite a few intervening edits means it can't just be rolled back to an earlier revision. Frustrating. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 23:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sadly, I think there’s been more than one conducting sock puppetry on that page, and I suspect it’s not just this page but more widely on Florida-related pages. All Florida newspapers are geo-blocked for me so I can’t even verify whether some references say what they’re supposed to say. Frustrating is an understatement. Jane (talk) 05:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Genius

May I award thee:

		The Userpage Barnstar
		"I am many, I contain multitudes". Herostratus (talk) 00:11, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

JBL

The IP which you recently dealt with on JBL is a disruptive LTA known as the Linde plc vandal. It's best to simply ban revert and deny any recognition. John Yunshire (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@John Yunshire, perhaps, but restricting editing to verified users will cut down on the repeated drudge work. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Stop removing edits without cause, comment, or reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7080:EF3C:6100:F444:6159:55E5:F649 (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

boop

Crime in the United States#Influences on Crime Deletion

@Anastrophe This edit note isn't 100% accurate:

19:02, 8 November 2023‎ Anastrophe talk contribs‎  89,232 bytes −410‎  (→‎Influences on crime: checked source, no claims even vaguely resembling these appear in the source. Likely WP:OR (no mention of stockton or oakland in source). Out it goes.)

Whilst the sentence about Stockton and Oakland, is referenced, and I can't seem to work out where it came from either. The first sentence is definitely in the source listed.

First Sentence: "Research suggests that being socially isolated along with parents not setting boundaries while not teaching their kids about the risk and consequences of certain actions can cause them to commit violent acts as they get older."

Source: "Environmental Factors Contribute to Juvenile Crime and Violence (From Juvenile Crime: Opposing Viewpoints, P 83-89, 1997, A E Sadler, ed. -- See NCJ-167319) | Office of Justice Programs". www.ojp.gov. Retrieved 2022-12-20.

"....Even if violence is not modeled in the home, research suggests that the absence of effective social bonds and controls, together with a failure of parents to teach (and children to internalize) conventional norms and values, puts children at risk of later violence...."
I think the source covers the first sentence. KarmaKangaroo (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep removing my changes on Carnivores ?

This is the 3rd time you have removed my changes, I need to do this for a school project for college and it is very frustrating to me why you keep removing changes and I don't understand why I am citing all my sources and keeping everything said on the website. Andyvrabel (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Andyvrabel, please read the message I already left on both the Carnivore talk page, and your own talk page. This is a collaborative medium. I have explained why I removed your changes. Please review my previous messages to you. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

fragmentation problem

You can read about this in https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/3582 if you need more info Robercik st (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is there's multiple issues at work here. First, the question of whether or not free space fragmentation is the cause of performance issues, or rather over-utilization of the disk space. Virtually all filesystems are prone to performance issues as available free space diminishes, and since we don't have meaningful metrics to rely on, we can't ascribe one over the other.

Secondly, most of what you've written is narrative opinion. The link to the ZFS code discussions isn't a reliable source for the claims being made - not by wikipedia's standards. You'd need to find a secondary source that describes these issues.

Lastly - I suspect you may not be a native english speaker, based on the many grammatical and spelling errors in the content presented. That's not a problem itself, fluency in any language isn't easy. However, for the content to be appropriate to the english wikipedia, it would have to have all the errors fixed before being posted into the public encyclopedia. That however is dependent upon the precedent issues with the content that I described. Numerous opinions on the 'net suggest that by far the larger issue is over-utilization; fragmentation being pointed to as the proximate cause of performance issues hasn't been determined as fact.

If you can find a better source - a general technology news site would be a good start - then possibly the claims could be notable for the article. I looked around and couldn't find any discussion of the matter - only blog posts and forum commentary, which just aren't acceptable for making broad claims in the article. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:27, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

So i this docs article from oracle you have:

https://docs.oracle.com/en/operating-systems/solaris/oracle-solaris/11.4/manage-zfs/storage-pool-practices-performance.html#GUID-3568A4BD-BE69-4F17-8A2E-A7ED5C7EFA79

• If a large percentage (more than 50%) of the pool is made up of 8k chunks (DBfiles, iSCSI Luns, or many small files) and have constant rewrites, then the 90% rule should be followed strictly.
  • If all of the data is small blocks that have constant rewrites, then you should monitor your pool closely once the capacity gets over 80%. The sign to watch for is increased disk IOPS to achieve the same level of client IOPS.

So there is really confirming what i wrote whether is is space or fragmentation or both but I think that users should know that things because they place on zfs big TB of data so moving it will be very costly especially on production. And there is scarse info about that real problem in zfs.

I don't know of such requirements on ext4 for example and from my experience postgres workloads works very well after 90 % full FS on ext4 so that kind of problems shouldbe stated surely

Of course you can correct gramar errors but idea stays right :) Robercik st (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

That's an interesting and useful link. However - it's important to be aware of the WP rules about synthesis. The Oracle page is a 'good/best practices' guidance page: it doesn't state anywhere that these are, specifically, limitations, deficiencies, or shortcomings of ZFS - they're merely suggestions for maintaining good performance. So, the material would certainly be useful in the article, but it can't be presented specifically as a "limitation" unique to ZFS.

If you want to craft a new segment, perhaps to go under the 'read/write efficiency' section? - I recommend posting it to the ZFS talk page, where I'll be happy to do 'wordsmithing' on it so it reads better for article space. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:20, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

But I didn't find such recomendation for eg.: ext4, xfs or other filesystems so I find it very specific limitation of zfs which can surprise users in very bad way in case of TB of data. An also it confirms what it is stated in https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/3582 especially comment with paragraph from author of ZFS: Matt Ahrenz on ZFS / "Block-pointer Rewrite project for ZFS Fragmentation". So there is clearly problem specific for zfs. Robercik st (talk) 16:40, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

But again, you've just given the definition of why WP:SYNTHESIS isn't accepted: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source."

We can't make the conclusion that it's a unique limitation of ZFS; a reliable source has to. Nowhere in the quote from Matt Ahrenz does he mention ext4, XFS, ReiserFS, Fat32, or any other filesystem, nor does the Oracle document.

If you can find a reliable source that says that it is a limitation unique to ZFS, then by all means, that would be appropriate to the article. Until then, we can't make claims that can't be verified directly from the sources. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok but can we put fragmentation as limitation specific to zfs in that it is not fixed so we can;t defragment as Matt Ahrenz says so ? Robercik st (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Robert, before we go further, I'd like your permission to copy this whole thread over to the ZFS talk page. I don't want there to be any sense that I'm "gatekeeping" the content - I'm not an expert, though I did run ZFS filesystems in production for many years. The fragmentation issue - from what I've read - is quite a complicated matter, since it's not fragmentation in the sense the majority of people think of it - as in, it's not file fragmentation, it's free-space fragmentation.

But - with your permission, let's move this over there so that we can get more eyeballs on the matter and come to a collaborative consensus. Sound okay? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 02:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Ofcourse You can copy

Ofcourse it is free-space fragmentation issue and i believe that Oracle recommendations are because of that problem with fragmentation and this is clearly problem with zfs itself. I can hide itself when we have mostly cold storage but it hit hard in cases described in Oracle docs so we need to expose that in article for sure it creator of zfs says we have problem ;). Also very suspicious is that Oracle doesn't give solution to revert this lower performance and if it is because of fragmentation there is no solution other than rewriting whole dataset :( which is shame. Robercik st (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Shame for fs that is advertised as last word in FS :) Robercik st (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

transcranial magnetic stimulation

Dear Anastrophe,

Thank you for your help in editing the article "Transcranial magnetic stimulation" by eliminating the additional section "Theory" I wrote. You noted in the comment, "None of this material is associated with transcranial magnetic stimulation the topic of this article." In this additional section, I tried to help the article (as much as I could) to explain to readers the nature and theoretical grounds of the effect of the transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain. I showed that the effect of TMS brain stimulation could appertain to the innate neurophysiological mechanism that provides coordinated neuronal activity in different organisms for the nervous system development. I believe there is no sense in discussing the importance of the central epistemic aims of science, which are scientific explanation, description, and prediction. Would you be so kind as to explain your argument for eliminating this text because the mentioned one (above) seems insufficient? If you think that some scientific explanation of TMC would be desirable, I also ask for your advice on what I can add to this theoretical section (or change) to make it suit your requirements.

Best regards, Ana — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ana Padovana (talk • contribs) 06:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

While I admit that I didn't read all of the sources proferred in the text, a cursory review of them suggests that none of them discuss direct stimulation of the brain via magnetically generated currents. The theory is divorced from the mechanism that the article discusses. A theory that doesn't even address the technology itself isn't helpful to the average or general reader, which is the audience we write for. Perhaps a 'see also' would be sufficient or acceptable, but other editors would need to chime in. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response! The proposed (in the added section) theoretical explanation of the central issue of the article (of the direct stimulation of the brain via magnetically generated currents) shows, in very simple words, neurophysiological processes that underlie the observed effect of the Transcranial magnetic stimulation of the brain. If you think that the article needs a more substantial (which is also more complex for comprehension) theoretical explanation of the observed phenomenon, please let me propose one because I do not believe that the lack of any scientific explanation would strengthen the topic. Ana Padovana (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

From my perspective, as someone who has gone through TMS treatment, the problem is the the 'observed phenomenon' are so highly variable and divergent, that a theory that suggests it explains the results is premature. TMS has an extremely high relapse rate, and 'failures' - which are hard to quantify alone - are common, as I experienced. A theory that attempts to explain a phenomenon which isn't repeatable in the main may be misleading. We need sources that discuss the theories in direct relation to the actual treatment, otherwise it's synthesis. (It is 'bedtime' where I am, so I won't be responding to any replies until tomorrow). cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 07:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Good morning! Sorry to introduce you to my opinion again, but now, I present it to you in expanded form point to point for your convenience :

1..I agree with your doubts regarding the theory “that suggests it explains the results is premature”. Notable, the proposed theoretical section presents the shared intentionality hypothesis that establishes the neurophysiological Model (mother-foetus interaction ) which is given from Nature. This Model shows the scope, crucial conditions and features of a beneficial influence of EM fields (mother’s heartbeats) on the child’s nervous system to design a medical therapy. To my knowledge, it is the only one known case in Nature of the beneficial impact of electromagnetic (EM) fields on the development of the nervous system. That is why I proposed the theoretical section in the article based on the shared intentionality hypothesis.

2..Yes, perhaps you are correct, and this theory “is premature”. It is also correct that any medical therapy should be based on scientific knowledge (it should also adhere to the four Pillars of medical Ethics). The central epistemic aims of science are scientific explanation, description, and prediction. Therefore, a scientific explanation should not only explain the underlying processes but also show the scope, crucial conditions, features of the treatment method applying it in practice, and the direction for future research. Regarding the Transcranial magnetic stimulation method, the shared intentionality hypothesis shows that neurophysiological processes (which appertain to natural innate neurophysiological mechanisms as it is seen from neuroscience data obtained from 20 years of research) dictate limitations to the scope, crucial conditions, and features for designing medical treatment based on EM field influence.

Even though the theory seems premature (from your perspective), it is scientifically robust, and it already yields limitations for therapy that would avoid adverse effects of its blind use (blind in the sense without knowledge of how EM fields beneficially impact a nervous system in Nature).

3..Your concerns regarding the TMS method are clear, you are right in your doubts: “the 'observed phenomenon' are so highly variable and divergent. TMS has an extremely high relapse rate, and 'failures' are common”. Therefore, it is even more crucial to study theoretical grounds. Again, following the four Pillars of medical Ethics, which are:

-Beneficence (doing good)

-Non-maleficence (to do no harm)

-Autonomy (giving the patient the freedom to choose freely, where they are able)

-Justice (ensuring fairness),

Scientists need to explain the phenomenon (its theoretical grounds) before designing a correct therapy. Why do you think that limitations posed by the theoretical section (‘that attempts to explain a phenomenon which isn't repeatable in the main’) may be misleading? In contrast, I believe that the theory helps achieve more predictable and reliable results.

4..I agree with you that ‘we need sources that discuss the theories in direct relation to the actual treatment.’

However, in modern science, scientists tend first to describe processes in Nature and only then emulate models based on this knowledge for their further practical application.

Nowadays, the shared intentionality hypothesis is the only one that attempts to explain neurophysiological processes manipulated by electromagnetic oscillator. The central argument of the hypothesis relies upon the effect of electromagnetic oscillator on the stimulation of coordinated neuronal activity. Again, the mother-foetus interaction is the only one known case in Nature with the beneficial impact of EM field on the development of the nervous system. This mechanism drives the development of the nervous system. Perhaps the TMS ‘phenomenon isn't repeatable in the main’ because the TMS method does not correctly apply knowledge about magnetic stimulation from Nature to treat the nervous system (since it does not have a theory that explains what happens to the nervous system under the influence of a magnetic oscillator). The shared intentionality theory would be the first source (not the last) that discusses the magnetic stimulation of the nervous system in direct relation to the actual treatment. This theory seems incomplete. However, any theory (based on neuroscience data) about neurophysiological processes has limitations that appear from the measurement techniques of neuronal activity observed in vivo. Neuroscience data (obtained from MRI, fMRI, EEG, fNIRS, and MEG techniques ) only show indirect evidence of coordinated activity of neurons that we register to attend correlates. Most likely, these techniques observe interference patterns resulting from the superposition of all oscillations of neuron orchestra.

In conclusion, if we agree with the fact that the TMS method exists (in the sense of already existing therapeutic practice), to my mind, the only scientific way to improve this method (and avoid adverse effects) is to propose theoretical grounds based on knowledge in neuroscience about different processes from periods of human body development that can be applied to a treatment of a nervous system. If you think my arguments make sense, please allow me to proceed with the theoretical section improvement and let me know what theoretical arguments you would wish to include in this theoretical section of the article. Ana Padovana (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

I am not an expert in any of this. What I do know is that you have to find sources that present a connection between these theories and TMS treatment. It's not up to an editor's discretion to assert or propose a connection - reliable sources have to make the connection - a direct connection. I have not read the entirety of the sources you present; do any of them assert that there is a connection between them and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation treatment? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:10, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

In the revised theoretical section, if you confirm, I can include sources that assert a connection between them and Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation treatment, as well as a connection between electromagnetic fields and altered neuronal activity that provides morphogenesis and cognitive achievements at the embryonal stage of development. In the modified theoretical section, I can make a focus on them. Ana Padovana (talk) 21:56, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

'Electromagnetic fields' is too vague a connection. For example, nowhere in nature is the brain exposed to short bursts of stimulation at high frequencies, at very high current potential, applied 5 times per second, repeatedly. The brain is exposed to random magnetic field changes due to solar activity - has a connection been stated between those and what you describe? Has any source asserted changes in cognitive development as a result of repeated MRI's? cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

To my mind, the section "Theory" does not need to compete with the sections "Medical uses", "Research", and "Treatments for the general public," which already exist in the article. These sections ("Medical uses", "Research", and "Treatments for the general public,") have already presented experimental sources directly connected to the TMS treatment. The revised section "Theory" can explain the neurophysiological processes that underlie the TMS treatment and propose the natural models. One of them is the mother-foetus based on the shared intentionality hypothesis, which attempts to explain neurophysiological processes manipulated by EM oscillator. The central argument of the hypothesis relies upon the effect of EM oscillator (mother's heart) on the stimulation of coordinated neuronal activity. Again, the mother-foetus interaction is the only one known natural mechanism with the beneficial impact of EM field on the development of the nervous system. My theoretical sources assert changes in embryonal cognitive development as a result of Low-Frequence EM fields, that this mechanism drives the development of the nervous system. Thank you! Ana Padovana (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but that is far divorced from what TMS actually is. High frequency magnetic pulses with a 40+ ampere effective potential bear no plausible relationship to the pulse of a mother's heart (at very low frequencies and barely measurable potential) affecting a fetus. Again - someone other than us editors - a reliable source - has to have articulated that the theory, the hypothesis, is foundational to TMS. The theory, the hypothesis, in vacuo isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Again, that's 'synthesis'. The two have to have been conjoined by a source, not an editor. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 22:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Dear all,

Thank you for the valuable comments and kind responses! It is so pitiful that you spent so much time answering me without a fruitful outcome for the article! Sincerely, I tried to do my best to show your readers–patients, physicians, and businessmen–that Transcranial magnetic stimulation therapy needs to be carefully rethought. Exposing patients to high-frequency and high-power electromagnetic fields that have no prototype-analogous model in Nature–a similar impact on the animals' nervous system in Nature–is unreliable. Again, in contemporary science, scientists tend first to describe processes in Nature and only then emulate models based on this knowledge for their further practical application. Scientists need to understand and explain the phenomenon in scientific terms (its theoretical grounds) before designing a correct therapy. That is why I suggested to introduce the new section "Theory" in the article. Again, the mother-foetus interaction is the only one known mechanism in Nature with the beneficial impact of EM field on the development of the nervous system. This mechanism drives the development of the nervous system. Anyway, our discussion has already finished. Thank you so much! I wish you all the best! Ana Padovana (talk) 21:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)