User talk:RayTomes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have added some articles on cycles, economic cycles, Edward R Dewey who formed The Foundation for the Study of Cycles. I put links from a bunch of existing articles on cycles and fixed one typo. I plan to add further articles about cycles in the near future - lots of loose links on the pages I added. I see that one or two things that I intended to add already exist under different names, so a bit of tidying up is needed.

Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. Hope you like it here and decide to stay. When you get a chance, drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log to introduce yourself.

When uploading images, make sure you follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Images, especially with respect to copyright.

You can sign your name on talk pages by using " ~~~ " for your username and " ~~~~ " for your username and a timestamp.

You should also feel free to drop me a question on my talk page. I'll answer if I'm here.

Happy editing, Isomorphic 21:52, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Cycle. Dori | Talk 22:47, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Just to draw your attention: I've made a fairly major rewrite, pending your agreement, for Cycle. - Details at Talk:Cycle. IMSoP 04:14, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I saw you listed at this Wikipedia page as someone interested in physics. I wonder if you can provide any help with this page: Why 10 dimensions? I am interested in Ramanujan Modular Functions and how they are used in String Theory. JWSchmidt 19:37, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Image tag[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status?

You can use {{gfdl}} if you wish to release your own work under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{PD-self}} if you wish to release your own work to the public domain, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use of someone else's work, and so on. Click here for a list of the various tags.

If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the image from, and I'll tag it for you. (And if you know exactly what this means and are really tired of the constant reminders, please excuse me. They will stop once the tagging project is complete.) Thanks so much. Denni☯ 03:47, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at Wikipedia:Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

Time-Space Conversion Ratio[edit]

Hi there - what do you make of Time-Space Conversion Ratio ?

Is it just me, or is it rubbish. Jeff Knaggs 16:30, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Discuss; not down the Memory Hole[edit]

Omegatron, the guy who posted the Harmonics_Theory page sent me an email poimnting out your comments about memory holes and pseudo science. Well said! If you wish to discuss the harmonics theory with me here or by email, you are most welcome. As a result of a 10+ year old list I have been called a crackpot by a number of physicists, and I always invite them to put forward scientific arguments. Two have done that the rest declined. The two that did both ended up agreeing that what I was doing was scientific, just well outside there previous area of knowledge. One was a particle physicist who agreed that I could have and did predict a new particle at 35 Mev which was subsequently found at KARMEN but is ignored by particle physicists. Best wishes User:RayTomes

Are you worried? It's not even on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion yet!  :-)
Although, yes, I am in favor of keeping most such articles instead of deleting them, I'm also really skeptical. The article, frankly, gives me a vibe of crackpottery. But my philosophy is just to present the facts (and the majority opinion!) in as unbiased a way as possible, and let the reader decide. So for instance, things like the particle prediction and redshift should have more details and references to papers, other sites, etc., and if there are notable detractors they should be mentioned in an objective way. "Mr. X of the Y Institute claims that this theory is rubbish and proposes Z alternative". Or something.
Also, you're rather intimately related to the theory, so read through Wikipedia:Vanity page and Wikipedia:Autobiography, as well, and be careful to remain as objective as possible.  :-) The more objective and acknowledging of criticism, the less likely people will want to delete it. - Omegatron 02:46, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
No problems. I look forward to answering any questions and producing a tidy and balanced article. Thanks for your attention. RayTomes May 16
On the VFD page you have all your comments listed at the bottom. It would be easier to read if you moved responses to individual comments directly under those comments. - Omegatron 14:00, May 19, 2005 (UTC)


Nanocycles and varves[edit]

Hi Ray. Thanks for your work on the varve and geochronology articles. However, I've a few doubts as to the veracity or application of the 'nanocycles method' as you've described. I've made some comments at Talk:Nanocycles method, but here are a few more.

There's a long standing and comprehensive peer-reviewed literature of research in sedimentary cycles. Rhythmically layered sediments may or may not reflect cyclicity of a known or regular period. Varves, probably the best known type of rhythmite, can indicate supra-annual cyclicity (time-series analysis of varve thickness variations), and less commonly sub-annual cyclicity (less commonly because they're often so thin it's difficult to study sub-annual events). Tidal rhythmites are also common in the geological record, however it is important to note that these are not varves, although the two can sometimes be confused. It is vital to realise that the thickness of varves can reflect the operation of many different hydrometeorological processes. Numerous studies have shown that while there can be a link between varve thickness (i.e. deposition rate) and parameters such as rainfall, discharge, temperature etc.. the relationship is not always present, and not always related to one variable. There's been a lot of work in this area because of the obvious application of using annual records as palaeoclimate proxies. Hope all this makes some kind of sense! NickW 09:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

I don't think anyone took the comment seriously. A lot of people vote with similar comments on VFD because it's a boring job. Unless he's actually got a sockpuppet check or diffs to back up the claim, he's nowhere. The page is archived and probably won't be looked at for ages. If you're really confident those other people aren't your sockpuppets, and other attempts to get him to drop the accusation, I suggest you ask a sockpuppet check from a developer or request an RFC if this person fails to discuss with you.

Also, note that his failure to reply could simply be due to being absent. Did he edit anything else since you posted the request? - Mgm|(talk) 19:31, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion isn't the end. You could still appeal at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion, just be sure you've got some evidence to sway the people.
Also, while the person you asked to comment may be an expert, there's unfortunately no way for us to verify this. We don't know if a newly registered user or anon has the best interests of wikipedia at heart or are just trying to destroy our efforts. They could just as easily be an impostor trying to further an agenda. That's why anon and newbie votes are often discounted in the final decision to be safe (especially when they don't provide a rationale as often happens.
I hope this hasn't put you off contributing. - Mgm|(talk) 12:07, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand[edit]

Hi, You might want to consider adding {{User NZ res}} to the top of your user page, which will add you to this category automatically and also add a nice graphic. Onco_p53 07:41, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:StonesThom.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:StonesThom.gif. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact Carnildo or ask for help at Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. Thank you.

Deletion of The Foundation for the Study of Cycles[edit]

You write in the page Articles_for_deletion/The_Foundation_for_the_Study_of_Cycles: 'Note that both "Cycles Research Institute" and "Foundation for the Study of Cycles" were apparently founded by Tomes, although it is not clear whether they really consist of more than a website (the only information seems to come from members of these organizations'

This displays your shocking ignorance on these matters. The FSC was formed by Edward R Dewey in 1941, 6 years before I was born. The date of its creation was in the articles that you attacked. The FSC has employed many people with various directors and staff in real offices. It is very easy for an ignorant person to make up a story and then believe their own story and use that as a reason to remove material - which others have laboured hard to create. Do you not think that there is some onus on a person to at least try to learn the facts before acting? Dewey was a highly respected man who had audience with leaders in many fields and as a result many thousands of people subscribed to journals and magazines which he headed up.

Would you expect articles on nuclear physics to be written by postmen? If not, why would you expect articles on Cycles organisations and topics to not be written by cycles researchers who belong to these organisations - they are in the best position to know are they not? User:RayTomes

Ray, I don't know what you expected to gain from leaving the above message on my talk page, which I moved here. I have no interest in continuing to debate the demerits of deleted articles with you. The AfDs are over and the verdicts of the WP community were clear. ---CH 16:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I write this to point out to you that your slurs and misinformation are just that. You need to take a lot more care with the accuracy of what you post. Ray Tomes 08:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistical Analysis of cycles[edit]

Hi Ray. Ive been looking round the CRI website and the one this I can't seem to find is some good statistical analysis, comparing the null hypothesis (that there is no cycle) with the hypothesis that there are cycles. Is there any good work on this subject? --Salix alba (talk) 20:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a test called Bartel's test and I do have a scan of an old article that describes this. I intend to convert to a proper document some time. If you want I can email you the rough form. Ray Tomes 22:13, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would be great. --Salix alba (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

Category:American economists is a subcategory of Category:economists. It is unnecessary and undesirable to include both on the same article.

Thank you. I assume that american_economists is the correct one then. Can you explain why he is listed under E rather than D? Ray Tomes 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting sourced material is deprecated; your blankings will be reverted as often as necessary. If you find the phrasing undesirable, the solution is to tweak it; not remove it. Septentrionalis 06:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can you tweak something that should not be there? The material about Ball's book is entirely irrelevant to the article. Ball was not a contemporary of Dewey and never mentions Dewey in his book. The connection is so tenuous that you could argue for having anything in any article and it would be as valid. Ray Tomes 22:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cycle studies[edit]

This deletion was hardly spurious. It went through a 5-day deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycle studies. The debate established the subject wasn't encyclopedic, if you wish to appeal that decision, you want Deletion review. - Mgm|(talk) 09:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hillman only posted an afd tag and a POV tag. Nowhere did he remove or alter material as the word 'butcher' implies. I doubt the latest version of the article is inferior to whatever you posted up yourself, because that version was a repost of the deleted article entirely written by you. - Mgm|(talk) 11:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have mail. - Mgm|(talk) 22:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cycle nominated for deletion[edit]

I have nominated the above category for deletion. The discussion is linked from the category page. Tim Shuba 14:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance nominated for deletion[edit]

I have nominated the above article for deletion. The discussion is linked from the article page. Tim Shuba 19:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/RayTomes[edit]

Hi Ray. I'm taking a look at your request. Would you be able to direct me to what is currently bothering you? I had a look at the link you provided and that took me to a deletion that took place in 2005. Though there is another deletion for the same category that took place this year: [1] It appears you have an interest in cyclic events that is not shared by many others on the Wiki community. Are you looking for best advice on how to develop articles on cyclic matters? Regards SilkTork 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can contact me on my talkpage, or by email. SilkTork 14:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork. I haven't seen anything in a while. Are you still planning to do something? Ray Tomes 23:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I thought I had dropped a message on your page. But, yes, I have been distracted recently. I was going to speak to a few people about setting up a new category for cycles, but when I looked at the List of cycles I got bogged down in an internal debate on the value of a category over a list. I'd like to hear your explanation of what advantage a category has over a list, and why there should be both, so that I am armed with appropriate explanations if someone challenges me. Regards SilkTork 18:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork. I hope that you find this note, because I have been blocked from editing pages ion wikipedia. The person responsible is Ruud Koot (seems to be well named). Are you able to do something about this please. He (or someone else) has also removed the category cycles, undoing many hours of my work. This is the typical situation that is faced in everything that I try to do. You now have first hand experience of it in action. Ray Tomes 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ray. I have left a message with Ruud. I suspect he didn't realise you were acting under my guidance, and he will soon unblock you. Stay cool. My suggestion now will be that we hold any action on the Category:Cycles until The Foundation for the Study of Cycles and List of cycles have both been through a discussion and survived. With support and credibility from consensus we will better able to proceed. SilkTork 18:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is off in his imagination to a large extent with his stuff about physics articles in the category cycle. He is arguing about the old category cycles (with an s) whereas the work I have done is on the later category cycle which was much more limited. It does not include double slit experiment or anything like it. All the articles put in category cycle by me recently are quite clearly about a cycle or several cycles. I do wish that people would actually look at things before taking extreme measures like deleting categories and blocking people. What right does he have to do block me and how did he get it? Ray Tomes 21:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is an Wikipedia:Admin. Admins are voted in after discussion and investigation on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship (worth having a look at to see what process editors go through before being accepted as an Admin). He has left a message on my talk page indicating he will unblock you User_talk:SilkTork#User:RayTomes, and it's worth reading his conditions. If you object to anything, then please say so before being unblocked. When Ruud next logs on he should check messages and remove the block. SilkTork 09:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am happy with the answers that you gave to him on your user talk page, thank you. It is fair to point out that this whole thing arose from my complaint about an invalid deletion of a category when the vote was in favour of keep and the person counting made multiple mistakes - the count, the accusations of cheating on my part, and the wrong decision to delete. I do not accept that count and decision and do not accept being banned for not accepting it. In the community of people that deal with cycles (I have known many of them for many years) we refer to something as a cycle and not a periodic phenomena, so I don't accept that it more clearly named. I had already added the bulk of articles before discovering that category and did the proper thing in putting a not that resolution is required. That resolution should not be at the point of a gun, but by discussion. I have not behaved in manner that deserved banning. Ray Tomes 12:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A furtherv thought. Ruud talks about over-riding community consensus. The fact is there never was a consensus to delete the cycles category. There was a consensus to keep it. Ray Tomes 12:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, a discussion is taking place [2] regarding Ruud's block on you. It's not going well. Added to which, the List of cycles is losing out on the discussion to delete it[3]. I have requested assistance from senior Advocates, and I will let you know their advice. I fear I have handled this badly for you, and may have made matters worse. I'll keep in touch via this talk page - and you may also email me if you wish. Regards SilkTork 19:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, it is not going well. I do not accept that you have handled it badly for me or for wikipedia. Your motives have always been pure. You have told me to calm down when needed and given good guidance. I am encouraged by comments by Wikiwoohoo on your talk page. It is nice just sometimes to see a voice of reason among the silly reactions. Ray Tomes 21:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ruud has said he will unblock you. Be aware that I have said you will not attempt to recreate the Category:Cycle/s, and that I said I would not encourage you to do so. I have said that your past behaviour has not been disruptive - rather, that you have always sought out and followed advise. We need to talk carefully about what you now need to do. Your first step, however, would be to add your comments to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cycles. Regards SilkTork 22:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

checkY

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request review of my block of User:RayTomes

Request handled by: —Ruud 23:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from altering my archives. You made it clear back in 2005 that you didn't like my rewrite of the HT article; there's no need to vent about it again. If the article is ever recreated, the place to discuss its contents is on the recreated article's talk page. For the article to be recreated, it would have to pass deletion review, and you'd have to convince Wikipedia that it was a scholarly work in line with WP:RS, and had enough support in the community to be notable. All of this was explained to you in 2005. --Christopher Thomas 21:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dated cleanup tags[edit]

Hi, thanks for your message, SmackBot does not generally add tags, but merely dates those that are already there. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 13:22 20 March 2007 (GMT).

Please do not linjk to your own website[edit]

Per our external linking policy, do not link to your own website. If it really is useful someone else will add it eventually. —Ruud 17:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing from AMA[edit]

Hi Ray. There has been a discussion recently on AMA Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates which I found very interesting. It has led to me questioning my involvement in AMA. This is not to say I will stop being involved, but for the time being I am not taking on any more cases, and I am taking a break while I consider the issues. In the meantime I will be exploring other areas of Wiki where I may be useful. I am closing my involvement in your case, and you may wish to seek another advocate. It has been interesting working with you - and I wish you well for the future. Warm regards SilkTork 19:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message[edit]

Hi Ray. I was not unhappy to be working with you. My withdrawal relates entirely to the nature of AMA. I recognise many of the criticisms of the project, and feel that it can sometimes be damaging. I am considering the new scheme of Wikipedia:Editor assistance. You may wish to leave a request for assistance there. Warm regards SilkTork 17:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance request[edit]

I will be willing to assist you as you go along with this. I would need a more detailed overview of the situation to give you more specific advice, can you please tell me what articles it is which are in question? (I am an administrator here, so I can view deleted articles.) The main distinction we make with scientific articles is that they must not be original research, for example, a theory or experiment which has not yet been peer-reviewed or published in a reliable journal. On the other hand, if such source material from journals or the like is available, it may certainly be used as a source. Please contact me with some details and I'll have a look at your situation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the The Foundation for the Study of Cycles article wasn't deleted, just redirected. You can go into the page history, and grab a copy of the article. You could just restart the article that way, since it never was deleted, but that may just cause more trouble. What you may wish to do is grab a copy of the last version of the article before it was changed to a redirect, and work on it in your userspace for a bit, citing the source material you've stated, and then get it put that way. (To create a userspace subpage, you can just do something like User:RayTomes/temp.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, still there! You can see the history and old revisions here. The AfD on the article was closed as no consensus, redirection was later done as an editorial decision. Given that, you need no special permission to restore or work on the article. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has been noted, and I believe fairly so, that your behavior in the past on this subject has been somewhat problematic. Please do remember that, if any article on this subject is done, it must be neutral, and must include well-sourced criticisms of the organization or its philosophies (or, at very minimum, other editors must be permitted to add such). Please do keep that in mind as you go along. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion in User:Seraphimblade page it was proposed by User:Rood_Koot that the FSC article be set up in my User space which I have done - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RayTomes/Foundation_for_the_Study_of_Cycles and please note that I have made the name without "The" on the front as I consider that correct. Anyone with an interest in this article should please discuss it in the associated talk page, thanks. Ray Tomes 20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Wheat-54yearcycle.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Wheat-54yearcycle.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

compliment[edit]

you are cool. be bold at 'category: periodic phenomena'... and elsewhere- Spencerk 04:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with regard to cycles articles[edit]

{{helpme}}

There has been a history of pages related to the study of cycles being deleted from wikipedia. This has been in part due to one or two people deciding that they were somehow numerology or something (with no basis in fact) and in part to articles being too biased in favour of a particular view. I am trying to get some articles reinstated with them in a form that is acceptable. The worst offender in deleting these articles has now left wikipedia so hopefully battles will not result.

A while back I asked for some help in restoring an article that was deleted in contravention of policy (the votes were counted wrongly and false accusations of sock puppets made). At that time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Seraphimblade assisted me for a while and gave good advice. As a result a new article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:RayTomes/Foundation_for_the_Study_of_Cycles was set up and got almost ready for reinstatement. However for reasons unrelated to this Seraphimblade stopped working on this, although said that I should persist and that the article should be reinstated (and he calls himself a deletist).

More recently, a fellow cycles researcer pointed out that an article on W D Gann http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._D._Gann was deleted. When I go to this it mentions the delete log but I cannot find the entry for Gann there. So the first help needed is how to find out why that article was deleted. There are a number of other articles that refer to this article. There is no doubt that W D Gann is an important historical character (e.g. google "W D Gann" gives 54,600 links). He may have been a fraud or a clever man, I cannot say, both views being expressed by some. However there should be an article on him. Second question is how to go about making a new unbiased article and reinstating it.

I am being cautious here, because when the FSC article referred to above was reinstated after I sought advice from wiki experts, I was temporarily banned by someone shooting from the hip. I would prefer to avoid this sort of thing. I am not a person who vandalizes wikipedia and wish to be treated respectfully. Ideally I would like someone to do more than answer the immediate questions, but to also work as an advisor for a period so that certain other articles (like the FSC one mentioned) can be reinstated.

It is important for anyone taking on this larger role of advise to understand that there are people that study cycles in an interdisciplinary manner. There are solid and accepted mathematical tools for cycles analysis (FFT and MESA and others). The mere fact that most people who think they got a solid science education were not exposed to this stuff is not reason to treat it as wrong. And yet this is what happens when votes for deletion are made. This is a serious problem in wikipedia.

Ray Tomes (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cycles stuff (again)[edit]

Hi SilkTork, as a result of a request from a friend, I have put this request for help on my user page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RayTomes#Need_help_with_regard_to_cycles_articles I thought that I would let you know as you previously gave some help. Ray Tomes (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will assist you in creating an article on William Delbert Gann in your userspace and then transferring it into mainspace when completed. The reason the article was deleted was because there were concerns about copyright violation as some editors had simply cut and pasted chunks of text from other sources. SilkTork *YES! 12:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may work and build the article here. I will give you some assistance, and will check on your progress. If you have any doubts about if some material may be allowed, please get in touch with me to look at it. Don't cut and paste any material from anywhere, but take the information and write it up in your own words. Don't make any attempt to move this into mainspace, but let me know when you are ready and I will do it in such a way that preserves the history of both this article and the one that was deleted. SilkTork *YES! 12:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SilkTork. It is likely that someone else will actually do the edits. I am not a great fan of Gann, but do think there should be an article on him because he is still popular among traders who use cycles.
I'm just about to archive my talkpage and so will lose sight of our discussion on William Delbert Gann. I have noticed that you haven't done any editing on it, and note that you don't intend to. My intention in that case is to work a bit more on the article myself and then move it into mainspace. At the moment I'm fairly occupied with George Harrison and may forget. I'd appreciate you giving me a nudge in the New year to remind me to do the work! Regards SilkTork *YES! 16:57, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, RayTomes. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, RayTomes. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RayTomes&oldid=1091534198"