User talk:RayTomes

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)

Contents

[edit] Image tag

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.

[edit] Time-Space Conversion Ratio

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)

[edit] Discuss; not down the Memory Hole

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)


[edit] Nanocycles and varves

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)

[edit] Sockpuppet

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)

[edit] Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand

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)

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

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.

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

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)
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)

[edit] Statistical Analysis of cycles

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)

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)
Yes that would be great. --Salix alba (talk) 08:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

Cat:American economists is a subcategory of Cat: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)

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)

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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/y/User_talk%7ERayTomes_63e7.html"