User talk:SilkTork/AMA Archive/Cycles

Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/RayTomes
Hi SilkTork. Thanks for leaving the note on my talk page. My concern in the broadest sense is that I and some others put in a lot of work to make wikipedia useful for people who want to study matters relating to cycles, and then people who have no interest in cycles and no knowledge of it come along and trash things, by deleting articles, and combining articles that do not belong together and deleting categories. The particular case I referenced is an older one, but it shows that proper procedures are not being followed, that those representing wikipedia in the processes are biased and prepared to tell lies, that those promoting deletion are ignorant. If wikipedia cannot address these type of issues then it is doomed to head towards being a second rate source of material.

The removal of categories is a case in point. The original category may have had one or two pages added to it that should not have been. This did not justify deletion of the category which was based on a lot of hard work. The original (deleted) category of cycles was anything related to cycles, including cycles researchers. I recreated a narrower category of cycle meaning a specific reported cycle such as the business cycle or the sunspot cycle and this was also deleted. There is no good reason to delete these categories. The fact that some people do not share an interest in cyclic matters is not a reason for them to delete these categories. There are people that are interested in cycles who find the category useful.

The people deleting this material have made many false claims such as that some work is numerology or pseudo science or original research when it is not. The cycles researchers have included nobel laureates, well respected scientists and other leaders of the community. It had been claimed that "cycles research" or "cycles study" are not real fields but are something I made up. Try googling these terms and find that these people are quite wrong. A person having ignorance of a field of study is very different to a field of study being ignorance.

I want wikipedia to act in the matter of the wrong counting of votes that I complained about and also the wrong statement of sock puppets. I want a record established so that next time someone says that there is a record of me putting up flacky stuff that is later deleted I can say "the deletion has been overturned because due process was not followed and the next time I am accused of sock puppets I can say that in the past these accusations have resulted in the accuser being reprimanded. Ray Tomes 23:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ray. I have looked at that log. I understand your questioning the use of the term sockpuppet. However, would you agree that the others who voted to keep the Category:Cycles had little track record on Wiki? Which would you say would be more important to you - getting the Category:Cycles established, or analysing that past debate? I will be guided by your wishes; however, my advice would be to concentrate on doing something positive now, rather than raking over a dead incident that doesn't really matter. I would be interested in looking into the possibilities of establishing the Category:Cycles. Which articles do you feel should go into the category? SilkTork 00:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork. It would certainly be a useful step to get the category established if it didn';t immediately get deleted again. I don't know if you are able to retrieve the two previous categories as they were before deletion? The original category:cycles included all articles that were closely related to cycles in any way - basically cut down a lot from the List of cycles page. There were probably a couple of items that shouldn't have been included, and that was used as an excuse to delete them all. The later category:cycle was a much smaller set, just including actually specific cycles (e.g. sunspot cycle, business cycle etc) and not including other cycles related topics as in the earlier one (e.g. fourier analysis, Edward R. Dewey. The former one would be preferred, but it would be valuable to have the original settings as a starting point. As regards the sockpuppet question, I know several of the people who were ignored and they are serious researchers. One has definitely made other contributions because she mentioned to me that she had also had problems with deletions. Ray Tomes 06:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hi, Welcome back. I saw on your user page that you were busy. The advantage of a category is that when a person is on a page such as say an article on climate cycles, they see the category and if they link to it can see that there are articles on possible alternative explanations such as milankovitch cycles and solar cycles. If you like to read the article by Dewey http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org/dewey/case_for_cycles.pdf then this makes clear the very great deal of connection between cycles in things that people assume are not connected then this gives a good basis for defense. Ray Tomes 01:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have restored The Foundation for the Study of Cycles which got lost in a bad merge. SilkTork 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I question this action. The AfD page was a mix between "delete", "merge", and "rewrite". No rewrite has occurred. The content was merged to Edward R. Dewey. Why should the FSC article still exist? --Christopher Thomas 17:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It certainly needed substantial work. I have begun that today, but more remains to be done. It is important that FSC and Dewey be separate articles as they are not at all the same thing. Ray Tomes 11:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I read: "The result of the debate was no consensus. Lots of conditional votes on this one, and a few edits to the article, but whatever way I read the debate I don't quite see a consensus to delete." And I saw an attempt to merge two articles with similiar names which ended in the article getting effectively deleted - which wasn't the consensus. Or have I read the situation incorrectly? Regards SilkTork 17:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like on 6th May 2006 Hillman made a unilateral decision to merge The Foundation for the Study of Cycles with Edward R. Dewey after admin CanadianCaesar had declared no consensus. On 17th May 2006 RayTomes attempted to merge Foundation for the Study of Cycles with The Foundation for the Study of Cycles which at that point was a redirect to Edward R. Dewey. You then redirected Foundation for the Study of Cycles to Edward R. Dewey. All I have done is restore the situation to what it was after the no consensus vote on 6th May 2006. SilkTork 17:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm puzzled by your statement that this was "unilateral", as there were four "merge" votes on the AFD page I linked above, none of them from Hillman. Total vote count was 6 delete, 4 merge, 4 contingent keep (2 if rewritten, 2 if citations can be dug up, none of which has occurred diff). --Christopher Thomas 19:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I can see your point of view. Would you like to take the article through another AfD? As it stands there is an element of doubt about the result of the last one. My own apprehension of the situation is that the organisation who are the subject of this article may not be huge, but appear to be notable and interesting enough to warrant an article on Wiki. The founder of the organisation has an article on Wiki. The organisation has existed since 1941. The primary criteria for notability on Notability (organizations and companies) is "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources." Science (journal) is a reliable source - they had an article on the organisation in 1994; Ecology (journal) is another reliable source, and had an article in 1943. This information may not have been presented at the previous debate, and it would be interesting to see how a vote would go with such evidence. SilkTork 21:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we try and get the article in shape first and see if Christopher is happy then. I am certainly going to fight any attempts to put labels such as pseudo-science, neumerology and such in the article. People do this and then ask for deletion and other foolish people vote on that basis. I have added material that shows that well respected people including a nobel laureate, vice president and several Sirs were past board or committee members. These people were not fools. Ray Tomes 11:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My concern is that the notability of the FSC (and many other things cycles-related) has consistently been presented in an inflated manner by Mr. Tomes. If enough additional, well-sourced information can be added to the article to make it worth keeping as its own article (vs. as a mention in Edward R. Dewey), and if the article is presented in a manner consistent with WP:NPOV (which there has historically been trouble with), and if the sources requested in the original AFD can be supplied, then I'll accept keeping it. If (as happened last time) the article does not substantially improve in quality, I'll re-nominate it for AfD, per your suggestion. --Christopher Thomas 20:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well when FSC was recreated I put in material that shows that the notability was as I claimed, but this was deleted within a day and I was blocked. Christopher Thomas has repeatedly told lies about things and never withdraws or apologises for that, not gives supporting evidence. I am sick of it. Here is a little of that material. Ray Tomes 04:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Past Committee or Board Members Have included: Edward R. Dewey, Maurice Allais (Nobel Laureate), Sir Julian Huxley, Ellsworth Huntington, Charles Gates Dawes (30th Vice-President USA), Sir Patrick Ashley Cooper (Hudson Bay Co.), John T. Burns (Chronobiology, Bethany College), Rhodes Fairbridge (Climatology, Columbia University), and other distinguished people.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by RayTomes (talk • contribs) 04:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC).

Category Cycle
Where are we at with the category? I am about to recreate the category cycle. Ray Tomes 12:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I'm ready. I can see that having a category for Cycles would be helpful, and I will support you. I can see from my experience with the Foundation article that there is some prejudice against Cycles which is not justified. SilkTork 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, no. The Category:cycles clearly indicated that someone went wrong. Re-creating it would only lead to an escalation. Also creating more original research and non-notable pseudoscience articles. --Pjacobi 21:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Mr. Tomes added just about everything he could think of that had any form of periodic behavior to Category:Cycles. This was not useful or meaningful, and the category was deleted as a result. I don't expect the situation to be any different this time around. --Christopher Thomas 20:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Things would be a lot better Christopher if you stopped specualting o things and looked at the facts. The category cycle in this case (not the same as the previous cycles category) was set up as a much narrower set of articles relating directly to specific cycles. Please deal with the real world and not your fantasies. Ray Tomes 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The category would collect together articles related to cycles. There is already a List of cycles. Having a category would, as RayTomes says, enable people to conduct related research. Even if you feel that cycles is pseudoscience, it is still helpful for people to conduct research into the matter. Cycles is not original research. The theory exists, and has been written about, and has a Foundation which has been in existence since 1941. I don't see any valid justification for your objection. Other articles which arise can be dealt with as appropriate at the time. Objecting to a category because it may result in non-notable articles is an empty argument: you may as well object to the existence of Wiki itself! SilkTork 10:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlike a list, a category is invasive. There's no way in hell, that I or any physics contributor would tolerate a Category:Cycles in e.g. Double-slit experiment.
 * See the arguments in the old AfD and CfD. It's just Sisyphus work to have these arguments ever and ever again.
 * I cede only one point: The list isn't much better. I'll put it up for deletion in a minute.
 * --Pjacobi 13:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I can see that you are frustrated, but other than giving me your frustration ("There's no way in hell"), would you give me your reasons? I concede that it is frustrating to have an argument again and again - but perhaps there is a reason the argument keeps returning? What is at the heart of your objection? SilkTork 13:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Allowing promoters of original research and linkspammers to fuck up the encyclopedia for their personal gain cheapens the serious work of others. The recent edits by Ray Tomes which blatantly ignored consensus have been reverted and he has been blocked. Tim Shuba 17:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Shuba is wrong in everything that he says. I make no gain from this. I am involved in CRI but so are other people, and I receive no income from it. I do it to help other people learn. Making a category or list of cycles has absolutely nothing to do with original research. Do a serach some time for yourself and see. Ray Tomes 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest you attentively reread this comment. Not so you can formulate an objection to it or so you can again attack the person who wrote it, but so you can understand where this may be heading if you do not act with care. Tim Shuba 07:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As near as I can tell, the argument keeps returning because it is being aggressively pushed by Mr. Tomes (and only Mr. Tomes), likely as an extension of his "harmonics theory" project (a pet theory-of-everything involving cycles that he developed and continues to attempt to promote on Wikipedia). Checking his edit history (random samples over the entire time period) should adequately illustrate this pattern.--Christopher Thomas 20:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That is also a lie. There were more supporters for category cycles than wanting to delete. I would also add that they were people that knew about the subject whereas the deleters were a little pack of people who form clubs to go around deleting things they haven't heard of. Ray Tomes 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Christopher. Sorry, I'm still not clear. Are you objecting to Ray Tomes, or to the cycles theory? Your comments seem to relate more to an objection to the person rather than the topic. I suspect there is some personal feeling getting in the way here. I am sympathetic to that - we are all human and can develop irrational grudges against people. However, putting your dislike of Mr Tomes aside for a moment, would you be able to articulate your reasons why you feel the cycle research theory, a theory proposed by a notable person and maintained by a notable foundation, is not actually notable enough to be on Wiki - or where it falls foul of Wiki policy? Regards SilkTork 06:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am objecting to your suggestion of recreating a deleted category, on the grounds that the user advocating the recreation has a history of using that category in a manner counterproductive to the goals of Wikipedia, and is likely to resume doing so. I am also trying to get you to understand enough of the history of Mr. Tomes' editing to see why several editors, including myself, take issue with your recent actions as his advocate. In my opinion, the vast majority of his edits have been pov-pushing, and it is safe to assume that the majority of his future attempted edits will be so. Please a) do a 10-minute survey of his edit history, so that you can assess the grounds for this opinion yourself, and b) consider any trends you observe in that history when suggesting actions on Mr. Tomes' part, or taking actions on his behalf yourself, so as to avoid further disruption of Wikipedia. I would prefer not to have to spend more time undoing damage. --Christopher Thomas 06:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Two points. The original vote was to keep not delete. The vote was miscounted and lies told about sock puppets. Secondly this is a narrower category. Ray Tomes 05:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ray Tomes
I am following Christopher Thomas' suggestion and looking at some of Ray Tomes contributions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&offset=20040320110738&target=RayTomes}.


 * His first edit was 16th March 2004, on the Talk page of Timeline of transportation technology and consisted of this statement: "I understand that Galileo did a quite accurate calculation of the distance of nearby stars assuming that the Sun was a star. This would be seem to be the first really good estimate of the size scale of our little corner of the universe and I think something about this should be in here.".


 * He then created the article The Foundation for the Study of Cycles on 17th March, and the articles Edward R. Dewey , Economic cycles  on the same day, along with a series of minor edits on other articles related to cycles. Economic cycles has since merged with Business cycles, and there is a dispute over should The Foundation for the Study of Cycles be merged with Edward R. Dewey. Most of this material still stands.
 * Also on that day he made this announcement on New user log:  	"G'day  My name is RayTomes and I am interested in cycles (recurring phenomena) in all things, including astronomy, physics, economics and music. I have begun adding some pages on these matters and intend to add quite a lot more. This wikipedia is a great idea and I am having fun."  *He also encountered his first problem when he retitled this article  which User:Deb had written, from Cycle to Cycles. It is worth noting that Deb began the article with "Cycles are repeating conditions in anything, usually after a regular or nearly regular period." and continued in that vein talking about "cycles". The next day User:IMSoP reverted the rename back to Cycle. Ray raised this issue on the Village pump  and IMSoP put the article name back to Cycles. Ray and IMSoP talked about how best to proceed with the Cycles article, and after this message  to IMSoP on 21st March: "Hi, I added some replies in Talk:cycle agreeing with some of your points and I also invited a couple of other people to make some comments to help resolve the outstanding issues."
 * He left Wiki for a year, returning on 23 March 2005 with a comment on Talk:Timeline of Buddhism about "Buddha's birth date". He then defends a Harmonics theory article that was being questioned by Christopher Thomas and Starfoxy - this article was shortly after deleted Articles for deletion/Harmonics Theory with "12 clear "delete" votes in this discussion, 7 "keep as is" votes (but four of them have to be discounted as anonymous or very new users), 2 explicit "keep only if rewritten", 1 "abstain" and 1 that was too ambiguous to call. In addition, 4 users took the time to separately endorse the "Sandbox" version." A revised version which Ray was encouraged to write was also deleted after discussion Articles for deletion/Harmonics Theory (2nd nomination) with votes of "11 to 5 legitimate votes". There were suggestions of Ray Tomes using sockpuppets to sway the discussion and vote.
 * In September he created the Category:Cycles, which was deleted on Sept 28th. There is no more activity from Ray until 7 May 2006 when he debates with User:Hillman over comments and edits in The Foundation for the Study of Cycles and Edward R. Dewey articles.
 * In December he created the article 9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance, which later survived a discussion to delete Articles for deletion/9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance, and the article   World's largest book. He also appears to have created a category:Cycle, though there is no evidence of that. He asked the help desk for assistance in looking at the material of a deleted article  Cycle studies.
 * In February he asked for assistance from the Association of Members' Advocates, and I took the case. Under my suggestion he started up the Category:Cycle which was deleted by User:Ruud Koot, and looking at that log I can see that the category had been voted for deletion on 19th January Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_12. Ray was then blocked by Ruud, though that block will now be removed as Ray created the category under my direction.
 * In summary of Ray's activity it appears to me that he has an interest in cycle theory, and he has contributed to Wiki mainly on this theory. I see no signs of disruptive or abusive behaviour - though he has, as do the majority of Wiki editors, come upon differences of opinion. When confronted with problems or differences of opinion Ray has sought advice as to the correct procedure to follow. There are suggestions that he has used sockpuppets, and it has to be admitted that voting activity on deletion debates in which he has been involved has been suspicious. However, under the Wiki policy of Good Faith, we have to assume that Ray had nothing to do with the suspicious votes. If anyone wishes to pursue that matter at Requests for checkuser they may do so, but until proved, Ray Tomes is innocent.
 * That people do not agree with an editor, does not make that editor's contributions "counterproductive to the goals of Wikipedia". Indeed, healthy debate around an article usually makes the article stronger, not weaker. SilkTork 08:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You're either overlooking the whole "harmonics theory" debacle, or it's not showing up in his edit history due to it being a deleted article (along with the many other deleted articles he'd created). Search for AfDs with "Ray Tomes" in the discussion, or have an admin search the full version of Mr. Tomes' edit history. You're also overlooking the linkspamming of CRI that another editor pointed out above. The CRI site appears to be Mr. Tomes' personal project, rather than any institution recognized by the scientific community, contrary to its presentation. --Christopher Thomas 17:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Is this it: ? What is the story here? Looks like the article was created and deleted 6 times. It would be helpful if you were able to give me fuller information. I am getting the distinct impression that there's a good deal of baggage surrounding this case, but I am not getting the full facts. SilkTork 17:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the HT page. At the AfD page for it you can see a list of the slew of other pages he created at about the same time. My comments above already contain the salient points of the history, but since you're asking me to repeat it, the timeline is roughly as follows:
 * Ray Tomes creates the HT page, describing his personally-developed model of how the universe works. He creates a number of auxiliary pages describing other aspects of this, and inserts references to it in other articles governing periodic phenomena.


 * This is a lie. I did not create the page, but I did make edits to it. The vote on this as I remember was close and it took two attempts to succeed in deletion. As in this case cerytain people told lots of lies and many people voted based on those lies before I had a chance to correct them. SilkTork, I would like to make a formal complaint about the lies told by Christopher Thomas. Ray Tomes 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the supporting links Mr. Tomes added to his own articles and to many other articles about periodic phenomena was a link to his "Cycles Research Institute" page. This was originally very obviously a personal page, but its appearance was modified later in the debate (resulting in the form you currently see). Archive.org can probably pull up past versions for you.


 * This is a blatant lie. The CRI site was set up as a result of meetings that were held in the US and UK with a number of members of FSC. A number of people were always involved and you can see from the list of acknowledgements on the site that this is so. I am the webmaster and write some of the articles. Many people have contributed to the site. I am getting totally sick of this campaign of lies. SilkTork, I would ask you please to take note of these things that are stated that I object too. No evidence is ever produced, just innuendo, lies and irrelevancies. Of course I add links to CRI from cycles related articles. That is so that people interested in cycles can find more information. That is obviously consistent with Wikipedia's purpose. Ray Tomes 11:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Many editors, including myself, try to explain WP:OR to him. These attempts at explanation of policy fail, repeatedly. An admin can probably dig up the HT talk page for you, which is where most of this occurred.


 * Original Research has nothing to do with the vast majority of articles that you have tried to butcher and delete. In fact in the one case where it might have been relevant, the HT pages, a number of people unknown to me that looked at it with fresh eyes concluded from the web references found that as there were hundreds of links to HT amd some published materials it was not in the category of OR. Of course the idiots state that the only publications are related to FSC which ought to be obvious as the place to publish about cycles. Then the lie was told that I started FSC also when it was clearly starte in 1941, six years before I was born. Actually, there have been bno arguments that hold any water put forward, only blind prejudice coming from the fact that you didn't learn about it in school. Ray Tomes 11:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The first AfD for the Harmonics Theory page occurred. The result was to attempt a rewrite to address POV concerns, and then hold another review to address notability concerns. The rewrite put in place was the one I'd built in a sandbox page (archived here; this is for reference purposes only - it is not to be modified). I'd given Mr. Tomes the benefit of the doubt and assumed that his claims of his theory having the support of other groups was valid enough to not delete the article out-of-hand.
 * During this debate, Mr. Tomes eventually claimed that his work was based on the work of Edward R. Dewey, who had apparently built a periodic model of economic cycles. He added the ERD page, the FSC page, and around this time also built the "Cycles" category, to which he added every page he could find which mentioned anything resembling a periodic phenomenon.


 * Every sentence another mistake. It is not based on Dewey as I came up with HT before I ever heard of Dewey. However bit si confirmed by Dewey's findings. Try to be more accurate in your statements. Ray Tomes 11:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The second AfD of the (revised) HT page resulted in it being deleted as non-notable (Mr. Tomes did not present adequate evidence of his theory being taken seriously by a significant number of people). Auxiliary pages associated with the HT page were also deleted.
 * AfDs were started for the FSC page and other pages he'd created. The result was that the content that could be verified (mostly relating to Dewey) was folded into the ERD article. A CfD was started for the "Cycles" category, on the grounds that it didn't correspond to a classification used in science, and was overly-broad and not terribly meaningful if used the way Mr. Tomes was implementing it. The CfD passed, and the category was deleted.
 * Mr. Tomes attempted to recreate the Cycles category on at least one occasion.
 * One other user found my archived rewrite of the HT page attempted to recreate it. This explains at least one of the recreations you found. It was speedily deleted, and I politely explained that recreating deleted material shouldn't be done without the full review process. I added a "this was deleted, don't recreate it" header to the archived copy as a result of this incident.
 * And that's pretty much it, as far as I've been aware of, until the FSC article was un-merged at your suggestion. Other editors who were involved with the disputed pages can add replies noting anything I've missed; I can only comment on the aspects I was involved with. As stated previously, Mr. Tomes' primary interest on Wikipedia appears to be promoting his CRI web site and his pet model of reality. --Christopher Thomas 19:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Christopher. That's been very helpful. I've a feeling I've not been paying enough attention to this case, and I was mistaken to allow Ray to go ahead and recreate the Category:Cycles without a fuller discussion first. As a good deal of what has gone on has actually been deleted, it hasn't been easy to get a full picture. But, even so, I am responsible in not canvassing for enough opinions first. Thanks again. You've given me food for thought. SilkTork 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not recreate the Category Cycles. I created a new, much narrower category cycle. There can be no reasonable objection (I have certainly not seen one) to such a category. This category was deleted in my absence as a recreation which it was not. It was entirely different. The people advocating these deletions are not doing them on the merits of the case but are actually working on a witch hunt of me, which will be clear to anyone who reads the notes. Ray Tomes 04:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork. I have added some material to the discussion page of the existing category periodic phenomena as a suggestion of which articles should be here (based on what I actually put in category cycle) Category_talk:Periodic_phenomena. That way people can comment in the next 11 days while I am away, and before anything is done. Ray Tomes 02:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Best suggestion, if you honestly want to contribute in a non-disruptive matter: Keep doing this, and let _others_ add items rather than adding them yourself. You've frequently disagreed with the community's collective opinion in the past. The key to working with Wikipedia is to realize that it's the community's project, not yours (or any other single person's). --Christopher Thomas 21:01, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Taking Stock
Hi SikTork. I hope you can see that working away quietly and trying to follow procedures in relation to cycles is not easy. I personally think that all your actions have been very proper and that you have nothing to apologise for.

I do not think that it is sufficient to just recreate things, and the past issues that are not resolved need to be dealt with. These are that a few people have consistently told lies and misrepresented things so as to achieve deletions. I will list only the most serious aspects, and I would like help in knowing how to do something about these things:


 * I want all those that have made accusations of sock puppets to produce proof or be reprimanded. I want it documented that these accusations have been investigated and found to wrong and it marked against their names. This will assist in future battles - and there will be future battles because I am not giving up. I can tell you that in the category vote I personally know (through cycles groups and the like) the majority of the people so accused and that when only 1 vote was allowed, there were at least 5 real people.


 * I want the accusations that Edward R. Dewey and FSC practiced numerology and pseudo-science investigated. I want those that made those accusations to be held accountable and reprimanded for posting lies in the articles. This will stop them doing that in future.


 * I want the presence of clubs or groups in wikipedia that specialise in deleting articles investigated. These people come along after articles are butchered by adding that it is pseudo-science or numerology and vote quickly to delete (based on these lies) without any knowledge of the material and without staying around for the discussions. At the same time, people that are experts in the subject are discounted because they have not been active in wikipedia. This is a very foolish way to do things and should be prevented.


 * I want the whole procedure for the cycles and cycle category reviewed, because people are still telling half-truths and lies about this. They are very careless with facts.

I should also mention that I will be away for 11 days in 1 or 2 days time. No doubt these people will have their way and trash a whole lot of useful material such as the list of cycles. There is no good reason to delete it. It is a very useful page to many people. The accusations that it is OR is just silly. It is a list! It isn't research. You can find many of the items in that list in the Dewey article the Case for Cycles which I referred to. Do you notice that when they have no sensible argument on one thing they go and propose deletion and merging where it is not appropriate.

Thank you for your efforts. Ray Tomes 12:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel your concern with the other issues, but my place is to assist you with your editing, and to calm inflamed situations, not to stir them up further. Editing on Wiki can be very stressful when there are disagreements. However, it doesn't help to attack people. Rather, it is more useful to understand the other person's thinking. To consider why the other people are upset or hostile. Usually it is through lack of enough communication. I think people do not understand your motives or reasoning. A full and open explanation is the way forward. Leave alone any personal comments, and concentrate on cycle theory. The main issue at the moment is providing enough discussion on List of cycles to get a consensus to keep it. That is a good place to outline as clearly as you can, with links to supporting material, why List of cycles should remain on Wiki. It will not advance your case at all to indulge in comments on the motives or behaviour of others. That will only serve to entrench stubborn opinions. Spend your next 2 days here supporting List of cycles. Then have a nice break. Come back refreshed. Warm regards SilkTork 22:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I will follow your advice. I have put material in the deletion of the list of cycles page showing that there are published lists like this. It would be tragic if this page was deleted and it looks like it will be. As someone commented, there is precious little cycles material in wikipedia. The reason is that the articles keep being deleted instead of polished up. However if this article is gone after I return, I will take the alternative route of pressing the complaints because this approach looks like reducing the cycles related material rather than increasing it. Ray Tomes 05:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

User:RayTomes
Hello SilkTork, I will unblock Ray Tomes on the the conditions that Cheers, —Ruud 22:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * he will not recreate any previously deleted articles or categories (and that you will direct him to the proper channels such as WP:DRV if he disagrees with the deletion and suggest any rewrites to be made in user-space instead).
 * you understand that being his advocate does not give you the right to singlehandedly override community consensus and therefore do not encourage him to, for example, recreate deleted articles and also revert your recreation of The Foundation for the Study of Cycles (there was no consensus to delete or merge the article, there clearly was a consensus not to keep the article as is. Again, if Ray or you disagree with this outcome of the previous deletion discussion it should be taken to WP:DRV.)


 * P.S. as Ray already found out himself there already exists a more clearly named Category:Periodic phenomena so could you (if unblocked) encourage him to work with that category instead. —Ruud 22:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ruud. Thanks for getting back to me. Clearly there is a depth of feeling involved here, and matters will need to proceed with care. My recent advise to Ray Tomes is that we get The Foundation for the Study of Cycles and List of cycles through consensus before doing any more work on reviving the cycles category. As such you and I are in accord as to the best way to proceed.
 * Just for the record - Ray Tomes has not, to my knowledge since applying for assistance, recreated any previously deleted articles. Nor am I aware at this moment of any intention of his to do so.
 * Also for the record, there has been recent discussion on my talk page regarding my undiverting The Foundation for the Study of Cycles in which it is clear that is was I who did this, and that my understanding of the situation is that there was no consensus to delete the article.
 * Also for the record, it was my suggestion that Ray Tomes recreate the cycle category. I'm not aware of policy to ban editors for having another go at creating an article or category deleted a year and a half ago. Time has passed. Things change. Articles and categories get resubmitted for deletion, and deleted articles get rewritten and sometimes survive and thrive. I may be wrong in that belief, and I would be grateful for you to directing me to the policy if I am. Perhaps I have been misled here. Ray Tomes has directed me to the discussion on deleting the category, and that took place on 28 September 2005, and four people voted to delete it . Are there any other instances that I am not aware of? Has Ray Tomes attempted several times to create this category and I'm not aware of it? I'd like to be aware of the full facts. And it does seem that this topic arouses deep feelings. All information is valuable. Regards, SilkTork 04:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * He created Category:Cycles on 8 September 2006 2005 which was deleted on 28 September. He recreated it as Category:Cycle on 19 December 2006 which was deleted on 19 Janaury 2007. He then recreated it again on 16 March 2007 after which I deleted it the same day. —Ruud 13:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There are two important things about this that are misrepresented here. Firtstly, the original deletion was not as a result of a vote for deletion - the vote was in favour of keeping the category. Secondly, I took account of the feelings of others and the second category was entirely different, a much narrower category, only relating to specific cycles. Unfortunately I was not around when that second deletion was done and the mis-information that it was a re-creation was accepted by those voting. There is no good reason not to have the category as created by me recently. Ray Tomes 21:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ruud. I found the creation of Category:Cycle when going through Ray's history. So, he created Category:Cycles in 2005. Over a year later he created a similar category, Category:Cycle. Then, after seeking guidance from the Wiki community, and waiting for my advice, he creates Category:Cycle again. That seems to be about the shape of it? I've looked through his history - detailed above - and I see no evidence of disruptive behaviour at all. It might be a positive gesture in the circumstances to offer Ray a full explanation of your actions, and perhaps a friendly apology? But that's up to you. Regards SilkTork 16:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not regret my block and believe it was justified. I would be willing to unblock him early if he was properly mentored, but instead you seem to be encouraging his disruptive behaviour. —Ruud 16:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no examples of his disruptive behaviour. He has followed Wiki policy throughout his time here. Would you point out any examples of disruptive behaviour to me? Nor do I see how in advising him at the moment to gain a consensus on two articles before proceeding with the Category:Cycles is encouraging any disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour now is uncooperative, and I question your impartiality in this matter. Should I ask another Admin to look into your actions, or can we resolve this between ourselves? SilkTork 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I have started a thread at the administrator's noticeboard. —Ruud 17:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I welcome that. SilkTork 17:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello SilkTork; thank you for your message. It is good that Ruud Koot has decided to place his decision of blocking RayTomes up for review now.

I agree with Rudd Koot that the category name of Cycles is too vague though to block RayTomes for doing so when he was obviously creating the category for good reasons does seem to have been the incorrect action to take. There does seem to be an overwhelming amount of "I hadn't heard of it so it can't be worthy of a place here" mentality within the discussion of deletion of Category:Cycles which is not right.

You are doing a very good job with this case and as such, my recommendation is for you to push for RayTomes' unblocking and once he is unblocked, encourage him to create the category using a much better defined category name. It will also be important that the two related articles are improved sufficiently so that they are not deleted, otherwise the category will be alone and face increased calls for deletions.

Keep up the good work and if you'd like to, feel free to let me know how it goes and ask for further advice should you need it.

Wikiwoohoo 11:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am very pleased to see this message by Wikiwoohoo. It correctly states that SlkTork is doing a very good job, that there is a mentality of "I hadn't heard of it so it can't be worthy of a place here", and that the articles up for deletion need to be saved. This will be a tragedy for cycles research and wikipedia if the list of cycles is deleted. Ray Tomes 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you get "creating the category for good reasons"? It was recreation of a category deleted in accordance with wikiprocess, and he was abusing it in the same way it was abused the first time around when he recreated it (adding articles indiscriminately). The only point in his defense was that he was doing it after his advocate told him it was ok (without checking history). --Christopher Thomas 21:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cycles Stuff
Hi SilkTork, I have been away a lot lately, but should be around for a while now. I note the following events in relation to cycles stuff.


 * The 9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance article has effectively been deleted. It said that it was merged to Canadian Lynx but there is no trace of it there. This follows an UNSUCCESSFUL vote for deletion and a vote for merging which had no support worth mentioning (even Ruud changed his mind). Surely this is against wikipedia policy to delete an article without any support for that deletion. Ray Tomes 10:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * There are Wiki policies for almost every occasion - including Be bold! I have left a message with UtherSRG who did the merge. SilkTork 17:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Having looked more closely at the situation I believe what UtherSRG has done is the right move. I did undo the merge, but I have now put it back with a couple of changes. I think it more appropriate to have the cycle article split off from the parent when there is more information. A search for 9.6 year cycle of lynx abundance will now take you directly to the article, but contained within the parent. SilkTork 19:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The Edward R. Dewey article has had a paragraph repeatedly added when I remove it. Each time I give reasons and ask that reasons for putting the material back be given. None ever have been. The offensive material states that "Much of Dewey's work made claims about business cycles. The topic is listed as the main subject of his book with Dakin, Cycles: The Science of Prediction and is reflected in his establishment of the Institute for the Study of the Business Cycle. This existence of a regular business cycle has been hotly debated; for instance Philip Ball in his book Critical Mass: how one thing leads to another[2] remarks: The truth is that dips and peaks in the economy resolutely refuse to recur in any predictable manner, making attempts to construct cyclic theories of economics look increasingly like Ptolemy's elaborate scheme for predicting the motions of the planets". Actually, Ball makes no mention of Dewey in his book, so this has no place in an article about Dewey. Also, I have repeatedly criticised the statement "much of Dewey's work made claims about business cycles" and asked "what claims?" to no effect. Can you please advise about mediation on this issue? Ray Tomes 10:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * In Category_talk:Periodic_phenomena I made a statement of my intention to add all the items deleted by Ruud from Category Cycle into category periodic phenomena. There has been no dissent to this. Should I now proceed with that? Ray Tomes 10:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * After reading through the discussion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates I am questioning my involvement with AMA. For the time being I am doing no more advocate work and am closing down my involvement in this case. SilkTork 19:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I am rather sad, but not altogether surprised, at your pulling out. If you have any observations about anything in my manner or recommendations to me, I would be very pleased to hear them. I know I get a bit agitated when things start to go wrong - it is a response to seeing people who haven't bothered to get informed taking drastic actions. All the best Ray Tomes 10:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)