![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
All the anti-Cubic arguments in the "Time Cube" article are actually wrong and can be easily refuted. However, rather than correct the article myself, I will simply invite any free thinkers who are interested in learning the Truth to debate Time Cube on the Time Cube forum. No closed-minded Academian pedants, please.
UPDATE: The forum is out of commission. However I may discuss Time Cube on user talk pages, like I did with Andrewa.
UPDATE: I'm now editing the article.
UPDATE: March '05: New Time Cube forum.
During the VfD discussion there were numerous calls for a clean up of the article, noting that the article should be a discussion of Gene Ray's Time Cube website, and its impact as an internet phenomenon and classic crank website. There was also discussion of the fact that Wikipedia's No original research policy should apply to this article. As it stands Time Cube is hardly a tested or accepted theory, and thus this article is not the correct place for a discussion of Time Cube theory. Rather this article should reflect the majority view of Time Cube as an amusing or humourous crank website that has spawned innumerable parodies, jokes, and sarcastic discussions. A quick google search will show that parodies, piss takes, and general humourous commentary overwhelmingly outnumbers anything even purporting to be a serious site (and those may be subtle parodies). Wikipedia deserves to have an article about Time Cube as an internet phenomenon, and as surrealism (the categories it is listed under) for which it has gained its notability. I hope my cleaned up version properly reflects that. Cheradenine 23:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well this is obviously not going to be a fruitful discussion. The version anonymous keeps reverting to contains original research (not even Gene Ray's original research, but anonymous' research from CubicAO a much less well known page), patent nonsense (-1*-1!=1, pi=3.20 are clear examples), neologism (cube and corner and day and...), fancruft (a hodge podge of anonymous' personal interpretations of Gene Ray scattered around to "refute" anything anyone attempts to add) and borders on (with the increasing use of images imported from) promotional for CubicAO. I think that's plenty of reason to clean up the article - let alone that the majority of keep votes in the VfD were for keep with cleanup. I think the cruftiness of the article (it reads exceedingly poorly due being a series of "patches" to attempts at NPOV comments from other users) warrants the "start from scratch" approach I have taken. I think a focus on Gene Ray' website (which is what is famous/notable, not his theories) is entirely appropriate. I doubt I will be able to convince anonymous of any of that (given some of the previous
extremely long
discussions).
If a day is a full cycle of light and dark then any point only experinces one day in 24 hours not 4. If you want to pick 4 points fine, but you can equally well pick an infinite number (or, at least, the circumference of the earth times the planck length number of points).
The whole page as it stands is a troll for CubicAO which is itself, as far as I can tell, a troll site. Crank.net lists it as a parody site. Insolitology.com lists it as a parody site. It's a close copy of cubarian.org a now defunct parody site.
More importantly the whole page is original research - it has never been published in any peer reviewed journal, nor recieved anything but the most casual of news coverage much of it simply mocking the site and completely ignoring the "theory". If there were a wikipedia article about dolphinsex.org (another "internet phenomenon") should it be a brief article explaining what the page it and why it is known, or a long page explaining how best to initiate sexual encounters with dolphins? Cheradenine 02:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I would like to propose that we either seek mediation, or conduct a survey on what content is appropriate for this article. Will anonymous accept either of those, and if so, which one? Cheradenine 17:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Why can't the "exposition of the theory" be left to Gene Ray's website, to which the article links? Mgw
Well, becuase expositions of comic storylines and philosophical concepts don't require us to explain how pi=3.2, and they don't require us to link to your troll website. Mgw 18:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
If you want some specifics let's some have specifics, but it should be:
(1) About the Time Cube website.
(2) Directly attributable to Gene Ray. Half the prolem with the previous page was all the original research and interpretation. It was hardly factual or verifiable.
I have added such material to the page in what I feel is a reasonable and NPOV way. You still revert back to the old version with orginal research, interpretations, and claims that are all unverifiable and against Wikipedia policy. A clean up was clearly called for (the page was specifically marked so when I first edited it) for these very reasons (along with the fact that is read very poorly). If you want to include some content let's discuss it. I suggest any content of "Time Cube theory" be direct quotes from Gene Ray, preferrably from the Time website, but possibly from other auxillary sites. The page needs to be cleaned up, and that essentially means rebuilt given the layers of cruft that had built up in the previous article. Try working with me (by adding content to a clean page) rather than just reverting to a page that was voted for cleanup. Cheradenine 13:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
All the anti-Cubic arguments in the "Time Cube" article are actually wrong and can be easily refuted. However, rather than correct the article myself, I will simply invite any free thinkers who are interested in learning the Truth to debate Time Cube on the Time Cube forum. No closed-minded Academian pedants, please.
UPDATE: The forum is out of commission. However I may discuss Time Cube on user talk pages, like I did with Andrewa.
UPDATE: I'm now editing the article.
UPDATE: March '05: New Time Cube forum.
During the VfD discussion there were numerous calls for a clean up of the article, noting that the article should be a discussion of Gene Ray's Time Cube website, and its impact as an internet phenomenon and classic crank website. There was also discussion of the fact that Wikipedia's No original research policy should apply to this article. As it stands Time Cube is hardly a tested or accepted theory, and thus this article is not the correct place for a discussion of Time Cube theory. Rather this article should reflect the majority view of Time Cube as an amusing or humourous crank website that has spawned innumerable parodies, jokes, and sarcastic discussions. A quick google search will show that parodies, piss takes, and general humourous commentary overwhelmingly outnumbers anything even purporting to be a serious site (and those may be subtle parodies). Wikipedia deserves to have an article about Time Cube as an internet phenomenon, and as surrealism (the categories it is listed under) for which it has gained its notability. I hope my cleaned up version properly reflects that. Cheradenine 23:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well this is obviously not going to be a fruitful discussion. The version anonymous keeps reverting to contains original research (not even Gene Ray's original research, but anonymous' research from CubicAO a much less well known page), patent nonsense (-1*-1!=1, pi=3.20 are clear examples), neologism (cube and corner and day and...), fancruft (a hodge podge of anonymous' personal interpretations of Gene Ray scattered around to "refute" anything anyone attempts to add) and borders on (with the increasing use of images imported from) promotional for CubicAO. I think that's plenty of reason to clean up the article - let alone that the majority of keep votes in the VfD were for keep with cleanup. I think the cruftiness of the article (it reads exceedingly poorly due being a series of "patches" to attempts at NPOV comments from other users) warrants the "start from scratch" approach I have taken. I think a focus on Gene Ray' website (which is what is famous/notable, not his theories) is entirely appropriate. I doubt I will be able to convince anonymous of any of that (given some of the previous
extremely long
discussions).
If a day is a full cycle of light and dark then any point only experinces one day in 24 hours not 4. If you want to pick 4 points fine, but you can equally well pick an infinite number (or, at least, the circumference of the earth times the planck length number of points).
The whole page as it stands is a troll for CubicAO which is itself, as far as I can tell, a troll site. Crank.net lists it as a parody site. Insolitology.com lists it as a parody site. It's a close copy of cubarian.org a now defunct parody site.
More importantly the whole page is original research - it has never been published in any peer reviewed journal, nor recieved anything but the most casual of news coverage much of it simply mocking the site and completely ignoring the "theory". If there were a wikipedia article about dolphinsex.org (another "internet phenomenon") should it be a brief article explaining what the page it and why it is known, or a long page explaining how best to initiate sexual encounters with dolphins? Cheradenine 02:17, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
I would like to propose that we either seek mediation, or conduct a survey on what content is appropriate for this article. Will anonymous accept either of those, and if so, which one? Cheradenine 17:13, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Why can't the "exposition of the theory" be left to Gene Ray's website, to which the article links? Mgw
Well, becuase expositions of comic storylines and philosophical concepts don't require us to explain how pi=3.2, and they don't require us to link to your troll website. Mgw 18:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
If you want some specifics let's some have specifics, but it should be:
(1) About the Time Cube website.
(2) Directly attributable to Gene Ray. Half the prolem with the previous page was all the original research and interpretation. It was hardly factual or verifiable.
I have added such material to the page in what I feel is a reasonable and NPOV way. You still revert back to the old version with orginal research, interpretations, and claims that are all unverifiable and against Wikipedia policy. A clean up was clearly called for (the page was specifically marked so when I first edited it) for these very reasons (along with the fact that is read very poorly). If you want to include some content let's discuss it. I suggest any content of "Time Cube theory" be direct quotes from Gene Ray, preferrably from the Time website, but possibly from other auxillary sites. The page needs to be cleaned up, and that essentially means rebuilt given the layers of cruft that had built up in the previous article. Try working with me (by adding content to a clean page) rather than just reverting to a page that was voted for cleanup. Cheradenine 13:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)