-
Time cube another one of those crank theories
Archivist 00:42, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
- (I assume you really mean Time Cube). See Talk:Time_Cube/Delete. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:51, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, as dirty as it makes me feel. It's quackery, but it's famous quackery, and that makes it encyclopedic. Now I think I'm going to go take a shower. →Raul654 02:25, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I think we should remove this listing. This article went through VfD not two weeks ago, and there's no reason to suppose opinions will have changed since. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - I didn't have to read far to see Ms. Cleo doing my horoscope... - Texture 03:56, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- DO NOT vote on this entry. Previous discussion is at
Talk:Time Cube/Delete. --
Jia
ng
- When i posted this i was unaware of a previous debate. BUT I would not be presumtious to instruct people not to vote. This sort of rubish reduces a serious work such as Wikipedia to a laughing stock. If people wish to read and learn they can go to the source we do not need to peddle this muck as well
Archivist 19:30, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
- The archived proposal and subsequent vote was only made last week. I do not see how people's attitudes have changed signficantly in the past week to conclude that the outcome might be different if we voted again.--
Jia
ng 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- There is at least one more delete vote (looks like more) so, yes, it is a different possible outcome. Are you suggesting that once voted an article is immune to any future reviews? A year from now it may be even clearer that this is fiction and should be deleted. We should be ready to review an article when necessary. If it keeps showing up on this page by people who have not reviewed it before it is a clearer indication that more and more people find it to be inappropriate for Wikipedia -
Texture 22:15, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Just bad form to be relisting things so soon (space and time issues...). Sure, list in in a year. But given that the discussion just ended, the votes on that page still count. If we can delete after 5 days on refuse undeletion if all the rules were followed even if one or two nonvoters jump in to undelete, we can say the same for kept articles.-- Jia ng
- There is at least one more delete vote (looks like more) so, yes, it is a different possible outcome. Are you suggesting that once voted an article is immune to any future reviews? A year from now it may be even clearer that this is fiction and should be deleted. We should be ready to review an article when necessary. If it keeps showing up on this page by people who have not reviewed it before it is a clearer indication that more and more people find it to be inappropriate for Wikipedia -
Texture 22:15, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The archived proposal and subsequent vote was only made last week. I do not see how people's attitudes have changed signficantly in the past week to conclude that the outcome might be different if we voted again.--
Jia
ng 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- When i posted this i was unaware of a previous debate. BUT I would not be presumtious to instruct people not to vote. This sort of rubish reduces a serious work such as Wikipedia to a laughing stock. If people wish to read and learn they can go to the source we do not need to peddle this muck as well
Archivist 19:30, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, considering I only just now discovered the page's existance because I was planning to create it if it hadn't been done already. Bryan 02:43, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Significant crackpot theory based on the false premise that the
cube is closely related to the number
four.
Andrewa 05:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Andrewa, you have not taken into account that the Time Cube ROTATES. Are you aware that all gravitational bodies (galaxies, stars, planets) originate from rotational vortices, and that their rotation causes dilation along their rotational axes? Imagine a Cube-like room rotating -- between the opposite parameters of Ceiling and Floor (like North and South poles), the 4 walls and 4 corners rotate; and in 1 rotation, each corner rotates through the other 3 corners before returning to its initial position. 4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations, in only 1 rotation; this 4/16 Rotation Principle constitutes absolute, unrefutable proof of 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.
- I'd like to continue this conversation, but here isn't the place for it. Perhaps on my user talk page? Andrewa 03:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Andrewa, you have not taken into account that the Time Cube ROTATES. Are you aware that all gravitational bodies (galaxies, stars, planets) originate from rotational vortices, and that their rotation causes dilation along their rotational axes? Imagine a Cube-like room rotating -- between the opposite parameters of Ceiling and Floor (like North and South poles), the 4 walls and 4 corners rotate; and in 1 rotation, each corner rotates through the other 3 corners before returning to its initial position. 4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations, in only 1 rotation; this 4/16 Rotation Principle constitutes absolute, unrefutable proof of 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.
- Keep. Crackpot, but nonetheless famous. Gene Ray and his theory have been the subject of numerous interviews, debates, and parodies. Psychonaut 14:49, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. We need an archive of psudoscience in order to learn more about it and how to avoid falling into psudoscience / quackery traps in the future. Just make sure that the article states, as it already clearly does, that few if any scientists believe in this idea. ShaunMacPherson
- Keep, how many times do we have to vote on the same article? And besides, ignorance of time cube is greatest evil. Invented word god and the stupid scientists recognize only a 1-day Earth rotation. Gene Ray is wiser than any god or scientist. --
Tim Starling 01:22, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Outrageous, dude! Thanks for the good laugh. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
-
Time cube another one of those crank theories
Archivist 00:42, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
- (I assume you really mean Time Cube). See Talk:Time_Cube/Delete. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:51, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, as dirty as it makes me feel. It's quackery, but it's famous quackery, and that makes it encyclopedic. Now I think I'm going to go take a shower. →Raul654 02:25, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
- I think we should remove this listing. This article went through VfD not two weeks ago, and there's no reason to suppose opinions will have changed since. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 03:11, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - I didn't have to read far to see Ms. Cleo doing my horoscope... - Texture 03:56, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- DO NOT vote on this entry. Previous discussion is at
Talk:Time Cube/Delete. --
Jia
ng
- When i posted this i was unaware of a previous debate. BUT I would not be presumtious to instruct people not to vote. This sort of rubish reduces a serious work such as Wikipedia to a laughing stock. If people wish to read and learn they can go to the source we do not need to peddle this muck as well
Archivist 19:30, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
- The archived proposal and subsequent vote was only made last week. I do not see how people's attitudes have changed signficantly in the past week to conclude that the outcome might be different if we voted again.--
Jia
ng 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- There is at least one more delete vote (looks like more) so, yes, it is a different possible outcome. Are you suggesting that once voted an article is immune to any future reviews? A year from now it may be even clearer that this is fiction and should be deleted. We should be ready to review an article when necessary. If it keeps showing up on this page by people who have not reviewed it before it is a clearer indication that more and more people find it to be inappropriate for Wikipedia -
Texture 22:15, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Just bad form to be relisting things so soon (space and time issues...). Sure, list in in a year. But given that the discussion just ended, the votes on that page still count. If we can delete after 5 days on refuse undeletion if all the rules were followed even if one or two nonvoters jump in to undelete, we can say the same for kept articles.-- Jia ng
- There is at least one more delete vote (looks like more) so, yes, it is a different possible outcome. Are you suggesting that once voted an article is immune to any future reviews? A year from now it may be even clearer that this is fiction and should be deleted. We should be ready to review an article when necessary. If it keeps showing up on this page by people who have not reviewed it before it is a clearer indication that more and more people find it to be inappropriate for Wikipedia -
Texture 22:15, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- The archived proposal and subsequent vote was only made last week. I do not see how people's attitudes have changed signficantly in the past week to conclude that the outcome might be different if we voted again.--
Jia
ng 21:38, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- When i posted this i was unaware of a previous debate. BUT I would not be presumtious to instruct people not to vote. This sort of rubish reduces a serious work such as Wikipedia to a laughing stock. If people wish to read and learn they can go to the source we do not need to peddle this muck as well
Archivist 19:30, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, considering I only just now discovered the page's existance because I was planning to create it if it hadn't been done already. Bryan 02:43, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Significant crackpot theory based on the false premise that the
cube is closely related to the number
four.
Andrewa 05:46, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Andrewa, you have not taken into account that the Time Cube ROTATES. Are you aware that all gravitational bodies (galaxies, stars, planets) originate from rotational vortices, and that their rotation causes dilation along their rotational axes? Imagine a Cube-like room rotating -- between the opposite parameters of Ceiling and Floor (like North and South poles), the 4 walls and 4 corners rotate; and in 1 rotation, each corner rotates through the other 3 corners before returning to its initial position. 4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations, in only 1 rotation; this 4/16 Rotation Principle constitutes absolute, unrefutable proof of 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.
- I'd like to continue this conversation, but here isn't the place for it. Perhaps on my user talk page? Andrewa 03:34, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Andrewa, you have not taken into account that the Time Cube ROTATES. Are you aware that all gravitational bodies (galaxies, stars, planets) originate from rotational vortices, and that their rotation causes dilation along their rotational axes? Imagine a Cube-like room rotating -- between the opposite parameters of Ceiling and Floor (like North and South poles), the 4 walls and 4 corners rotate; and in 1 rotation, each corner rotates through the other 3 corners before returning to its initial position. 4 Time Corners for each of the 4 Space Corners sum to 16 SpaceTime configurations, in only 1 rotation; this 4/16 Rotation Principle constitutes absolute, unrefutable proof of 4 simultaneous days in a single rotation of Earth.
- Keep. Crackpot, but nonetheless famous. Gene Ray and his theory have been the subject of numerous interviews, debates, and parodies. Psychonaut 14:49, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. We need an archive of psudoscience in order to learn more about it and how to avoid falling into psudoscience / quackery traps in the future. Just make sure that the article states, as it already clearly does, that few if any scientists believe in this idea. ShaunMacPherson
- Keep, how many times do we have to vote on the same article? And besides, ignorance of time cube is greatest evil. Invented word god and the stupid scientists recognize only a 1-day Earth rotation. Gene Ray is wiser than any god or scientist. --
Tim Starling 01:22, Feb 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Outrageous, dude! Thanks for the good laugh. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:23, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)