Talk:Time Cube/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

RfC

I came here to survey the situtation from the RfC. It looks too me like we are dealing with a simple troll. Let's just leave the page protected for a little longer until things die down. —Sean κ. + 04:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

He's been modifying the rewrite of this article as well, though. --brian0918™ 04:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

He's been "working" on this article for over six months now, possibly more like a year (a little hard to tell with his ever-shifting IP address). I think he genuinely believes this stuff, which puts him more in the class of Plautus Satire IMO. I'm quite willing to leave the page sit as is for a while but I suspect as soon as it's unprotected he'll be back writing the same stuff again. Bryan 05:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's unfortunate, but it will probably always be the case given the subject. Look at the poor bloke who tried to argue with one of them on the subject of -1*-1=1. This new person is clearly violating WP policy, so surely their IP can be banned? —Sean κ. + 17:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is he is using a different IP everytime, so we'd have to block the subnet. Would it really matter if we did? Even if he's blocked for a day, he'll still come back, and we could never block the entire subnet indefinitely. --brian0918™ 22:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not a great solution, but I'm inclined to agree. The number of people who had a go at making this a decent article, argued their case, then gave up in bafflement while 218.28.xx.xxx stuck at it is amazing. Perhaps we could have a List of wikipedians who got sick of reverting Time Cube by way of commemoration. Anilocra (hi!) 15:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

At least he's focusing all his efforts on just this one very limited topic. Perhaps for the time being we could accept a long-term protection, with edits being proposed on talk: and committed by admins? Hardly ideal, but after a while the anon may go away and protection can come off again. The anon seems to be edit-warring now on the /proposed trimmed article, and protecting that one too would be silly. Bryan 15:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

In computer security, there's an idea of a "honeypot", which is a computer that you allow hackers to hack into, in order to trap them. Perhaps Wikipedia should have a "crockpot" ("crankpot"?), which is a page we let trolls edit to their hearts content, without letting anyone else see it. —Sean κ. + 16:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that previously 211.28.*.* had been vandalising the GTM, UTC, and other time zone pages, and looking to expand. He got confronted there and knocked down because the Time Cube page didn't provide the grounding for what he wanted included - at which point the Time Cube page got more of his attentions and started expanding again. Anon believes Time Cube is a theory of everything, and hence relevent to everything. Given enough time (s)he'll try to have content about Time Cube on every Wikipedia page. You'll do better to just stem it at the source here. Permanently protect the page and have admins do the edits. The page is not bad as it stands - just expand the bullet point quotes a little and I think you'll be done - of course that involves actually understanding what the quotes mean enough to expand on them - which is rather hard to do, especially without resorting to personal interpretations (which is precisely what anon is guilty of). I thought the claim (somewhere above) that the whole thing was a cunning absurdist joke by Gene Ray was interesting, and seemed as complete and and interesting an interpretation as any other.

At least he's sticking to a relatively small number of reverts per day, it's allowing some work to be done on the /proposed subpage. Bryan 05:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: My contributions are not vandalism, and nor am I impeding progress on the /proposed subpage. I have responded to the comments thereon in the cases where I have opposed other users' changes. Indeed, this is more than can be said for those users who have decided, unjustifiedly and unconditionally, to revert every contribution I make.

This continues to be utterly hopeless

As our esteemed colleague 211.28 continues to counter every attempt at presenting a clear and balanced view with his tireless efforts to fill our articles with his polemics and ever more bizarre details of his philosophy, there will be no way to achieve an article of encyclopedic standards as long as he is allowed to contribute. The history of this and other articles shows clearly that he has unlimited time and an unlimitedly unfavorable view of criticism of his ideas. As I have noted before, arguing with him is futile and has already wasted an enormous amount of our time. I would like to warn everybody not to enter any arguments with him, it has been hopelessly useless for two years now and there is no indication of any change of attitude on his part. It does not matter what motivates him, the fact remains that he will continue to rewrite these articles to suit his propagandistic objectives not matter how much you discuss with him. Methinks the only feasible solution is to keep the article protected until he goes away, unpleasant as that may be. Kosebamse 10:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still have faith that somehow, 211.28 is simply ignorant to the fact that he is a troll, and does not realize his actions are equivalent to spraypainting his message on Mount Rushmore and getting annoyed when it's cleaned off. Perhaps there is still some good in him, and he can be turned from the dark side. Unfortunately, until he stops cowardly hopping from IP to IP, we will never be able to have any sort of meaningful contact with this vandal. —Sean κ. + 13:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, we now have an edit war in the proposed article, and a discussion in HTML comments is hardly a viable means of doing things. All the "justifications" provided are pretty poor, but it just isn't worth my time going through and trying to rebut them - 211.28 will just provide more similarly weak justifications, slowly changing the definitions and points of reference until the arguer gives up. That seems to be the consistent pattern of all the archived discussion pages. Lock the page semi-permanently.

Sorry about starting the HTML comment thing, I had thought it would be a clever way to create a clean-looking proposal while still providing explanations for why I'd snipped various parts out. Should have known it'd turn into endlessly-expanding argument. I'm going to go into the proposed new version now and try snipping out those comments outright and see if that helps. Bryan 03:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure that he is a troll. Sure, if he walks like a troll, talks like a troll, etc, - but there remains a possibility that he honestly believes that time is cubic and whatnot. Another possibility is that he pursues some dadaistic attempt at making Wikipedia look silly. Be that as it may, he's in effect acting like a troll in that his only Wikipedia contributions consist of attracting protest and wasting the time of fair-minded contributors, and extremely efficiently so. We can not really blame him for holding his views, or for wasting our time with endless and fruitless discussions, but his blatant disregard of the overwhelming majority opinion, and his persistent and sneaky way of infusing his crap into articles again and again, are totally unacceptable. Kosebamse 18:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I share your suspicion, I suspect he honestly believes that what he's writing is correct and all of us are wrong. As you say, though, that doesn't excuse or change the behavior that's the end result of that. How about we muddle along for a few more days getting the /proposed subpage in shape, and then I start transferring pieces of it into the main article while it's still protected? I realize this is a breach of protocol, but under the circumstances I don't see the main article being unprotected any time soon. Bryan 03:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. --brian0918™ 03:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would rather not do that. The article is okay as it stands (actually far better than it has been for I don't know how long), and rewriting an article while it's protected will be much frowned upon. While every sensible Wikipedian will agree about the factual side of the matter, a breach of procedure will expose you to accusations of censorship, double standards etc. It might be reasonable to get the matter as such formally clarified by the community: "What is to be done when a persistent anonymous monomaniac does not stop rewriting an article against overwhelming majority opinion?" Kosebamse 04:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll hold off then. The clean versions will always be accessible in the histories of these pages no matter how much anon reverts, and as I told him a few weeks back there's no great hurry to make Wikipedia "finished". Bryan 05:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you go away for a little while and everything changes. I suggest we actually try a poll or something as to how to best deal with the issue. Given the fact that the "proposed" page isn't even stable I don't see that unprotecting the page any time soon will be useful, and I agree with Kosebamse that editing a page under protection isn't ging to be a good idea unless we have something resembling a larger consensus on the issue. I don't think the proposed page is really that much better than what we have now - it still needs a lot of work really: the whole "criticism and reaction" section is rather underdeveloped and needs some serious editing. Cheradenine 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed troll food

External Links

The link to Uncyclopedia's Newtonian Physics article should probably be removed now that this article has changed. ettlz 17:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions? RfC? Poll? Help?

I'm at a loss. What's the procedure from here? The article is locked, the proposed replacement subpage is facing a revert war, and now even the talk pages are getting fought over. The user causing the trouble is an anonymous troll (which is, I think, why he so desperately wants the link to the "Time Cube forum preserved - I looked and things have gotten quiet there recently... he needs fresh meat) who refuses to create a user account and uses a dial up account in Australia that causes his IP address to range over the whole 28.211.*.* subnet. Countless people have tried to have reasonable discussions with the anon user over a period of around 1.5 years. As yet not a single one of those discussions has resulted in anything other than a wide range of frustrated users who have given up in disgust, or frustration, or simply saw no point in continuing. Our anon user refuses mediation, let alone arbitration, but I now doubt that that would see the issue resolved anyway. I can't find any Wikipedia policy or procedure that would seem efficacious in this case. Permanently locking the article just isn't an option - as someone has pointed out the "Uncyclopedia: Newtonian Physics" link is no longer relevant, so that's at least one change that needs to be made. Does anyone have any good suggestions? Should we perhaps have a poll "What to do with the Time Cube page"? Cheradenine 22:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could the case of User:Mr. Treason apply here? —Sean κ. + 23:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable solution. Is there an easy way to see if other non-time/troll edits have been made by his IP range? FWIW, there is another Aussie IP address that has made similar edits to the time articles. Not sure if that's the 28.211 user on proxy... -- Dave C. 23:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it could be instructive, but that was a considerably nastier user. Anon is quite reasonable in most respects, and certainly doesn't stoop to wild abuse and death threats - he is simply completely and utterly inflexible in his view, and seems to take great joy in baiting people into protracted discussions (try a google search for "cubehead" and "Time Cube" to see a number of the other forums and discussion boards this (it seems to be the same guy) has similarly baited). It may be worth creating User:Time_Cube_Guy and starting to fill in the requisite information - we can possible make an RfC on Time Cube Guy from there. Does this seem reasonable to people? Cheradenine 01:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Cubehead. It's 211.28, btw.

Yes, we really need higher approval, permission to revert any changes by the range 211.28.*.* without consideration. We're on the track to doing it, we just need it to be condoned. —Sean κ. + 02:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask the Arbitration Committee? They're the last resort for dealing with problematic behavior, and that's where we seem to be at now. BTW, I vote for User:Time Cube Guy, since "Cubehead" sounds like it might be an insult. Bryan 03:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Treason is considered banned so that every contribution of his can be reverted. There is a difference in that Treason has threatened users while 211.28 merely wastes our time, makes articles get locked, insults people, and has never contributed the slightest productive edit. The history of the time cube and Gene Ray articles (as well as several others that he occasionally edits) shows clearly that he is not interested in improving them, but only in spamming them with his bizarre philosophy. It would seem reasonable to revert every contribution on sight, but to do that we would want to seek approval of the arbitration committee. Kosebamse 05:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My vote would be for 1. A poll, which would likely not result in anon's favor, and 2. (if possible) some sort of ban that would minimize the potential of excluding legitimate contributions from the ip range. This has gotten out of hand, and it seems abundantly clear that this anon is here simply as a troll, albeit a reasonably civil one (the "human blockhead android" comment notwithstanding). Mgw 06:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Writing the poll

The poll was moved to become active

You get the gist of it. The poll should be held in such a way that sock puppets and the many trolls who might sway the vote are not counted. Please make edits directly to the text above. —Sean κ. + 11:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should be aware that, if we do take this course of action, we might expect a backlash of vandalism from 211.28.*.*. This page might help; I open it up and use my browser to search for "211.28". —Sean κ. + 11:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That seems a fair way of wording it. I agree with Sean κ. that we're likely to be pushing the problem elsewhere, given Time Cube Guy's persistence in the past. Anilocra - (hi!) 14:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I have created User:Time Cube Guy, so please check it and edit as you see fit, preferably adding your name. I think given the situation this looks like the best course of action. Cheradenine 14:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me too (William M. Connolley 19:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) popping in from RFC)

And me. Bryan 23:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube Guy's replies

Just go ahead and put up the proposed article. It's a pity that users are refusing to think rationally and to consider the justifications set forth. But the proposed article will pass as far as is concerned a compromise with the slash-and-burn obscurantists.

I would like to include on this talk page the link to the CubicAO forum. As I've stated, the link itself is unobtrusive; and, given its specific pertinence to the article's subject, it is likely to be of interest to readers. Plenty of Wikipedia articles contain external links to related websites and forums, so I see no problem with this talk page containing one.

I am unimpressed with the censorship proposal. The very fact that Wikipedia permits anonymous edits suggests that each contribution should be judged on its own merits, rather than the identity of its author. I am inflexible only in my firm support of rational thought; and as a Wikipedia user, it is surely my duty to fight for the NPOV, thus protecting the site from totalitarian control at the hands of Darth Sidious, and his henchman, Darth Vader. --[Anon]

I think you need to consider that users are thinking rationally, are considering the justifications you've put forth, and have simply found them to be insufficient, incoherent, or irrelevant. NPOV means having some respect for various points of view, not taking a position halfway between the majority view and that of a lone extremist with time on his hands. This point has been raised many times, and you continue to ignore it, and ignore the possibility that your justifications have been considered and rejected. I fully expect you to continue to ignore this, and attempt to bait another debate. I'm not interested in playing.

The link to the forum is largely irrelevant. It's preserved in one of the archives if people are truly interested. If they want to discuss Time Cube I'm sure they can find the forum on Google. I see no reason to provide fresh meat for your trolling efforts via Wikipedia however. Cheradenine 14:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consider the following: "Relativity is false because it is incoherent and irrelevant and WHAT IF it's possible that people can rationally refute it but they haven't done so because they're 'not interested in playing'?". Is this rational? Answer: no, it is not. You need to actually refute my justifications, rather than just saying "oh it's possible that they are no good". The justifications continue to stand.

We don't have to do anything. The content on Wikipedia reflects popular opinion, not original research. Go away, troll. --brian0918™ 11:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The forum is an excellent resource for any free thinker interested in thinking rationally and exploring the Cubic Truth of the universe. As I have said, a link on this page is relevant and unobtrusive; and why force people to root around in the archives when it's perfectly reasonable to have a link here?

Unprotect

No meaningful dialog seems to have resulted from the long period of protection--rather, opinions seem to have solidified. I think it's been counter-productive and am therefore unprotecting. Protection really isn't supposed to go on anything like this long. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and have instated the proposed trimmed article. The discussions served to establish the view that the article required greater focus, and thus, moderate trimming. However, slash-and-burn advocates were unable to rationally justify their anti-Cubic religious beliefs, and are unfortunately now crusading against the Cubic Truth. They need to accept the NPOV policy, and learn to compromise with others.

Tony: Please take the parent comment as foreshadowing of the can of worms you are opening by unprotecting the page. —Sean κ. + 03:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see we're back to square one. :( To justify my revert of Timecube Guy's recent addition (edit summary - Weyes, it has already been comprehensively discussed, meaning that it may now be instated. However, feel free to contribute to the talk page any points you may have.), I'd point out that it was not the consensus version of the proposed trimmed article, but the version with which we are all wearily familiar. Anilocra - (hi!) 14:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, most of it is the consensus version. Justification has clearly been provided for its content, so let's not get too carried away with the slash-and-burning.

What gets reverted to and the (apparently unfinished) "consensus" version of the proposed trimmed article are very different. Unless by consensus you mean "the consensus of everyone posting to this page from a 211.28.*.* based IP address" I don't see you have any justification for claiming a "consensus" version. I'm quite happy with what we have now to be honest - the only major differences between it and the proposed trimmed article are a little more explanation, and the inclusion of a "reactions and criticisms" section. It seems to me that the easiest way to retain NPOV in this apparently hotly disputed topic is to have a very spare article like the one now - it ventures no opinions, and remains very neutral.

Poll: Request for Arbitration

Comments

I think you're making this unnecessarily bloody. Just take this to a personal conduct RfC and if external parties agree that there's a serious problem consider asking arbcom to take it up. The opinion above, asking for the opinion of the community, looks more like an improperly formatted RfC than a request for arbitration (which would be settled by arbcom, not the community). Arbcom has the power to ban people from editing articles, but you have to try other methods first before you go to them. Take it to RfC if you haven't done so already. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moved

This section has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/211.28.*.*. Please deal with it as any proper RFC about user behavior. If RFC is unsuccesful, RFAr may be an option. Radiant_>|< 09:05, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Forum link

I don't see why we have the external link to the forum on this talk page. Surely this talk page is for discussion the article, it's associated "problems", and nothing more. I don't have any particularly strong feelings on whether it is in the article or not, but surely it shouldn't be ...up there (points up). Anilocra 13:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The forum is bunk. There is no actual discussion that goes on, merely trying to get people to argue with them by stating ridiculous things. —Sean κ. + 13:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered, but in principle I think it's good to have links to potentially useful resources on the talk page, perhaps especially if they're not considered suitable for the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Try reading through the forum... you'll see it contains nothing but mindless banter. I just don't see how it's useful. —Sean κ. + 14:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note to 211.28

This is just to notify 211.28 of the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/211.28.*.*, as he has no user page or constant IP address and this is one of the pages that he visits frequently. The RfC has been mentioned above, but just to be sure. 211.28, you are invited to to present your position on the RfC page mentioned above. Kosebamse 14:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Leading text needs work

By stating that the Time Cube is a theory and then leaving it like that, doesn't adequately explain the large amounts of criticism the theory ultimately draws. True, it may be a theory, but given the current sentiments many people, it would be very appropriate to include a statement about the controversiality of this statement.

This page has changed a lot since I've last seen it. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:39, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

---

Examples of Past leading texts

The Time cube is a concept promoted by Gene Ray on his Time Cube website, postulating that time is somehow cubic or four-cornered. It is unclear how his ideas relate to any established concept of time. As there are no testable hypotheses or predictions associated to the "time cube", it is not scientifically investigable. It must therefore be considered a speculative belief with little relation to physics or science in general.

This was a fairly stable variant of the leading text that lasted until some indeterminate time, as it began to grow longer and longer has opposing sides added statements that advocated and, er, not-advocated the concept.

---

Time Cube is a theory proposed by Gene Ray. It is notable as an internet phenomenon because of its website [1], which has gained notoriety as a crank website. Many imitations and parodies of the Time Cube website exist. The website itself contains exceptionally long strident tracts of large font text in a variety of colours, much of it of limited coherence. The website purports to explain everything by means of "4 simultaneous 24 hour days within a single rotation of Earth.", and explains that ordinary humans cannot understand this because "[They] are educated singularity stupid by evil ass educators".

This was the first new version of the leading text that featured "theory" rather than "concept". It was made by Cheradenine, and can be viewed here: [2]. The label seems to have stuck

---

Time Cube is a theory proposed by Gene Ray, which asserts that time is "cubic" and that this has influences on wider aspects of life.

[3]

Our current leading text. A summarization of the earlier, unwieldly ones.

---

— Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy enough to replace theory with concept and go back to something along the lines of what I first had. To be honest it was an effort to try and clean up the article given the huge patchwork mess relating mostly to "theory" that it had become. I simply typed up what seemed sensible at the time figuring ongoing edits would clean up any issues - then a revert war ensued and things got messy.

Personally I am of the opnion that the leading paragraph really ought to primarily make mention of the website, as (judging from 95% of sites on google that reference or link to Time Cube) that seems to be the aspect that is generally noted, rather than the "theory" or concepts. Cheradenine 03:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

How about this?

#1 - The Time Cube is the name for a hypothesis created by Gene Ray and the website he uses to publicize this hypothesis. The hypothesis asserts that time is cubic and thus has influences on wider aspects of life. Time Cube contains some characteristics of a conspiracy theory (such as the belief that "Evil educators suppress student free speech right to debate Cubic Creation."), and is widely regarded as deliberate surrealism or absurdism.

It's extremely necessary that we get a relatively stable leading text, so I want lots of comments. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 04:21, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Looks fine to me, though some mention of or link to crank might not go astray. I know it's a pejorative, but then the crank page links back to Time Cube as a classic example, and is a fairly widely held view of Time Cube. 65.95.170.251 18:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

But how does one add the word "crank" without being pejorative? Hmm...

#2 - The Time Cube is the name for a hypothesis created by Gene Ray and the website he uses to publicize this hypothesis. The hypothesis asserts that time is cubic and thus has influences on wider aspects of life. Time Cube contains some characteristics of a conspiracy theory (such as the belief that "Evil educators suppress student free speech right to debate Cubic Creation."), and is widely regarded as deliberate surrealism, crank and absurdism.

I believe crank can also be used to describe the idea itself. Otherwise, we'd have to resort to the wordy "notable work of a crank". — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 21:15, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Upon more thought, I think it needs to be made clear that the assertion mentioned here isn't the only one. New version:

#3 - The Time Cube is the name for a hypothesis created by Gene Ray and the website he uses to publicize this hypothesis. One of the main assertions of this hypothesis is that time is cubic. Time Cube contains some characteristics of a conspiracy theory (such as the belief that "Evil educators suppress student free speech right to debate Cubic Creation."), and is widely regarded as deliberate surrealism, crank and absurdism.

— Ambush Commander^(Talk) 21:17, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Meh, that doesn't seem like the main assertion. How about this?

#4 - The Time Cube is the name of a hypothesis created by Gene Ray and the website he uses to publicize this hypothesis. Some of the main assertions of this hypothesis are that time is cubic, that there are four simultaneous 24 hour days in one rotation of the Earth and that Gene Ray is wiser than all gods and scientists. Time Cube contains some characteristics of a conspiracy theory (such as the belief that "Evil educators suppress student free speech right to debate Cubic Creation."), and is widely regarded as deliberate surrealism, crank and absurdism.

4/16 Rotational Principle & Supremacy of the number 4

We've not yet attempted to tackle one of the absurd foundations of the time-cube theory; the supremacy of the number four which sort of leads on to the spurious 4/16 rotational principle.

I propose that we add some text approximately like this to the article:

---

Supremacy of the number 4

An n-sided regular polygon is drawn around a circle such that the mid-points of each edge of the polygon are tangential to the circle. Lines are drawn from the mid-point of each edge to the centre of the circle.

Gene Ray observes that the only value of n for which the polygon's internal angle is the same as the angle between any two nearest radial lines is 4; In this case both the internal angle and the angle between the intersecting radial lines is 90 degrees.

This uncontroversial result requires nothing more than junior-school geometry; The next step requires a leap of faith: Gene Ray suggests that since there is no other number that has this particular geometric quality then this must be the supreme number; We are not told why this grandiose conclusion should follow from the previous mundane observations, nor why this particular geometric property has any particular significance.

---

Those of us who continued maths beyond junior school will be aware of many unique and seemingly magical numbers that seem to occur frequently in mathematics; For example, 'e' and 'pi'.

Alert readers will note that the circle seems to play no part in this proof once the polygon has been drawn around it; You might therefore reduce this entire thing down to the observation that a square is the only polygon whose internal angles modified by the number of sides add up to 360 degrees.

Of course, the external angles of all known regular polygons add up to 360 degrees, but what the heck? --Salimfadhley 22:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't really comment too much about Gene Ray's "proofs" in this article. It can really be summed up in one sentence: he's a numerologist. Simple enough. Any number is special in some way... 27, 9, 5, 42, you name it. —Sean κ. + 00:32, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but the number six is perfect. Must we take it upon ourselves to refute all of Gene's arguments? Now that's not very NPOV. Besides, we're talking about people who refuse to be convinced despite almost unsurmountable evidence against the theories, instead citing that those stupid bastard educators have made it impossible for us to understand their arguments. Interestingly, if Einstein had lived today, he probably would have been dismissed as a crank. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 00:59, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I would rather we not get into any discussion of Time Cube "theory". I don't think it's actually notable - it is the website itself that is notable - and given the sheer incomprehensibility and vagueness of much of the text I think most anything one might venture with regard to "theory" will be highly speculative and count as original research.

I feel that the page should only contain that which can be properly or directly referenced wherever possible, hence the "explanation" of Time Cube only via direct quotes from Gene Ray himself. Let's skip any pointless attempts at interpretation. Cheradenine 03:20, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

• Agreed. These interpretations should be regarded as original research. I think we're left simply talking about the website, its popularity, and as for "theory", simply quoting the site without interpreting the quotations. --brian0918&#153; 04:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Seconded. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 15:27, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Addition of npov template

I think the article gives to much credence to the Time Cube as a theory and not as a website. Thus, not NPOV. Of course, NPOV is always tricky when it comes to the inclusion and exclusion of material: any possible configuration could be considered NPOV, but I think at this point, it's fairly clear that we need a reconfig. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 18:45, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you read some of the talk archives, and check out what the page was like in, say, January or February this year before you go too far with this. This is a heavily disputed page (lord only knows why), and considerable work was made to try and keep it at a fairly NPOV level. I think what has been achieved is, in fact, not too bad. It could use some minor edits, but I think by and large it is about as good as we can reasonably expect. Cheradenine 02:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm taking it out. NPOV does not apply here; it's not even close to what the NPOV policy was designed for. It's almost an insult to the concept. —Sean κ. + 12:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Okay. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 15:13, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

I read the fourth discussion archive, and it occurs to me that Time Cube Guy was making the distinction that it was the theory that should be discussed. That is the current state of the lead section, and it doesn't make any mention of Time Cube as a website or notable crank theory. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 15:22, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Merging of Article Histories

I have only recently noticed that there's a proposed version of this page already in effect! So, if it is decided to be adopted as the main article, we would have to do a history merge, right?

Are we adopting it anyway? When? How do we decide? And stop calling it a trimmed version, I don't think it is very trimmed at all (even though it is better). Did all conversation on this article just stop or what? — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 21:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

The proposed page ought to be deleted. It was an attempt to try and edit a page toward consensus with Time Cube Guy, but quickly devolved into a pointless revert war and work on it was effectively abandoned some time ago. I don't believe anyone (other thn Time Cube Guy) was at all happy with the page as it has been left, so I wouldn't suggesttrying to use it.

It was an attempt at compromise, trying to give Time Cube Guy a chance (by working from his version of the page). It failed, an impasse was reached, and the issue is currently with the Arbitration Commitee. If you want put the proposed page up for VfD, I think that's the most constructive thing we can do for it right now. Cheradenine 02:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll make a little note on it saying it failed. I don't think it should be VfDed yet, it's got some salvageable parts, in my opinion. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 15:25, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

No URL in Leading Section

I removed it because it goes against the precedent set by other notable website articles, ex: Wikipedia, Slashdot, FanFiction.Net, Google, see also Category:Websites. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 17:39, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Several quote lists removed

I removed several lists of quotes. This isn't Wikiquotes. It's quite easy to visit the Time Cube sites to see them. Either get to the point with a paraphrase or leave them out. No original research does not preclude simple paraphrases. — 131.230.133.185 16:33, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with the quotes removed - it was an attempt at compromise, yet the person we were compromising with has proved to be unwilling to accept anything short of a long exposition of their personal interpretation of what Time Cube means.

The issue with paraphrasing is thus: As no one actually seems to really know what the hell Gene Ray is talking about, any attempt at paraphrasing involves significant interpretation. This is particularly true when dealing with the (many) statements that are contradictory/self-contradictory/gramatically vague/incomphrehensible. Combine that with the fact that Gene Ray himself speaks in random disjoint phrases leaving no cohesive picture of any sense of a "whole" or a "consistent theory", and I think any attempt to say what Time Cube is via anything other than direct Gene Ray quotes (Gene Ray being the only person that can certainly be said to understand his "theory") is most certainly interpretation and original research and most certainly doesn't belong here.

Let's just drop the quotes. A shorter page is hardly a bad thing. Cheradenine 00:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone's editing the leading section...

We only recently moved away from a version somewhat like what you're trying to instate, so it would do you some good to explain the changes before trying to instate them. Let's try not the start a revert war again eh? I'll explain why I object to your edits later. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 12:21, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube' is a hypothesis created by Gene Ray, which he publicises on his website of the same name (1).

Moves emphasis from Time Cube as equally a hypothesis and a website to Time Cube as a hypothesis. We've discussed this, and decided that the theory is not so much important as the website, and the leading text should reflect this. I'm willing, however, to argue this with you, so fire away. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 12:23, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I argue that the content of the theory itself is frequently discussed, and that it is notable, being the reason why the website is famous to begin with. I believe it to be fairly neutral to refer to both the "hypothesis" and the "website".

The person making the edits is Time Cube Guy. This has been through RfC and was put forward for arbitration. The result was a summary judgement that Time Cube Guy should simply have his edits to Time related articles reverted as needed. There is little point in engaging in discussion: it has been attempted and has proved futile. Simply ignore him and revert as required. Cheradenine 04:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

As Time Cube Guy has not stopped reverting, and more particularly, because he insists on mischaracterizing the results of the arbitration request, it's time for a brief ban. - Nunh-huh 13:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately he changes IPs every time he edits so banning is tricky - banning his whole IP block might catch others in the same net. Since he's only editing once or twice a day how about we just roll back any edits he makes from here on out, including to this talk: page? It's clear that talking with him is useless at this point, we've been more than fair in hearing him out so far but now his comments are just pointlessly inflating this page with irrelevancies. Bryan 16:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I was wondering about the IPs too. Yes, what you've suggested seems like the most logical course of action. Let's not, however, forget to develop this article too. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 16:42, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

The reverts here are just getting silly. We can't ban him due to IP, can we revert the page and have it locked for awhile? Maybe he'll go away. He has no respect for the rules here and I'm tired of seeing the page go back and forth between two versions. Lord Bodak 03:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Certainly I have respect for the rules. I've been striving for NPOV in my edits, and I respect the arbitrators' decision to reject the ban proposal against me. Other users, I think, need to respect these things a little more.

That is obviously untrue. If you respected the arbitrators' decision, you would recognize that they said to revert your edits as needed. You continue to make the same changes knowing that they will be reverted, and it's fairly obvious that if you weren't hiding behind a dynamic block of IPs you would have been banned by now. Lord Bodak 11:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration commitee rejected hearing the case. Had there been 4 accept votes then we would have gone into a hearing. Try reading the arbitration policy to see how it actually works. A request for arbitration was made, and the request to have the case heard was rejected with a summary judgement to simply ban you as needed. Your misrepresentation of the outcome only shows your guilt. 65.95.170.251 20:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Trust me; he won't go away. Anon 211.28 has been rv'ing this article for quite a long time, and the article has been locked before. As soon as the article is unlocked, he starts up again. -- Dave C. 04:58, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

So there really is no other solution besides "revert his edits ad infinitum"? Lord Bodak 12:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There's "lock the article indefinitely", which IMO is a worse solution. At least the reversions make him work, forcing him to come back to Wikipedia every day he wants to keep them up. Since I'm coming to Wikipedia every day anyway it's no big deal for me to counter him. From my watchlist it's just two clicks to put everything back. :) I notice he seems to have picked up another IP number that's less mutable than his original, 136.186.1.119 (and 136.186.1.118). Those could be blocked, but once again it looks like other people use that IP range. Bryan 15:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The other IP addresses (which he has actually used before) are proxy servers for Swinburne University of Technlogy in Australia. I presume this is where Time Cube Guy goes to school (which pushes the "troll" theory given that the religion he professes to believe claims that technology is evil, and universities are worthless places that spread lies). To be honest, under the circmstances, a short ban for those two IPs might be efficacious without out being too damaging to other students at Swinburne. Looking at the history those IPs are used for editing Wikipedia infrequently. Cheradenine 16:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead, Cheradenine, block universities from editing Wikipedia. With all the Academians locked out, we might have better chances of Time Cube free speech.

Request for Edit Summaries

I noticed that the most recent edit (as of this posting) by User:Nunh-huh didn't have an edit summary. I propose that when we are reverting edits by Time Cube Guy, we specifically say so, and give a link to the decision by the arbcom and the editors of this article, so that outsiders aren't entirely confused by this perpetual violation of the 3RR rule. — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 16:44, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

There has been no violation of the 3RR, and all the information you request is rather prominently displayed at the top of the talk page, where the curious can find it. - Nunh-huh 20:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

vprotected

The IPs keep coming back so I have protected this page. Hope there are no objections. Sasquatch讲看 04:02, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I think the objection to protection is that it prevents people not bent on purveying disinformation from editing the article (not that many seem to be clamoring to do so). "Time Cube" really just needs more people to put the article on their watchlist to be reverted with extreme prejudice. - Nunh-huh 04:15, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I can hardly dispute the description "extreme prejudice". Simply strike out the "dis" and your pedantic diatribe would present itself as fairly accurate "information".

The problem is, in the last 50 edits I count 21 anon IP edits followed by 21 reversions... that makes 42/50 edits simply trolling and reverting... basically that's a huge amount. Anyways, I'll be gone for a while so if you want it unprotected you can ask over at WP:RFPP. Sasquatch讲看 12:40, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have too many problems with it... no one was making the article better anyway. Let's just hope he doesn't start vandalizing this page... — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 14:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why is the article frozen in a form that has so much less information than the old version ([4]) that the vandal reverts it to? I can see how a couple of lines of that version could be seen as biased, but it contains a much more detailed and useful description of the Time Cube theory/site, and a couple of pictures that make the article much more pleasant to look at. I remember coming across this article a while back, when it was in something like that form, and being impressed. I can see why you would react to reverts by protecting the page, but why protect a semi-stub when a better version of the article exists in the archives? --LostLeviathan 07:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the page is (surprisingly) controversial, and the person doing the reverting is a known vandal. Go back through the history to some of his/her versions of the page from 6 months ago and you'll see where the objection lies. After much discussion that lead nowhere, two RFCs, more discussion that at least quickly lead nowhere, a poll, and a request for arbitration the conclusion was (in the form of a summary judgement from the arbitration committee) that all edits from this user should simply be "shoot on sight". If you're curious about the relative truncation this section involves the brief discussion on that one. I'm pretty indifferent either way: the quotes can go, or the quotes can stay. The only point that I am firm on with respect to this (after many long and tedious discussions) is that we ought to restrict ourselves to direct quotes (which can cited or properly attributed) rather than attempted explanation - the short story of that is that given that very few people actually claim to understand Gene Ray's writing, and there is considerable dispute as what it actually means, any level of interpretation is going to be highly controversial one way or another. I'm not really happy with protection, but the revert war was equally silly. Hopefully TimeCubeGuy will leave us alone and we can sort out a decent version of the page. Cheradenine 09:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly concur with LostLeviathan. The version to which I've most recently been reverting is hardly objectionable, and of course, a few minor NPOV issues should hardly require the deletion of half the content. I believe that anti-Cubic users have been reverting me not due to specific edit content, but rather, due to a sentiment of entrenched opposition. They should revolt against the spirit of gravity and be granted liberty by the spirit of the Cube.

Why should I leave you alone? I'm quite willing to participate in a reasonable manner. I've already compromised in that I have sacrificed article content from previous longer versions, content for which I've provided justifications, justifications that as yet haven't been refuted. You people should transcend your narrow mental rigidity, and embrace co-operation. Arb-nuking one another won't help.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.76.213 (talk • contribs) 09:28, August 23, 2005

Well, here's your chance to prove yourself. Start proposing changes that you think are reasonable on the discussion page and then see how users feel about them. Sasquatch讲看 06:21, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I propose that the page be changed to the version to which I've been reverting. Could anyone objecting to this version please state their specific objections. Expressions of support shall also be welcome.

Okay, let's start

Why was this diff rejected? Since the anon is going to try to be civil, I'm not going to make any arguments about him yet.

First, let's consider which parts are not different. The leading section is practically identical in both sections. No dispute there. The section Time Cube website is also the same. So is impact of the Time Cube hypothesis.

So, essentially, you want know why not add the lists of statements by Gene Ray, and maybe add in another few pictures.

Adding Pictures

I'm not sure when the pictures were removed, but I think they main objection with them was Representation of Website vs. Theory.

The website is famous primarily because of the theory. One cannot say that the website has received substantial attention, but the theory itself none. I propose that it is therefore within reason to detail salient aspects of the theory.

One picture is of Earth rotating within a Time Cube. This picture is based on Gene Ray's statements that "all of creation is Cubic - with a top and bottom with front and back and 2 sides". The 4-corner-quadrant division it depicts is based on the image at the top of TimeCube.com. Dr Ray has stated that "Earth rotates within a Time Cube."

The other image depicts the same Cube, but with Gene Ray also featured. I feel that it is reasonable to present an image of the site's creator.

Would it be reasonable then to include only one such picture (as it seems like they are mostly redundant)? Reply to the first paragraph is below in relevant section). — Ambush Commander^(Talk) 02:44, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Adding back the Quotes

The quotes were removed by User:131.230.133.185, and on the talk page User:Cheradenine approved. The logic goes as follows:

1. A list of quotes belongs in Wikiquotes, not Wikipedia
2. Therefore, you must paraphrase
3. But no one really knows what Gene Ray is talking about, so paraphrasing requires interpretation
4. Therefore, no quotes.

I strongly recommend you reread their full statements, however, that are here.

In essence, I agree with their sentiments, however, I think As no one actually seems to really know what the hell Gene Ray is talking about is a bit of a strong statement: we do know a little bit of what he's talking about, and we can make some interpretations (although if it gets down to the nitty-gritty technical details, well, don't bother). A good place to start would be the leading paragraphs before the lists: The website has voluminous and at places inflammatory text alleging the existence of academic and government conspiracies to suppress Time Cube through the school system. (notice how this is mentioned in the leading text).

The other problem is maintaining a Neutral viewpoint and is a lot trickier. This goes in the next section.