Talk:Time Cube/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Multiple applications to remove

I think the fact that there is so much discussion on this topic shows that it is worth keeping. This site has stuck in my mind for being one of the wierdest on the internet since I came across it 10 years ago. Also, just because some of you find it offensive, doesn't mean Wikipedia should remove all reference to it. If it bothers you that much, take Gene Ray to court. leopheard (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article should be kept for the entertaining talk page! The site in itself is incredibly boring, but anything that can create this much discussion just must be notable. And for the rest: we editors need to have some fun betwixt all typo corrections and other cleanups. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 19:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Extlinks

Please can people give their opinions on the merits of including the two following links. User:Theseus1776 has added them multiple times and I have removed them multiple times. Clearly we need to break the deadlock.

• http://thebookofthelaw.com/2011/02/04/cubic-clock-official-clock-of-the-church-of-time-cube/ Cubic Clock
• http://thebookofthelaw.com/2011/02/04/the-liturgy-of-the-cube-by-xix-time-cube-com Liturgy of the Cube and the Smashing of the Spherical/Non-Cubic Shaped Fruit

All comments, pro and anti, are welcome but please try to explain why you feel the links are appropriate or inappropriate. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something or is this just a blog making fun of Time Cube by pretending to establish a religion around it? 28bytes (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is serious, semi-serious or a joke. It might be serious. It is hard to tell as even genuine Time Cube has been assumed to be a joke by some people and some other people take some very strange stuff very seriously indeed. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It is serious. I emailed the blog and found that it is a religious group that teaches Time Cube. Perhaps there should be a sub-section to discuss the religious aspects of Time Cube and "Cubicism."Theseus1776 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• "'Support inclusion'". Regardless of whether or not Gene Ray authored or authorized these texts is irrelevant. What is relevant is that there are practitioners who follow his teachings as a religion per se. They do expand on Time Cube and show the development of his theory into a religious following. Ray has also authored esoteric texts such as the "Code of the Pyramid" and the "Bucket of Gems." Theseus1776 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. I see the links as irrelevant and inauthentic. They are just anonymous articles on an anonymous blog. There is no demonstrated link to genuine Time Cube. The article does not mention a Time Cube related church, religion, liturgy or "cubic clock" and the ideas presented in the articles bear little resemblance to the genuine Time Cube. It seems to be fan writing and fails to illuminate the topic in hand, which is genuine Time Cube as expounded by Gene Ray (and anybody else who can be demonstrated to actually be in league with him in this undertaking).
  I believe that the inclusion of these links is contrary to the policy Wikipedia:External links which says (in part) "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic" (emphasis mine). This is neither of those things. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how they don't expand on Time Cube or are not accurate or on topic. They are accurate to Ray's teachings and are on topic in that they support Time Cube. Theseus1776 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I simply can't see any authenticity in them. If you can demonstrate some then I would be happy to reconsider but the onus is on you to demonstrate that. As I currently see it, the ideas expressed here are substantially different from Ray's and the authors are probably not directly associated with him. Think about how we would handle this if we were dealing with a more mainstream religion or philosophy. We would never link a random blog of non-mainstream speculations to the articles on Christianity or Buddhism. What makes those links particularly concerning is their (mis)use of the word "official" to suggest that they speak for Time Cube in some sort of an authorised capacity. There is no evidence that they do. I honestly believe that a typical person reading those links would end up with less idea of what Time Cube is about than before. They actually detract from the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. As intriguing as the idea of Time Cube fan fiction might be, I have to agree with DanielRigal that WP:EL doesn't support inclusion of these links. 28bytes (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference 2

"Metasites that track crackpot sites often say this is the number one nutty site." is sited by reference 2. Would it be better to get a first hand source like the Metasites he refers to or at least include them as corroborating references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donhoraldo (talk • contribs) 01:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Times Square (reference 4)

The phrase "Time Square" in the quote which forms most of the Concept section in the article is for some reason referenced [4] to the Times Square (of New York) website. Aside from the fact that "Time Square"≠"Times Square", the context of the quote doesn't indicate that the phrase "Time Square" is meant to be a reference to Times Square (of New York), and in fact, if it were it should have probably been a link in the text to the wikipedia page about Times Square rather than a reference. The reference doesn't make any sense, because the timessquare.com website doesn't contain any material at all related to Time Cube. --Alajamber (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, and removed. Morgana Fiolett 15:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

The writing on the Time Cube site exhibits characteristics consistent with the author suffering from schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. For the sake of completeness the article should mention this. Jeremybornstein (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Only if it can be reliably sourced.--Taylornate (talk) 04:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, which is why I put it here to potentially catch the eye of someone else who has the inclination and time to put up with the official policy here for such things. Jeremybornstein (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is this, buried near the very end of that man's page of crazy:

My wisdom so antiquates known knowledge, that a psychiatrist examining my behavior, eccentric by his academic single corner knowledge, knows no course other than to judge me schizoprenic. In today's society of greed, men of word illusion are elected to lead and wise men are condemned. You must establish a Chair of Wisdom to empower Wise Men over the stupid intelligentsia, or perish.

Make of it what you will. --188.33.194.237 (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

All we can really pull out of that ambiguous self-aggrandising is that Ray thinks a psychiatrist would misunderstand his genius. We can't take it as evidence that he's actually seen a psychiatrist. --McGeddon (talk) 09:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jeremybornstein. Pretty much all the sources use slang terms to indicate madness such as "crackpot" and "nutty". The Maine student newspaper uses the phrase "spiralling madness". While clearly that's not the same as a phychiatrist's diagnosis, there seems to be consensus among the sources that the guy is "nuts". (To me it seems that he's very obviously mentally ill, and most of the sources seem interested in him and his site only because it gives them the opportunity to mock the afflicted). --Mknjbhvgcf (talk) 16:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you want to be very careful about reliable sourcing and combining info from sources if you intend to add negative information about a living person. Please see WP:BLPSOURCES. -- Fyrefly (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Dvorak quote

Dvorak's quote about "Metasites that track crackpot sites often say this is the number one nutty site" was removed for being "public derailment". I accidentally reverted it when making another edit, and didn't get a conflict warning, but I think this quote is important for establishing that the site achieved widespread recognition online. --McGeddon (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is this worth keeping?

What is this waste of computer memory even doing here? It does not make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.254.1.238 (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Gene Ray before Time Cube" section

I don't think this section is really relavent to Time Cube. Perhaps it should be moved to a Gene Ray article? --173.3.16.92 (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

There used to be a Gene Ray article, but it was merged with this one. He is notable only for one event. --McGeddon (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Looking at this now, I think Gene Ray is more notable for the Marble stuff (a time when he was more well), and timecube.com has pretty much degenerated to the point where I don't believe the website is notable any more. So maybe the article should be moved to Gene Ray?Silas Maxfield (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suspect that the vast majority of sources will only speak of him in the context of Time Cube, without mentioning his marbles stuff. Kennercat (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. If it has ever been notable in the past, then it is still notable. --Joshua Issac (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Hinduism and Alternative Rhetorical Methods, not Schizophrenia

Is there any research out there which can be incorporated into this article, which contains experts in Eastern Religions and Rhetorical styles analyzing Gene Ray's writings. I am a scholar of different religions and rhetorical styles and a lot of what people call rambling and inane about Ray's work could be understood as being in imitation of works that he's read. It's been years now since I read and analyzed his work, and researched about him, but what I was getting out of my readings was that he had read various ancient and modern things of Western and non-Western traditions, and had put them together. I wouldn't be surprized, though, if all you get is ignorant mockery of this man's seemingly odd and disorganized writings.

It's also worth tracking down in the literature that he changed his website quite often. I was looking through the Wayback Machine documentations and every time I visited the site, it was different.

Also, maybe this page could be linked up to "Primitive Art" or its nearest religious movement. Just some thoughts.

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

not a racist comment

Could someone please edit out the part in this article that refers to this person having subtle "racist" ideologies. The comments in question are ideologies which are NOT racist. And are actually in fact - facts. As follows: Racial integration DOES in fact destroy all the races. ie, When various races of humans inter-breed, then the eventual outcome of mixed racial inter-breeding is the loss of racial distinction - which is the comment "destroys all the races". Personally, and I think many will agree, that the destruction (could also be called extinction)of unique races is a bad thing to happen. These comments cannot be referred to as "racist". Please look up the definition of "racist". If someone more professional can edit the main article properly, thanks, if not, I will. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.239.130.238 (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That part seems properly sourced. What we think about this is of no importance. - DVdm (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you're just discovering that you're racist, dude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.199.30 (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there is the question of standing. The quote is from a student newspaper, and of a C-list university at that. These are not usually considered to be especially well edited and fact-checked, particularly reliable or, more importantly in this case, notable. Who cares what some teenager at East Jesus University has to say even if he is taking Journalism 101, and why does that have particularly any more standing than my Uncle Dwight's personal blog or whatever.

On the hand, you're not going to get the New York Times to comment on Time Cube, so you got to go with what you got. And there's no question that it's true that Gene Ray rants a lot and some of his rants come off as racist.

Ill give a go through it next week or so when I feel like I have the psychological patience and nerves to read it again though the line "but instead worship a queer jew" doesn't set a very non-racist tone though there is more. Keep in mind he has written about the time cube on at least five different websites where the time-cube site is simply the most predominant.

On the other hand, on the actual merits of the question of whether Time Cube is racist, it's complicated. I would point out if the people had followed Time Cube from the get-go, there would have been no European invasion of America or slave trade, since both of those moved races away from their designated quadrants, which is contrary to Time Cube ideology. It seems a little odd to describe leaving the Native Americans and inhabitants of Africa alone in peace as "racist"... So it's questionable whether you want a student in Maine to be the one to decide how we want to present on this issue. Herostratus (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

One would have to give the most extremely generous good faith reading of timecube to not read full out racism and homophobia in his various claims. Do you know of a source which explains why the very racist seeming lines aren't racist or homophobic? Shabidoo | Talk 12:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your word for it. I'm not that familiar with the site... from what I have seen, the "endless blather" characterization seems like it could be justifiable (not saying it is or isn't, just that I can see where someone might say that)... I haven't seen much racist stuff, and there's no examples in the article (just a quote asserting that it's racist) and the website right now (as far as I could stand to read) doesn't seem to have that, and what I have seen seems segregationist without being supremacist for any race, which in the United States essentially 100% of segregationists (almost always white people, but there are a few black-nationalist segregationists or used to be) are also racial supremacists for their race. But Ray is (maybe) coming from a totally different place, where the races should stay (or should have stayted, or should return to) their designated quadrant of the earth ("cubic section" or whatever), is all. That's not racist because its not, even disingenuously, valorizing any race over another. But if you say he rants racist stuff, OK. Herostratus (talk) 14:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Screwing myself up to go deeper -- I do see the homophobia (I guess... not sure how to parse statements like "Vilify teachers - for Queers swindle Tithe from 1 Day Retarded", but I don't think "Queers" is complimentary here) but I didn't see any racism. Herostratus (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ill give a go through it next week or so when I feel like I have the psychological patience and nerves to read it again though the line "but instead worship a queer jew" or the line "All past Great Civilizations have been, destroyed by minorities, so welcome to, BLACK America " or "I know now why the Jews deserved their holocaust" are already racist (especially the last one) and there is more. Keep in mind he has written about the time cube on at least five different websites where the time-cube site is simply the most predominant.

What's a time cube?

Can anyone sum up in plain English what he is trying to get at? From the excerpt on the page it just sounds like he is describing time-zones and perhaps doesn't understand that we have 24 of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.165.245.3 (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried checking out the pages; a lot of it seems to be about how teachers are evil and that no person is qualified to teach because no one is capable of knowing anything (except for himself, who he says is wiser than all humans and gods). From what I've gathered about his "theory" is that four people on different parts of the world would all experience a twenty-four hour day, and so therefore four take place in a single rotation. He indeed seems to have forgotten the concept of timezones, and the fact that its a manmade concept. My simplification is not fully-reliable; the text is so big that I can't read that much on my screen.-- OsirisV (talk) 13:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I believe Darren MacLennan described Time Cube best: "An endless hideous rant that's written in a language that's indistinguishable from English but which is not English." Herr Gruber (talk) 21:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Arguably there are infinite number of Timezones as each Meridian have one. There are slightly more then 24 actually used as there are also shifted not only by whole hour but by halfs and qurters as well (not mentioning UTC+12:45/+13/+14). As far as I understend the concept the points move with relation to earth (denoting where there is midnight/noon/6am/6pm in Solar time) - but I fail to understand as well why there are 4 days or why it would be important. Uzytkownik (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not supposed to be forum for discussing the concept (as opposed to the article), but what the heck. I think to make any sense of what he's trying to say, you have to get into a different mindset -- a mindset, incidentally, which would probably be the majority mindset if you consider all people in all history.

Consider the following statement: "People in Australia are upside down" (or, what is really meant, "People in Australia are upside down compared to us"). This is both true and not true. They're oriented "rightside up" in in respect to their gravitational field, but it is true that they are actually physically upside down in respect to us -- their feet are closer to us than their heads (and vice versa). This is a difficult concept. It's both true and not true and that's hard. People have a similar difficulty with relativity, which in way this statement is an example of some of the (seeming) paradoxes of relativity, on a mundane level.

Similarly the statement "It's midday here, but for some people it's the middle of the dark night right now". If you plucked a random person from human history -- and note that'd she'd likely be illiterate and had never been more than a few miles from home, unless a nomad -- they'd think that's nonsensical. And in a way, it is both true and not true, depending on what is understood by "right now". It's true in in the modern scientific sense, but another way to take "right now" (which our random person maybe would) is "now, in midday, with the sun high", so in that sense you're telling here "now is not now everywhere", in other words that other people have slipped backwards (or forwards) in time compared to her. That's a hard concept. Time itself is a tricky concept (and may not actually exist -- see Time, which is a lot more complicated article than you might expect). So which is true: "Other people have have different sunlight conditions right now" or "other people are twelve hours behind me in time"? Which is true is largely a matter of semantics I guess.

I guess this is what Ray is trying to get across, that other people are actually in a different time than you, and since it's a different time it's not the same day as yours -- it's not your day twelve hours earlier or later, but a different day. I guess; it's hard to tell, he's not very clear, and I don't know where the "cubic" part fits in but that's his way of expressing it I guess. In another time and place he'd maybe have been stoned as a heretic -- but he would've been more right than the stoners. I'm not saying that he's right or that it makes any sense, that's just my guess on where he's coming from. Herostratus (talk) 14:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

His theory is based on another theory that we can actually measure the time, but we can't actually measure the time with devices that are affected by time. 24 hour a day is a theory that helps us maintain our schedule, not measure the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.56.219 (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

$1,000? $10,000? What's the difference? Just one little zero. And what's a zero? Nothing!

"Ray has wagered $1,000 to anyone who can prove his theories wrong." followed by "He repeated his $10,000 offer" seems somehow off... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Your ignorance of Harmonic Cube is demonic. I fixed it anyway, though, for the benefit of readers who were educated stupid. Herostratus (talk) 11:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-subject non-article

(Moving this tangent out of the previous thread.) --McGeddon (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just file for deletion of this entire non-article about this non-subject? - DVdm (talk) 08:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Deleting an article for being a non-article is a concept worthy of Ray himself. There are five previous AfDs in the "Article milestones" box at the top of this talk page that all ended with "Keep". --McGeddon (talk) 08:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Five AFDs already? That must have a reason . I don't know how this not-even-not-even-wrong nonsense ended up on my watchlist, but I'm removing it now. Ciao! - DVdm (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Should we add a section about Richard Janczarski?

Not sure if you guys know, but Gene Ray's only known disciple was Richard Janczarski. Janczarski had a great impact on the Time Cube theory and was much more sincere and effective in publicizing it to the general public. The problem with adding a section on Jancz is that there are few reliable secondary sources on the guy. I'm in the process of tracking down a radio interview conducted with him. Can anyone else help?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovingrobert (talk • contribs) 11:17, 27 September 2015‎

Try and get back to me on my talk page when you can, McGeddon. Rovingrobert (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It'd be better to discuss it here, really, in case other editors watching this article had anything to add. --McGeddon (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, McGeddon. Back to the topic at hand it is then. Secondary information: A 40-minute interview with Richard by Charles Berman for the Bronze Age of Radio on WHRH Binghamton (https://yadi.sk/d/t8cdVYIpjMEPn). Rovingrobert (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Sic transit gloria cubi

Domain parking page as of 31 August. I just noticed today. Last IA snapshot [https://web.archive.org/web/20150818094035/http://www.timecube.com/ 18 August]. Any news coverage of this yet? - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Here we are: The Verge, Gizmodo - David Gerard (talk) 21:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

As of 2015-09-15: Time Cube is back, but the code has been hacked. There is a <iframe ...> near the end which redirects to a spam site. My ad blocker kills it, but without the ad blocker the spam page appears. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.203.96 (talk) 21:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It is still like that so I guess Ray either doesn't know about it or, quite possibly, knows but doesn't know how to fix it. I don't know whether there is any malware on the site it redirects to. Should we temporarily disable our links to it, just in case it is a risk to our readers? --DanielRigal (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Third and more likely possibility is that somebody else now owns the domain, and is deliberately hosting a copy of the earlier site, now with a spam redirect. Per WP:LINKSTOAVOID we should not link to compromised sites and should put them on the spam blacklist. I've cut the links and will suggest blacklisting. --McGeddon (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

If https://twitter.com/wisest_human is Ray's real Twitter handle, then in 2010 he was 82 years of age and had cancer. Is it possible that he simply died and lost the ability to renew the site? Rovingrobert (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I did a text comparison of the source code of the current version and a Wayback Machine crawl from April. They are bit-for-bit identical.--50.89.10.233 (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Time Cube

Cyberbot II has detected links on Time Cube which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20080709075217/http://www.timecube.com/

  Triggered by \btimecube\.com\b on the local blacklist

• https://web.archive.org/web/20150818113418/http://www.timecube.com/timecubeflierimg.gif

  Triggered by \btimecube\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Time Cube

Cyberbot II has detected links on Time Cube which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• https://web.archive.org/web/20080709075217/http://www.timecube.com/

  Triggered by \btimecube\.com\b on the local blacklist

• https://web.archive.org/web/20150818113418/http://www.timecube.com/timecubeflierimg.gif

  Triggered by \btimecube\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm. So it does a simple substring match on the URL? That is unfortunate. In this case the archive.org version is perfectly safe but still matches. --DanielRigal (talk) 07:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I suppose that makes sense, otherwise spammers could just link to recent archive.org copies of their pages.

We could request whitelisting of these particular URLs - the first one seems useful to have somewhere so that the reader can actually see what the Time Cube site looked like, but the second seems redundant (it's supporting a $1,000 prize for disproving him when we have an actual secondary source supporting $10,000). --McGeddon (talk) 07:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I have hidden the messages for now, so most readers probably won't notice it anyway. You could try the whitelist approach as well of course. GermanJoe (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The URL is still compromised (as of now), I have reverted an IP edit claiming otherwise. GermanJoe (talk) 07:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? I did a text comparison of the source code of the current version and a Wayback Machine crawl from April. They are bit-for-bit identical.--50.89.10.233 (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This morning, shortly before my revert, the link was still redirecting to a survey spam page. Now it shows a different page "TIME CUBE 4ce", which is possibly the correct site - at least it looks like it. GermanJoe (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears the correct website is there now, it shows the 10,000 reward. I will fix the article. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

For context, archive.org shows the site as being blank apart from some dodgy-looking Javascript redirect code, from late August through to September 12. From a whois, timecube dot com expired on August 24 and is registered with Network Solutions who apparently do this with expired domains. The archive.org history returns to normal on September 12, perhaps when the original owner restored the domain, or when someone else bought it up and decided to host the old content there.

If we're happy that the site is now safe, we should take it off the MediaWiki blacklist. --McGeddon (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

As of May 20, 2016, The domain 'timecube.com' seems to have been renewed, though there's no web host that responds to queries at it. You can do a 'whois' of a domain, and it shows creation date: 1997-08-25T04:00:00Z, expiration date: 2016-08-24T04:00:00Z, Tech Name: Ray, Gene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.185.211.194 (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

User:DanielRigal says that they're still getting redirected to a spam page, months later. Any chance this a cached copy of an old version of the site? It's fine when I look at it, and that's without any ad-blockers or anything. (It looks like the URL never got taken off of the blacklist, either way.) --McGeddon (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I cleared my cache so, if it is cached, it isn't locally to me. Let me try something:

• Fires up Chromium (not my usual browser)
• Clears cookies and cache.
• Goes to www . timecube . com
• Gets redirected to a blank page on dsnextgen . com. Notes that the page source of the blank page is "<html><head></head><body><!-- vbe --></body></html>"
• Googles dsnextgen and finds that it is regarded as a malware site.
• Goes back to www . timecube . com and views source. There is an iframe there. That contains other stuff on other sites. Presumably, underneath a few more layers of turtles, will be the redirect somewhere.

So my theory is that many people are using Windows with a virus scanner that detects and quietly blocks the redirect while I, using Linux, am safe without such a scanner so I get redirected to the malware site, not that it can hurt me.

Only other possibilities I can see are transparent caching at my ISP (not sure how to check that) or some browser/OS specific content on the pages.

--DanielRigal (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Recommend deletion of article

If any evidence were needed for the sad state of Wikipedia, this article is it. 75.165.58.82 (talk) 19:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

We usually give reasons for deleting articles rather than snark. Shabidoo | Talk 20:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

How about this, then? As some skeptic podcasts have said, this website lies beyond the pale of rigorous criticism because it's obviously the product of a disturbed mind, and mental illness is neither funny nor is its logic open to serious analysis.68.135.56.115 (talk) 00:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason you gave is not a valid reason to delete the article. Mein Kampf was written by a man with a disturbed mind and yet we still have an enormous article on it...and several strange books written by minor figures have also garnered notable attention and have articles. Just because it is a confusing (if not meaningless rant) book not worthy of academic study...doesn't mean it is not a notable subject for an article. Try to quote an actual policy rather than personal distaste. Shabidoo | Talk 00:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

By that logic, a lot of literature may be missing from Wikipedia. Off the top of my head, "Galileo Was Wrong" is a modern geocentric book with thousands of pages. I found it a while back from Wiki's "Modern Geocentrism" article, which has been deleted. So while I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere, this all begs the question of what exactly is the metric for page inclusion in cases like Time Cube, and even moreso for equally pseudoscientific ideas that have larger bases of adherents and published works (versus one man, and the many who mock him). Is it determined by the woeful inaccuracy, internet popularity, impact on personal lives or the educational system, exhaustiveness/effort/artistry/complexity, mental state/personal life of author, or deviation from established thought? Or not the work itself, but how well its existence and reaction to it illustrates ideas about the nature of philosophy, religion, culture, history, human behavior, cognitive dissonance, and so on? In short, is Time Cube worth inclusion in an encyclopedia? If so, by what measures and how are they applied to other works? And if not, is it Wiki's place to indirectly yet essentially erase its historical existence, since it would remain one of the few places that covered it as time passed? What is Wiki's responsibility in terms of items whose very inclusion or exclusion implies condemnation or support, based on the question-ability of why it's considered encyclopedic content? 174.20.45.107 (talk) 19:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)