Talk:Time Cube

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Cscr-former.svg Time Cube is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
In the month of July, 2005, a request for arbitration was left open concerning this article. Both sides were allowed to express their viewpoints. Afterwards, the arbitrators made the following comments. Please leave this section here for reference; any changes will be removed.
  • Accept Fred Bauder July 7, 2005 22:39 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 23:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure you need the ArbCom to tell you what to do with an incoherent POV-pushing anon ... - David Gerard 10:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. As David, this is not a situation where you need arbitration. Just block as needed -- sannse (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject - Concur with David, shoot on sight, no arbcom needed. →Raul654 17:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject, agree with David. James F. (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. Feel free to block on sight. You don't need our permission. Neutralitytalk 18:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

For those who haven't been following the discussion... A mostly anon user, referred to as TimeCubeGuy, frequently reverts pages to some variant of this version. The "unofficial" result of the above ArbCom (the case was rejected on grounds that the user was a simple troll/crank) was to shoot this user's edits on sight: that is, if you see the page resembling the page referenced above, it is considered vandalism and should be reverted.

Schizophrenia[edit]

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)

"Gene Ray before Time Cube" section[edit]

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)

What's a time cube?[edit]

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)

Dvorak quote[edit]

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?[edit]

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)