User talk:Cheradenine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome, I don't have much to say, but I may as well have a page to say it.

[edit] Timecube

Nice cleanup of the the Timecube page. Mgw 22:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'll certainly help you maintain the cleaned-up version. Mgw 04:59, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I certainly don't think our anonymous friend will be particularly amenable to reason, persuasion, mediation, or arbitration, and I think the way forward is simply to outnumber him...that is, take it as a given that the consensus version will be maintained, to which I will gladly add my efforts. But if you think other methods might work, I don't want to persuade you otherwise. - Nunh-huh 18:38, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello, Cheradenine. As you probably know, the anon has also been active on Greenwich Mean Time, Universal Coordinated Time, and Time zone, in all cases insisting on including references to Time Cube despite several other editors reverting. I protected all three due to edit warring (this was before I became involved, of course) and have been discussing with the anon at GMT's talk page. I am unsure what the best course is. An RfC might be the way to go—I doubt the anon would be convinced, since he wants to debate the merits of conventional time and such; he's convinced he has a revolutionary new theory, and feels it irrelevant if all others disagree. However, an RfC may bring some additional outside input, so we could be more sure of consensus, and it would call additional attention to the articles. If others agree, they could also help out in keeping the pages clean. Or they may have other ideas for the articles. I do not wish to keep the pages protected much longer, as I feel it harmful. As a side note, the more I discuss Time Cube with the anon, the less it sounds like Gene Ray's version and the more it sounds like a slightly different timekeeping conversion. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:48, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I decided to unprotect Greenwich Mean Time and asked the anonymous user to respect the consensus while we continued the discussion, and surprisingly, he agreed. I think this is in part because it is rather clear that these edits don't belong in these three articles and because the version of Time Cube that emerged as a product of our discussion was only trivially different from and less practical than our current timekeeping system—and also, as he said, to focus on the controversy at Time Cube. I am still unsure what the best strategy is there, but your idea of including salient quotations from the web site seems like a great idea to me! All three articles are now unprotected, but I'll keep an eye on them. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:01, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Time Cube

No problem, I thought I should pitch in seeing as I voted to keep it. I'm only sorry I didn't help out sooner - I hadn't noticed the cleanup had started! It's hard to work out what claims to pull out from the website (mainly, it's hard on the eyes! :) ) but I'll try and read through it later and see if there's any useful quotes I can find. Anilocra 20:54, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please vote

Hi, thanks for keeping tabs on the Time Cube article. Please vote at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/211.28.*.*. —Sean κ. + 16:14, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)