Talk:Examination of Apollo Moon photographs

message: This article allows both conspiracy theorists and NASA speak for themselves. Why a neutrality dispute? (This article could use a copyeditor, though.) All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 01:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The neutrality tag was put there by hoax believers.  I think it can be taken out.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Tag was added but no discussion on the talk page, so I removed it.  Bubba73 (talk), 02:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality Dispute???

message: Shouldn't this page be Examination of Appollo moon photographs? All the best, Kayau (Talk to me! See what I've done! Sign my guestbook!) 02:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: It is clearly sourced from webarchive log, it is not a POV
--Eric144 (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is your speculation that it is doctored. And in fact, if you knew about the history of the photograph, you would know the first one was altered and the later one is the original.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't doubt that they uploaded different scans of the photograph, but the rest is pure unsourced speculation.  Bubba73 (talk), 18:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text: That is pure speculation on your part.  As you can see from the website you cited, even in 2003 the version that was on the website was on that was altered from the actual photograph.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text: The original photograph hasn't changed, only the scan of it on that website.  The current version is a more accurate scan.  Look how much sharper the detail is.  Bubba73 (talk), 19:34, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

text: That is unfounded speculation. This page is about a  potential conspiracy. The scans have changed in such a way as to disguise changes in luminosity.  A court would laugh at the idea that the scan published in 2006 was closer to the original than the 1969, 2000 or 2003 versions, even if it is higher quality. I think readers of the page should decide for themselves. As I said, you are entitled to add your view later even if it is irrational. You are trying to block my addition for absolutely no good reason at all. The fact you think it is wrong is irrelevant.
--Eric144 (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  You say that NASA changed the file 29 times - that is wrong.  Wayback machine COPIED it 29 times.  Only the few dates that have an asterisk by them were new uploads.  Bubba73 (talk), 14:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

text: wp:REDFLAG applies here: "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources.  If such sources are not available, the material should not be included. " Bubba73 (talk), 15:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

text: That rule does not apply here. No onewould believe other than I have claimed. The photographs have been updated by NASA, it is 100% clear and proven by the link I gave. You have comprehensively lost every single stage of this discussion. Changed 29 to 6 without checking to see if you are correct/
--Eric144 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:REDFLAG, WP:OR, and WP:RS all apply to your edit.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am responding to the request for a third opinion and I am agreeing with Bubba73  that the section "NASA uploading doctored pictures to website" should be deleted. The problem is that all the sources cited for the section are primary sources. WP:RS only allows the use of primary sources when the conclusions drawn from them are obvious and uncontroversial (like a straight forward plot summary of a novel or play). Any conclusions about a primary source that are in anyway not obvious or controversial need to cite a reliable secondary source. Therefore to make this section stick as written you would need to provide a reliable secondary source that drew the same conclusion about the photos that the section asserts; just citing the photos themselves is not enough to support the conclusion. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your well-considered opinion.  I appreciate it. Bubba73 (talk), 03:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  I don't suppose that a couple of professional wikiyanks with little wikimedals called Rusty and Bubba would be personally acquainted by any chance ? Let me put this in extremely simple language so that both of you can understand. This page is headed "Those who believe that the Apollo Moon Landing was a hoax often engage in examination of Apollo moon photos. Their accusations and common responses from landing believers are listed here.". I have put up an accusation. If any yankee doodle wikidudes want to put up a response to that, they are perfectly entitled to do so.  Using either Clavius or NASA as primary sources in this article is just plain stupid unless it is for primary material like photographs but of course that is what is under dispute. I do not like being ganged up on and will continue to use demeaning language until someone with basic honesty and intelligence who can understand logic joins the discussion.
--Eric144 (talk) 09:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: For the record I commented on this page after seeing a request for a third opinion at WP:3. I don't recall ever having interacted with either of you before and I certainly am not personally acquainted with either of you. The rules for third opinions would more or less prohibit me from offering one if I were. There is no real concept of rank on Wikipedia when it comes to disputes over article content. However, there are rules and policies that guide editors in the process of building an encyclopedia. If you are not familiar with the most important of these you might want to start with WP:NOT which explains things that Wikipedia is not. The most important of these with regard to this issue is "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought." I hope you can see how this would conflict with your statement that "The primary source in this case would be me as I made the accusation."  None of this has any bearing on or connection to whether or not your accusation/opinion is correct; just that it has not been published in a reliable source. Given the nature of Wikipedia it is not assumed that editors are experts on the topcis covered by an article. That is why they are required to stick to conclusions/opinions that have been published in reliable sources, not their own, even if they happen to know they are correct. This can be be frustrating, but it is essential to producing an encyclopedia; otherwise anybody could insert anything into an article. I hope this explanation helps. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

text: This whole article has citation problems, which is why it has a needs more citation banner on the top. As for the text you mention the article provides adequate sources for the muffed shot but you are correct that the "yet a slice is caused by uneven airflow on the ball. This is impossible without an atmosphere" text needs a source at least to show that someone claims it is a problem. I found 2,  and . Neither is an ideal source but they suffice to show that the claim that the "golf shot slice couldn't happen without air" has been used to support the moonshot was a hoax theory. I will add them to the article. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  In fact there is a general problem with this article in that it does not provide sources for the hoax claims, but rather only for the responses. This is a problem that needs to be fixed, but the solution is to find sources for the material as I have done for the case above, or failing that to delete the unsourced material. It is definately not an excuse to add yet more incorrectly sourced material. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks Rusty. Now we have established that my contribution was consistent with the rest of the article. I was totally correct and both of you were totally wrong. You changed one item I pointed out but none of the rest. I haven't seen Bubba racing to correct the article either. I cannot see that either of you have any leverage in this situation at all as you point out mistakes but don't correct them. The article is a complete mess  but Bubba was only interested in my section which is completely correct.
As  the section is an equal or higher standard than the rest of the article, I expect it to be edited LAST. If any techno geeks want to put in a rebuttal, they are perfectly entitled to do so.
--Eric144 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  I have tried to be patient and explain the relevent policies WP:OR (no original reasearch), WP:NOT (what wikipedia is not, and WP:RS (reliable sources) that explain why the material you added is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I have been responsive to your comments where as you have continually ignored the thrust of my comments as well as those of the editor you started having the dispute with. The crux of the matter is that your contribution is, as you yourself have admitted in your comments, original research. It is original research because you are the person who has looked at the photos and websites in question and reached the conclusion in question rather than those conclusions having been reached by a published secondary source. Original research is not allowed on Wikipedia — This is one of the core principles of the project. Nothing about the state of the rest of the article can justify that. If there is other original research present in this article, and I note that in the only example of that you put forward I was able to find sources that showed that it was not in fact original research, it should be removed, not increased. Despite clear explanations from two other editors about why the text you contributed is not appropriate you have readded the text. I have reverted your recent edits. I note that the other editor involved in this dispute has now requested comment on the whole issue. I would hope you would wait for further debate on the subject before engaging in more edit warring and disruptive editing. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT unsourced speculative POV

message: A RfC is requested on recent edits to this article.  Is the added section appropriate or original research? Bubba73 (talk), 20:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on recent edits 

message: This is currently mostly Original Research... The claim needs attribution so that readers know who claims that the NASA website has changed/doctored the photo's on its website, and can assess their reliability.  We need to cite someone who has linked all of this "evidence" together and reached the conclusion that NASA uploaded doctored pictures.  If this originates here, with a Wikipedia editor, then we have a clear case of OR.  What we need is a citation to where this claim is made... not "proof" (cited to primary sources) that the claim is "True".
And there are other problems.  First is the claim that "This is a well known conspiracy accusation".  I have removed the two Youtube videos used to cite this... the first was simply a montage of different versions of the photo set to music, and did not discuss the claim at all.  The second does discuss the possibility of doctored photos... but in a journal, NOT on the NASA webpage (in fact, it uses a photo from the NASA webpage to argue that the journal photo was doctored)  In other words... neither Youtube video discusses the Accusation that NASA uploaded doctored pictures to the website in any way... nor do they support the statement that "This is a well known conspiracy accusation".
That leaves the citation to the Education Forum website... I will leave aside the fact that a forum is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia... and focus on whether the website actually supports the claim being made.  At least this one mentions the fact that NASA updated the photos on its website... but it does so in passing and not in the context of being a conspiracy accusation.  So it too does not support the statement that "This is a well known conspiracy accusation".
So... who does make this accusation? Without a source that claims all those updates on NASA's webpage (and they did it 29 times, not 6 as was stated in the article) means that NASA doctored the photos, we have to assume that this is OR.  Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The adjective "clearly" that someone added here (or was it to another article?) betrays editorializing on the part of hoaxsters. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was here... I have removed it. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have an original 1969 16x20 photographic print of that photo (i.e. not a poster and not printed by a magazine), stored at my parent's house.  I'm going to ask them to get it so we can see which is closer to the original.  Bubba73 (talk), 20:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free... but I must remind you that what you observe can not be discussed in the article (that would be OR).  If this section is to stay, then we must refer to reliable published sources that discuss the idea that NASA has doctored the photos on its website.  It does not actually matter whether they did so or not... what matters is that a reliable source says they did. (this is a problem throughout the article, but especially in this short section... people are attempting to prove the various theories are right or wrong... when they should be discussing what  reliable sources that discuss each side of the issue have to say on the matter.) Blueboar (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the question - are there any reliable sources that either claim the photos were doctored, or more importantly, any reliable sources that report such a claim? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes... that is the question.  I am willing to give people a bit more time to answer that question (or at least indicate that they are trying to answer it). But if no one can, then we have to assume it is OR and delete it. Blueboar (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The dilemma is that there are no reliable sources that support the hoaxsters claims. The best you can get is someone reporting on the fact that those claims exist. Oh, and in case you missed it, the LRO photos of the landing sites were released today. Game, set, match. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I realize that the photo I have would be OR.  The editor that added that section first claimed that he was the primary source for it.  Now it is referenced to a forum, which is not a RS.  Bubba73 (talk), 22:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only OR if you make any specific claims about its content. If you simply post the photo and caption it factually ("original photographic print"), then you leave it to the reader to draw conclusions, rather than drawing them yourself. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For a comparison, if you post a photo of Niagara Falls and say "Niagara Falls" (slowly I turned!) then it's not OR. If you say, "Breathtaking, Spectacular, Niagara Falls", that's original research. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 22:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

text: OK, I am going to give this one more day out of courtesy... but unless someone can come up with a reliable secondary source that at least reports that this claim is made I will delete the section (and as I mentioned above, both the two youtube videos and the forum posting that were cited are not only unreliable as sources, but do not actually discuss the claim being made).  Last chance. Blueboar (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh... OK, it's deleted.  To return it please provide reliable sources. Blueboar (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Of the two sources you posted, one is a blog, which is right out. The other is a list of links, which is of no use either. That leaves us with a couple of totally uncited sentences. Hence, it adds nothing useful to the article, and is deleted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots. I think the problem may be that you don't understand the issues under discussion. Please read the rest of this talk section.
--Eric144 (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You accuse anyone who disagrees as being NASA employees, so don't go lecturing others about ignorance. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text:  Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots. I said POSSIBLY nasa or US government employees were interfering with this page. There a complete absence of rational debate considering a number of  other sections are WORSE than mine so I wonder what's going down. I dont believe you are a NASA employee. --Eric144 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend you also retract the "retarded" comment. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots. The retarded comment wasn't aimed at anyone. It was a request to desist from a FUTURE action. The problem I have here  is that you 'guys' are a bunch of dedicated anti moon hoax activists on Wikipedia who are deliberately ganging up on me. In real life I deal with difficult people by going above their heads in their hierarchy and eventually one finds someone intelligent who can see what's going on. It is the complete refusal to address the points I have made that is the dead give away. --Eric144 (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In real life, it is the hoaxsters that are the liars and obfuscators. I'll resist the temptation to call them "retarded" or "stupid". You can reserve those words for your own use. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To put it another way, the so-called "evidence" of a hoax consists of either ignorant or willful distortion. The lunar orbiter has spotted the landing remnants - which comes as no surprise to anyone who actually knows anything about the subject, hence the lack of media attention to it. The hoax stories were never more than a cult, and with the latest evidence have now been marginalized to the point of absurdity and ridicule. By all rights, there shouldn't be more than one sentence about this subject in wikipedia. The fact that there are at least 3 articles on the matter indicates a willingness to bend far over backward to try to accommodate this fringe nonsense. So kindly cease your verbal assaults on wikipedia editors, who have given this absurd subject way much more space than it deserves. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots. Didn't you complain about me being insulting ? It was probably a bad move to be insulting in return. "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject" as it says at the top. Why don't you address the topic at hand Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots ? Why don't you debunk my section Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots ?  It should be really easy for a smart guy like yourself Mr Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? Carrots. --Eric144 (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: He also continues to post blogs and personal websites that are NOT valid sources. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Eric144, the problem is simple.  For a source to be used in Wikipedia, it has to pass wp:RS.  The sources you are providing are self-published.  If someone had a website and some Youtube videos that said that Alan Alda visited the moon as a child, we wouldn't include those either.  Until the sources are deemed reliable by a consensus of editors, it's not useful.  Try running your sources past the reliable sources noticeboard to see what they have to say... they are a group of uninvolved editors who will tell you the same things that are already being told here.  Now, if you find a news source that says "such-and-such group has some doubts about the photos", anything in that news source becomes fair game (couched in the appropriate language, of course).  NJGW (talk) 22:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accusation that NASA uploaded doctored pictures to website 

message: The section on Venus over the Apollo 14 LM has been revised to indicate that the referenced page now exists in the main Journal text, rather than the working copy. Antimatter33 (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, a good reference.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 06:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Journal

message: Given that this is one of the few claims that actually has gained public awareness and notability (through the Mythbusters episode, if nothing else)... shouldn't we discribe what the claim actually is?  Surely this one has been discussed in a reliable source? Blueboar (talk) 00:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there should be a statement of the claim other than the title of the section.  Bubba73 (if u cn rd ths u cn go to my talk page), 00:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The color and angle of shadows and light are inconsistent 

message: clavius seems to be a debunking site... as such, it may be a reliable source for refutation of the claims, but I don't think it should be used as a source for the claims themselves.  We really need to cite these to the people who make them. Blueboar (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  clavius as a source for the claims 

message: "Venus has a higher surface brightness than Earth, and is indeed visible to the unaided eye in broad daylight from Earth, given a sufficiently transparent sky."
:The second part of the above sentence is nonsense. Venus is much too close to the sun and therefore can only be seen around dawn and dusk. And owing to the low angle at that times of day it loses much of its brightness.--80.141.195.122 (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it is right.  I've seen it in broad daylight.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  see Venus#Observation.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I once saw it at around 1:00pm after a rainstorm had cleaned the air. Man with two legs (talk) 13:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see it in daylight all the time, in fact most amateur astronomers prefer to observe Venus during the day, as the extreme brightness makes night observation without dense filters almost impossible. To observe Venus during the day, one must obviously learn to find it first. Old hands can easily find Venus on a clear day, by standing in the shadow of a building or tree so that the glare from the Sun is suppressed. Photographically, since Venus has a higher surface brightness than Earth, any film exposure that correctly records surface features on Earth will necessarily show Venus. You can try your own experiment to prove it - any camera focused at infinity and adjusted to normal daylight exposure, then pointed to the area of the sky where Venus is known to be, will record Venus. To get a correct exposure of Venus, you should stop down by a full stop, or decrease the exposure by half. Antimatter33 (talk) 16:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  When I've seen it in the daylight, I knew it was near the Moon and I used that for a reference point. Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venus 

message: What is the role of italics in this article?  Doesn't seem to be standard Wikipedia style... AnonMoos (talk) 00:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The non-italicized parts in the body are the claims of conspiracy theorists (see Moon landing conspiracy theories) and the italicized part are the explanations. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Would people coming across the article likely be able to figure that out without unnecessary effort? -- AnonMoos (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  An editor made that mistake earlier this month. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics?

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.socyberty.com/History/The-Moon-Landing-Hoax.452821
*:Triggered by \bsocyberty\.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 NotifyOnline 18:20, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: It is interesting to see and read about this composite photo of the Moon in eclipse and stars in the background.  The Moon in eclipse is much darker than the Moon in sunlight, yet the photographer had to use a "relatively short" exposure on the Moon and a "long" exposure to get the stars.  Bubba73 (talk), 17:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) it was taken at night, not in the daytime.  (2) It is a long exposure, probably around 1 minute - that trail is from a night-time rocket launch.  The longer the exposure, the more light the camera exposes.  Exposures on the daytime on the Moon were something like 1/125 or 1/250 of a second.  So a ~60 second exposure would gather thousands of times more light than the ones taken on the Moon.  (3) Modern digital cameras a much, much more sensitive to light than the film cameras of the 1960s.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the orbital speed of the ISS is 7.66km/s and in 60 seconds it travels 459.5 km, and I believe this would render long exposures so blurry that the picture would be useless. Veritatis in lege (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  The blurring or not of stars is determined by the rate of change in orientation of the camera not by its linear speed.  For example, the speed of the Earth around the sun is about four times the speed of the space station around the Earth and we know sharp pictures of the stars can be taken from the moving Earth. Man with two legs (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  And the clouds look blurred.  Maybe they fixed on the stars to compensate for motion. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

text:  Actually it is a photo taken from the ISS of the shuttle reentering, see this and this. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:52, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Stars in photos, again

message: The following line: "Although stars would not normally be visible to the naked eye during daylight, whether from the Earth, the Moon, or in orbit" is categorically false. The only reason you cannot see the stars in daylight on Earth is due to the atmosphere. An astronaut on the Moon would only need to look away from the Sun and above the glare of the surface of the Moon (above the horizon) to see the stars. This applies to orbit as well, look away from the Sun and the direct glare of the Earth and you would see stars.
If you were to remove the atmosphere from Earth, you would see stars during the day time.
I will remove the line from the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SINBODCAN (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorically False 

message: WOOO boy. This article was a hot mess in 2009, it's still a hot mess now. Is there any factual WP:RS-based Non WP:POV information in this article that is not sufficiently covered in Moon landing conspiracy theories#Hoax claims and rebuttals? If not, I think I can make a pretty good case that this article should be deleted. If so, then I think it should be very carefully merged into the aforementioned article. Because at the present time, this article reads like a geocities page about Time Cube.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't a candidate for PROD, because it was discussed at AfD in 2009. I suggest another AfD instead. VQuakr (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks! I didn't realize PROD was invalid if an AfD had ever occurred, even 9 years ago. Will make a new AfD. --Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Considering a new AfD