Talk:Time Cube/Archive 11

message: 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)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: ===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)
thread_title:  Poll: Request for Arbitration 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Forum link

message: 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)
thread_title: Note to 211.28

message: 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)
thread_title:  Several quote lists removed 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Request for Edit Summaries