User talk:EyesAllMine

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Welcome to the Wikipedia, EyesAllMine! And thanks for the help on the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
When you have time, take a look at The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, EyesAllMine, and have fun! Ombudsman 02:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal pending at 9/11 conspiracy theories

I have officially proposed to split the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. I feel this will help alleviate the problem of the main article being too large and allow these two distinct concepts to be discussed in depth separately. Further division may be in order in the future, but I feel this is an important first step. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article. Thank you. Blackcats 05:15, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jones

Do you have an opinion as to whether anything should be done about the the change to Alex Jones in the 9/11 Researchers article? SkeenaR 19:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw the change, and I have now rephrased under Alex Jones, and added more information under Other Notable ... :) Thanks for informing me. --EyesAllMine 16:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff!.SkeenaR 05:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and thank you for the help with spelling ... nice :) --EyesAllMine 21:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTC Collapse article

The entire section on controlled demolition was deleted so I put in two new "improved" sections that are very relevant to the article and NPOV. They could probably be added to as well. Watch out for vandals! SkeenaR 06:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That information belongs in that article. That guy doesn't have a leg to stand on and that is why he is now resorting to vandalism. We don't have to let him do that. You do a good job there. SkeenaR 20:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was almost blocked for 24hrs when Mongo reported me for 3r violation. Others had deleted the new sections as well.

3RR

Dispute resolution

vandalism

WP:NPOV (undue weight)

SkeenaR 00:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

We have found that acheiving NPOV can be difficult. Overcoming POV objections is more laborious tha NPOV editing! SkeenaR 21:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might be interested to see this. [1] SkeenaR 03:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copenhagen

I thought you might be interested to know I've been to your city before. It was a while ago though, back in the early 90's. It's a long way from here. As a matter of fact, I had beer right here a few times. I had a good time there and liked the people. I've been to Europe a couple of times. I hope to make it back again someday.

An unrelated thing you might find interesting, but not that it's a big deal either, is that in the Researchers talk page there are posts by Wing TV's Lisa Guiliani. I am pretty sure she appears in 9/11 Martial Law. Talk to you later. SkeenaR 23:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I'll check it out. And yes Copenhagen can be really nice :)

Awesome work with permission request. SkeenaR 22:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas

Thank You, and if you come up with more good ideas for articles you should let me know. I'm pretty sure it was you that wrote the second half. I have some new stuff including image use permission for pictures that were speedy deleted as well as a vast amount of other material that could be helpful for illustration. The articles could expand fast and well and be excellent contributions. Talk to you later EyesAllMine. SkeenaR 11:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC) You should get email[reply]

Re: Edit War

I'm referring in your case to this diff. You only reverted another's change once (as did I, in the other direction). That's fine. I was tossing the warning out to all involved that it needed to stop. There had been seven reverts in the last 24 hours over that particular piece of content. --Durin 14:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I took the merge proposal down from the Scholars for 9/11 Truth article before talking to you, so unskyld, but it was because after reconsidering, I came to the conclusion that it was not the right thing to do. But this [2] should probably be read because it seems to point out some of the reasons efforts at implementing NPOV on our part are being stonewalled. This [3] appears to be regularily directed at us as well. If you have any thoughts about this you should let me know what you think. The tag removal is discussed here and here. Farvel :) till next time. SkeenaR 02:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

This article could use your vote: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Citizens' Commission on 9-11--Striver 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guild

Hi! I wonder if you are intrested in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild by signing the member chart. i would also apreciate any advices you might have on improving the Guild. Thanks :) --Striver 11:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, but I am not for teaming up :) EyesAllMine 16:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image use

Hi. I was wondering if you might have any ideas at all on this. [4] I see you are in the Visual Communications field. Any thoughts you might have would be much appreciated. Thanks! SkeenaR 00:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not strong in american copyright law, I'm afraid :)EyesAllMine 07:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyways. [5] SkeenaR 23:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beutyfull lake :) EyesAllMine 10:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jones' paper publication

Hi EyesAllMine,

Jones' paper is not (or no longer?) scheduled for release in THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001 [6]

His paper now states: "The paper (below) has undergone modifications and a second set of peer reviews and has been accepted for publication in a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott." [7]

(The above quote appears right below the draft version number)

Regarding THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11-2001, Jones' paper now states "Prof. Griffin's paper is scheduled for publication in The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Research in Political Economy, Volume 23, P. Zarembka, editor, Amsterdam: Elsevier, forthcoming in Spring 2006."

Perhaps it was a typo in the paper, and Jones' name was put in instead of Griffin's.

Thanks for keeping this page up!

CB Brooklyn 02:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction - I have misread it :P EyesAllMine 10:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info: Using the current info from Jones' paper:[8] " has been accepted for publication in a volume edited by David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott."

and the info at the top of this page:[9] "This paper will appear in 9/11 AND THE AMERICAN EMPIRE: INTELLECTUALS SPEAK OUT, David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott, eds. (Northampton: Interlink Books, 2006)"

can we assume that Jones' paper will also appear in the 9/11 AND THE AMERICAN EMPIRE: INTELLECTUALS SPEAK OUT?

CB Brooklyn 11:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to ask Steven Jones to know for sure. But it would be nice to know however. EyesAllMine 08:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

I direct you to read carefully through Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy page...this edit summary was unnecessary.--MONGO 05:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well ... Calling the fact tags for ugly, and then deleting them all, didn't seem to me as a sober thing to do. But it was meant in a humourous tone, as I suppose your commet also was. I really thought you could take it MONGO. EyesAllMine 05:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not conducive to the forum. I critique the information, not the messangers...if I find the information you post to be based on misinformation and junk science, then I call it that...it is not a personal attack. I'm always sober.--MONGO 08:05, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And that is precisely why I actually like you a lot. You are calling a spade for spade. No sneakyness from your side at all. Please, it was meant in an humorous way. Really. I just wish that you could see my effort for what they are: trying to make the article verifiable. But MONGO, reverting all my {{fact}} tags by arguing they are ugly ... I really thought you where joking. But if you wasn't joking then I'd say that it was harassment on my contribution EyesAllMine 08:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo's behaviour

Hi EyesAllMine,

I've started a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mongo to report Mongo's behaviour on 9/11 related article. Can you help me with it?

Thanks, Seabhcán 08:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OH, cool, im in! --Striver 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

careful, you're part of some sort of secret plot, at least that's what the wikilink that brought me here said anyway--152.163.101.9 02:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha... well paranoia can be unhealthy :P EyesAllMine 09:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Hi. I would like to inform you of this afd:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Joseph Watson --Striver 13:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbritation

Thought you might be interested to see this [10] SkeenaR 23:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism of Steven Jones page

EyesAllMine, where have you been? I didn't see your revert, so I reverted it myself. See my talk page and here to see what's been going on.

We need eyes on Jones page to prevent damage.

CB Brooklyn 17:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc

I haven't heard from you in a while. Thanks for the reminder. SkeenaR 00:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation

With this edit, what are you talking about? I did not insert anythng faulty and I recommend you watch edit summaries such as these in the future.[11]--MONGO 12:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally added by some anon IP [12] and it reappeared when I reverted your attempts to take out the information I had added. That simple.--MONGO 12:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well - I have removed it once again [13]. as it was reinsertated again in the article after I deleted it, and it is still faulty, wrong, not correct. It could be nice if you where willing to clean after yourself once in a while. EyesAllMine 14:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: anon inserted faulty information[14]. I removed it[15]. You MONGO reinserted it[16]. I removed it, and asked you not to reinsert faulty information[17]. Tom Harrison reinserted it again![18] and today I removed it for the last time (I hope)[19]. EyesAllMine 15:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you'd be interested

...to know that there is quite a bit of interesting activity going on at the Fetzer page right now. Just thought I'd try and liven up your next visit. See ya. SkeenaR 09:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]