Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.

• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.

• If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Who the hell has been vandalising my page with rabid Zionist propaganda and deleting the Diego Garcia section?

Again, welcome! - James F. (talk) 23:46, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

IRA and ETa failed -- please see Talk:Guerrilla#IRA_and_ETA_failed Philip Baird Shearer

Roll off the tongue don't they?

Another name for your US Assassination plots page: Patrice Lumumba

You might be interested in the Mordechai Vanunu and Israeli violence against Palestinian children, both pages are under attack from Jayjg, pro-Israel sockpuppets and anonymous users. - Xed 18:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, although they seems to be protected now. I agree that the edits to the page were ridiculously Zionist POV: e.g. refering to his kidnapping as an arrest, claiming he endangered the lives of six million people, references to "mad-left" Israelis, etc. I added Patrice Lumumba. Kingal86 20:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I stepped on your edit at Hamas by deleting the speculation about intent. --Alberuni 18:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused. I've looked through History. What speculation did you remove, or step on?- Kingal86 22:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tu as dit :

J'ai lu votre article sur le page de discussion de Alburuni. Porquoi ne contributez-vous pas aux articles sur le Moyen-Orient? Désespérez-vous des Wikipidiens zionists , ou de la situation dans le Moyen-Orient en général?

Oh, un peu les deux ! But frankly I find I can fill more useful gaps elsewhere. Discussions about Palestine are just so polarized, they're almost guaranteed to go nowhere. Pour l'instant je préfère écrire au sujet par exemple de la Révolution haitienne — quasiment nulle en ce moment — ou de l'Afrique du Sud; I know more about them besides! QuartierLatin1968 00:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (| talk)

Happy birthday, Alex! Best wishes. --[[User:Whosyourjudas|Whosyourjudas\^talk]] 04:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm 18 today! How do you know my birthday? Have I put my birthday on my Personal Space?(I'll check) Oh, I think I remember, I put my name on a list of birthdays didn't I? Merry Xmas!Kingal86 23:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Happy Birthday, Kingal86! Wishing you a very happy birthday and an awesome upcoming year! Don't forget to save us all a piece of cake! Best regards from the Birthday Committee and myself! --lovelaughterlife♥talk? 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

were a series of coordinated terrorist attacks overwhelmingly targeting civilians upon the United States carried out on Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

Though correct, I think the sentence is less beautiful with your addition. It makes the sentence a bit hard to read. Also, I think "overwhelmingly" has a kind of emotional flavour, which may not be appropriate. Thirdly, the Pentagon and the supposed White House target are not civilian targets, even though civilians died as "collateral damage". Finally, it gives me the impression that it is less evil to kill a soldier during peace-time then it is to kill a civilian, it makes the military deaths sound insignificant, a bit un-respectful. (I'm sure you meant no disrespect!) These were the things that struck me when reading your change, but I leave it upto you whether to make any changes. — Xiutwel (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I used "overwhelmingly" was because the attacks on the Pentagon did target the military, albiet using civilian planes as missiles. Kingal86 17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article International Humanitarian Law includes a sentence fragment that I think you wrote. It's impossible to understand the paragraph, as written, and I was hoping you could edit it to make it understandable. The sentence fragment in question is at the beginning of Non-uniformed guerrillas and Protocol 1 and reads:

"Under the Third Geneva Convention a fighter or belligerent in an international armed conflict who wanted lawful combatant status (and therefore prisoner of war status if captured), including..."

It continues with a list of what appear to be conditions defining lawful combatant status. There is no verb.

Hi. I was looking at your user page and viewed your pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist position; which I understand. I was wondering, however, due you agree with a two-state solution if Jerusalem is somehow shared between two countries? Or do you not agree with the Israeli state in general? Tell me what you think, I'm interested in your opinion. Thanks, 2help (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really sure any more given the issue of refugees, the Hamas-Fatah civil war and the continuing Israeli colonisation of the West Bank--seemingly aimed at preventing a meaningful state. There are obviously massive obstacles to a one-state solution as well: hatred on both sides, nationalism, massive economic inequalities between Israeli citizens (inc. Israeli Arabs) and West Bank/Gazan Palestinians. Even if such a binational state was miraculously angry extremist Zionists may launch an insurgency, and Jews would still have economic and institutional power, and large swathes of land and property. And would there be war crimes trials (for both sides or one?) or a general amnesty (as there was under the Oslo Agreement and after the Lebanese Civil War)? And, given present population trends in Israel & the Occupied Territories, would the Palestinian Arabs have a slight majority--or overwhelming if the refugees were repatriated. Kingal86 (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I see you've worked on Insurgency in the past, you might be interested that I put an invitation, on its talk page, to look at a rewrite in my sandbox at User:Hcberkowitz/Sandbox-Insurgency, and see if that is a valid improvement. It is definitely intended not to be specific to any national definitions. Thanks!

Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 05:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and I both have the guts to include (somewhere on our pages) our respective beliefs.

I saw that you claimed you were a Pro-Chechen independence and Pro-Palestinian independence left winger. You also state your commendation of civilian attacks, discussing the attacks by Western democracies in their wars. What is your opinion of the fact that Hamas will never accept peace with Israel (and so will continue terrorism, its only method of "striking back") and Chechnya's attacks on Southern Russia after Chechnya won the first war of independence? You may have guessed that I oppose Hamas strongly. Tourskin (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Kingal!

You recently commented on the Jesus article your belief that the article should use either BC/AD or BCE/CE and not both- the discussion has started upagain on Talk:Jesus about which form should be used- your opinions are wanted! Please join the discussion. Gavin (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]