Engwar

Welcome!

Hello Engwar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  EdwinHJ | Talk 05:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Please sign!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. -- Eagle^amn 06:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

ISBN Javascript Code

Hi Engwar,

This code will only work if you are logged in. You also may need to clear your cache. There are instructions on how to do this on the top of your monobook.js page. What browser are you using?

Lunchboxhero 13:39, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It works for me now. Thank you. A human 11:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Bush wanted to lure Saddam to shoot down UN plane

That was a completely inappropriate name for an article. I have changed it to Bush-Blair memo which is bad but if you can find a name of what the memo is being called then please change the title to that... but titles should not be accusations. gren グレン ^? 02:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sale of heavy water to Israel

Hi - dont know why you changed the information I added to the article, as its shown here in the Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten it was Norwegian heavy water, sold by Norway [[1]], but shipped out from the UK. So the article as it stand is not correct. Ulflarsen 16:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I know, but UK knew it was going to Israel. So just stating Norway sold it is insufficient. A human 17:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

AFD

Care to vote?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)

--Striver 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Pipes

Thanks for fixing[2] my stuff-up. In doing a couple of copyedits of the article, I noticed an earlier mention of the same column (last para of Daniel_Pipes#Policy_toward_Iraq). (Oops! I should have noticed that earlier.) I did nothing about this duplication myself. Would you like to combine them, or edit the second to mention the first ("In the above-mentioned NYSun article of 28Feb2006, ...), or whatever?

Also, I've suggested on Talk:Daniel Pipes that we delete that quote. I now incline towards keeping it. I take it you want it kept?

—Chris Chittleborough 14:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Later: I've had a go at the duplication problem myself. I simply removed the first para, as explained in Talk:Daniel Pipes. If I've been too WP:BOLD, feel free to edit me. I've also changed my vote re that quote to "keep" and declared my micro-poll closed. Cheers, Chris Chittleborough 12:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

debka.com

this "mix of real and invented news" line is complitely unfounded. please stop adding it back. WP is not an activist forum. Must stick to facts, must stick to NPOV. LoremImpsum 07:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if it offends you. But it is well documented that much of their news is speculation portrayed as facts. A human 01:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

its not about me being offended, your claims are as much speculation as the speculation they claim. this is an encyclopedia so it is safer, and proper to stick to hard, confirmed facts. wikipedia is known for being innacurate with controversial issues, plesase do not contribute towards this. LoremImpsum 07:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I have looked at most of the websites you started, and the recent changes you have made and the patern i notices is that more often that not you dedicate to incorporate biased and opinonated remarks in politically charged articles. Wikipedia is not a forum for this. Studies have found that wikipedia is accurate with non controversial scientific articles, but not so with politicl ones. You are contributing to this problem.LoremImpsum 01:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the edit history of the DEBKA.com page. While such cricism is legitimate if sourced, it cannot be sourced to blogs per WP:RS. Please review this policy. Respectfully, Republitarian 23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)