Reply[edit]

Ok well it probably was a little over enthusiastic its just that its my favorite game and by the time i was done i was about to gnaw off my typing hand so it would just stop writing about the game and let me play it. Its really addicting and I've gone through about 20 or so cleanup phases in the week or so its been up. Compare it to the original and only about 4 sentences of starting text remain. So it actually became that way on the reccomendations of a few other gamers and most of it is pretty much a cleaned up port directly from the player made wiki.

Kopana Finklestine 02:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Spencer[edit]

Why did you do that revert on that page?--CltFn 20:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, had just installed the popup tool and reverted unintentionally. I feel a bit stupid. LeContexte 21:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then kindly go to that page and undo your edit. thanks--CltFn 21:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I meant to do that earlier, but think I forgot to save. I guess I'm just not firing on all cylinders today. LeContexte 21:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Srebrenica Massacre - Living Marxism[edit]

Although notionally a Marxist group the Revolutionary Communist Party group which has been the driving force behind Living Marxism and its successors and associates in the Spiked-Online constellation behaves in many ways as a group on the libertarian right wing would. This may be opportunism or deep strategy but either way they criticise progressive humanitarianism and support pro-big business campaigns. --Opbeith 18:17, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Their methods of organisation (centralised and entryist) are Trotskyist but, as you say, their politics have little in common with most of the left. Trying to find a one word to summarise them is difficult - "Odd" works for me, but is hardly NPOV. LeContexte 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in AUTOTRANSFUSION[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on AUTOTRANSFUSION, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because AUTOTRANSFUSION is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting AUTOTRANSFUSION, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology for error in Respect edit note[edit]

Just a belated apology for an edit note in the Respect history, that wrongly names you as being responsible for 'SWP bias'. It's been bugging me as I left your name and can't correct it! Sorry!

I've gone back to it a couple of times now, to try and see how I made the error - and I still can't quite work how it happened. By way of excuse,

Someone had a go at a couple of edits of mine in one big change, re-inserting the false statement that Galloway had left Respect etc (which I had corrected in a single edit, with an explanatory edit note), rather sneakily alongside removing a number of my edits lower down on the page (which was the only thing he referred in his edit note). I used 'undo' on a comparison page, saying the Galloway edit was 'SWP bias'.

I later thought the Galloway part wasn't anything to do with him, so I apologised to him at the end of my next edit note, and added who I thought was responsible for it. (a needless addition by me anyway, I know.) How I suddenly came to the conclusion it was you I still can't see! As it was due to my first (and so far only) revert I looked pretty carefully at the history too - and your own concise edit was pretty straightforward.

I've been scratching my head over it on a couple of occasions. I had hitherto preferred edits to reverts - this was a total mess, so I'll be sticking to my old approach in future! --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, and thank you for being so conscientious. LeContexte (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality Barnstar[edit]

		The Barnstar
		For courageous work maintaining neutrality on Archaeology and the Book of Mormon. -- Noleander (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Mormon[edit]

QUOTING YOUR EDIT NOTE:

"the fact is that there is essentially zero support for the historicity of the Book of Mormon outside the LDS church."

I think a statement of this moment needs to be examined and sourced, not simply tucked away in an edit note. Can we please discuss this in the Book of Mormon talk page? I'm starting a new section there for the purpose.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 18:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate your response on the Book of Mormon talk page. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I I accept your edit of my edit I fail to see how it was pure POV while I admit after rereading it that it could be construed as POV it is a fact that many promising links have been put forward. Also thank you for correcting my spelling of majority don't know how I missed that. In essence though it's not that you deleted it I have accepted the change and think the article is better without it, it's that you judge my intentions as being POV when my goal was simply to present both sides. So to clarify thank you for the edit but the comment of "Pure POV" was unfounded. Sorry for doing this here but I am still very new at editing wiki and it's talk pages and don't know how to add new sections to the talk pages.Aqulias Regalis Thor (talk) 07:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blood Electrification[edit]

Hello, I notice you placed an AFD notice on this article, but did not open an AFD. Did you mean to bundle this into the AFD for Bioelectrification? I think if that was the case, you may have to open a new, seperate AFD for blood electrification anyway, as discussion is already underway. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is fixed now, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood electrification (2nd nomination). Please drop a note on TPH's talkpage as he is the one who fixed it for you --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. gravity control propulsion initiative[edit]

Thank you for identifying the citation error. The references to Kaiser's and Infeld's papers were moved to the correct segments of the article. Intel has been returned to the text. It is the name the article was published under. The editor of Interavia states this. Tcisco (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and history merge proposal[edit]

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between History of the Latter Day Saint movement and Mormonism and history. I saw that you were a recent contributor of one of the pages in question, and thought you would be interested.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon merge proposal[edit]

Please weigh in on the merger proposal between Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon and Linguistics and the Book of Mormon. I saw that you were a recent contributor of one of the pages in question, and thought you would be interested.--Descartes1979 (talk) 21:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morphic field cleanup?[edit]

I've been watching Morphic field for some weeks but have been afraid to get too involved with trying to do any major maintainance work on it lest I run into the sort of nastiness/fanaticism I found back last winter when I tried to inject some reality into Animal rights.

Are you interested in trying to trim it and correct it to a more NPOV or are you just passing through and flagged it because it is so obviously POV?

I'd hesitate to get involved in any serious effort in trying to fix such a topic unless there was someone else who wanted to try to keep up with the process during times I got tired or had to take a break for the rest of the world. A fifty cent analogy is "rust never sleeps but painting is a chore".Trilobitealive (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to participate look at Morphic field for the last few of my edits to see the sort of cleanup changes I'd propose. Easier to show than to tell.Trilobitealive (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian Names Merge Proposal[edit]

As you are a recent editor of the articles in question, please see my merge proposal of Linguistics and the Book of Mormon#Egyptian names and Egyptian names in the Book of Mormon - thanks. --Descartes1979 (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perpetual motion machine template[edit]

You added the perpetual motion machine template to the John Bedini article. Someone is suggesting it be deleted - see Talk:John Bedini#This is not perpetual motion. —mjb (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

free energy suppression[edit]

I'm most offended by your reverts.

I assume this was your intention?

Go-here.nl (talk) 06:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand - you deleted another user's comments on a talkpage, and I reverted your deletions. Why is this offensive? Please see Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines LeContexte (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Press TV[edit]

If you say so. Causteau (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Clark (writer)[edit]

Hi there. I have reverted you. This article is of a controversial subject that has involved considerable activity at otrs. It is therefore crucial that we do not allow the article to be used as a coat rack for poorly sourced commentary by the subject's political opponents. Accusing a living person of being a cheer leader for mass murderers is akin to saying they support genocide. We must have something much more significant then an opinion piece in a known right-wing journal to make that kind of allegation. In short we need significant neutral sourcing of such a statement. Please feel free to review WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE to understand why I removed the allegation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I (mostly) agree - see my response on the talk page. LeContexte (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sensatori[edit]

Well tagged as a hoax - there's a little bit of truth but it's mostly nonsense. I have had time to investigate it, and have taken it to AfD. JohnCD (talk) 18:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry's Place[edit]

I know you've made some contributions to this article in the recent pass and commented on the talk page, so you might have some interest in this. The page has just gone through several months of edit warring, which appears to have finally stopped with the blocking of a disruptive editor. However I wanted to get some feedback on content that was dropped during the last several rounds of edit wars. I really have no idea who dropped what and why, but I want to make sure I'm not stepping on anybody's toes before adding stuff back in. Also, whether anything that SQuentinQuale was trying to add is usable if referenced and rephrased in less inflammatory language. Your feedback is valuable. Discussions here:

Peter G Werner (talk) 05:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, LeContexte. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]