User talk:Londo06/Archive 2

Holocaust[edit]

Just wanted to let you know that I took the liberty of moving your critique of the Holocaust article to its talk page. I'm not really active in editing the page, and made the comment about resubmission for FA status in response to the other three comments asking about it, so the critique will likely more useful to them than I. Thanks, though. MrZaius^talk 14:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ownership of the Holocaust[edit]

Far from being a "key issue", "ownership of the Holocaust" is hardly ever discussed by scholars; rather, conspiracists and antisemites give it huge play. Key issues in the Holocaust are things like functionalism vs. intentionalism. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not confused. Which Holocaust scholars have debated this, and where? Please name the scholars and the publications. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XIV (April 2007)[edit]

The April 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Football (word)[edit]

The thing is, I'm not sure what you are trying to say about rugby league in the UK. Can you word it a bit differently? Grant | Talk 16:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most people are aware that rugby/league is played with the hands, so I'm I'm not sure why we need to mention that aspect in particular(?) Grant | Talk 07:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Irregulars won the Peninsular War[edit]

Jesus Christ. There's a citation at the end of that sentence. Please read it, at least, before challenging its content: Peninsular_War#_note-2. And incidentally, the sentence reads "the course of the Spanish struggle," i.e. not necessarilly the invasions of Portugal (of course the two were vitally related affairs). Your alternative, "the guerrilla war was won by guerrillas," is somehow short of an ideal encyclopaedic sentence. Albrecht 16:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really ought to apologize as well; I was frustrated on other grounds and snapped at you somewhat inadvertently. Just to resolve the matter further, I don't subscribe to the notion that Spanish irregulars and militia levies could have triumphed over the French army unaided; people like Charles Esdaile and Geoffrey Best (in line with the thought of mainstream military historians, such as Keegan) have concluded that French counterinsurgency operations in 1811-1812 would probably have succeeded in stamping out resistance movements if not for the pressure exerted by Wellington and the Anglo-Portuguese. The question of "who won" is too simplistic since it ignores the context in which either side could pursue military operations with any chance of success, namely the presence of powerful regular armies relieving pressure off indigenous resistance movements, while in turn maintaining themselves courtesy of the massive attrition, disruption, harassment, and strategic limitations imposed on their enemies by the guerrillas. I will aim to describe all this at length in the future, and you're most welcome to help. Cheers, Albrecht 20:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve McClaren[edit]

Londo, you reverted my edit to Steve McClaren for being vandalism when it clearly wasn't. I was trying to condense what read like McClaren-haters reporting every bit of negative coverage they could find. It's not difficult to find negative coverage because pundits always have a go at England coaches after disappointing results. It doesn't make that coverage fair or representative. I'm not a McClaren apologist - he's clearly not been a success - but I don't think it makes a better Wikipedia entry to repeat every piece of tittle tattle on Football365. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Le poulet noir (talk • contribs) 17:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

LOL[edit]

On Michael Crockett's page you mention the NZ Eattiors :) Thats a pretty funny typo. Mattlore 00:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Rugby league[edit]

PLEASE CONRIBUTE and PARTICIPATE WikiProject Rugby league THE CURRENT MISSION OF WIKIPROJECT RUGBY LEAGUE IS TAG ALL RUGBY LEAGUE RELATED ARTICLES WITH {{WikiProject Rugby league\|class=\|importance=}} You do not have to participate, If you are unsure how to help contact SpecialWindler.

SpecialWindler 06:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images[edit]

G'day Londo,

the images you keep inserting in Matt King are not appropriate for the project. The images are not free, and the fair use rationales provided are untrue. The images are not logos. They are replaceable by free ones (get a camera and go watch him play). We have two of them in the one article, when only one is needed per article for the use described in the rationale (providing identification). "Fair use" does not mean "I like them"; you will need to come up with better reasons than the ones so far provided. Please respect our copyright policy, and the copyright laws of Australia and the United States. If you do not, your behaviour becomes detrimental to the project, and will not be permitted. I hope this is clear. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 09:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is in the business of promoting free content. We try not to use unfree work unless it's necessary (see for example Image:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg). In the case of the Matt King article, the images you are re-inserting are not appropriate for the project, both because they are unfree when a free replacement can be found, and because the fair use rationales shown there are insufficient and wildly inaccurate. Re-inserting these images is in violation of our policies and principles, not to mention one or two laws, and you will not be permitted to continue. Cheers, fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 UEFA Champions League Final[edit]

Please do not keep reverting the "Problems before the match" section. You appear to be getting very possessive about keeping the text you wrote in that section, which is not appropriate (see WP:OWN). You're also skating very closely to the WP:3RR rule. If you have an issue with the way that section is worded then please bring it up on the talk page so that we can all discuss it and reach a consensus. Thanks. -- Hux 12:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on edit to the Gaillard article. Perfect balance of objectiveness and informativness TempRed 11:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License clarification[edit]

I'm a bit confused by Image:Saints Team 2006 PS.jpg. If I read the page correctly, you do not own the copyright to the image and have gotten permission for its use in Wikipedia specifically. But you've also tagged the image as being released under the GFDL and CC licenses. These tags aren't possible if you don't own the copyright. Can you please clarify the permission given for this image? Did you get permission specifically for Wikipedia, or get the image released under a free license? Phil Sandifer 13:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar Award[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		Awarded for numerous articles and edits on the subject of Rugby League. I've a number of Rugby League Articles in my watchlist and you have played a large part in either creating or editing them. Thank You. Rehnn83 ^Talk 14:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cooper Vuna[edit]

Hey, By asking for a cite I was referring to the fact that he was joining the Sharks not that Tate was joining the Warriors. Cheers, Mattlore 07:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]