User talk:Godwhale

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

War of 1812
Thanks for the engouragement, GodWhale. The War of 1812 page is diabolical, in my 11 years of being on Wikipedia, it's the worst one I have come across. It's basically run by militant editors who are very firm in their beliefs, and will go to town on anyone that dissents from their opinion, they are really *not* open to discussion.... and I suspect that behaviour is tied to nationalist feelings about a certain country that is involved. I am pretty sure most of them just live on that page, and are not general Wikipedia editors. I have spent some time on there trying to get it balanced, including in the past a successful mediation that broadened the viewpoints. I have a current notice about the bias on the Bias noticeboard, however it is not getting any attention: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_61#War_of_1812_-_Representing_Both_Results_of_view_in_the_Infobox Anyways, thanks for the support. Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I think at where some of the editors are being pro-US about some aspects of the article, and then at other parts of it, there is a general pattern of bias. Some of these editors need to be banned from the page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't think there is anything you can do to support it at the moment, however when someone looks at it, it would be good to get your opinion on it. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Blockade of Germany (1939–1945)
Hi, as promised I've left some comments on this article Talk:Blockade of Germany (1939–1945). Overall, I think that it's an excellent piece of work, and I learned a lot from it. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

De Gaulle
Thanks for your recent contributions to this article. But we must ensure that new information is referenced with in-line citations. If you look back in the history of this entry you'll see that at one time it was heavily criticised for a lack of citations. This is now largely resolved. The tool at http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php is useful in this respect. Mikeo1938 (talk) 07:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Your edits are VG and I apologise for deleting your recent contribution.  But after what happened to this article in 2008 (and the subsequent work to put things right) I'm anxious that contributions be cited. Mikeo1938 (talk) 09:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Mikeo, thanks for the message, I could see there were some undos regarding vandalism, but I am unaware what happened previously. It can't have been as bad as Thierry Henry! Upon reading the article for the first time, I found it to be less than neutral, being if anything far too positive to the man.  My intention was to try to add some depth to the rather vague sections on WW2 where there are some pretty solid references available from a variet of sources.  One line in particular still sticks out as needing attention - the last line of the introduction which says "he is considered by many to be the most influential figure in modern French history" with no references at all.  I think plenty of people would disagree with that statement.


 * As we know, he remains a controversial figure, at least in Britain and America, but I know a couple of French people who completely agree that he was not really a 'great' man, but no one can doubt he is a fairly important historical figure that needs to be properly written about. If it's ok I'll continue to add references, & try to be as fair as possible. --Godwhale (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * OK Godwhale and all noted. It is obvious from your thoughtful edits that you know about the subject.  I'm just a bit protective about this article because I spent hours and hours searching for citations pertaining to stuff that had been added over the years.  As I say in an earlier note, there were just 16 citations when I embarked on that task!  There's a fair bit of vandalism but it gets snuffed out smartly.  I look forward to reading your further input. Mikeo1938 (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Greetings. I amended a number of terms and removed others from the article on Charles De Gaulle per WP:Biography. We need to have, at all times properly and fully atributable outside sources in Wikipedia content - otherwise we are doing original research. Your use of the term "semi-comical figure" is entirely inappropriate. Your disagreement with the sentence "[De Gaulle] is considered by many to be the most influential figure in modern French history" would need some serious backing up because it is, frankly, quite obvious! I have no personal agenda pro or against De Gaulle and Gaullism but can you think of any other figure in 20th century France who merits such an assessment? I would offer, if I may, my very humble recommendation to approach the editing of Wikipedia articles emotionally detached. Cheers.-The Gnome (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Gnome, I can assure you, there is no emotional attachment to someone who died 40 years ago, when I was very young. Upon reading the article for the first time, I was struck by how vague it was, but then I understand it has been subject to a fair bit of vandalism, perhaps by people who DO have some kind of emotional attachment. I have read your link to Quite Obvious, but I don't really think it is obvious when there are so many other figures, like Petain, Laval, Mitterrand. My point is that if so many people think he's so influential, there might be at least one reference.  The section on his legacy, which is the one you refer to, had hardly anything in it!  It read like a fan site - I would have thought someone so 'influential' would have more to be said about him than a long list of things named after him.  But ok, I take your point, I will change it- it is a work in progress anyway, & I intend to add plenty of other sources.  Please remember that one of the core principles is that work doesn't have to be perfect, and I am trying to improve the article by adding SOMETHING --Godwhale (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response.
 * On "Most influential French of the modern era":
 * The political figures you mentioned are good examples. None of them had as much influence in the politics, economy and culture of France, Europe and beyond as De Gaulle. This is so evident that I had to cite the relevant wiki advice.
 * The section is still very much one-sided against De Gaulle. Example: Churchill is cited and the quotes are true but, at the same time, Churchill had written admiringly of De Gaulle and he was instrumental in persuading the Americans (FDR disliked De Gaulle) to allow De Gaulle, instead of Leclerc or others, to represent France politically in the Allied camp. Another example: De Gaulle was the key figure in the post-WWII unification of Europe and the establishment of the still strong Paris-Berlin axis (then, Paris-Bonn). Except for the Americans, De Gaulle's uncompromising stance against Nazi Germany and the Axis was appreciated and the genral himself very much admired everywhere else. (Look at the majestic statue of him in Moscow, in the article). We are forgetting that after fighting tooth and nail against the Germans he was able to completely overcome the historical antagonism with Germany and also to rid France of its Algerian colony - so as to open the way for France's leading role in European integration. He was a man of the hard-line, nationalist Right, let's not forget, so these leaps forward are even more admirable, as modern historians have noted.


 * We need more sources (incl. Beevor, who is too selectively cited) so as to present a global view of De Gaulle, with both the pros and the cons, as presented by third-party sources, preferably historians. Me too, I will try to help some (my political and military library is well stoked!), if I can resist for enough hours the summer temptations :-) Cheers, The Gnome (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, sounds like you have some interesting points to make - if you can help out by supplying these references then I think together we can go a long way to improving the article. I still have a number of other more positive things I want to say. Hopefully, by making these points and providing the background as to why he was a man of such contradictions, it will make future vandalism of the article much less likely. Thanks --Godwhale (talk) 12:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Charles de Gaulle, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''I'm sure you're doing good work. But you must, as you have been told many times before, use inline citations to support your text. Please do this. Otherwise anyone can come along and remove all your content.'' bodnotbod (talk) 13:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Botnotbod, can you please be more specific; I have added quiet a lot of references and I'm surprised you say I haven't been. Unless you feel I'm doing it in the wrong way? Can you please clarify as I'm a little cofused by you message--Godwhale (talk) 08:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Charles De Gaulle, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 14:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Charles De Gaulle
I've just received your message. I reverted your edit because there wasn't an explanation. To fix it, can you tell me how many revisions to re-input and I can do it fairly quickly. I'm online for next 10 mins. Denisarona (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted what I reverted - can you check & confirm all ok?? Denisarona (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

January 2012
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 11:43, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

"Why do I bother?"
Hey there!

I happened upon Eeekster's talk page because of someone else, and saw your comments. I think you're doing a really great job! Keep it up and don't let negative attitudes get you down. Remember that there is an official policy that perfection is not required. I'm not an admin or anything, but if you need 2nd and 3rd opinions, drop me a line! --Slashme (talk) 07:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, good luck with the editing process. If you will be adding a lot of references, you might like to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and add the "citation expander" - it will help you to format your references nicely with less effort than typing everything out. --Slashme (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Stamford Bridge, David Gill, David Bernstein and Kaka

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Gillett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Raphaël Onana
This page will be delete and I know wikipedia is not right. Raphaël is one of the heroes of the world war II. Can you save this page ? Please.

User:Warinhari —Preceding undated comment added 12:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC).

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bundesliga, English Premiership and Primera División (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. When you recently edited UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations
Don't trust second hand material, or careful read it and verify it. Sports editor was good at sports but may mis-understand financial terms. Roma did not had a debt of 400 million but it parent company Italpetroli did. "Roma 2000" the intermediate holding company may had lots of debt (which "Roma 2000" held some AS Roma sister companies: "ASR Real Estate S.r.l." and "Brand Management S.r.l." ), but AS Roma (small group) was the listed company and here is the Annual report Matthew_hk   t  c  09:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * or a simple question, did you understand the concept of total debt, net debt, net asset or equity? Matthew_hk   t  c  09:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Mattew Thanks for the message and thanks for your contributions; it's always good to have some aditional sources.

I must admit I am stuggling a little to understand some of it, (I appreciate that English may not be your first language and therefore is perfectly understandable) but believe the gist may be that you are unhappy with some of the sources and figures. That's fine & a legitimate opinion but let me please make the following points. Firstly this is a fairly new article created by myself and as such I do not claim that it is perfect - see (Wiki policy page). It is therefore my intention to look to improve it whereever possible and hope that others will help me with that

Secondly your remark questioning my understanding of financial terms is a little antagonistic and unnecessary. I can assure you I do understand them as otherwise I would be unable to carry out my work as as a chartered building surveyor.

Thirdly you have of course changed a couple of paragraphs which is fine but is now IMO quite difficult to understand and badly worded, with a fair number of grammatical errors. There is unnecessary detail bearing in mind that Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia)

Fourthly please assume good faith, I have no agenda, particularly against Italian clubs. The article is more about the development of the FFP regulations themselves and how clubs look to meet them rather than historical debate on individual club's debt. As such it is more about the future than the past because the full regulations have yet to bite and it will be extremely interesting to see how in a couple of years how they are implemented

Finally A number of European clubs have parent companies who carry the debt - sometimes as a device to limit liability and avoid the club being liquidated (a little like a limited company) but ultimately the club is an asset of the company and a number of agencies are looking to stop the practice because it allows clubs to go into administration and avoid paying their debtors.

I don't know who tagged this as Original Research but I do have some additional references I want to add. I certainly believe they are valid sources and although some newspapers have been used they usually themselves use reputable news agencies such as Reuters for content. As such it is often very easy to gain multiple sources all saying pretty much the same thing. Can I please ask that you revisit your amendments and see if you can improve the flow of it a little? thanks again--Godwhale (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you know what is amortization? Deal with FFP must know basic accounting and dig out the original financial report. Manchester United is safe, as the football club was "Manchester United FC Ltd" and the most related holding company was "Mancheseter United Ltd" (MUTV was under "Mancheseter United Ltd" as i remember), while Glazer's upper chain of holding companies "Red Football Limited", "Red Football JV Ltd" and "Red Football Shareholder Limited" was not related, as that had no business but as pure holding company. (Read the rule or this report) It is sick that English press incorrectly writing Liverpool and Manchester United was in heavy debt, despite they do affect by debt as the clubs had to pay much of their profit to the parent company for debt-clearing.


 * It is meaningless to quote "total debt". Every clubs every company had trade debt, such as transfer fees was paid in instalments in many countries. UEFA concerns "OVERDUE" of transfer debt. For a company, the related concept for "debt" was equity (net asset), which we consider a company near bankruptcy when the total debt greater than total asset. The news agency is suck as i always read Lazio rebut the false alarm of the news agency. They employed sports editor to write financial analysis, what a chaos.
 * Net debt may or may not related in football world, as every club did not had many cash as "current" asset, but the club may still had a super large net asset.
 * For Transfer fee. Transfer fee did not affect the current financial accounts much, as the contract of the player was consider a capital, or a intangible asset. However if the signing of a 50M rated players in 5-year account, which would made an increase in amortization of 10M in next 5 seasons. The situation would only improved by extending the contract, thus extending the period of amortization. In a worst condition, stop signing new players did not reduce the cost until someone leave as free agent or the contract was extended.
 * I could gave many example that FFP was heavily related to accounting not football, and in Serie A Internazionale was the worst club only, but the league was a league of Sugar Daddies, while Real Madrid and Barcelona (which made an improvement in 2010-11 accounts and with Qatar in next few years), did not had a problem in FFP. company always borrow more money to do business, UEFA just limiting clubs that did not make profit and keep on borrowing money to keep the club running.
 * To sum up, to be a good editor of wikipedia, you must know, understand the article you cite is correct. To verify the content, simply dig out the source (the financial report, the UEFA original document and read it). Matthew_hk   t  c  13:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know what else to add to what I've already said. Again I'm struggling to follow you. Can I suggest you produce a separate article on 'Football Finance' explaining these accounting points if you feel so strongly about them because to be perfectly honest I doubt many people can understand the two paragraphs you have written. There's also no need to be quite so negative and rude because it takes a long long time to create a new article from scratch, however imperfect. I take your point about total debt, and you are correct in what you say about amortisation (the annual cost of writing down a player’s purchase price, which is booked evenly in the accounts over the length of his contract, so if accounted for over income there is no real debt) The point is that both Man U and Liverpool were bought under very different circumstances to a lot of Italian clubs where the American owners used little of their own money to buy the clubs & used club income to pay the debt. With Man U, they are able to meet this interest whereas Liverpool could not. Rick Parry said that before they were bought by the new consortium they were about to go bankrupt because they couldn't pay the interest and the club was put up as security on the loans which had to be paid off on a certain date. Very different to a sugar daddy. I do not feel the need to give a source saying the new consortium has not piled leverage debt on Liverpool because everyone knows they have not. I also cannot agree with you that you have to be an expert on a subject to edit an article. Nowhere does it say that in the Wiki policy -I think you need to take a look at some of them. If this were the case you would not need to cite sources. For example I AM an expert on some articles I've edited such as but I still have to give a source.


 * In Manchester case, only the "Red Football" would bankrupt, as the debt was carried by the holding company not the club directly. As they were limited liability company, what the bank would do is liquidated the HOLDING company not the football club, as football club only valuable in intangible asset, if the club can't play anymore, its value drop dramatically. And we saw in Liverpool case, bank took its "pledge" from KOP Football Ltd.: the share of the football club. (i don't know which word exactly: security/guarantee/pawn/a collateral?) New owner and nothing really happened on club level, except the shareholder loan was convert to equity as claimed by some media.
 * And i already said two case. In Manchester case, there is a very high equity level in "Manchester United Ltd" but super low equity level in holding company level (negative in millions for Red Football Shareholder Ltd.), what affect the club was the club must provide huge profit for the holding company for debt clearing, that's nothing really differenct if Red Football Shareholder Ltd./Red Football ltd. was replaced by the Jews holding the shares directly in person: the club had to pay the Jews huge profit. How to do it? Cut cost to low level, that the real effect on Manchester.
 * In Liverpool case, or Chelsea case (prior 2007), the shareholder instead of equity contribution, the owner only provide shareholder loans, and both club did not make profit, thus equity level would drop. Chelsea once had a negative equity of about 7 million but no one so fool to liquidate his toys, or his investment. In Liverpool case, if American sell it for free (the shares only), they still can collect the money back as creditor. As i stated, liquidated a successful club may get lesser money than keep the club in full, so negative equity in some level plus free of charge (for the shares only) would still had buyer, except Chelsea (free of charge but a debt of 7 million to previous owner Jews?!). In Portsmouth case, the club license actually transferred form Portsmouth City Football Club Ltd. to Portsmouth FC (2010) Ltd. (or something like that). Instead of stop running as a football club, the liquadiater chose to sell valuable player and get as much as it can for the club license.
 * However in Italy, when the club in liquidation, all players were allow to leave for free, and only left for the bank was the brand name. However anyone could buy a regional club, relocate, make a similar name and logo. As i remember the old logo, name, and "rights to claim as a heir of the trophy winning (folded) team" did not worth much. So how the effect of debt/negative equity was case by case basis. negative equity did not equal to bankruptcy. Apple Inc. had a total liability (total debt?) of 39 billion but huge asset and cash. Debt is not a evil but a routine in business world. The only harmful thing was the debt (or net debt) was out of control (by means or compare debt/equity or something else), or equity was in low or negative level. Matthew_hk   t  c  02:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * To sum up i mean nothing but the thesis of the article should back on the UEFA rule, club stop losing money and no club could cover net loss by borrow money. The rule did not cover much on debt (debt to equity ratio), but only said if the club is losing money AND high wage level (>70%) AND/OR negative equity AND/OR auditor going concern would fails the financial requirement. There is too much background and criticism and need an academic paper to back up (someone respectful (leading accounting firm) write it with in-depth research on raw material, but not the news article by a sports editor, which mis-quoting or half-understand the report), and needs lots of help from financial wikipeadian. Lastly, i don't mean it, but the article would be examined by WP:NPOV, WP:CITATION (which most of the points should be backup by citation), etc Matthew_hk   t  c  17:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Ajax, Celtic, Setanta, Phillips, European Court and Alex

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13
Hi. When you recently edited UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20
Hi. When you recently edited UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bundesliga, MEP and Christian Müller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fair Play Regulations page
Hi. Yes, it's questionable as to whether the page is neutral. I don't think it's right that there are separate sections for Manchester City, Chelsea and Rangers - neither are these sections explained in enough detail. I've had to explain Man City's plans for the future. City's plan B/get out of jail card/wildcard in regards to FFP will be the investment in academy and land adjacent to the site. It would be far better if general aspects are honed in on. For instance, the section examining the general state of Italian clubs finances could be expanded. Also, where is the section about debt in football? One of the aims of FFP was to create financial discipline and stop clubs overspending and over-stretching themselves. These are just some of my thoughts, in general, more trustworthy references (from people who understand economics, not football reporters) and greater conciseness. Stevo1000 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok fine, I assume you are a City fan, no agenda against them at all, but I wonder if you actually read the whole section before you edited it. The points you have inserted, like the fact its nearer £340-350m rather than £400m & that it covers the whole Etihad Campus & not just the ground itself are covered lower down, so the article now largely repeats itself. With regards to the Italian section, this has been heavily edited by an Italian with a poor grasp of English, & therefore reads badly, with excessive detail. If you think the sections lack deatil - they will be expanded since there is a lot to happen - why not add the detail?

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. When you recently edited UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thiago Silva (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 03:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Gold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Blockade of Germany (1939–1945)
Hello Godwhale,

I am going to translate the article and I have a question about a sentence you have written. "Its Donetz Basin provided 80% of Russia's steel, 70% iron, 50% steel, 72% aluminium and 35% of the manganese, as well as ..." It seems that there is a mistake, the Donetz Basin provided 80% or 50% of Russia's steel? Maybe there is a confusion between steel and iron? Could you please check in the reference (I do not have it) and correct the sentence? Thanks for your help. Skiff (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Skiff, Thanks for your interest in this article. Yes, I hadn't noticed the typo before. I've re-checked the source and it should have read 80% of the coal, 70% of the iron & 50% of the steel etc. When I began the article I assumed a number of other contributors would carry on with it but apart from a few minor changes it remains largely as I left it. I haven't gone back to it because I'm actually writing a book about the subject and that is my priority. I also had a number of photos I wanted to add but it turns out that the process of verifying free usage is quite time consuming so I gave up.

By the way, the French blockade ministry was called the Ministere de Blocus (with a hyphen over the first e) though you probably already know that and the minister in charge, who was a good friend of Frederick - Leith Ross was initially Georges Pernot, but was replaced by Georges Monnet in March 1940. I believe this is the same Georges Monnet who supported the American's refusal to accept Charles de Gaulle being installed as the ruler of France without a general election after D Day, and who played a prominent part if rebuilding the country after the liberation

Any other problems don't hesitate to drop me a line and good luck with the translation--Godwhale (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, and good luck for your book. Maybe it will be helpful to source the article where some references are required. Kind regards, Skiff (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=559608114 your edit] to UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Gill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to UEFA Financial Fair Play Regulations. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dl2000 (talk) 04:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

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) 16:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Original Research
On the talk page of The War of 1812 you stated:

My point with this section is this. WP makes extensive use of secondary sources but there is no rule that primary sources cannot be used. The main difficulty with secondary sources is whose sources? Thus, as has happened with this articles and happens to a great many other regarding american history is that certain editors seek out the sources that agree with their viewpoint and ignore the ones that don't. This is why Rjensen had done his usual trawl thru the internet to find neutral reviews of Lambert - always ignoring the possitive ones of course - and announced on the strength of four highly debatable quotes that 'historians have rejected it'. That four magazine reviews amount to the totality of world historical opinion is beyond me, but pretty typical, and quite honestly quite childish, and certainly not showing good faith. Lambert is more than a 'naval specialist', he is Professor of Naval History in the Department of War Studies at King's College London. He has made numerous TV programmes and appears in this documentary that can be viewed on YouTube - which is a much more honest appraisal than most I've seen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-bC2TWTGyQ

Unfortunately that is not the case we may not use primary sources in Wikipedia articles. This is stated as a rule here Original research. We have to used secondary published sources for articles. It is best if the source is seen as mainstream. If enough sources are found that contradict the mainstream view then it is acceptable to list it as a minority view. Such minority views have to be limited in scope (IE not hijack the article) So a line or two is about as far as it can do. The rule for that can be found at Undue weight (sources). As for Lambert, well nothing is going to convince me that he is a historian. I read his book cover to cover and for honesty I found it wanting. I'll give you and example. He quoted Wellington only as far as to make his case and left out the entirety of Wellington telling the PM that there was no conceivable way to force America into surrender. So the man has a POV and intends on pushing it. I get it but that doesn't make him an historian. He is far from the worst of his ilk. Some of the worst "histories" I've ever read came from American authors from the 1830's through the 1950's. I despise them too. Anyway I hope this helps in why what we do in Wikipedia and why we do it.Tirronan (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Tirronan, thank you for the message & the link. Are you sure you’re not confusing primary sources with original research? The rule states; “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.” It clarifies later; “Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them”. Original research is not permitted, but some use of primary sources is. Many of the founding fathers such as Washington & Jefferson have had their diaries & letters collected in book form. Because this was often done so long ago, it is easy to find these collections online as PDFs, so I would suggest they are reputably published. Primary sources can and are used in WP. A single well-placed primary source to illustrate an important point, especially if backed up by a secondary source or two can carry a great deal of weight.

The point I’m trying to make is that who decides if a secondary source is reliable or not? What happens is that they are often not secondary sources at all, but third, fourth, fifth sources, and there are so many books out there that, using internet devices such as Google Books, its dead easy to find secondary sources that suit you argument, even if it’s not widely held. That is what has happened here. The section ‘American Expansionism’ is to be almost wholly original research. “A significant minority of historians believes that a desire to annex Canada was a cause of the war.” This is pure original research. How does the writer know this? Has he counted them?

The article is shot through with US bias, for example the suggestion that Britain was carrying out contraband control because it was jealous of the growing US merchant marine is highly questionable. Such methods were common and were carried out by all nations at war, not just Britain. There was an enormous body of international law behind it. The article fails to mention that Britain remained by far the most important US trading partner, and that French privateers also attacked US ships heading to Britain in exactly the same way. And the statement; “Britain did not recognize the right of a British subject to relinquish his status as a British subject" is also highly misleading. America was in a minority of one. All countries took the same position as Britain, with the sole exception of the US, which adopted that position only because it suited it at the time i.e. because it didn’t have enough skilled men to crew its own ships. In this way the issue is flipped on its head to imply that America was fighting to uphold some noble principle, which is just not true. Later of course it had some of the most draconian immigration policies in the world, e.g. not letting people of Asian descent back into the country when they travelled overseas even though they had been born in the US.--Godwhale (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)


 * While your personal opinion is of course yours to have, whenever Reliable Sources seem to go against you, you claim "bias." Please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.211.140 (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)