User talk:Fred8615

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Fred8615, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dick Clark 19:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Phil and Lil Deville[edit]

Hello and thank you for your edits to Rugrats. However, Phil and Lil are not fraternal twins. Fraternel twins are actually non-identical twins. Although you are right, identical twins are normally the same sex, this is not a genetic law. Until a better sub-category of Twins can be found for them, the article is better suited as stating them as identical. Thank you TheProf | 2007 20:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Although i see your point, fraternal is still the incorrect term. Until we can find a better suited term i'm going to edit it to say that they are twins full stop. I think its more a case of a major continuity error by the original production team. Thanks TheProf | 2007 22:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
That I can live with, :-) Fred8615 (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

edit summaries[edit]

It would greatly help if you provided an edit summary on changes such as this. It looks like it might be an improvement, but it's not clear why it would be. —EncMstr (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Patton, Wilcox Theory[edit]


I am wondering why you deleted the “stupid mv theory”?

While I agree the theory is stupid it is nonetheless out there in the public domain, and in this instance being given currency in the prestigious London Telegraph.

In years to come more and more people will become aware of Wilcox’s theory. The absence in Wiki of a reasoned refutation will be construed as indirect, albeit minor, support and acceptance of that theory.

I am not sure it is advisable for Wiki to choose to ignore, as you have done, something like this simply because some of us rightly find the theory ridiculous.

I suggest you reinstate what you have deleted, otherwise you allow Wilcox’s besmirching of the old man to go uncorrected in, what for much of the world, is becoming the record of note.

By the way, I didn't put the Wilcox theory into Wiki, but felt it needed attending to.

Incidentally, the reference I inserted (to George Forty’s book) was intended to source all of the last three paragraphs of my edit.

All the best -- Bill Maddock -- oh and a Merry Christmas too.BillMaddock (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

  • And if I wrote a book saying Patton was actually an eight-tentacled alien from the planet Geldar, got someone to publish it, and got it reviewed in newspapers should that go in the article too? I repeat: ONE BOOK about an absolutely insane idea does NOT deserve to be in the article! I am willing to concede a link to an article on the book if there is one, but nothing more. You can't pollute articles with every crackpot theory that comes along. Fred8615 (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Fred, I am new to this discussion thing, but am beginning to get the hang of it and have posted my next reply on the Patton discussion page.BillMaddock (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


I'm neutral on the subject at the moment and would like to see the discussion on the talk page rather than an edit war break out between editors. More eyes are almost always helpful. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


The point was to add that there are conspiracy theories about his death - not that they are true. I have added multiple mainstream RS's to backup the existence of the theories. If you do not agree with my wording, please change the wording, don't be lazy and just undo everything that I did. You can also see the articles talk page for discussion DegenFarang (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Audie Murphy[edit]

With all due respect, there is no such thing as "proper text" on Wikipedia where everyhting is a work in progress, and no one has the right to make unilateral demands. You don't own the article. Perhaps if you reviewed the changes first you might see where they are necessary or preferred. Yours, (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


Please, please, please, before adding the Films etc section again understand that there are cogent reasons for dropping this material which I have discussed at length on the appropriate discussion page. Midway is a Featured Article; as such particular attention needs to be paid to the quality of any new information which is added; unreferenced material is frowned upon and Wikilinking is NOT considered to be a reliable form of reference, for fairly obvious reasons, which I have explained. Cheers Minorhistorian (talk) 22:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)