User talk:BillMaddock

The Lion Has Wings‎
I haven't read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich but have heard elsewhere that The Lion Has Wings was shown in Berlin - as a comedy. Does Shirer mention this? -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added Shirer’s comments to Wiki’s "Lion Has Wings entry". He doesn’t say anything about comedy, but the Nazis were great sneerers and probably did treat it as a laugh.

The viewing has to be put into context: the German Army was in the process of defeating the French and the British on land and the war was all but won. Probably the Nazis did treat the movie as an object of fun.

The film displays British fighters at night whereas the RAF had no night-time fighter capacity at that time.

I am not too sure how Wiki’s chat thing works, so please leve me a message confirming this message got thru to you. THx.

BillMaddock (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is essentially how it works. You can put a colon at the beginning of the line to tab it in, multiple colons = multiple tabs
 * It was your adding that comment to the page about the film that led me to contact you. One of the many directors was Michael Powell and I'm interested in anything involving Powell & Pressburger films.
 * The film was heavy propaganda and did contain quite a bit that wasn't true, like the night fighters. But it didn't mention what was true, like radar and the well structured control system that let the RAF defeat the Luftwaffe despite being heavily outnumbered -- SteveCrook (talk) 05:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Felineophile
Hello again. I see your main page mentions your being a Felineophile. I believe the technically correct term is an Ailurophile. Once when there were some cats that lived in my house and ate my food (I never "owned" them) someone knocked on the door but when she saw the cats she ran back down the path. She was a genuine Ailurophobe. Poor person :) -- SteveCrook (talk) 06:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thx. You are quite correct, but I like to make up my own words. After all, Shakespeare could get away with it and he didn’t even have a computer. ;-))BillMaddock (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Tommy Smyth
I replied to your comment about the Tommy Smyth article on my talk page. For readability I like to keep everything on one page, but I thought I'd put this note on your talk page. MrVibrating (talk) 03:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ultra
Hi, I didn't remove anything, I replaced the request for a reference. The next editor after me (Matt Crypto) removed your text. The reason for both the actions (I was less draconian) is the Wikipedia policy about original research - its not allowed. Both Matt and I are in general agreement with what you are saying, but we need cite-able sources to have it in the article. Further discussion on this should take place at Talk:Ultra. Posting something there you may well find others who support what you say AND know where it has been discussed in cite-able material. (John User:Jwy talk) 22:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Patton
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—►  ((⊕)) 20:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to form a short proposal stating the edits you would like to see entered and ask on the talk page for a consensus...that should get the ball rolling. Remember that you are addressing the talk page audience and not the individual with which you disagree and make sure you phrase it such that you are asking for outside input. More than likely this will lead to further discussion but from other parties. It should help clarify and hopefully prevent future disputes. Logic usually prevails. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 21:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Patton Update
Hello Bill, I'm trying to figure out what the status of adding the assassination claims made by Wilcox to the Patton article might be. From the discussion page I'm confused where that might all stand. Hutcher (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

~Some of the Wiki fascists were unhappy about a reference to Wilcox. So guess what? The fascists got their way. BillMaddock (talk) 09:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are long-gone (and all the better for it) - you obviously don't have a clue about what fascism is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.36.94 (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)