User talk:Lebob/Archive 1

Malmedy Massacre
No problem, your changes looked good to me so I thought I should try to correct grammar and vocabulary as much as I could. If you ever have some problems with vocabulary and such you can also contact me in French.--Caranorn 12:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Allied war crimes

 * Hi re "With the add of this new section..." I guess you have realized that sarcasm does not work on talk pages :-(
 * --Philip Baird Shearer 20:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:List of municipalities in Wallonia
Care to take a look at the latest developments? Bradipus (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

THANKS
Thank you, LeBob...Merci. We get some of the News about the "problemes liguistiques" here in the States. I hope it all gets resolved in a forwarding We Are ALL Belgians kind of way. I do not like to hear about my Mother-country getting even smaller. ( Is it a Moter-country or a Vaterlaand ?). Take care. Hope to see you around.--Buster7 (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How to call a citizen of Luxembourg in English?
I've sent a note to Bastin who launched the WikiProject Luxembourg and is essentially at teh origin of the standards used here currently. I won't reply at Talk:Luxembourg at this time as all I currently have is an opinion, no real knowledge of what term might be more approriate...--Caranorn (talk) 10:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The provinces of Wallonia
I may understand what you want to do when you undid the recent change of S.Dohet. But anyway a part of this change is NPOV because it is a version following Xavier Mabille in the last version of Encyclopaedia Universalis  :

[Geography]

Wallonia occupies the southern part of Belgium. It has an area of 16844 km² (55.18% of Belgium) and comprises the following provinces:
 * Hainaut
 * Liège
 * Luxembourg
 * Namur
 * Walloon Brabant


 * So, is it possible to restore these (and only these) sentences, because it seems good to have a large  content on the page Wallonia about Geography (as Fram invite us to do it)? It is very difficult to have this content and a content interesting non-Belgian people but, for instance, there is the  Bataille des Ardennes, in order to make this content interesting (with, less or more, the map of the Ardennes through a topic which is not not only belgian). Is it possible to restore the only sentences higher? José Fontaine. Good after-noon... (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your revert on Talk:Flanders
I object to the use of the word "smeerlap" in the comment of this edit, "smeerlap" meaning "filthy bastard". Because it is incivil, and because it is unwarranted. The user only has a few contributions on en.wikipedia.

Furthermore, I don't believe that User:Scubongo was committing vandalism.

I should add that I appreciate the work that you are doing on Wikipedia. But, vu que c'est le ton qui fait la musique, civility remains a nice thing. --Luxem (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, Dear Lebob
I prefer also regional languages, even in French. Incidentally, the word dialect in English has very surprising menanings.

We published in TOUDI a very long and balanced article of Laurent Hendschel who underlined that there is much ideology about this topic among the French linguists as for instance Martinet who puts the language of Bretagne into inverted comas: la "langue" bretonne which is nevertheless, without any doubt, an authentic language. I am in favour of the Walloon language and of the other regional laguages (including the germanic regional languages, it is the philosophy of the Union culturelle wallonne. In Enghien it is very funny to say Onze enghiennois, 't is gene patois (Our Enghiennois is not a patois: I think the word patois exists in English)). I placed an image of Tintin et Milou in front of the lines about Casterman. Frame considered that as decorative but it seems to me interesting to illustrate this important company of the Hainaut occidental which is really the publisher of the adventures of Tintin. It is a way to make clear what is Wallonia even if Hergé is not a Walloon. What do you think? I see that the article Romandie doesn't exist on en-Wp. How are you in Romandie? Pwarté vo bin, Have a good day! José Fontaine (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles Durning
I'd be grateful if you could let me what progress has been made regarding your contact with the French Consulate in LA. As you may recall, you were 100% sure that they were wrong when they said that Charles Durning was at Malmedy while awarding him with the Legion D'Honneur. David T Tokyo (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well? You said you were going to do this (quote: "Don't worry I will do it.").  You're the one insisting that the citation from the French Consulate is factually incorrect - and it is on this basis, and this basis only, that any reference to Charles Durning being at Malmedy is being withheld. Have you had a response from them with regard to your claim?  Have you even contacted them?  David T Tokyo (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for the reply. Hopefully you'll hear something soon. David T Tokyo (talk) 01:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wallonia
Good afternoon Lebob! I reproduce what I wrote on the discussion page about Wallonia and what I suggested to Fram:

I agree with Fram but I think that it is too small (not sufficiently significant), to write: a geographical region. Wallonia is more than a geographical region. It is possible to write for instance 1) a Region (or) 2) an historical and geographical region or something else... And to have at least the Walloon Flag because the difference between Wallonia and the Walloon Region is very small. If we agree with this proposal, it would be interesting to suppress the tag "disputed". Don't you think. I wrote the same words on the Lebob's page. I begg your pardon for my simple English.José Fontaine (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Have a good day. José Fontaine (talk) 14:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(PS I found a good text about Wallonia's History see History of Wallonia

Hello, you are named at WP:AN section Pseudo edit war on The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, moved here form ANI
Gsmgm (talk) 13:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Criticism of Holocaust denial article
Dear Lebob

Please read the discussion changes i made yesterday. It is at the bottom of the page. The statment in the article is not in the original form, and there is such sentente in Mein Kampf. You can read the original sentence at the discussion page.

Best wishes Editor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.124.145 (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Wallonia
Hi. I noticed you reverted a number of edits like this one. I have two comments. First, the government of Wallonia officially renamed the region from 'Walloon Region' to 'Wallonia', although it is still technically defined as Wallonia in the legal documents of the constitution. So the official name now is 'Wallonia'. Second, a link that looks like this: Walloon Region will display as 'Walloon Region' in the text but links to the article 'Wallonia'. The page Walloon Region is actually a redirect to Wallonia, so you spent half an hour reverting changes that only linked to the article directly instead of the redirect. In other words, you basically wasted half an hour (sorry!). Just so you know!  Oreo Priest  talk 22:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust denial
Hello, I believe that this article is misleading and does not adhere to an academical standard. Especially the heavy bias in favor of the political pressure group ADL does not help to get an adequate description. Please consider these data:
 * What Does Holocaust Denial Really Mean?
 * What is 'Holocaust Denial'? 109.77.71.153 (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I should just remove this garbage from my talk page but I will for once take the time to provide an answer. As I can see here, Mr. McGowan is an economist and not an historian.  I have therefore huge doubt about his capacity to judge about i) the reality of the Holocaust and ii) the real motives of the holocaust denialists.  Being furthermore the managing director of Deir Yassin Remembered I think his opinion is just as flawed - if not more - than the one of ADL.  His article clearly shows that he is clearly unable to make a disctinction between legitimate questions about the Holocaust (and there are still many historian who carry on researches on that topic) and questionning its reality (one thing no serious historian would discuss anymore).  And he is tehrefore also completely unable to raise the only worth question, i.e. what are the motives leading people who question the reality of the Holocaust despite all the evidences of showing that it happened?  Nobody challenges the reality of the American civil war or of the battle of Waterloo.  Why are some people challenging the Holocaust?
 * On the other hand, I have already read IHR and there is nothing to take into consideration in that garbage can. It is really amazing to realize that you raised the point of academical standard and heavy bias while putting forward IHR, which does not meat any academic standard at all and is the most perfect example on could find of heavy bias on the Holocaust topic.
 * Let's now be clear: any new attempt you could make to introduce in the article on the holocaust denial (or any article relating to the Holocaust topic) material coming from IHR or other similar unreliable sources will be merciless repelled. And your contributions to WP are now under close scrutiny.  --Lebob (talk) 12:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Changes to Malmedy Massacre Article
I deleted and reworded some of the passage because it leads the reader to believe Peiper's ignorance of the situation caused him to not go North to cut-off the 2nd and 99th Divisions which would have given the Germans "a vastly different outcome." This passage further implies that Peiper deciding to go back to his Battle Group's pre-assigned roads was a major error on his part. There are several things wrong with these previously deleted sentences. For starters, a Lt. Colonel can't decide on his own to make a major change to his assigned route. Also, the comment by General Lauer, "the enemy had the key to success within his hands, but did not know it," is made in the context of how the Germans could have destroyed both the 99th & 2nd Division. By "the enemy," he had to be referencing not Peiper but German leadership at least of the Corp level because to do what he suggested would at a minimum have meant altering the plans of the 1st and 12th SS Divisions. Finally, the German High Command (i.e. Hitler), wasn't interested in just destroying a few divisions but splitting the entire Allied Front into two sections. Therefore, even if the German High Command had known all about the situation, the most important thing for Peiper's Battle Group was to get back on their assigned roads and head West as quickly as possible.

This is why I made the changes and I think that's how the article should appear. I'm now requesting your viewpoint on the matter.TL36 (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet
Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Joachim Peiper
Hello Lebob! Thanks for your recent edit at Joachim Peiper. I can appreciate the need for economy in the lede, however, I believe that your edit misrepresents the facts and deletes both additional information and a valid reference. Both the Italian and German courts found insufficient evidence to prosecute a case against Pieper. This is quite different from being "found not guilty". That wording is simply incorrect, in both a legal and factual context.

So I will restore the original meaning, but try to present it as a brief summary in the lede, with expanded detail in the main body of the text. Please review the changes and let me know your thoughts, or suggestions for improvement. Gulbenk (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Les méthodes violentes des perfides égarés pour persécuter les Musulmans.
Les méthodes violentes des perfides égarés pour persécuter les Musulmans. Comme à votre habitude, vous utilisez la violence pour persécuter les Musulmans. Votre communauté n'a aucune valeur morale. Vous êtes pires que les cochons qui, eux, n'ont aucun désir négatif. Vous vous étonnez toujours d'être détestés par la plupart des gens où que vous vous imposez, mais n'oubliez pas qu'il y a toujours des résistants qui font preuve d'héroïsme comme récemment à Toulouse ou Bruxelles et qui, à chaque fois, suppriment quelques cafards de votre espèce. Pour ma part, sachez qu'à chaque fois que j'aurai l'occasion de vous punir pour vos actes abjects, ou via votre progéniture, ce sera un grand plaisir. J'espère un jour avoir à égorger quelques unes de vos progénitures. Je ferai durer mon plaisir pour qu'elle profite bien et je penserai à vous qui vous vous servez de cette encyclopédie pour égarer les Musulmans. « Ils vous combattront mais vous serez vainqueurs. » (Rapporté par Al Bukhari). Pensez à ceux de votre communauté qui vont très sérieusement souffrir à cause de vous qui avez aiguisé mon désir de me battre contre les parasites. Cachez-vous près du lac, vous êtes nombreux à Bxl et si ce n'est pas vous, ce sera d'autres parasites, le choix est vaste. Quand à votre ami carolo J-M H. Lisogne 22, je vais le visiter et lui apprendre le savoir-vivre que sa mère la dépravée flamoutche a été incapable de lui apprendre. On verra si cette raclure de bidet continue de fanfaronner. Il va comprendre à quel point n'aurait pas dû insulter l'Islam. Vous êtes nombreux sur Wikipédia, mais vous serez encore plus nombreux à visiter les douches (car oui vous sentez mauvais). Tu as prouvé que la mauvaise réputation de ta race est très très largement justifiée. Bisous mon cafard friqué de (fils de) voleur. --88.147.36.254 (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC) (Si Dieu n'a pas laissé le grand nettoyeur moustachu (qu'il soit félicité pour son œuvre) terminer son travail, c'est pour montrer à quel point il avait raison de purger la planète de sa pire mérule. La prochaine fois, on ira jusqu'au bout, je vous promets.)