User talk:Pashute

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

Old topics[edit]

Old topics - some of which I'm proud of:

Science, Research, Technology and Art[edit]

  • Symbiotic Algorithm - deleted for original research
  • Was thanked for Patent article (19 June 2006)
  • All terrain skating - deleted for product promotion, which I had not noticed at the time, although I could have written it more generally. Never found the time to make a second round and fix it.
  • Warning.SVG - re-posted my art not noticing that the first one uploaded by mistake, and which I wanted deleted, was speedily deleted.
  • My work on model engineer Jan Ridder - was deleted for notability. It was later restored to my joy, after an argument and vote (2011). But at some stage later, deleted again - when I was not following it.
  • My work on Humor was mostly revoked - probably because of the way I wrote it. There is a rich set of sources in the archive of my edit, showing differences in the perception of and usage history of humor in different nations and cultures, specifically discussing the British, US, German, Japanese and Jewish cultures. I also discussed various localities and roles in jokes, and ancient humor including biblical humor.
  • Moved my edits on ('Am I Right?' website) to private space, then decided to delete.
  • My work on Sailing Dead Downwind Faster than the Wind was revoked by someone who thought I was claiming it was a hoax. Although in fact, I was giving the phenomenon a short and clear technical and scientific explanation. Never found the time to fix that, although the way the article is written currently is in the style of a fringe-science website.
Scams, Bad Science and Conspiracy Theories[edit]

I generally believe that Wikipedia SHOULD have an entry for these people, organizations and ideas, and clearly mark them as fringe science explaining what is wrong with them. In the past these people, organizations and ideas were simply brushed off. IMHO, with the state of communications and belief systems they should be tackled head on. But I understand that in most cases this opinion of mine is not accepted.

This issue takes up quite some space on my original talk page, in a few sections, both about fringe science and scams, and about POV claims in history and current events.

  • I was able to save Davison Associates from being deleted, but then had a long fight to clearly mark them and their Inventionland headquarters as being deceiving along with their record of fraudulent behavior proclaimed by the US court of law as being one of the better examples of an invention promotion scam. (2011)
  • Declined to write about or vote for a serial killer (marked for deletion)
  • I wrote against the 'Baghdad battery' showing it being fringe science. Not sure what was done with that.
  • I gave sources and wrote about the false, fraudulent and at times dangerous claims about H2O2 (Hydrogen Peroxide) in household remedies, in toothpaste and in "alternative medicine" usage - at times even lethal usage. Most of my edits have slowly been revoked or "diluted". Many by anonymous users.

History, Politics and Judaism[edit]

  • Rabbi Moshe Aharon Leifer - deleted for notability. I decided not to contest it, although I had good proof of notability, because the Rabbi (according to his son) would not have liked to be written about on the web in any case.
  • My article on Adil Najam - previously deleted article (twice!), contested on grounds of notability and self promotion. I found much of the self promotion claims to be true, but was able to prove notability and find some reliable sources, while clarifying some of the claims about him such as the claim that he was a Nobel laureate. The discussion includes the story of my research about this man, of whom I had not heard, prior to my encounter of his name in the context of economy on the Wikipedia. (May 2008)
  • My work restored a previously deleted article on Bryan Mark Rigg researcher and writer about "half-Jews" in the Nazi Wehrmacht (army), sourcing and clarifying his history and claims.
  • I was invited to WikiProject Judaism - but declined, because I wanted to focus on science and technology.
  • I was invited as a woman to join the wikimedia group "Closing the gender gap" - but declined explaining that I am male, although I support their efforts. (And that the name Moshe has nothing to do with "She" and is the Hebrew form of Moses).
  • I discussed the Gaza flotilla raid - hoping to bring the closest to NPOV as possible from the sources. (May 2012)
  • I briefly edited Zionist and discussed the allegations about an organized group for Wikipedia editing with a Zionist (or rightist Zionist) bias and POV. At first I refuted the claim, but then discovered that it was true, and gave sources to it.
  • I wrote about Richard Falk and his involvement in the American Movement for One Government, which I doubted, but turned out to be true (after writing to the library that stores the records of this organization.

Finally I opted to steer away from these discussions, unless I can bring a NPOV point of view, or clearly show that the current situation is POV. (I am Israeli and a Zionist, but believe that the truth - which in the end is NPOV - is above all).

  • I recently wrote about the town of Halhul while researching about the battles fought by the Maccabees and war elephants (and the famous death of Eleazar the Maccabite unfortunately crushed under an elephant after attacking the wrong one), finding many interesting sources about this town, its current events and its history. I also updated much information about various Shtetles - former Jewish towns of Europe, such as Jewish Altona, Hantchin, Hanipoli and many others, reflecting my work in the Hebrew Wikipedia. I've also done research and wrote about war criminals of the Nazi regime, and about various massacres and expulsions of Jews along the ages.

Bot corrections[edit]

New topics[edit]


Category:WP:LETGO, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

thank you for notifying me. I replied there and on the WP:LETITGO page. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
oh well they didn't let go. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, and thanks for your work on the English Wikipedia.

I noticed an article you worked on. Just a short note to point out that we don’t normally link:

  • dates
  • years
  • commonly known geographical terms (including well-known country-names), and
  • common terms you’d look up in a dictionary (unless significantly technical).

(This even applies for infoboxes.)

Thanks and my best wishes.

Tony (talk) 07:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Dates and years are linked, if its an historical event, for two reasons:
a. For context, what else happened on that date and year.
b. For listing of important events by year and date. Published books for example. And of course, historical events.
Countries and ethnicities are definitely linked, tell me that everyone knows who exactly the Ruthanians are (or were, according to the article, today the term is not used much)...
Locations with an important history, towns in places not common, and even places like New York and London occasionally get linked, as in Global City as opposed to City which originally included the 'Global City' section, so when discussing New York City and London, only Sao Paulo and Istanbul are linked.
Terms that are important and relevant to the topic discussed, should be linked to as well. If for example I mention a 'death-camp', whose actual definition is contested by holocaust deniers, it is almost a requirement to give a link.
But thank you for checking it out.
פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
I now saw you actually edited the page (while I was working on it, should have put: under construction, sorry) and someone else also took the time to remove all date links (or perhaps a bot did it). Lets discuss please on the talk page there. I've been here for a few years, and never had this come up. To the contrary... פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


I saw that you added (back at the end of 2010) a comment in the Etymology section saying that cannabis is מעלה עשן. I know there are those who have equated it with קנה בושם, but that's about all. So I've modified the entry. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 03:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see what I wrote on the talk page. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 11:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Iran may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 10, 2013. In this video President Ahmadenigad is seen calling 'Maba Amrika' - death to America] at the rally, immediately after Rouhani was voted in, to commemorate the US embassy attack during
  • president Ahmad Khatemi] in a speech titled 'Saving the pillars of the Universe, Death to America] October 2013 (YouTube). In this speech Khatemi calls the US 'The great Satan' and says that the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam Blitz[edit]

Dear Sir, you have misunderstood my position on Jobar. There is conclusive evidence to indicate that the synagogue was comprehensively destroyed in late Spring 2014 and not before. Many believed wrongly that the synagogue had been totally destroyed in 2013 and, with reference to an auction from December of that year, relied on such sensationalism. The alleged artefact from Jobar, from the early 20th Century, did yield a much inflated price. But this was before the aerial bombardment which was to follow in April/May of 2014. (Adam forgot to sign. Pashute here, signing it for him according to the "History" records, and moved the discussion into a section as is expected on talk pages. User:Adam Blitz User talk:Adam Blitz September 22, 2014 02:18)

Hello Adam, this is Moshe. Thank you for discussing this. I am honored to have been contacted by a distinguished researcher and author as you. I'm writing now from memory (don't have the time to go into it now). What I wrote is an understanding different from yours but which had emerged from the images and video, and included your understanding as a basis. I think I understood you perfectly well, and if I remember correctly it was Haaretz that wrote that it is possible that when you spread the word that the attacks had not demolished the shul, it was actually based on videos from one week before. According to that, the shul was demolished on shvii shel pesach already then, and the images emerged just on Yom Yerushalaim in order to extract money from the sale of artifacts (that extra part - from your hypothesis at the time).
I moved the discussion to the end of this talk page, and notified you about it on your page. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, there have been questions raised about whether it was demolished in shelling (which would make Assad the attacker) or locally demolished by "rebels" (who I have from the onset understood to actually be Jihadists). What is the conclusive evidence that it was demolished in 2014, and from aerial bombardments? If needed, you can contact me directly through gmail (with this username). פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 13:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear Sir, the events surrounding Jobar are highly complex. The dating of the destruction is largely dependent upon posts from SY on Twitter. There is no connection with Yom Yerushalaim, as you write. The Sotheby's sale was in any event in Dec of the previous year. I have not seen any artefacts from Jobar on sale (to the public) otherwise. I am not very familiar with the editing on Wikipedia (though I may request your help and advice if I may). I'm also happy to correspond more extensively at my email address on the topic (when you will receive much more prompt responses). Thanks and regards AB
Adam Blitz (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'll discuss with you directly, and I promise the wp community to follow up on the Jobar shul talkpage.
I'm not sure I edited the English page in accordance with the Hebrew one, but I found out a lot of material about the shul in old books (on, in blogs, and in actual inscriptions inside and around the shul seen in images and videos. It is an honor to be discussing this with you. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly one year later (Jerusalem day was this past Sunday) and still no better knowledge of what really happened there. Some day, after the rubble in the area recedes we'll be able to find out. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Diabetes mellitus. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note here or at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:39, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I will definitely "drop you a note". Please see it on your talk page.
Once we are done discussing on the article's talk page, (something you should have done before erasing my work) I will ask you to remove this section from my talk page. Thank you פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks for dropping the note and sorry for missing your discussion on the article Talk page. I replied there. Jytdog (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Blackjack 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 my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • a central theme have been produced and released in 1918 (starring [[Bryant Washburn]]) and in 1923 (starring [[Richard Barthelmess]]. In 'The Hangover', an American produced comedy, four friends try

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blackjack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Savant. 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) 11:32, 27 October 2015 (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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the "stone circle" all about?[edit]

Hi, still around? On 20 April 2007 you added into the Beit Shemesh article that "Also found nearby is a prehistoric Megalith circle, probably the source of the name Bet-Shemesh", but didn't offer any source for that. It's unlikely that the name has anything to do with prehistoric standing stones, and there is no easy-to-find online reference on any megaliths there. Now this casual line has become a paragraph standing by itself in the article, and needs clarification, or I will have to delete it. Please help out. Thanks. ArmindenArminden (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I will reply on the page. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Pashute. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Self-hating Jew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul. 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) 10:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Self-hating Jew. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I answered on the talk page. I have not attacked you.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Israel and the apartheid analogy for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 15:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

This is the second time you are coming to my personal page. The first time you said I was "attacking you". Please refrain from teaching me conduct and from bulk removing my edits. Please discuss your reservations about my edits on the topic's talk pages. Thank you. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
First, no. You are using the article's talk page inappropriately, and I will not indulge you by discussing the matter with you on the article's talk page.
Second, please read WP:UP#OWN. This is not your "personal page". — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 02:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not find it amusing that you use the word "stalk" in your signature. I am not using the article's talk page inappropriately. Meant my "talk" page. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Your remark on the holocaust and my understanding of it[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to open up this avenue of discussion. I grant that I am a bit hard to understand sometimes, I have a very wordy style on Wikipedia. On the one hand, it does help me get my point across more clearly, but on the other, as has happened here, it can be a little confusing.

No, I don't recall being notified on my talk page. My talk page's edit history does not reflect it. If you were using an automated process, e.g. WP:Twinkle, it may have failed to do so even though it is programmed to notify the affected user immediately. If you were doing it by hand, no worries anyway; I don't particularly care about this detail. In future, though, I do recommend you doublecheck to make sure any notices that should be sent automatically do get posted - whether it's further reports to ANI or simply notifying a page creator about a pending deletion discussion. In the latter case, it's not strictly necessary, and in fact it might be seen as bothersome to some users, but it's a courtesy I always follow.

I'll start with the part you initially took issue with - the idea of the "target". This is a common term at RFD and it only means whichever page you end up at when you type in a redirect. Sometimes a redirect is judged to be pointing to the wrong place, so retargeting is often proposed and deemed appropriate (though I do not believe RFD discussion is necessary in all retargeting cases, only deletions, though not all retargetings are uncontroversial enough for us to simply change them right away). As I said, I could have specified "the subject of the target article", that is, Holocaust denial itself, though it seems most others took this as a given. Of course, I could have just written "Holocaust denial" instead, so it would read, "out of (understandable) contempt for Holocaust denial."

Now, the POV thing. The truth is, Wikipedia must be totally free of bias - even the right kind. Yes, you and I can agree that the Holocaust happened, that it killed six million Jews (and millions of members of other ethnicities, to boot), that words alone cannot capture how truly tragic or evil such an event was, and that denying it is not only dumb but disrespectful.

In spite of how obvious all the foregoing is, to you me or anyone else, Wikipedia cannot say so. This is one of those irritating gray areas about Wikipedia: It can't really take a stand on what is right or wrong. It can say that an atrocity such as the Holocaust is seen as such, but it cannot actually call it that. If it could, that opens the floodgates to many other things, most of them unwanted - value judgments about how "right" or "wrong" certain other, more ambiguous and possibly more trivial things are.

The community at large has therefore adopted the stance that it's better to let the facts speak for themselves and let the criminals hang themselves with their own rope. It's perfectly valid to offer a rebuttal to a claim made by a Holocaust denier, but that's as far as we can go.

We therefore cannot allow emotionally charged terms like "deliberately" in redirects that aren't based on the official name of something, e.g. the title of a book or a movie. It would be one thing if, say, someone wrote a book or made a documentary titled Proof the Nazis deliberately killed six million Jews or some slight variation thereof - perhaps someone should create such a work ;)

I think there were two other things I overlooked that I could have added to my deletion rationale, just for the record. First, the phrase itself is clunky and not a likely search term; when making a redirect, one should always ask oneself if it is a term anyone else is likely to make use of. We get rid of the ones that are too specific to be of help; generally speaking, the longer the redirect name is, the more specific it is. Redirects mainly exist to compensate for typos or common alternative names for things. In this case, Denial of the Holocaust might be a valid redirect to the same target of "Holocaust denial" despite being a bit longer.

Secondly, the article may discuss proof that debunks Holocaust denial, but it isn't strictly about such proof. It's about the movement that denies such proof, discussing the movement's core ideas and its history. Therefore, the redirect misleads a user as to what the article is actually about. (If you wanted to get technical, there is indeed an article that comes much closer to fitting: Criticism of Holocaust denial.)

Lastly, it's my view that the mere existence of such a thing as Holocaust denial is shameful. It's such a pity it deserves an article on Wikipedia, but there it is. It absolutely warrants coverage here. That's how pathetic humanity can be - fringe idiocy gets mainstream press. I believe the need for such an article, which I believe is valid nonetheless, was what I was originally referring to when I said "contempt for the target". Nowadays, I would say "contempt for the subject of the target article", but back then I might have meant, "contempt for the fact that we even need such an article, which we absolutely do."

I certainly hope this clarifies things. It has definitely helped me grow as a writer, and as a writer, I need to expect to hear a critique sooner or later - as I said before, I never could have imagined it would be about something like this, but it is what it is. I'm not upset about it anymore. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, all's well that ends well.
I will just add that being deliberate or not is a question of fact and not of morality. Actions can be proven to be deliberate by showing preliminary threats by the perpetrators, evidence of plans to do that action, orders given, and the setting up of operations and mechanisms for doing that action. Last but not least, is the admittance by some of the perpetrators. The claim that most of the Jews were not killed deliberately (and only for being Jewish) by the Nazi forces and their Ukrainian, Polish, Hungarian, Lithuanian, Romanian, Austrian, Dutch and French collaborators is part of Holocaust Denial. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, I didn't think about that. That is true. But I think the term has a bit of emotional baggage to it, and that was my angle when I said it was too POV - it's used with a bit of anger, which as I said I agree with. "Intentionally" is probably how Wikipedia would prefer to do it, that's the least biased equivalent term I can think of. Or perhaps that's just me being too PC. Regardless, we shouldn't forget that the Nazis targeted millions of others as well, so while the Jews were the people group who suffered most by far, they weren't the only victims. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 05:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
No. It's not the suffering. It's the premeditated murder. The Jews were singled out. Please let's discuss on your page.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 08:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry you felt I was still arguing with you. I thought I was discussing a fine point, which you probably would agree with if you heard me out.
Of course many suffered during WWII. But what makes the Holocaust unique in the killings of WWII (while sadly non-unique in current events or world history) is the premeditated ideological clockwork and execution REGARDLESS of the war, and it's vast implementation over so many countries. It is closer to the murder of the Falang Gung today, the murders in Stalin's Gulags, and the Khmer Rouge massacres. But it was very different from the revenge/heat-of-war/war-ending killings like the Balkan attrocities in the 90's, the Armenian massacre, the Katyn massacre by the Russians, the firebombing of Drezden and Japanese cities, and atom bombing of Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the Nanking and Filipino massacres by the Japanese, and their last minute intentions and lack of concept of surrender while staying alive.
You are obviously correct that all these horrendous acts by humans are awful and neither can be compared to the other.
But when it comes to Holocaust denial, with claims that it was not deliberately premeditated by ideology, but rather a consequence of war necessity, and maybe here and there some local attrocities, (one of the main claims of Holocaust denials) it proves that the horrific murderous ideology still prevails to this day. I actually think that is what you were saying in your original post, which I misunderstood. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Miss Lucy had a baby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dark Lady (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:20, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

a. I'm leaving this message here because...
b. The disambiguation page was deliberately chosen, and
c. The text, it seems, has changed drastically, so it's not my edit at all. פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Leck mich im Arsch[edit]

I pinged you on the talk page in the first section in reply an old comment by you. Double sharp (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Simon Ostrovsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Israeli (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2018 (UTC)