User talk:Studiodan/Archive 0

Possibly unfree File:Sorrells.gif
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sorrells.gif, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jakew (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Circumcision. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Foreskin. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Sexual effects of circumcision. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Jayjg (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * while I have gone into bat on the Talk: Circumcision page for this graph, I do not think just inserting it into a range of articles without seeking consensus on the relevant Talk pages is very productive when dealing with highly monitored pages where there is a high degree of polarisation among regular editors. My own experience is that a collaborative approach does yield results.Johncoz (talk) 12:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have place the new graph on the penis page with some text and a note on the Talk page. We'll see how that goes –Johncoz (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jakew and User:Jayjg work together on many articles. Their double-reversion of edits combined with never addressing issues in talk is causing quite a distressing situation and multiple glaring violations of Wikipedia policy. Do you agree, Studiodan? Blackworm (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, Blackworm, Jakew and I "work together" on no articles, and we both quite fully addressed the issues raised in Talk. I don't think it's a good idea to try to recruit to your battleground mentality an editor who has been on Wikipedia for all of 4 days, and has made fewer than 50 edits. Jayjg (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * LOL! If you want to accuse me of canvassing, do so in the appropriate forum.  Don't harass me.  Go get some uninvolved admins immediately, please.  Blackworm (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Female genital cutting
Please discuss changes on the talk page. Having the content either on the page, or not on the page for some short period of time it takes to work the issue out will not harm the article or cause risk of issues for readers. It is fine to be bold and make a change, but as soon as that is reverted, or more than one other editor disagrees, it is time to talk it out until some form of consensus can be reached. Atom (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Female genital cutting. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Ged UK  18:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page discussion
Please see here. Thanks. Jakew (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable
Comments like this are unacceptable. Don't make assertions about other editors' motives. Focus on the content instead. Okay? Jakew (talk) 10:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note
Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Jakew (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for violation of the three-revert rule at Circumcision. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC) '''I've been blocked under false pretense. I only made 3 reverts in 24 hours. Several other of my edits were shown to try and make it look as if I reverted more than 3 times, however those were not reverts.'''--Studiodan (talk) 22:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See WP:AN3 report. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm being accusing of wikilawyering and edit warring because User:Jakew and User:Avi were dishonest and engaged in tag teaming and edit warring? This doesn't look good.--Studiodan (talk) 03:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to point out a few things that i noticed while reviewing this request:
 * The 3RR policy is not a license to revert a certain article 3x a day. To quote the policy "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.". In this case you have been removing the same image over the course of several days, with a total of three editors reverting your edits. In these cases you cease reverting, head to the talk page and discuss. If there is clear consensus against your actions you abstain from reverting. If there is clear consensus in your favor the other editors should abstain. If you do not agree you can seek dispute resolution to solve the issue. Reverting over and over won't solve the issue as other editors can easily take the same action.
 * Even if we leave the long term reverting out i would point out that you have made 4 edits in 24 hours which removed the images from the article. 3RR specifically states that no more then 3 reverts may be done over the source of 24 hours. The date is irrelevant in this case - 2 reverts at 23:59 will not be reset just because the date switched a minute later.
 * I find this comment worrisome. Keeping "a meticulous catalog" on your reverts seems to be an attempt to game the system. Again, if you notice you are in an edit conflict you head to the talk page to discuss the issue. 3RR is a hard limit editors are not allowed to pass, but this does not mean that you are free to revert whenever you like as long as you stay under this limit. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 02:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. I did not make 4 edits which removed the image. I made one removal, then 2 reverts, and finally a replacement to resolve the issue. That's only 2 reverts, and a replacement doesn't equal 3, nor does a removal (prior to revert) count either.--Studiodan (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read the [3RR] again very carefully, and it very clearly says it's for reverts. Nowhere does it say initial removals count as reverts. My first removal was not a revert, it was the removal of an image that was up for over 24 hours. Nor does it say anywhere in the [3RR] that replacements count as reverts. A replacement can be a solution to seek consensus, and is not an edit war. An initial removal is not an edit war, or a revert, because it's not reverting to anything prior. Whatever your personal opinion is about my editing style, the rules are clear. Please uphold wiki policy and repeal this block. Thank you.--Studiodan (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit at 14:25 UTC was a revert of Ossmann's edit at 14:21 UTC; the edit at 13:27 was a revert of Avraham's edit at 12:47; the edit at 10:15 restoring the images was a revert of Jakew's insertion of them at 10:00; and the edit at 22:53 (May 9) was a revert of Jakew's at 09:51 (9 May). That's four clear reverts, not to mention (as you have been told above) that 3RR isn't a hard and fast limit and your behaviour on the article has been disruptive. Black Kite (t) (c) 06:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice try, but the edit at 22:53 (May 9) was a removal, and not a revert. The original removal cannot count as a revert... that's absurd.--Studiodan (talk) 06:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, this is the reason we should be downplaying the importance of WP:3RR, arguing over whether you technically violated it or not is counterproductive. You can be blocked for violating WP:EDITWAR whether you go beyond 3RR or not. Let's just say that is what you are blocked for, and let's address that point as 3RR is just a specific application of the edit warring policy. The more appropriate way to deal with conflicts (the way that will not result in you being blocked) is to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. If needed, request page protection, solicit a third opinion, or initiate some form of dispute resolution. These are all tools instead of weapons. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely correct. Also, the user is wrong anyway; the edit he disputes was a straight revert of Jakew's edit back to his own version of 06:51 that day. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please direct me to the proper link to report both of you for abuse.--Studiodan (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI. Obviously you can't edit that page until your block expires (at 04:54UTC tomorrow) but if you want to post a report here I'll transclude it across to that page.Black Kite (t) (c) 14:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Revert to neutral in Circumcision
Click on view history and select a version you agree with ([]) and then click undo and click save to maintain the honest neutral concensus text. Just don't do it more than twice per 24 hrs. Trying to discuss anything with Jakew, Coppertwin, jayg, and Avi is a huge waste of time. They are a cabal, and discussion a sham designed to waste time with false statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.204.241 (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Circumcision
By adding those tags withoug first reverting to the consensus version, you seem to endorse the biased (removal of sorrells chart and HIV in intro last paragraph) version. You can revert back to the less pro-circ version.Yris (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)