Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

User talk:Studiodan: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
96.21.115.153 (talk)
Line 12: Line 12:
::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 –[[User:Johncoz|Johncoz]] ([[User talk:Johncoz|talk]]) 04:46, 23 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 –[[User:Johncoz|Johncoz]] ([[User talk: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? [[Special:Contributions/96.21.115.153|96.21.115.153]] ([[User talk:96.21.115.153|talk]]) 23:31, 24 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? [[User:Blackworm|Blackworm]] ([[User talk:Blackworm|talk]]) 23:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:31, 24 January 2010

"Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sam-of-Gallifrey" does not exist.
Please
(The page will be pre-loaded. All you need to do is save it)

Possibly unfree File:Sorrells.gif

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sorrells.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia: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 the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jakew (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]