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]

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]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war 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. GedUK  18:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see here. Thanks. Jakew (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Studiodan reported by User:Jakew (Result: ). Jakew (talk) 14:56, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:55, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]