thank you for taking my suggestion by coming here to talk instead of just reverting without explanation i have indeed reverted some changes by jayjg however these changes were not actually improvements briefly act now org is brought up as an example of how circumcision advocacy is a term used by some advocates whereas jay's version makes it sound otherwise regardless of the subjective quality of the web site suppressing any mention of it would be pov hence unacceptable wp npov is not negotiable the definition of circumcision advocacy is accurate and not or if you have some sort of specific complaints i suggest altering the text instead of removing it the article already mentions masturbation you would like to omit the relevant and cited fact that masturbation is harmless and not prevented by circumcision omiting this would be pov and wp npov is not negotiable actually what's reintroduced is the history with regard to advocacy which is entirely relevant in short these deletions all serve to harm the neutrality and comprehensiveness of the article therefore i will be forced to continue restoring the text if you attempt to remove it without an acceptable explanation your explanations thus far are not acceptable thank you for understanding