User talk:DoubleDoubleDouble

Filmon Tes
Hi! I noticed that a recent edit you made to Filmon Tes appeared to be a page blank. I tagged the article with a Speedy Deletion tag. Could you provide an explanation in your edit summary when you blank pages in the future?

Great to see you help improve Wikipedia, BlueRoll18 11:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks, in my hurry to slap a tag on the page I didn't properly specify it as the person category. BlueRoll18 11:59, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Hajrović
The common practice on Wikipedia is to mention nationality and ETHNICITY, e.g. the Marko Marin article. Zhmr (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Seven Nations Army and Marcus Collins cover version
In my last edit to Seven Nations Army, I stated "...and per WP:BRD should be discussed." Instead of heeding my advise, you simply reverted back to your preferred version. I would hope that you would read through WP:BRD and in the future, discuss your edits if they are reverted. In your absence of stating a discussion, I decided to start at discussion at Talk:Seven Nation Army. Please join the discussion and do not revert back until the consensus is formed. Aspects (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, 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) 16:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

April 2017
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal. 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: 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.''Not just edit warring, but also serious tendentious editing. See article talk page.'' Drmies (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * I reverted an older edit that did not seem to have any basis for being removed. There was nothing I could see on the talk page that referenced why it was removed and anyone who is unaware of the other cases would not realise this case was part of a larger scandal without having to sift through a number of unrelated matters DoubleDoubleDouble (talk) 17:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)