User talk:Cindy's Cafe

January 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You seem to be deeply involved in a revert war regarding Karren Brady. Please find somewhere to discuss these issues, rather than continuing to revert. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 06:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Dot Cotton, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. 5 albert square (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nford24 (PE121 Personnel Request Form) 03:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as described at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here, in the section "User:Cindy's Cafe aka 109.246.133.205". The block has been applied both to your account (Cindy's Cafe) and to an IP address which you have recently used in the edit war (109.246.133.205). However, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, as long as the block is in place, you do not have permission to edit Wikipedia at all; that includes editing via any other IP address (such as 109.246.133.66, which you have used in the past). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block evasion

When your account and an IP address that you had been using for edit warring were blocked recently, I took the trouble to explain to you that while the blocks were in place you did not have permission to edit Wikipedia at all, and that evading the block by using another IP address was unacceptable. The reason I spent the time and trouble it took to explain that was to help you avoid the risk of making the innocent mistake of thinking that using another IP address to edit was OK, and thereby getting blocked again. However, despite my efforts, you have evaded the block. For the moment, I have just reset the block to its original length of 1 week, but if you evade the block again it is very likely that you may be blocked for much longer. If necessary, it will be possible to edit-protect all the pages you have edited, but that will inconvenience legitimate editors as well as you, so I hope you will not make that necessary. Also, every edit that you made while evading the blocks that has not already been superceded by edits by other editors will be reverted. You have been told on the talk page of your account how to request an unblock, and "just ignore the block and keep on editing by using IP addresses that are not blocked" is not how to do it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EastEnders Manual of Style

Please read this: Manual of Style, which provides a record of the consensus of those who edit EastEnders (and other soap opera) articles. Stephenb (Talk) 07:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm Stephenb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to John McDonnell (politician) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Stephenb (Talk) 07:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tom Watson, John McDonnell and Owen Smith. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stephenb (Talk) 12:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

For edit warring, and using an IP to edit-war alongside your account, I have blocked you indefinitely. This is a block of indeterminate time, not permanently, but you need to show some understanding of, and willingness to abide by, the edit warring and sockpuppetry rules. Appeal instructions are in that previous block template up there. Courcelles (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cindy's Cafe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]