User talk:Cadmus90

Welcome

Hello Cadmus90 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League top scorers, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Qed237 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

List of Islamist terrorist attacks

Please review WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. If your sources don't describe the attack on the church as an Islamist terrorist attack, it doesn't belong in the list of Islamist terrorist attacks. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Malik Shabazz: It seems that you have a long history of undoing and deleting all the new incidents of Muslim terror attacks !! and you are still doing it ! I wonder what should we consider a terrorist attack perpetrated by a Muslim, and why you are the only one who does that ... It is clear that you are a radical muslim yourself ! Cadmus90 (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. Why don't we follow our policies and rely on what reliable sources say instead of making it up as you go along? Unless reliable sources describe an incident as an Islamist terrorist attack, it isn't an Islamist terrorist attack on Wikipedia. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And it is clear you need to read WP:No personal attacks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Malik Shabazz: I read the discussion about Nice attack and most of the people supported the inclusion of the incident as an Islamic terror attack except for YOU !! and it seems that there is a lobby of crooked people like you that want to make a pattern here of naming things after what media say ! we know that media call Trump misogynist and racist, Can we include that in his article as we have sources reporting that? Cadmus90 (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of Islamist terrorist attacks. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Malik Shabazz: you are the one who reverted my edits twice !! Cadmus90 (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're up to three reverts. What's your point? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Cadmus90 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: ). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Malik Shabazz: I wonder who had the final decision to not include Nice attack ? ... I would like to ask you, do you have Stockholm syndrome as you are a jew in love with Muslims? you must read the Arabic version of Quran not the crooked translated one. so you can check how much muslims like MalcomX (as you are a fan boy of) desire to slaughter you like cattle. Cadmus90 (talk) 05:35, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at List of Islamist terrorist attacks. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Malik Shabazz: you are the only one who is getting attack from me apparently, because you are the only one who is reverting my edits like you own the page ! you are a sock puppet and I have some admin friends to deal with you! Cadmus90 (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for tendentious editing. You returned to edit-warring, unfounded accusations, and personal attacks straight off your last block. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cadmus90, I am not a sockpuppet, but I do operate a valid alternate account in accordance with policy. If you have a complaint about the way I edit, feel free to take it up with me or with any of your admin friends. Be sure to tell them that you have called me a radical Muslim, an Islamist fan boy, and a vandal.

PS — It's not a good idea to start edit-warring again so soon after coming off a block for edit-warring. You might want to ask your admin friends about that as well.

PPS — Feel free to use Talk:List of Islamist terrorist attacks any time you'd like to discuss your proposed addition to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sock accounts

If you continue socking your block will be lengthened considerably.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jezebel's Ponyo: you are a sockpuppet of Malik Shabazz. I dare you to keep my post regarding that user ! why did you delete it, you little puppet? Cadmus90 (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jezebel's Ponyo: I dare you to reply, sockpuppet! Cadmus90 (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are ridiculous and do not warrant a reply. Stop pinging me here or your talk page access will be revoked.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ Jezebel's Ponyo: Why did you delete my post on the administrative noticeboard? you are a sockpuppet, that is for sure ! keep log in and out your multiple accounts ! I feel sorry for you !!! Cadmus90 (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Cadmus90 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What the hell has happened here? Have you ever checked what my contributions are? I am not misusing my account, so I am not doing what you call sock master or sockpuppet .. enough said Cadmus90 (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. It's not at all ambiguous. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 23:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.