User talk:Mr.User200

Gallery of Sockpuppets

Likely Sock puppet account

~~Anti Turkish Sock puppet account. He keeps adding misinformation. Likely Russian troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neosinan (talk • contribs) 18:54, 5 October 2021 (UTC)~~ [reply]

Agree, also keeps reverting edits and vandalizing pages about the Russian invasion of Ukraine PilotSheng (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

How do this works?User200.48.214.19 (talk) 22:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "User200.48.214.19", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it resembles an IP address. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Daniel Case (talk) 13:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks never knew it was not apropiate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple
User200.48.214.19 (talk) 13:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New sock?

[[1]] Gala19000? Shadow4dark (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most possibly. Should keep an eye on the pages those SP vandalized.Mr.User200 (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.User200, may I report the sockpuppet investigation? {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 15:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.User200, thx but give me some diffs; the ANI report isn't enough. {{31}}{{25A (talk)}} 15:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope format help to understand: A) Previous Socks, B) This user.

1) 2019–20 Western Libya campaign
A) SockPuppet User:Gal17928 a secundary SP of User:Gala19000. Edited and commented that Turkish Drones used in Lybia were GNA operated despite some sources they were Turkish operated. First , Second, Thrid

B) Same behaviour. Here on Turkish drones.

2) Turkish drones: Bayraktar Tactical UAS & A) Use of Claim in edit Summaries by User:Gal17928 a secundary SP of User:Gala19000.Claims, Errasing Info.

A cookie for you

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for cleaning up my edit to Raptor-class patrol boat. Jjmclellan82 (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colombians killed - unconfirmed (saved)

Just in case they delete that article list as well, saving what we have left to yet confirm via RS (confirmed only via Telegram). We can continue updating at the main casualties article after if the list article gets deleted. Saving at your talk page, because you are much better than me at finding sources for the Latinos killed. :)

Yimer Alberto Estrada Sanchez[2]
Edwin Alexander Fuelagan Tupue[3]
Giovanny Gonzalez Ossa[4]
Oscar Mauricio Blanco Lopez[5]
Juan Esteban Zapata Hoyos[6]
Javier Francisco Malaver Fonseca[7]
Luis Felipe Gutierrez Valencia[8]
Jairo Alonso Saldaña Mancilla[9]
Gustavo Adolfo Baquero Rubio[10]
Rafael Segundo Rivero Gutierrez[11]
Edison Cruz Barreto[12]
Rigoberto Yepes Vitascue[13]
Richar Andres Moreno[14]
Luis Ferney Lucas Hernandez[15]
Edward Joaqui Giron[16]
Mayer Vidal Gutierrez[17]
Reimer Sanchez Narvaez[18]
Ostin Santos Martinez[19]
Jose Luis Lugo Castrillon[20]
Ovidio Herney Argoti de la Cruz[21]
Sebastian Espana Callsign Espana[22]
Luis Fernando Saenz Correa[23]
Rafael Santo Vizcaino Ortiz[24]
Jhon Jairo Osorio Cifuentes[25]
Juan Esteban Urbano[26]
Lewis Enrique De Los Reyes Almanza[27]
Luis Fernando Lozano De La Pava[28]
Ricardo Velásquez Lindarte[29]
Nilson Salcedo Sanabria[30]
Wilson Fernando Callejas Cespedes[31]
Andres Felipe Gonzalez[32]
Jhonier Zuñiga[33]
Carlos Arturo Bohorquez Velasco[34]
Angel Yohany Ortiz Moreno[35]
Francisco Javier Gomez Rayo[36]
Hector Julian Sanchez Bazante[37]

US (Carlos Antonio Covington)[38] Mr.User200 (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice source and hobby you got there. TylerBurden (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oroitz Caballero Villasante (Spain)[39], Elliott James Watson (UK)[40], Malthe Bæk (Denmark)[41], Julio Besay Hernandez Trinidad (Spain),[42], Ryan Michael White (USA),[43], Jonathan Folger Cates (USA),[44] Tomas Valentelis (Lithuania)[45]. EkoGraf (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Vuhledar

I view this edit at the TP to be WP:BATTLEGROUNDy and WP:UNCIVIL. Your edit to the article was reverted here. Your edit was challenged. Per WP:ONUS, reinstating the same material (here) without gaining consensus for the addition is edit warring. I note that you have been made C-TOP aware for Eastern Europe which covers this article and thereby are reasonably aware that a higher standard of conduct is expected. I suggest that you self-revert the subject edit to the article until and if a consensus is gained for its inclusion. I would also suggest that you strike your post to the TP and restart the discussion civilly. If you read my edit summaries, you will see that I have given reasons for my edits that are based on relevant guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 09:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Never meant to be incivil to you Cindirella157. What called strongly my attention was the revert of both mine edits, by you on that article. Calling different justification or guidelines for each time. At first you said that since the body of the article didnt mention the Ukrainian unit (123rd) or its commander. My aditions should have been reverted. I added context on the article and expanded the role of that Ukrainoan unit, for you to revert me once again.Mr.User200 (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to not be hearing what has been said here. Per WP:ONUS, you have edit warred. Your TP edit is seen as uncivil and battlegroundy whether you meant that or not because of the pejorative language used. It is not the way to start a collegiate discussion to determine consensus. You appear to be unwilling to remedy either of these two issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant to hurt your feelings of cause you to suffer a bad time for my comment at the Talk Page of the aticle. I apologice for it, if that can help you feel better. However I still think you should elaborate better your edit summary in each one of your reverts. Because at the first glance both were different excuses to deliberately errase the content I added.Mr.User200 (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There you go again using the term excuses which is pejorative. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025 - adding misleading data, unreliable sources

Greetings! Please don't add content which could not be found in sources and references to unreliable sources [46] thanks! ManyAreasExpert (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate in your message and stop reverting other users edits unless you have a reasons for it.Mr.User200 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ualosses is unreliable since, at a minimum, it includes deaths after the battle end date as indicated in the article.

Your added content does not correspond to the very section content you added it to - at a minimum, there are assessments by academic researchers included. ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ualosses is not a unreliable source. The problem that they have, and you have figured out is that they label the Battle of Bakhmut lasting beyond its end, in the current version of the article 20 May 2023. I'm correcting it. This reduce the number of killed by name to 5,000.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Special:PermanentLink/1272875867#New losses edits ManyAreasExpert (talk) 16:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Mr.User200. UALosses' figures have been reported on and used by other reliable sources such as The Economist [47], Deutsche Welle [48], Le Monde [49] and others, while also there is the fact that other casualty-tracking projects (Mediazona, Meduza and the Book of Memory group) which are regarded as reliable also analyzed the reliability of UALosses when they started and deemed them reliable [50][51]. As Mr.User200 pointed out, UALosses considers all fighting that continued to take place in the western outskirts of Bakhmut for more than a year after the battle for the city officially ended (May 20, 2023) as part of the Battle of Bakhmut and continued counting Ukrainian casualties in that part of the front as part of it. So it is simple enough, as Mr.User200 pointed out, to just set the date range in their database to show for the official specific period of the battle. I would also say that I have no problem with Manyareasexpert's edit version as seen here [52]. As long as the information is appropriately attributed to the source so the reader is properly informed there should be no problem. EkoGraf (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UALosses

Sidenote, BBC News Russian has gone today on the record to say that, after investigating UALosses' entries, their database is "quite reliable". Source for future discussions if needed [53]. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sock account?

Hi, in this edit you labeled someone as sock account, but that user was seemingly banned for other reasons than socking, and their user page also has no sockpuppet template or category. Are you sure it's a sock? Whose sock is it? Nakonana (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the Investigation case of the SockMaster. Both ManyAreasExpert and the SockMaster (CmsrNgubane) edited the BRICS Article. Also SockMaster had multiple sleeper accounts like ManyAreasExpert(New) and NotManyAreasExpert. The last sock name most likely from a Comment made by Horse Eyes Back on 12 March on him. Mr.User200 (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't it ManyAreasExpert who reported CmsrNgubane's socks in the linked investigation on 27 November 2024, 28 November 2024, 29 November 2024, and 22 February 2025? If I remember correctly, CmsrNgubane's socks mentioned in the ANI thread on ManyAreasExpert that it was ManyAreasExpert who got them blocked/tbanned in the first place? And CmsrNgubane's seems to be now holding a grudge against ManyAreasExpert to the point that they would impersonate them by creating sock accounts that use ManyAreasExpert's username, such as "ManyAreasExpert(New)"? Are you conflating the sockpuppet reporter with the sockpuppet master by any chance? Or am I reading the sock investigation and the ANI thread wrong? Nakonana (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also one self admision on Carlp914 talk page. Here. New sock account,ManyAreasExpert(New) , commenting on ManyAreasExpert.Mr.User200 (talk) 16:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? ManyAreasExpert hasn't been even accused of socking, another editor impersonated them, who is an actual sock and the "sockmaster" you are talking about.

You don't get to censor comments because you can't tell the difference between a real editor and an impersonator. TylerBurden (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does this look even worse by the fact that the comments you were censoring included their arguments against you in a content dispute, but calling someone a sockpuppet without evidence is a WP:PA. TylerBurden (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, the impersonation via usernames can be confusing. Nakonana (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly a justification for falsely labelling someone a sock and going around censoring their comments, you would think that someone would take a bit more care before doing that. TylerBurden (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakes happen. Nakonana (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that ManyAreasExpert have nothing to do with the other lesser socks used by CmsrNgubaney, a Check User should be made on him just to be sure. I'll be filing a new CU request.Mr.User200 (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so you're doubling down, go right ahead. TylerBurden (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a check user was made on CmsrNgubane when they were reported by ManyAreasExpert? If they were the same person (according to check user data) then both would have been blocked back in November 2024. Nakonana (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let logic get in the way of their grudge now. TylerBurden (talk) 19:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whose grudge? Nakonana (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The CU ivestigation ended and there is no relation on MAE and MAE(New)-NMAE. I have to apologize, thanks for reverting the <s> edit made wrongfully on the article. He was not the same person as you and Liz! noted.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably undo your striking and labeling of MAE's comments at Talk:Kursk offensive (2024–2025)#Costly strategic failure (and other places if there are any), even if MAE might have indeed issues with topics about Eastern Europe judging by the ANI report that actually got them blocked. Nakonana (talk) 15:45, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]