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]

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]

[[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.

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

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Hamilton Stiven Mosquera[3]
Luis Ferney Lucas Hernandez[4]
Jonathan Andres Martinez Villada[5]
Juan Carlos Jula Hernandez[6]
Norbey Perdomo Urrea[7]
Gerson Alejandro Gonzalez Fernandez[8]
Jose Emerson Cordoba Santos[9]
Victor Lopez Durango[10]
Juan Andres Rivera Muñoz[11]
Juan Carlos Large Martinez[12]
Miguel Antonio Uni Fernandez[13]
Alex Renato Uriana Rodriguez[14]
Bernardo Antonio Londoño Corrales[15]
Edward Jair Vidal Gutierrez[16]
Martin Hernandez from Manizales[17]
Hernan Emilio Padilla Potes[18]
Harold Eduardo Molina Ramirez[19]
Jhonatan Alexander Hernandez Lozano[20]
Miller Lenin Gomez Cruz[21]
Juan Carlos Padilla Guevara[22]
Gerson Fabian Parada Fuentes[23]
Ivan Tique Ortiz[24]
Fernando Alberto Menco Palencia[25]
Angel Maria Saaverda Mejia[26]
Rafael Torres Gelves[27]
Juan Camilo Rodriguez Morillo[28]
Cristian Mauricio Lozada Garcia[29]
Luis Ferney Jaramillo Gonzalez[30]
Daniel Alexander Carrascal Martinez[31]
Edwar Andres Serna Curcho[32]
Brayan Enrique Supelano Guevara[33]
Ferney Soache Capera[34]
Willian Osvaldo Gironza Gironza[35]
Jordy Andres Rodriguez Duran[36]
Yorfi Sanchez Manso[37]
Yobanis Alfonso Jimenez Arevalo[38]
John Emmanuel Leon Sanabria[39]
Filiberto Ivan Angulo Mantilla[40]
Omar Alexis Duran Cardenas[41]
Jonny Alexander Mena Mora[42]
Jose Manuel Duarte Suarez[43]
Jose Hector Imbaqui Estacio[44]
Oscar Leonardo Peña Garzon[45]
Albin Fernando Nieto Pineda[46]
Esteban Mesa Guzman[47]
William Rivas Hernandez[48]
Carlos Robinson Ulchur Aranda[49]
Gabriel Benavides Jimenez[50]
Diogenes Fran Oyola Oviedo[51]
Nimrod Muñoz Garzon[52]
Edgar Leonel Meza Ardila[53]
Yeiber Mauricio Calderin Payares[54]
Brayan Simon Gonzalez Rios[55]
Jorge Alberto Arevalo Prada[56]
Yeison Said Lopez Contreras[57]
Jose Ivan Ortiz Jimenez[58]
Jair Medina Murillo[59]
Jose Rafael Rodriguez Cantillo[60]
Juan David Guerrero Pacheco[61]
Edgar Leonel Meza Ardila[62]
Edison Alberto Aristizabal Delgado[63]
Felix Jose Verona Mestra[64]
Luis Hernan Castillo Quintero[65]
German Barrera Puentes[66]
Jaime Oswaldo Martinez Ortiz[67]
Jose Wilson Galindez Florez[68]
Christian Andres Sanchez Velasquez[69]
Alexander Ramos[70]
Jair Alexis Alvarez Lopez[71]
Camilo Enrique Ramos Padilla[72]
Yeison Alonso Giraldo Vargas[73]
Cesar Yesid Mesa[74]
Jaider Sneyder Duque Guzman[75]
Esmeiyer Penaloza Lozano[76]
Angelo Alexander Jaramillo[77]
Andres Felipe Martinez Cardenas[78]
Roberto Carlos Pomares Lozano[79]
Juan Jose Pabon Alvarez[80]
Darwin Javier Caro Carmona[81]
Javier Ernesto Medina Oviedo[82]
Jose Ricardo Machuca Rodriguez[83]
Wilmer Llanos Rodriguez[84]
Edwin Hernan Tabarez Lopera[85]
Brayan Leonardo Gonzalez Orozco[86]
Julio Cesar Gonzalez Uriana[87]
Carlos Sanchez Jaramillo[88]
Luis Eduardo Rojas Reinoso[89]
Amaury Rodriguez Gamboa[90]
Yefer Guampe Trujillo[91]
Christian Mauricio Vargas Duenas[92]
Jhonatan Mauricio Roman Giraldo[93]
Yilber Stiven Navarro Rincon[94]

US (Carlos Antonio Covington)[95] Mr.User200 (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping an eye on this topic. The names of the list have skyrocketed in the last days, and is difficult for me to keep tracking the losses. The numbers are insane by the way.Mr.User200 (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem mate. I am trying my best. The numbers have really gone up. It's not just TrackANaziMerc who are reporting dozens of new deaths, but the FB Memorial is now confirming a large back-log of deaths previously reported by TrackANaziMerc dating back all the way from April. Memorial posted confirmations of 30 deaths just today. EkoGraf (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Julio Besay Hernandez Trinidad (Spain),[96], Bachana Lobjanidze (Georgia)[97], Benjamin Liam Rosencrantz (Switzerland)[98], Bruno de Paula Carvalho Fernandes (Brazil)[99], Leonel Mansilla (Argentina)[100], Bruno Andrade Ferreira Lima (Brazil)[101], Ramon Diego de Souza Laranjeira (Brazil)[102], Arthur Henriques Pereira Gonçalves (Brazil)[103], Wellison Soares da Silva (Brazil)[104], Felipe de Almeida Borges (Brazil)[105], Pedro Henrique Silva Bragio (Brazil)[106], Edie Soares de Souza (Brazil)[107], Sergey Alexandrovich Klimenko (Russia)[108], Alexander Alekseyevich Agafonov (Russia)[109], Timofei Sergeevich Anufriev (Russia)[110], Jose Arcangel Perez Rivera (Chille)[111], Cristian Eduardo Airala (Argentina)[112], Mihail Ruskov (Bulgaria)[113], Wagner Bento da Silva Filho (Brazil)[114], João Henrique Nascimento da Rosa (Brazil)[115], Alberto Arroba Mordillo (Spain)[116], Jose Laercio Ribeiro Costa (Brazil)[117], Otavio Guilherme Giorgi Cardoso (Brazil)[118], Patrick Auer Holzer (Austria)[119], Rodrigo Oliveira da Silva (Brazil)[120], Juan Carlos Rosas Medrano (Peru)[121]. EkoGraf (talk) 15:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this article: 1 are they referring to foreign or from ethnic Hungarian origin?Mr.User200 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article says its referring to Transcarpathian Hungarians, so they are Ukrainians who are ethnically Hungarian. EkoGraf (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! Please don't add content which could not be found in sources and references to unreliable sources [122] 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 [123], Deutsche Welle [124], Le Monde [125] 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 [126][127]. 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 [128]. 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]

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]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you keep reverting back my edits from weeks and even months ago. If there are any issues with them, which no one else has mentioned so far yet, you are free to open a talk page discussion for each page. I myself don’t need to start a talk page for every single edit from months ago (if you disagree with my earlier edits, you are the one then who should start a talk page discussion, not me). But I just see that you reverted 3 edits of mine without even a logical edit summary/explanation, see: [129], [130] and [131]. If you continue like this, I will probably have to report this at a notice board. Woxic1589 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You again continue with reverting back my edits without explaining anything at the edit summary nor using the talk page: [132]. If you continue with this behavior, I will have to report this. Woxic1589 (talk) 14:03, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woxic1589, if that is your real name, your behaviour and article edit history is fishy enought to think that you might be a Sockpuppet from the 2020 period, that have been editing all those articles in the past. I have just noticed that you errased sourced content at the 2020 Balyun airstrikes with false edit summaries like you did here. The sources clearly states from Spiegel that a Turkish official said to Spiegel that "A Turkish official said to Spiegel that 50 Turkish soldiers died". 1. Also MSM states that "Military sources among moderate and jihadist rebel factions fighting in the northwestern province bordering Turkey said up to 70 Turkish soldiers died on Thursday night after a precision strike hit a two-storey building in the village of Balioun." 2 finally another source, The Guardian states here that "The death toll may have totalled up to 55, according to Metin Gurcan, a military analyst writing for the respected online regional platform al-Monitor." 3.

In your edits you state false edit summaries, and errase the quotes, considence?? This is from today 25 12 2025.

I urge to start a CU investigation on your account.Mr.User200 (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, when you aren’t able to win a discussion at the talk pages I have mentioned you earlier at, you are accusing me of being a sock puppet? Good luck with that investigation. I have caught you several times now of erasing multiple edits/additions of mine with zero explanations at any of your edit summaries, which I already mentioned here.

‘’The sources clearly states from Spiegel that a Turkish official said to Spiegel that "A Turkish official said to Spiegel that 50 Turkish soldiers died". ‘’, oh, so a unanimous official rumor is a more reliable source than a a official statement from the MoD, and governor? And how is Spiegel, a German newspaper, more reliable for a incident happening in Syria?

‘’The Guardian states here that "The death toll may have totalled up to 55, according to Metin Gurcan, a military analyst writing for the respected online regional platform al-Monitor."’’ - again, this is a speculation by a social media analyst. No evidence, no official confirmation etc. The total death toll of the Turkish military (including Balyun) were 58 in Idlib throughout 2020. That might be the reason for these conflicting numbers. But again, you never started a talk oage discussion for this one either.

I literally explained every single edit of mine at the edit summaries, while you clearly didn’t. This isn’t the only page where you removed my edits with zer explanations btw.

‘’In your edits you state false edit summaries, and errase the quotes, considence?? ’’- You are literally the one who doesn’t even mention anything at your own edit summaries, and accuse me of lying/false editing? Is everything going alright?

So you are not really going to win this discussion either by accusing other for being a alleged ‘’sock’’. Woxic1589 (talk) 14:21, 25 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. TylerBurden (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Woxic1589 (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr.User200. Thank you for your work on Dmytro Fisher. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for creating the article! Your contributions are greatly appreciated, have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 15:11, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]