Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. This was your addition of material from the tabloid called The Sun, which is a highly unreliable source that has been deprecated. Boud (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oh, sorry, i didnt know, well, ill wait until other more reliable sources report on that and ill add the information again, thanks for telling me, as always, im open to any constructive criticism or suggestion to improve, thanks again. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. With our paths crossing on the Template:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, I am inviting you to participate in a discussion I just started related to our recent paths crossing. Feel free to leave your opinion on this talk page! Have a good day! Elijahandskip (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are interested, I point out this discussion. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have become aware of the fact that the two of us are probably editing past each other; it seems that my edits are as confusing to you as your changes are to me. I often noticed what you were trying to improve only after looking deeply into your edits; in turn, I assume that you were frustrated that I reverted you.
If I may make a suggestion: Can you try to break up your edits into smaller pieces? In your last change, for example, you made general layout changes, moved one battalion, and replaced at least one source. I agreed with the move of the battalion, disagreed with the layout change, and was confused about the source replacement (until I saw that you had tried to replace Telegram which was the right thing to do, albeit the source you replaced it with did not mention the fighting in eastern Ukraine). If you had split these changes into three distinct edits, I would have not reverted you.
Naturally, you do not have to do what I ask, as you are free to edit as you wish within Wikipedia's guidelines; my request is only motivated by a desire to prevent unneccessary content disputes. Anyway, thanks in advance, and I hope that we can work better together. I will try to look over your edits more carefully next time, as to avoid reverting what was correct. Applodion (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, ill check into the page again and see if there is any error that i may have commited, or one that i havent removed, thanks. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i have added back some of the content, ill bring it to the talk page if we should keep some of the things that were recently added (examples are mercenary pilots and dutch volunteers, because, if we are going to add these, then we might as well add all the nationalities of foreign volunteers fighting in ukraine). 187.39.133.201 (talk) 19:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Isabelle Belato. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to List of foreign aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Isabelle ^🏳‍🌈 23:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, its because i was going to put back the kosovo part, but as i couldnt revert the vandalistic edit, i reverted the edit that reverted it, and i was going to revert the vandalism, sorry for the misunderstanding. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i added back the Kosovo part, again, sorry for the misunderstanding, although its always good to see that there are people constantly fighting vandalism, so, keep up the good work! 187.39.133.201 (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, with regard to this revert [1], you're obviously right that NYT is a reliable source on Denisova allegations, but is Denisova a reliable source? There's a discussion going on on the talk page, and there seems to be a rough consensus (2 vs 1) that Denisova is not a WP:RS on rapes involving minors. If you have a different view on this, please explain your reasons in the talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, makes sense, she has been taken off her post because of false allegations, so maybe yes. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"False allegations" maybe it's too much, they said they were not "verified", meaning that anyone could call a telephone helpline and make allegations which could then be reported to journalists without first having been checked. I think we shouldn't publish them, but on this there are different views, as you see in the talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, i wouldnt say false allegations, but more like unverified allegations, and, true, we shouldnt publish them if they werent first checked. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2022 anti-war protests in Russia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Discuss the issue on the talk page please per WP:BRD — Czello 16:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1- i didnt violate the rule and 2- other editors have disagreed with adding the far right opposition, as its common russian disinformation to claim that ukraine is a nazi state, they may just be trying to push that the opposition inside russia is also neo nazi. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder about the advantages of creating an account. One item not listed there (since it's only eight years old?) is that as an IP editor, nobody can press a "thank" button to thank you for an edit; as a logged-in editor, you can be thanked. You don't have to create an account, of course. And it wouldn't guarantee you any thanks: some people do it a lot, some rarely. Boud (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

well, i don't really care about getting a "thank you" for my edits, i edit because i want to make Wikipedia a better place, and i want to help it, not because i want people to say "thank you" (no hate towards giving or receiving a thank you, its just that my objective is not exactly that), but, sure, im thinking about making a account, ill take my time and think about it, thanks for the suggestion. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand that you're not editing Wikipedia to collect "thank-yous". :) But we're all human (except for the robots here...), and having a bit of extra confirmation every now and then that other people appreciate our editing, i.e. positive feedback, as opposed to only getting negative feedback about problems, does seem to have helped us as a community of editors. Anyway, no hurry - the decision is yours. Boud (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense, although, i don't really care about negative feedback, as long as its constructive and not someone coming here and screaming "YOU BAD STOP EDITING", but, eh, ill think about it, thanks for the suggestion. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in. If you like, you can create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (187.39.133.201) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit late for it, but as you didn't get one I wanted to thank you and welcome! And the most important thing from making an account, if you decide to make one, is that after a few edits you unlock the ability to edit locked articles. AdrianHObradors (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i was thinking about making a account, its just that i wanted to edit as a IP user for some time to gain a bit of experience with editing before creating a account, i may make a account soon, thanks for the advice. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 21:57, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing! And if you do have any questions feel free to hit me up. I'll be glad to help out. AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, well, i recently saw that i was blocked for 6 months for block evasion, i think this is a misunderstanding, it claims that im related to an "Marquinhoswikipediano" person, (while i have seen notices here about him some time after i joined, i do not have any relation to him), as far as i saw about him, he has a very troll-ish/disruptive writing style and constantly got into edit wars, as well as POV pushing, trolling or adding content without consensus (among other disruptive behaviours), but, out of all my recent edits, you could maybe point out 1 or 2 that have a error (and, when i do commit a error, i learn from it), i haven't disrupted any article, (actually, i IMPROVED several articles such as War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022 anti-war protests in Russia, 2022 Brazilian general election, 2022 Western Russia attacks and Corruption in Brazil, just to name a few i contributed to the most), removing unsourced and badly sourced content, fixing typos, removing (and reporting) POV pushing, etc, Marquinhos also apparently didn't have a good proficiency in English (i am not 100% perfect, i am not American, but i can write and understand English). and, while i don't know much about the SP investigation, as far as i saw, the most recent sockpuppet of his shown in the SP page is Joojador (well, there is a more recent sock called EpicWikiLad, although he was still banned a long time ago, a mod also said that he may have been a impersonator, that would make sense as the edit pattern was different from Marquinhos' pattern, although it appears that he did disrupt some articles at some point). i have also made over 400 edits since march, with almost all of them being very useful/good-quality and non-disruptive (im not the only one to say it, @Gitz6666 and @AdrianHObradors can confirm that most of my edits weren't disruptive in any way, they can also confirm that im more articulate in English than Marquinhos was, other people i had interactions with may also say similar things), now, i understand (and appreciate) the concern and i know the blocking admin wants to do whats better for the community, but i can assure you that i wont disrupt anything, i am here to contribute, not to disrupt (different from Marquinhos and other trolls). if unblocked, i will abide to community policies, and i will go back to editing/contributing, i wont cause any disruption and i promise i will do my best to be a good Wikipedian. 187.39.133.201 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Hello, well, i recently saw that i was blocked for 6 months for block evasion, i think this is a misunderstanding, it claims that im related to an "Marquinhoswikipediano" person, (while i have seen notices here about him some time after i joined, i do not have any relation to him), as far as i saw about him, he has a very troll-ish/disruptive writing style and constantly got into edit wars, as well as POV pushing, trolling or adding content without consensus (among other disruptive behaviours), but, out of all my recent edits, you could maybe point out 1 or 2 that have a error (and, when i do commit a error, i learn from it), i haven't disrupted any article, (actually, i IMPROVED several articles such as [[War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]], [[2022 anti-war protests in Russia]], [[2022 Brazilian general election]], [[2022 Western Russia attacks]] and [[Corruption in Brazil]], just to name a few i contributed to the most), removing unsourced and badly sourced content, fixing typos, removing (and reporting) POV pushing, etc, Marquinhos also apparently didn't have a good proficiency in English (i am not 100% perfect, i am not American, but i can write and understand English). and, while i don't know much about the SP investigation, as far as i saw, the most recent sockpuppet of his shown in the SP page is Joojador (well, there '''is''' a more recent sock called EpicWikiLad, although he was still banned a long time ago, a mod also said that he may have been a impersonator, that would make sense as the edit pattern was different from Marquinhos' pattern, although it appears that he '''did''' disrupt some articles at some point). i have also made over 400 edits since march, with almost all of them being very useful/good-quality and non-disruptive (im not the only one to say it, @[[User:Gitz6666|Gitz6666]] and @[[User:AdrianHObradors|AdrianHObradors]] can confirm that most of my edits weren't disruptive in any way, they can also confirm that im more articulate in English than Marquinhos was, other people i had interactions with may also say similar things), now, i understand (and appreciate) the concern and i know the blocking admin wants to do whats better for the community, but i can assure you that i wont disrupt anything, i am here to contribute, not to disrupt (different from Marquinhos and other trolls). if unblocked, i will abide to community policies, and i will go back to editing/contributing, i wont cause any disruption and i promise i will do my best to be a good Wikipedian. [[Special:Contributions/187.39.133.201|187.39.133.201]] ([[User talk:187.39.133.201#top|talk]]) 17:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, well, i recently saw that i was blocked for 6 months for block evasion, i think this is a misunderstanding, it claims that im related to an "Marquinhoswikipediano" person, (while i have seen notices here about him some time after i joined, i do not have any relation to him), as far as i saw about him, he has a very troll-ish/disruptive writing style and constantly got into edit wars, as well as POV pushing, trolling or adding content without consensus (among other disruptive behaviours), but, out of all my recent edits, you could maybe point out 1 or 2 that have a error (and, when i do commit a error, i learn from it), i haven't disrupted any article, (actually, i IMPROVED several articles such as [[War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]], [[2022 anti-war protests in Russia]], [[2022 Brazilian general election]], [[2022 Western Russia attacks]] and [[Corruption in Brazil]], just to name a few i contributed to the most), removing unsourced and badly sourced content, fixing typos, removing (and reporting) POV pushing, etc, Marquinhos also apparently didn't have a good proficiency in English (i am not 100% perfect, i am not American, but i can write and understand English). and, while i don't know much about the SP investigation, as far as i saw, the most recent sockpuppet of his shown in the SP page is Joojador (well, there '''is''' a more recent sock called EpicWikiLad, although he was still banned a long time ago, a mod also said that he may have been a impersonator, that would make sense as the edit pattern was different from Marquinhos' pattern, although it appears that he '''did''' disrupt some articles at some point). i have also made over 400 edits since march, with almost all of them being very useful/good-quality and non-disruptive (im not the only one to say it, @[[User:Gitz6666|Gitz6666]] and @[[User:AdrianHObradors|AdrianHObradors]] can confirm that most of my edits weren't disruptive in any way, they can also confirm that im more articulate in English than Marquinhos was, other people i had interactions with may also say similar things), now, i understand (and appreciate) the concern and i know the blocking admin wants to do whats better for the community, but i can assure you that i wont disrupt anything, i am here to contribute, not to disrupt (different from Marquinhos and other trolls). if unblocked, i will abide to community policies, and i will go back to editing/contributing, i wont cause any disruption and i promise i will do my best to be a good Wikipedian. [[Special:Contributions/187.39.133.201|187.39.133.201]] ([[User talk:187.39.133.201#top|talk]]) 17:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Hello, well, i recently saw that i was blocked for 6 months for block evasion, i think this is a misunderstanding, it claims that im related to an "Marquinhoswikipediano" person, (while i have seen notices here about him some time after i joined, i do not have any relation to him), as far as i saw about him, he has a very troll-ish/disruptive writing style and constantly got into edit wars, as well as POV pushing, trolling or adding content without consensus (among other disruptive behaviours), but, out of all my recent edits, you could maybe point out 1 or 2 that have a error (and, when i do commit a error, i learn from it), i haven't disrupted any article, (actually, i IMPROVED several articles such as [[War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]], [[2022 anti-war protests in Russia]], [[2022 Brazilian general election]], [[2022 Western Russia attacks]] and [[Corruption in Brazil]], just to name a few i contributed to the most), removing unsourced and badly sourced content, fixing typos, removing (and reporting) POV pushing, etc, Marquinhos also apparently didn't have a good proficiency in English (i am not 100% perfect, i am not American, but i can write and understand English). and, while i don't know much about the SP investigation, as far as i saw, the most recent sockpuppet of his shown in the SP page is Joojador (well, there '''is''' a more recent sock called EpicWikiLad, although he was still banned a long time ago, a mod also said that he may have been a impersonator, that would make sense as the edit pattern was different from Marquinhos' pattern, although it appears that he '''did''' disrupt some articles at some point). i have also made over 400 edits since march, with almost all of them being very useful/good-quality and non-disruptive (im not the only one to say it, @[[User:Gitz6666|Gitz6666]] and @[[User:AdrianHObradors|AdrianHObradors]] can confirm that most of my edits weren't disruptive in any way, they can also confirm that im more articulate in English than Marquinhos was, other people i had interactions with may also say similar things), now, i understand (and appreciate) the concern and i know the blocking admin wants to do whats better for the community, but i can assure you that i wont disrupt anything, i am here to contribute, not to disrupt (different from Marquinhos and other trolls). if unblocked, i will abide to community policies, and i will go back to editing/contributing, i wont cause any disruption and i promise i will do my best to be a good Wikipedian. [[Special:Contributions/187.39.133.201|187.39.133.201]] ([[User talk:187.39.133.201#top|talk]]) 17:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

187.39.133.201 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I have no idea if IP 187 is a SP, but I'm happy to confirm that they've been very active at War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and have always delivered good quality contributions both in Ns0 and in the talk page. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]