User talk:186.18.149.130

November 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Blackwater (company), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Private military company, you may be blocked from editing. Your “source” did not say what you claim it did. See wp:synth. It is quite clear you are running into wp:npov issues. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Patriarchy, you may be blocked from editing. Robynthehode (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Agreed, this is definitely a pointless edit war. The article does not seem to be unbalanced in a way which favors any gender/viewpoint. If you want to point out specific issues, please use {{citation needed}} tags. Mooshberry (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Patriarchy 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. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:32, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as done at Patriarchy.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

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).

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

Request reason:

Please read the Patriarchy's article Talk page, I am the second user warning that the article is not neutral, and also the second one who's warning has been suppressed by user Sangdeboeuf, whom, by looking their Talk page, is clearly biased and unfit to say that there is no NPOV issue, curiously, they haven't been banned for violating the three revert rule but I was, please intervene in this situation, because clearly this user can't judge if the article is biased or not 186.18.149.130 (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

First there's this fond wish for Sangdeboeuf to become the object of violence during "the lovely exchange" below. Second is WP:NOTTHEM. Third is that it's clear that you need the 24-hour time-out if you are still this hot under the collar. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2022 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: please take note of this lovely exchange when evaluating IP's ability to contribute to the project, Thanks. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC) edited 11:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(186.18.149.130 talking, yes, please check our little chit-chat so you see how this user kept teasing me, mocking me, and completely ignoring the fact that they are clearly too biased to say what's NPOV or not related to the patriarchy article, completely politicizing the discussion even saying that I'm a conservative instead of judging this issue with a neutral point of view, and abusing their power as an experienced user by fueling edit warring instead of helping solve the problem) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.149.130 (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice: gender-related controversies

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for making personal attacks towards other editors. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Favonian (talk) 11:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Your edit of Vladlen Tatarsky

Knock that shit off. You're not helping anyone. --Kiz o r 16:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.