User talk:KammaPaza

Are you a russian troll?
Your edits seem to suggest that you are publishing Russian propaganda. Correct me if I'm wrong. 133.106.212.95 (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That's incorrect. All edits I add are impartial in tone and content. I'm citing the source in all my edits, which allows readers to verify the information for themselves and assess the reliability of the information presented. Editing a Wikipedia article and adding sources to Russian or American news agencies does not automatically constitute it as "propaganda." The use of sources from a specific news agencies does not necessarily mean that the information presented is biased or false. I strive to present the information in a balanced and neutral way. KammaPaza (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Using a reference link does not make information reliable. Adding a disclaimer at the end of the section does not free you from a responsibility to publish only reliable information. Your insistence on this matter clearly shows that you are disingenuous. Your referenced event has not been backed up with evidence other than than a singular claim by TASS. You are spreading disinformation knowing that people will be looking at this page due to how recent the referenced event is. Please refrain from acting in bad faith and wait for evidence to be published. 133.106.230.104 (talk) 10:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I cited a quote from the Russian state, my edit is in line with Wikipedia's guidelines.
 * "TASS it is considered reliable for quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians." KammaPaza (talk) 10:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are being selective with what you quote. This is disingenuous. The full quote is this:
 * "In a 2022 RfC, editors achieved a strong consensus that TASS is a biased source with respect to topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and that the source is generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context. Editors attained a rough consensus that TASS should not be deprecated at this time and a rough consensus that TASS is generally unreliable more broadly for facts, with the caveat that it is considered reliable for quotes of statements made by the Kremlin, the Russian State, and pro-Kremlin politicians."
 * Please pay attention specifically to:"topics in which the Russian government may have an interest and that the source is generally unreliable for providing contentious facts in that context."
 * This is what is currently being disputed. Please refrain from spreading contentious "facts".
 * And please stop masquerading as a victim. Russia is not a victim, Russia is an aggressor. 133.106.230.104 (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, where did I said that "Russia is a victim"? You're just making up nonsense things that I never said anywhere.
 * Second of all, I didn't cite Tass for "providing contentious facts". I only cited TASS for that official quote from Russian officials, which is specifically allowed on Wikipedia. It's not disinformation to say that Russia made that quote. KammaPaza (talk) 11:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

General sanctions
Please note that only extended-confirmed users are allowed to make edits related to the Russo-Ukrainian War (WP:GS/RUSUKR). Prolog (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
Your recent editing history at Hrim-2 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; read about 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Gummycow moo 23:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * That's not true. It was that other person who always reverted my edits multiple times, he completely removed my contribution for around 3 times. KammaPaza (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)