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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template. Prolog (talk) 21:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions

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 Russo-Ukrainian war. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. 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.

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)[reply]

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—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. Gummycow ^moo 23:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

October 2024

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to 9K720 Iskander. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please make sure that you are avoiding WP:OR by accurately representing a source's claims when attempting to include it in an article. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 22:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This research is publicly accessible and published by a reliable organization. Kiel Institute is well-regarded for its economic and policy research. You're trying to enforce Wikipedia’s guidelines too rigidly. It's very counterproductive what you're doing and you're just making wikipedia worse. KammaPaza (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what you're doing. Deleting useful information by a reliable source that visitors want to know. Shame on you. KammaPaza (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]