curprev23:4023:40, 7 May 2023 133.106.230.231talk 11,350 bytes+83 The last editor is attempting to obfuscate the source of speculative evidence to confuse the reader. The referenced Kremlin-associated TASS report does not include any evidence. Last editor is making an effort to remove this clarification. This is an attempt at disinformation. My edit has restored the article to preserve this important nuance.undo
curprev15:0615:06, 7 May 2023 133.106.230.104talk 11,007 bytes+94 Undid revision 1153643589 by KammaPaza (talk) TASS has not provided any further imformation and that needed clarification. Replacing information from an actual official think tank with twitter references is highly questionable. It is more speculative to have this section at all than discredit the reporting of ISW. The last editor is clearly attempting to spread disinformation.undoTag: Undo
curprev13:3513:35, 7 May 2023 KammaPazatalkcontribs 10,913 bytes−94 →Russo-Ukrainian War: Russia provided footage, although the authenticity of this has not been independently confirmed. I removed the part from the ISW, because it's highly speculative, and not official information. It doesn't provide any information or argument about why the footage has been "amplified". Also it was reported that the incident took place northeast from Sevastopol. Thus, I consider that the official Russian and Ukrainian statements regarding the case as more relevant.undoTags: RevertedVisual edit
curprev11:0811:08, 7 May 2023 133.106.230.104talk 9,707 bytes−526 You are being selective with what you quote. This is disingenuous. The full quote is this here: {{/Shortcut|WP:TASS}} 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". Stop masquerading as a victim. Russia is not a victim, Russia is an aggressor.undoTags: UndoRevertedsection blanking
curprev10:5210:52, 7 May 2023 KammaPazatalkcontribs 10,233 bytes+526 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."undoTags: Manual revertReverted
curprev08:4408:44, 7 May 2023 133.106.230.104talk 9,707 bytes−526 The Russian government owned TASS agency has been determined as unreliable for factual evidence WP:TASS (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:TASS). Wikipedia should not be used to post unsubstantiated articles of this type. Please post this information only when it was conclusively confirmed.undoTags: Manual revertRevertedsection blanking
curprev01:2701:27, 7 May 2023 KammaPazatalkcontribs 10,173 bytes+466 Almost all military articles on Wikipedia have information, that has been confirmed by only one of the two sides of a war, just because of that it's still official information and not necessarily "propaganda". 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.undoTags: Manual revertRevertedVisual edit