User talk:Jmjfat

COI awareness notice

Hello, Jmjfat. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
do not add material relating to yourself to articles, such as references to your own work;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.Deb (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Jmjfat just circling back to this point - can you advise if you have a real-world connection to AABBY? Simonm223 (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Simonm223, I have no connection to Abbyy whatsoever. I merely heard for russian acquaintance the news that Abbyy supposedly fired russian employees, and I found this outrageous, but suspicious because this move would be illegal most European countries. I tried to find other sources than testimony from these 2 russian employees we find at the origin of all publications on the topic, but I could not. Therefore I originally concluded it was mostly russian propaganda, especially judging by the sources used the Wikipedia article (you might not have noticed this in the history of the page, but at some point there was even a direct slanderous quote from a member of the Russian State Duma). Now I acknowledge the fact that there might be a story behind, but we have incomplete information, and though the current version of the Wiki article is much better it was, I still believe the information is not substantiated enough to be reported. Jmjfat (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Your recent editing history at ABBYY 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.

Simonm223 (talk) 20:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Simonm223 (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed restriction

Hi Jmjfat,

I have noticed that you have recently edited pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Please note that, due to community consensus documented at WP:GS/RUSUKR, only extended-confirmed editors may make such edits.

When in doubt, please assume that a topic is covered by this restriction. We call this "broadly construed". If this still leaves you unsure about whether a topic is affected by the restriction, feel free to ask on my talk page.

This is not widely announced to newcomers, so I'm not blaming or condemning you for not knowing about this. I'm also not saying that your editing has been problematic in any other way. Your edit may well have been perfectly fine in all other regards, yet may have been removed for this reason.

Additionally, Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee has recognized "Eastern Europe or the Balkans" as a generally contentious topic area. Don't worry: The restriction to extended-confirmed editors is about the Russo-Ukrainian War, not the entirety of Eastern Europe and the Balkans. The box below contains standardized advice for everyone.

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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 an expanded level of powers and discretion 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 practices;
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.

This may be confusing, so I'll attempt to summarize it:

Only extended-confirmed editors may edit pages related to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Details and exceptions can be found at WP:GS/RUSUKR.
All edits about Eastern Europe and the Balkans, by all users, need to be done with extra care.

I hope this helps. Please let me know if there are any questions.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the page is not supposed to be related to the Russo-Ukrainian war: that was my initial issue. Users kept on placing rumours back in the text to victimize russian citizens. This is clearly an attempted propaganda. I went in the detail of all the sources that were ever proposed and they all stem from the same testimony of a single enployee. I even looked for new sources since the event reported supposedly happened in Cyprus, Serbia and Hungary, and the event breaks the law in Hungary and I would expect someone to have reported on this violation in Hungarian sources (I even found the law in question). In my last revision I did not remove the passage in question because it always come back, but tried to make it as clear as possible that this was a mere rumour, but someone removed my edit to make it look more like a fact and this should not be.

Furthermore, I was not the only user removing this information. User:Perohanych also was of my opinion. Jmjfat (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]