User talk:Jkomlos

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes ( ~ ) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Talk page guidelines. Thank you.  •  Maurog   •  15:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Pluralism in economics has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Pluralism in economics was changed by Jkomlos (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.936322 on 2014-06-11T13:44:22+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Pluralism in economics with this edit. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 14:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Jkomlos. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Pluralism in economics with this edit. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. DVdm (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please take notice of the advice given to you above. It is true that if you continue to add advertising or promotional material it will continue to be removed because it is contrary to this site's policies. You will also be blocked from editing here altogether if you continue. Hope this helps, —S MALL  JIM   14:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm just here to echo this. Promotional editing is NOT acceptable on Wikipedia and your edits from here on out will be watched to ensure that you don't use this website as a means of self-promotion. Given that the edits you've written about yourself have been highly promotional in nature, I'd recommend that you not edit about yourself or add anything about yourself onto Wikipedia from here on out. If your work is notable enough, someone else will write about it. You can request articles from the various WikiProjects, but please do not write about yourself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Principles of Economics (John Komlos)
Hello, Jkomlos,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Principles of Economics (John Komlos) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Principles of Economics (John Komlos).

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 22:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Principles of Economics (John Komlos)


A tag has been placed on Principles of Economics (John Komlos), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have blocked you for 48 hours. The reason is that you were given a warning to stop re-adding yourself to various articles because it was seen as self-promotion and you continued despite that. You were also given an additional warning by another editor. Your comment at the AfD for your book doesn't really show that you see what we're trying to tell you. Because of this, I've blocked you for a very short period of time. During this time I would really like you to read over our policies on editing with a conflict of interest (WP:COI), our notability policy for books (WP:NBOOK), our policy on what is and isn't acceptable on Wikipedia in general (WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTADVERTISING/WP:NOTSOAPBOX), as well as our policy on original research and neutral points of view (WP:OR, WP:NPOV). I'm not saying that your research and opinions are invalid or even wrong, but you've got to understand that coming on to Wikipedia and writing an essay that praises your own work while stating that other things (in this case, mainstream textbooks) can and will be seen more as your own personal opinion than a neutral piece. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

April 2015
Hello, I'm Rsrikanth05. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Arcadius Kahan because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

February 2018
Your recent editing history at Colt AR-15 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. PackMecEng (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:SELFCITE for own publications
As repeatedly criticized by various editors over many years, please stop adding your own publications all over various articles. While some of your edits have provided valuable additional content and such improvements are appreciated, a lot of them just serve to cite your own publications as often as possible or to popularize your academic work in general.

To avoid future problems with "conflict of interest" editing, please suggest all further edits involving your own publications, academic work and biography on the articles' respective talkpages instead of adding them yourself (you can add Template:edit request in such suggestions, and an uninvolved editor will review them). Please read WP:COI and especially WP:SELFCITE for more information. You have been repeatedly warned about this problematic aspect of your editing, and continuing to ignore this issue will likely lead to a longer block. GermanJoe (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)