User talk:Mgmwki

Welcome

 * Kuru, thank you for your welcome. However, I must indicate I am weary about making additional contributions to (and even using) Wikipedia in light of what I have seen is happening in pages I have written and left well cited.  Please refer to the "talk" in "Factoring (finance)".  Thanks.

Wiki syntax
Hello - I've noticed some recent edits you've made to Discounting and Factoring (finance), in which you've introduced some formatting syntax inconsistent with current Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please take care to edit according to How to edit a page; in particular, don't use  tags (the software will automatically create these from two hard breaks) or non-breaking spaces to create leading indentation (WP does not use leading indentation for paragraphs). I've undone your formatting changes, but have not made changes to the content you introduced. Mind matrix  23:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:MonopolyPower-Profit-Pricing.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:MonopolyPower-Profit-Pricing.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Citation problem with United States v. Microsoft
I discovered a problem with a citation you introduced in this article. Please comment at Talk:United_States_v._Microsoft. Hairy Dude (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CompetitiveMarket.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:CompetitiveMarket.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 01:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I apologize. I thought "Article" meant a Business Journal Article or one found in a book.  In fact the Graph comes from Generally well accepted Graphical Competitive Equilibrium in a Competitive Market that is presented in many/various Micro Textbooks and articles. Though the Format of the Representation may be different (separating out the Market Graph from the individual firm Graph by using 2 separate pages for example), the graphical presentation is always the same. Since this is generally accepted "Generally Accepted Knowledge" from the time of Alfred Marshal, I will upload it as "Free COntent". Hop this is acceptable.

Replies
That is not my post about the Oxford Dictionary of Economics, it is that of User:Jackftwist as is evident from the signature. Would you still like me to read your full message on my talk page and see if I can reply? Otherwise it seems sensible for me to respectfully ignore your post as it is not a response to me.

Viz. oligopoly and monopoly profit (etc), I shall respond on the article talk page. Regards, - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 13:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC) 
 * Thank you, I'm glad it wasn't you who said this. Yes, i would agree a brief verbal discussion on the Game Theory might be nice to have.  However, for understandability, I think it must be purely verbal and graphical in its presentation; remembering this is not for the Professional Economist/Financial Analyst only, but more for those with little expertise who would like to find out a bit more about the topic (like any Encyclopedia user).

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, Thanks.

Chelyabink Meteor
Thanks for to the article. I have also information to your reference.

Please note the trans_title parameter should be used only where the referenced work is not in English. Additionally, where there is need to duplicate a reference, the code is

These fixes took only a few moments. Please continue to add useful references to articles wherever you can. -- 79.67.249.62 (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Markup rule (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Capital, Labor, Supply and Equity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Monopoly Price (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Capital, Labor, Supply and Equity

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Factoring (finance), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Discount (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Factoring (finance), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Credit and Collateral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Monopoly profit
I see you reversed my edit on Monopoly profit, which was probably the correct thing to do. The issue is that the ref name tag "IntermediateMicro" is defined multiple times with different content. "Essentials" has a similar problem. Is that something you fix? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 20:04, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Lol, this is how a professional is footnoted to avoid plagiarism! It is also a sign that the information in the preceding sentence comes from a reliable factual published source. Your change removed these aforementioned qualities from this article (which a published PhD indicated was a "well written" textbook explanation of the subject area a few years 'before' your "edit"); turning it into an amateurish article. Good going in keeping Wikipedia a laughing stock among those in the media and professional communities who discount Wikipedia writing as amateurish innane, careless and innane attempts by many who have little if any knowledge in the area they carelessly edit or write about.


 * By the way, I have a Masters in Economics fulfilled with PhD classes (even at the time I originally corrected another amateurish attempt on this subject) many years ago, and now have over 22 years professional experience in financial analysis and Accounting as well!. This is the reason why I stopped contributing years ago: since "what is the use" of trying to produce a professional result when it can be haphazardly cannibalized at any time!?

@Mgmwiki MGMontini (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

July 2021
Hello, I'm GKFX. I noticed that you recently removed content from Monopoly price without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. '' At Monopoly price today you reverted three useful edits, including one of my own, without explanation. Please do not do so again. If you want to revert a good-faith edit you should always provide an edit summary explaining why.'' User:GKFXtalk 21:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've had to remove several edits from Monopoly price article because they were both incorrect or immaterial when discussing generally accepted Neo-Classical economic theory. I've also had to defend my well footnoted''' writing against "suggested corrections" that were immaterial to currently accepted basic economic theory, and usually incorrect when seen in the light of generally accepted economic theory. A PhD (publishing articles in economic analysis) rated the original article as "well drafted"; only to be followed by a massive number of edits and "corrections" (none of which are footnoted''' to any relevant source) afterward! You say here not to revert back your "corrections", yet take no action to ensure "corrections" (that change the main body and meaning of the article) must be properly footnoted with professional or scholarly sources that show the correctness and relevance of any changes?!? If I revert a change, it is because the change may have caused others a misunderstanding of the generally accepted economic thought (as taught in first year college) within the subject matter discussed. When I first came upon the "Monopoly profit" article, it mistakes Neo-Classical economic theory, was incomplete in reference to the definition of Monopoly, and even contained a graph that was absolutely incorrect AND incomplete in its representation of the firm. I fully footnoted everything I wrote with both undergraduate college textbooks and Graduate school textbooks on the subject matter. Yet now I see irrelevant and (at times) blatantly incorrect statements in regards to how and why "corrections" are to be made! This, after the published PhD wrote "Well drafted"! All of these "suggested corrections" were not footnoted with appropriate scholarly or professional sources, and which were mostly incorrect when discussing the subject matter. "Grammer corrections" can always be understood as long as they don't change any of the meaning of the passage. However, changes that fully change the basic meaning of a passage (that is even well footnoted''') by those with no education in the subject area. MGMontini (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive some of the "typos" in the above. MGMontini (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC)