User talk:Miroslavpohanka

Recent edits
Hi. Thank you for your contributions, but I am becoming concerned about the citations authored by M Pohanka that you are adding to a large number of articles. If you have any connection to M Pohanka, adding these citations represents a conflict of interest. Please note that excessive self-citation is strongly discouraged. Thank you. Boghog (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I share this concern. I just reverted an edit you made at Schizophrenia, where the source you added appeared not to be related to the text where you added it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes please stop adding references to your own work when they do not support the sentences in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 22:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We also typically only use secondary sources such as review articles and major textbooks per WP:MEDRS. We do welcome you and realize that Wikipedia can take a little time to get used to. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 22:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, I have to join the editors above and kindly ask you to stop promoting your work. Materialscientist (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the editor's comments above that your edits are problematic. It appears that you are only here to promote the writings of M Pohanka, presumably self-promotion. Since your response to other editor's concerns expressed here has been to ignore those concerns and continue the same type of edits, your behavior is becoming disruptive. If you continue in the same manner, you risk being blocked from editing. While we appreciate your interest in contributing to Wikipedia, you must do so in cooperation with other editors. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

January-February 2014
Hello Miroslavpohanka! I'm a bit surprised to see the old messages above. I first noticed you today with your edit to Melatonin. I wasn't sure if this might be a COI (Conflict of Interest), so I asked on WikiProject Medicine's Talk page. There I was told that this is not a COI question but that the policy WP:CITESELF is the correct one. It says:
 * "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies, including WP:SELFPUB, and is not excessive. Citations should be in the third person and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion."

So it looks to me that you are editing correctly according to policy. Your Melatonin reference is a review, and so is your recent edit to Alzheimer's.

One of our most experienced editors of medical articles wrote to me:
 * "Also, see if you can recruit the editor. We need more subject-matter experts.  Someone who has written a review, for example, could probably tell you what other reviews might be worth citing for that area, or if any of the information in the article was significantly out of date."
 * [Emphasis added.]

So while adding references is great, we'd be happy to have you editing articles within your areas of expertise and interest, and pointing out things which should be corrected. Thank you.

Happy editing! Hordaland (talk) 18:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

December 2014
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Clearly, self-citations do not fall into the "minor" category. It would be helpful if you were to engage in discussion with other editors, who have taken their time to offer you feedback. Regards, LeadSongDog come howl!  03:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit war warning
Your recent editing history at Alzheimer's disease research 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 article's 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. Jytdog (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Blocked
I have reviewed a sample of your contributions and I find that every single one was adding citations to your own work. This is self-promotion and is not permitted by Wikipedia policy. This block has no automatic expiry time. I need to be sure that you understand the problem before you will be unblocked. If you are unblocked, you should be aware that the correct mechanism for including your own work on Wikipedia is to propose the changes on article Talk pages declaring that the papers are yours, and allow others to make the call. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)