User talk:Martinpotucek

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

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must 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 WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Melcous (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi dear Editor, I have problems with two paragraphs in my bio: Since 2013, Martin Potucek is Head of Pension Reform committee. The committee is extremely controversial and not taken with respect from the society after admittedly failing with the decision to cancel the 2 Saving Pillar (volunteer overpay to private entities using part of the income tax insurance). That decision will reduce the pension savings to large number of tax payers and enforce them to poor life at the expense of other society members that contributed less to the system. On top of that Potucek as director make an organizational plan for the committee consist of 70 members. The idea to collect representatives form all political parties and institutions led to a complete stall of the organization, as no decision can be taken on time. Controversy: Martin Potucek was accused that his pay for the Pension Reform Committee is 100,000 CZK per month (an equivalent of EUR 4000 as per 2013 rates). This was taken as an abuse by nearly all political parties, media and worker organizations. meanwhile, in Czech Republic, the maximum pension is 17,000 CZK per month. Having that fact, Potucek was numerous times accused in hypocrisy and being a "fake socialist - millionaire". Among with the pay in Pension Committee, he has full-time role in the Charles University, where he his incomes are exceeding 1Mn CZK per year. His age of 66 makes him above the retirement age and technically he should live on the maximum of 17,000CZK per month. His opponents often state that mr. Potucek is taking 10 times more pension per month than the maximum allowed, working on 2 positions and refusing to explain how he is managing them both.

The two paragraphs above have been published without my knowledge in 2013. They are full of lies and defamations. 1. The Expert Committee on Pension Reform was established by the Czech coalition government and was active between 2013 and 2017. It had 21 members and about 30 invited collaborators, working in three specialized task forces. It approved 10 reform proposals; eight of them were approved by the government and embodied in corresponding legal acts. Refer to http://www.duchodova-komise.cz/?page_id=1248 for detailed information. 2. My renumeration for the Expert Committee on Pension Reform Chairmanship made half of the average monthly salary in the Czech Republic, 14,000 CZK (an equivalent of EURO 520). Advise mde, how shall I correct this fake news, 5 years old??? Thank you. Martin Potůček, November 2018

Reply[edit]

I have removed the two paragraphs you have a problem with because they were not sourced and were not written neutrally. But please note that anyone may edit wikipedia and the article about you is not "owned" by you. If you have a problem in the future with what is written there, the best thing to do is use the article's talk page to explain why and provide reliable sources that show what you mean. The easiest way to do this is to use the Template:Request edit. Thank you, Melcous (talk) 09:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edits you made today for the same reason - as an editor with a conflict of interest you have been requested not to directly edit the article, but rather to make any suggestions on the talk page. You should also provide independent, secondary sources to verify the content you wish to be added. Melcous (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]