Dickietr

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to American Academy of Project Management, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. One of the ways that WP:OR can be violated is to synthesize sources. So, the WSJ article is on the American Academy of Financial Management, owned by Mentz. Mentz also owns, you say, the AAPM. But you cannot transitively apply the WSJ article to the AAPM without conducting original research. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:15, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:American Academy of Financial Management. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Apologies it was a mistake I was following advice I received from Giftiger but i find the discussions offensive, libelous and personal in nature http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#Sock_Puppet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dickietr (talk • contribs)

Ah. I don't think he had the context for that one; he is describing the rule in deletion discussions, policies and guidelines, or other discussions where we establish a consensus. My arguing with a lone editor on a talk page isn't really the same. I would like those conversations preserved so I can point back to them when issues arise regarding these articles as evidence of non-stop tendentious editing.
Also, don't think that Kingbr, AsianLawyer, and FinancialLawyer are all Doctorlaw sockpuppets (although they are all probably Brett King himself, given the history of their edits). Doctorlaw and his socks represent the AAFM side of the dispute; Kingbr and his socks pushed the IAFM side, prior to which they were pro-AAFM. So Kingbr &co. certainly can't be stricken because Doctorlaw &co. have been blocked. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

For that LinkedIn thing, you should provide reliable sources. In particular, you want to find independent third-party reliable sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to join the IAFM Linkedin Group http://www.linkedin.com/groupRegistration?gid=959 to see what happened. Other than getting Linkedin to admit that they breached their own security rules by allowing the American Academy of Financial Manangement to hijack the Group owned by a competitor organisation there is very little reliable sources that can be quoted. Mentz however did attempt to divert membership fees and has been reported to the FBI's "wire fraud" agency Dickietr (talk) 15:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Please do not create attack pages as you did at Talk:American Academy of Financial Management. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images, especially those in violation of our biographies of living persons policy, will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. When I make a disparaging remark about an anonymous IP address, it is improper to identify that IP address with someone in the real world and spread malicious statements about them, whether you feel those statements are true or not. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I just had to remove a personal attack in the edit above which was naming individuals and purpurting to support the American Academy of financial management. I will not tolerate Wikipedia being used by the American Academy of Financial Management AAFM as a platform to make personal and vicious attacks on named individuals and i would request that you seriously investigate these postings and their source. I have to continually keep monitoring Wikipedia to see what more and more lies are being spread by this organisation and it is becoming tiresome. Sometimes i get so angry at what is being said I have to retort for which I apologise if I have broken the rules. I would however reiterate my request that Wikipedia try to prevent this organisation from posting libellous statements about named individuals Dickietr (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Your user page belongs to you and you can remove anything from it without cause and add anything to it you like. If you don't like something someone has put on your user talk page, you can delete it, whether it names names or not. Also, Wikipedia isn't really an organization in the sense you seem to be imagining. Things don't get done if editors don't do them. You are an editor. Periodically checking back to ensure that Wikipedia's core principles have not been violated is perfectly appropriate. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)