User talk:Smoothpanda
By now, you must have realized that the article is watched by a host of editors guarding against whitewashing and other conflict of interest edits that have plagued it in the past. The only way you're going to get your changes through is to get consensus on the talk page. --NeilN talk to me 17:49, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
[edit]
Your recent editing history at American Academy of Financial Management shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. NeilN talk to me 17:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
[edit] This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User talk:Smoothpanda, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. SummerPhD (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Dear SUMMER PHD, there were no personal attacks. It is obvious that this article was hijacked by hackers offshore and the editors did not realize what was happening until this article was completely vandalized.
In this AAFM article, editors have much information on the Talk page about Name Changes. In the end, this was just a PHISHING exercise where many editors were DUPED. The top of the talk page says name change? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Academy_of_Financial_Management
In the end, the WHOLE name change incident along with the related criticism was an organized attack which fooled many of the top editors who were trying to moderate the article. To prove that many were fooled and tricked you need only read a confession and a federal judges opinion.
1) Announcement that AAFM and www.AAFM.org had NOTHING to do with offshore people: Here is a public announcement where offenders of this article state that they are NOT affiliated with AAFM http://www.theiafm.org/iafm-press-release.php?id=54
2) Federal Judges opinion exposing the theft and fraud committed by the editors who vandalized this article: http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2012cv00463/131596/48
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)