User talk:Wealthadvise

Wealthadvise, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Wealthadvise! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Chartered Financial Consultant, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 21:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm RJC. I noticed that you recently removed some content from American Academy of Financial Management without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! This article has had numerous issues with WP:NPOV, and you removed a statement that users who have since been banned have sought to remove. You also neglected to mention your removal in your edit summary. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 00:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RJC, I see you are a PhD who would familiar with academics and accreditation bodies. The first sentence of the narrative is a violation in that somebody is claiming in the article that this is a degree granting institution. It seems that you have worked on this article a good bit. When did they start offering degrees? Most professional organizations do not offer any degree or diploma because that is against the law. I will research this article and the history of this article for you and see if we can add relevant government and press references and and remove any accidental mistakes. Wealthadvise (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)wealthadviseWealthadvise (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to American Academy of Financial Management. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.

You seem to be continuing the same campaign of whitewashing as User talk:Cfpcertified, with removals of secondary sources in favor of fluffy positive analysis of primary sources. Are you the same editor? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not cherry-pick specific external links that happen to link to your company. Here you are adding a link that has information, but you choose to link only the "Contacts for more info" page. Apparently, this is only just because this page links to your company. Here you add a directory search that returns your company as one of the results. This is plain out spamming of wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CFA Institute, CFP Board and American Academy of Financial Management

Government recognition and the Financial Regulatory Authority are the most respectived references in the industry. Nobody is sure why anyone would want to remove the FINRA and US Government references. Moreover, the Wall Street Journal and the FINRA reference the AAFM accredited education and exams from ACBSP and AACSB.

If you have a business school graduate education such as an MBA or PhD or DBA, you would instantly know that the AACSB and ACBSP are the top educational institutions in the world by ranking. i.e. Wharton, NYU, Stanford etc.

Please do not whitewash the article of basic facts from the financial industry. I was simply trying to revive an article similar to CFP and CFA Institute. The goal is that this article should mirror similar articles. See CFP Board and CFA Institute for more clarity.

All of your criticism remains, but the article has been improved to include basic information from accreditation authorities, financial regulators, and the US government. Even the Wall Street Journal references the AACSB and ACBSP accredited exam and course standards of the American Academy. Wealthadvise (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)wealthadviseWealthadvise (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at American Academy of Financial Management, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Stop whitewashing the criticism from the article. Wikipedia is not an extension of your marketing department. You can read yourself what the secondary sources say. You seem to be dumping primary sources into the article to introduce your own point of view. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, if you search "CWM" in the FINRA website[1], or any other certification, there is a message saying

"FINRA does NOT approve or endorse any professional designation. Nor does a designation’s inclusion in this database imply that FINRA considers the designation to be acceptable for use by a registered representative. Furthermore, state securities regulators may prohibit or restrict the use of certain listed designations by registered persons and investment adviser representatives."

So, inclusion in FINRA's website is not a guarantee of anything, and it shouldn't be given more weight than the WSJ article, which is a secondary source and which analyzes the relative value of certain type certifications in its real world context.

Finally, you appear to be continuing the edit war started by User talk:Doctorlaw. Are you related to this other user? --Enric Naval (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Doctorlaw, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Enric Naval (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Brianhe (talk) 18:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]