User talk:Sprintnoodle

CIMA/CFP Investment Advisor

Your submission at Articles for creation: ISO 29990 Certification (October 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by David.moreno72 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:ISO 29990 Certification and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

David.moreno72 04:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello! Sprintnoodle, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! David.moreno72 04:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:American Academy of Financial Management. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:51, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh no, that editor used his real name to vandalize the AAFM website. Please check history for BKING as shown in the Judges Opinion

American Academy of Financial Management

Hi Sprintnoodle,

If you make any more edits of the type you have been making at American Academy of Financial Management, you are likely to be blocked. Other editors do not appreciate articles that read like a bad press release, or editors who insist on bringing back such content when it is removed.

Yaris678 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello again Sprintnoodle,

I have blocked your account for 72 hours as you seem to be intent on pushing a particular slant onto the article American Academy of Financial Management, repeatedly adding disputed material and not seeking to find a consensus.

If you continue in this way once the block has elapsed, you are likely to be permanently blocked.

Yaris678 (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello Yaris678, Please help with a consensus. I have only provided undisputed legal facts that are cited with quality references. A select group of editors keep undoing the NEW article that contains new facts from the last 6 years. The present article contains content posted by the sockuppets/defendants who were sued by the AAFM in Federal Court. See the US federal court lawsuit. The new updated article IS a consensus and includes ALL of the original information PLUS adds the FINRA and Wall Street Journal Details about accredited standards, the law school courses offered, the alliances with accredited business schools etc. The new updated article only contains referenced facts which I am BEGGING for anyone to validate to form a consensus rather than deleting everything and reverting to a 6 year old article. The new updated and cited article even exposes the ID and IP theft attempt by WIKI editors. However, the editors will only delete and revert to the non-factual material and Whitewash over the vast credibility. It seems that an intentional effort to defame this organization over the last 5 years. Check the history yourself. Thanks, Sprintnoodle (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)