User talk:Brett k

Hi, the recent edit you made to Shity University of Hong Kong has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks – Gurch 22:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from American Academy of Financial Management. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. 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. Removal of these templates is also not considered a minor edit, so please do not mark as such. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 06:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Financial Management

Brett K — Thank you for writing. One of the pages you mention has maintenance tags on it, so the similarity of the AAFM page to it does not mean that it shouldn't have a maintenance tag. The other page may well deserve these tags: I note immediately that it doesn't cite it sources. The AAFM page doesn't follow those other pages in terms of content, however.

The page lists all of the products/services/designations offered and what one has to do to get them. This is information appropriate to the company's website, but not an encyclopedia article.
The page slags on the competition, something you yourself recently added to the page. Any edit whose motivation is to make this an attractive company with which to do business has a marketing agenda.
The article seems to warn others against violating its intellectual property (e.g., "the professional designation are registered trademarks," etc.).
It defends the firm's practices against criticism (e.g., it requires a college degree, but so do most insurance and financial planner organizations these days).
The article inflates the company's importance. E.g., it links it to a U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was not involved, it lists every cross-recognition agreement the firm has with another organization, it notes how this cross-recognition boosts the number of "registered and recognized accredited certification programs worldwide" to over 561 (what, 562?), etc.
The article's language is that of marketing, not an encyclopedia. E.g., the phrase just quoted, or "global cross-recognition legal recognition agreements." The first, in a more encyclopedic language, would be just "programs;" the second, "agreements." The entire article is written with this tone.

None of this addresses the problem of verifiability, however. All of the sources are primary sources (there is reference to a WSJ article, but the target link is to a non-existent page, and so also fails as a reliable sources). The talk page mentions some third-party sources, but links to them were not forthcoming; in any case, they should be incorporated into the article. This is not something I would take on myself, but if you like I can trim the sort of information and language from the article that makes it an advertisement. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 18:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has the legal action you note been reported in a reliable source? From what I recall, the information you added was a synthesis based upon the absence of the AAFM from a website. It was, moreover, intended to bring the subject of the article into disrepute. None of this qualifies for inclusion in the article. Consumer protection is not one of Wikipedia's core principles. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 20:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Academy of Financial Management

Brett, please resolve the issues at American Academy of Financial Management before continuing to replace links to that organization with links to your own. It would be helpful to resolve issues in one place before broadening the dispute. Thanks. Kuru ^talk 21:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:FabriceGrinda1.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:FabriceGrinda1.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:FabriceGrinda1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:FabriceGrinda1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of American Academy of Project Management

The article American Academy of Project Management has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable WP:CORP; no independent coverage beyond trivial or incidental mentions. This company is part of a string for-profit certification boards owned by the same individual, the supporters of which use (and abuse) Wikipedia for marketing purposes (see also International Project Management Commission, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chartered Wealth Manager (2nd nomination), American Academy of Financial Management, and talk pages). Of these, only the last is notable, and that for having been featured in a Wall Street Journal expose of its practices.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]