Talk:American Academy of Financial Management

message: Kingbr recently posted a set of Youtube clips purporting to discuss the change in the AAFM's name to IAFM. I did not watch all 40 minutes of the clips, but after 10 minutes it became clear that Brett King was being interviewed about the financial crisis, not about the organization. Moreover, a claim he makes on the air differs from a news agency's reporting on that claim. A statement he makes (which I have yet to find) in an interview that was not checked by the news agency should be treated as self-published, and as Mr. King has a vested interest in this matter WP:SELFPUB recommends against treating this as a reliable source. I have therefore reverted his edits. RJC TalkContribs 12:38 pm, July 28, 2009, Tuesday (1 year, 3 months, 11 days ago) (UTC−4)
:Asian lawyer (talk) RJC - this announcement also appears in the Gulf News, Asian Banker Journal, Singapore Straits Times. I'm guessing the evidence is building sufficiently to allow this revision as clearly the name change is starting to kick-in after what appeared to be an early dispute with disenfranchised US members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asian lawyer (talk • contribs) 11:12 am, July 29, 2009, Wednesday (1 year, 3 months, 10 days ago) (UTC−4) 
:: Could you provide the links to these articles? A Google News search, as you suggested I do on my talk page, turns up nothing. RJC TalkContribs 11:42 am, July 29, 2009, Wednesday (1 year, 3 months, 10 days ago) (UTC−4)
All of the AAFM American Academy Board USA websites that were quickly found using web search are still live and operating as AAFM, and AAFM is easily found on US government websites such as: http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos259.htm  Here is a Sample list of AAFM global websites below.  "NO NAME CHANGES ON ANY OF THESE"  www.aafm.us - www.financialanalyst.org - www.aafmasia.com - www.aafmchina.com  - www.aafmindia.com -  www.aafmglobal.com  - www.aafmgcc.com - www.aapm.info  - www.eafm.org   www.americanacademyoffinancialmanagement.com - www.financialcertified.com - www.aafmla.org - www.aafmtw.com - www.aafm.com.br -  www.academyoffinancialmanagement.com -  www.aafm.me  - www.certifiedwealthmanager.com - www.charteredwealthmanager.com - www.aafmafrica.com
A quick analysis on www.archive.org shows that AAFM sites such as:  www.financialcertified.com is much older and have been online for many years before any other offshore website or operation. Simple Research: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://financialcertified.com   After gathering info at the AAFM USA websites, A quick check of the Secretary of State websites shows that the AAFM is still registerd and has never changed its name....
After 2 minutes of searching, Relevant Information about KingBR dismissal and banning can easily be found on several of the AAFM websites: It does not take a rocket scientist to find out about this former disgruntled associate and make a correlation. http://financialcertified.com/terminated.html
Anyway, it seems that Kingbr still wants the wiki to make or allow unauthorized changes of the legal name of a real & existing US company.  It would be nice if Kingbr could create something new, restrain from vandalism,  and leave existing Wiki pages alone.
Being familiar with RIA licensing, law and exams, Kingbr needs to do some more research on US law regarding Rule 2210 before creating stories. The disclosure of this 2210 rule still appeares and is disclosed  on the AAFM websites.  Rule 2210, for example, would prohibit/prevent a training certificate/or credential from a 3 day course in Australia from being used in the USA. However, 2210 respects accredited degree educational criteria that is recognized by the US CHEA and Dept of Education. i.e. AACSB and ACBSP double accredited "government recognized" education is accepted from 560 prominent business schools by AAFM via articulation.   As Kingbr is based somewhere offshore, it is not expected for Kingbr to comprehend these rules and policies.
FinancialLawyer  —Preceding undated comment added 20:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube interview and Name Change 

message: After a review of the earliest/original AAFM WIKI article and the www.archive.org ,it is obvious that www.financialanalyst.org  or www.financialcertified.com is the primary domian used in the earliest posts and revisions by the AAFM American Academy of Financial Management :  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Academy_of_Financial_Management&dir=prev&action=history
The offshore Arab Emirate domains such as aafm.org are labeled as fraud Phishing websites on the internet.  It seems that the people offshore in Asia/Arabia are still attempting to make phony claims as above.
Checked the Archive.org, and the original websites for AAFM are:  www.financialcertified.com and www.financialanalyst.org  The earliest AAFM USA websites have clear fraud and cybercrime warning alerts on their home pages about the websites www.aafm.org and aafm.com.hk as being imposter phishing and cybercrime websites along with warnings about the webmaster Brett King who has somehow stolen websites according to the cybercrime alerts. http://www.financialcertified.com/fraudalert.html
Based on first impression, it appears that offshore offenders are attempting to Phish for money from innocent victims using stolen or converted domain.   It looks like aafm.org and aafm.com.hk are based somewhere in Dubai or China and stangely claim to be formerly the AAFM USA company.  The  WHOIS.com information about the aafm.org website shows that is  squatted upon by  mjehanzeb/Muhammed Jehanzeb and Mr. Brett King who may be in the United Arab Emirates.
Looked up the Federal Trademark for AAFM in the USA. AAFM is registered witht the USPTO number: Reg. Num. 3714562 and owned by the AAFM, LLC  USA.  As per the AAFM founding websites:   The original and registered Federal copyrights  are disclosed on the financialanalyst.org and financialcertified.com  websites: Registration Number: TXu 1-602-366   - The American Academy of Financial Management AAFM Handbook and Web Content © are Federally Copyrighted Materials with the US Library of Congress. Registration Number: TXu 1-602-366    
Overall, it only takes a small child to surf and discover real AAFM websites in Asia and the Middle East that are backed by the government.  Thus, it seems that there are authentic AAFM organizations in China and Asia and the Middle East:  www.aafmchina.com www.aafmasia.com and www.aabfs.org 
The research quickly made it apparent that this small band of thugs such as Kingbr and his alias name Muhammad in Dubai and China are seasoned con artists who think they are above the law by phishing with websites such as aafm.org
In sum, there is vast evidence from the AAFM ® {as shown on website}  USA news or the Founding Board that the AAFM American Academy of Financial Management is taking steps to warn the public and the consumer about offshore cybercrime, fraud and/or phishing that may be coming from Dubai and China and Kingbr. 
Doctorlaw  —Preceding undated comment added 19:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading the AFD for this article, I notice that the ".us" domain is the one listed by the US bureau of labor statistics  and by the US department of education  (you have to search for "aafm"). Those same websites have no entries for "iafm". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't get too sucked in to this.  Now Doctorlaw, a new sockpuppet, is making the same claims about robust evidence without providing it, or taking one side to a dispute as the reliable source concerning the dispute.  Finding the "true" aafm is probably not going to happen.  I think the fact that there is absolutely no coverage of the aafm-iafm controversy argues against this organization's notability, but at the very least it means we lack reliable sources to change information.  I relented in this latest website change because the old website no longer claims to be the aafm.  RJC TalkContribs 00:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive.org, Trademarks, Copyrights, and American Situs 

message: All 3 Wall Street Journal Articles about the AAFM are important and so are the US government references to AAFM.  The WSJ knew clearly of the education and exam requirements of the AAFM because the governmental NASD and FINRA referenced them for 6 years.  Also the WSJ knew or should have known of the AAFM Accredited Law School program which has been public for several years. This long article in present form is very inclusive and hope non-biased parties can expand the links, factual content, and citations. Doctorlaw  —Preceding undated comment added 01:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: To what extent are the various products and services offered by the American Academy of Financial Management described in a manner consistent with WP:ARTSPAM in this version and this one?  Do the citations in the longer version of the article support the statements to which they are attached?  How should the October 14 Wall Street Journal article that discusses the AAFM (among others) be presented in the article (i.e., should there be a separate criticism section, or should it be mentioned as listing the designations the AAFM offers)? RJC TalkContribs 16:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The WSJ list has been distorted and misused. It's not a positive article making an endorsment of the credentials listed. It's a derisive article using a derisive name ("Alphabet soup") and it says "Those credentials include those that are tracked in a database kept by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and others that are less well-documented. Some are even defunct, but may still show up in advisers' marketing materials. " The same day they published an article called "Is Your Adviser Pumping Up His Credentials?". --Enric Naval (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment on ARTSPAM and NPOV issues 

message: General note: WSJ Not adhering to neutral point of view  - There are 3 Key Articles covering the AAFM
In October 2010, the Wall Street Journal published an article detailing the use of designations and credentials by financial advisors that discussed the AAFM extensively.  The article also specifically referenced the AAFM policy regarding double accredited education from government recognized business schools"Is Your Advisor Pumping Up His Credentials?", Wall Street Journal, October 16, 2010. 
The article noted that the AAFM included among its Honorary Academic Advisors & Award Winners several prominent industry experts and faculty from around the world. The article criticized the practice of many standards boards of awarding credentials without extra exams; however, the AAFM Board USA does have a practice of granting awards to to those who graduate from its approved law school program "AAFM Graduate Law School Program " or doctorate degrees holders who complete the required exams from government accredited programs without requiring applicants to undergo further exam, citing the AAFM Legal Offices and the FINRA websites. "WSJ Reference Guide to AAFM Accredited Education Requirements", "Wall Street Journal's and FINRA References, October 16, 2010. [http://apps.finra.org/DataDirectory/1/prodesignations.aspx "US Government Recognized FINRA Regulatory Agency AAFM Designations  A claim on the AAFM website that it has had a long standing legal trademark agreement with both the CFA Institute and the CFP Board, which administer Chartered Financial Analyst and Certified Financial Planner certificate programs, respectively, was strangely rebutted by representatives of both the CFA and CFP organizations in the article; however, the AAFM Board's websites freely show the documents online and the contracts and consent agreements for the public to see on the AAFM website while fully disclosing the evidence provided to the Wall Street Journal."AAFM Public Disclosure ", "AAFM Press Release, October 16, 2010.
Some Editors Removed dozens of positive press articles to include one confusing and negligently written article by a recent college student named mary pilon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.218.8.166 (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:ARTSPAM, WP:SPAM,  and WP:SOCK seem relevant to the article.  Read the results of the RfC above.  RJC TalkContribs 09:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Mary Pilon might be or might not be a "recent college student", but that WSJ article is co-authored by Jason Zweig, who has previously written for Money, Time, and cnn.com, and edited for Forbes, and has other credentials. All comments by this group of accounts seem to have this sort of distortions and omissions. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

text: The semi-protection has ended, and another IP has repeated yet again the same misleading edit. Is this related to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Doctorlaw? --Enric Naval (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  One way to find out:  permanent semi-protection. RJC TalkContribs 00:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Wait, wait, I think I have it now. Vanispamcruftisement governs here, as does WP:SOUP. Not policies or guidelines, admittedly, but by far the most accurate description of these arguments. RJC TalkContribs 03:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

text: Wait, wait, I think I have it now. RJC is NPOV master.
This article is just a blog and spam and RJC keeps removing the links from the US government, FINRA, Department of Labor and other citations from a law school.
Why does RJC keep removing the list of non profits that offer education?
Why does RJC keep removing the Law school alliance
Why does RJC continue to remove the references from the Investopedia.
Why cant RJC comprehend that a registered trademark with the US goverment is not just an application.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.196.144.184 (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism

message: Because I can put only so much into a comment line, I've posted it here. Sources do not support statements to which attached (e.g., that AAFM was "first" at something); directory listings do not warrant a mention and do not suggest endorsement; reworded "criticism" section does not accurately portray the article's content; AAFM was not "recognized" by WSJ in any idiomatic sense of the word. If you want more explanation, look at the edit summaries from when I removed this puffery the first time around, a year ago. RJC TalkContribs 23:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The latest edits also try to push a lot of Marketing speak into the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  See, this is why I hate temporary semi-protection. At least the return of the morons reminds me to change the batteries in my smoke detector. RJC TalkContribs 21:28, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Refused Deletion by RJC 2nd December - OK fair enough its probably better to have the expose of AAFM by the WSJ. As regards relationship with AAFM i am simply someone who was stupid enough to get ripped off Dickietr (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Prod 

message: I just read the related WSJ article by Mary Pilon.  The WSJ article reveals nothing about a special affiliation with CFA or CFP. However, I went to the AAFM website and it has links showing where the CFA and CFP recognize the AAFM credentials in writing for educational credit.  Also, I went to the AAFM website and they disclose documents signed by the Legal Counsel of CFA and CFP available to the public.  Thus, I am not sure who is lying here?  Did Pilon make up all of this stuff? Is this WSJ article simply phony journalism?
Also, The AAFM Website and its Board of Standards only shows a few key people on the board (7 or so people) and the rest of the professors  and industry leaders on the list are only designated as Honorary Facutly Award Winners. Does this mean that Pilon did not comprehend the differnce or did not understand the astericks? next to peoples names  The WIKI Article comments about people not giving their permission does not make any sense because these people are NOT Listed as being on the actual board.  
Also, I went to the WSJ search, and the WSJ has all of the AAFM credentials listed along with the Accredited Education and Exam Requirements.  Therefore, I can not understand how WSJ can ignore accredited exams and courses that are disclosed on their very own websites. Appears to be journalistic negligence or just sheer ignorance?
Anyway, the AAFM is just a small American and US based board of standards. It has only been around for 10-15 years, and I am  Not sure why anybody even cares about the AAFM or its accredited law school graduate law program.  AAFM are just small players, when CFA and CFP are 100 million dollar operations that issue awards to people around the world.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phdeditguru (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   AAFM Wiki Article is Does not Add up? 

message: Regarding this edit, the question is whether to include mention of the fee or whether there is a better way to mention the fact that there are few if any requirements beyond the payment of the fee for these designations and that AAFM's role in the affair is simply to process the fee, in that it does not offer the prerequisite courses itself. EconomicTiger further disputes whether the fee is the only requirement for these designations beyond an applicant's previously completed coursework, but this was the main point of the two Wall Street Journal articles: AAFM simply charges for the right to use its designations without providing additional training itself. So that is proof enough of AAFM's practices. I am open to alternate wordings, but given this article's history of WP:ARTSPAM and the mendacity and willingness to engage in sockpuppetry of those affiliated with the AAFM, I am opposed to any wording that implies or leaves open the possibility that AAFM provides anything except the opportunity to pay a fee for the right to use its trademarks as postnomials. I believe that the wording preferred by EconomicTiger misleads in precisely this direction, suggesting that the requirements mentions are prerequisites for admission to a program rather than prerequisites for getting to pay a fee. Is there another wording that does not imply this and does not mention the fee by name?
Incidentally, the reverted version takes out the name of one of the certifications, which I have restored. RJC TalkContribs 21:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't introduce WP:OR on Wikipedia articles. You are trying to interpret from Wall Street Article your own point and adding fee in each and every other sentences. That is in my point vandalism.EconomicTiger (talk) 07:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: RJC is correct.  The WSJ article says: One designation, the MFP, or master financial professional, is a "gateway credential," says AAFM president George Mentz. It requires a graduate or undergraduate degree that includes five or more approved business courses and an AAFM certification course. But according to Mr. Mentz, those requirements can be waived for anyone with sufficient professional experience who is willing to make "certification, registration and initiation payments," typically $300 or more. There is no exam to become an MFP.  So the article is explicit that there is no exam, that the requirement for getting the designation is a certain amount of previous education, and that for professionals even that requirement can be waived -- so the only thing that AAFM absolutely requires is trhe fee.EconmicTiger, please stop reverting RJC's edits, they are by no stretch of the imagination WP:OR, they simply reflect what the WSJ article says. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the reverted information.  Also, EconomicTiger, please do not refer to other editor's contributions as "vandalism" when they are not.  See WP:VANDALISM if you'd like to read the formal definition of what "vandalism" means on Wikipedia.  Just because you're in a content dispute with another editor, and you disagree with their view, doesn't mean that their reversion of your edit is vandalism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree with you and made a final clean up and want to be away from this article.EconomicTiger (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your adjustment to the text seems good to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems, RJC has some WP:COI with this institution in real life. He is in  dispute with two editors on what is agreed.EconomicTiger (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  My only experience with this institution has been through its Wikipedia, the editing of which is the only interaction I have had with people affiliated with it. If you want to know why I look at every edit to this page suspiciously, take a gander at the talk page, its archives, and my talk page archives. RJC TalkContribs 15:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The text said "fee" everywhere, then it changed to "initiation payment" in the controversial sentence.... We don't know who is paying which fees, people who pass examination might be paying also the "initiation payment". Also, it's a bit weasel-y to say "in some cases" (which implies exceptional circumstances) when the source says "anyone". --Enric Naval (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whether or not to include mention of the fee 

message: I have reverted this edit as part of an on-going dispute, previously reverted by more than one editor. The legal threat has been reported at AN/I. Discussion? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the reason there appears not to have been discussion about the latest round of edits is because this point has been rehashed time and time again. See discussions with the various incarnations of Doctorlaw, permanently banned from editing Wikipedia for abusing multiple accounts. Wealthadvise is pursuing the same edits. If I had the time, I'd ask for a checkuser. RJC TalkContribs 02:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: I was wondering why the socks of Doctorlaw were complaining of "diplomas" or "degrees", when the article only mentioned "certifications". Turns out that FINRA uses the name "professional designation", but wikipedia only uses the synonymous "professional certification".
The WSJ article appear to use them interchangeably. The AAFM itself seems to mix designations and certifications all over their website, for example in AAFM ® Professional Designations & Certifications I can't tell which are certifications and which are designations. 
Is there any legal difference between "professional designation" and "professional certification"? --Enric Naval (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "AAFM does not offer any diploma or degree" 

message: An AN/I complaint concerning this article has been filed.  It can be found here.  BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: AN/I Report

message: We have a new editor, who is about letting the truth be heard in a way that is ethical and legal, attempting much the same as was talked about in the Monitored by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority section. As  astutely noted, "This is true, but meaningless and deceptive. Basically, it means they exist and fall under FINRA's umbrella. If they sold frozen vegetables, we wouldn't mention that they are monitored by the USDA as this would also be true, but meaningless and deceptive." --NeilN talk to me 18:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No surprise there. "ethical and legal" is right out of the Doctorlaw playbook, isn't it? Pinkbeast (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

text: Food for thought: This article is semi-protected. To edit the article requires an auto-confirm (account must be four days old and have ten edits). Additionally, sock accounts often start by editing their user page, to get rid of the red link in the article history. Now check 's edits. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Smoothpanda's been blocked by the Good Doctor, Drmies. BMK (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For 31 hours. They'll be back but as I said on their talk page, discussing here first and getting consensus is the only way they'll get anywhere. --NeilN talk to me 04:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted all edits by Smoothpanda that haven't already been deleted. Any editor-in-good-standing who wants to vouch for any of them is free to restore it without any hassle from me. BMK (talk) 04:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here we go again 

message: Not sure if that's a TOS violation or not, but the job ad seemed like the former employees who were sued in court and lost, are trying to mess this article up again.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprintnoodle (talk • contribs) 23:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Please have somebody with knowledge of the citations repair this article. If you revert it again, it basically becomes a 6 year old article that is packed with edits made by the kingbr AKA Brett King who was a former employee of AAFM caught making edits to this article so that the company name could be changed to a fake unauthorized name.  A US Federal Judge has issued an order on this issue exposing Mr. King and you can read it yourself. This is the case where the judge approved claims for fraud, theft, conspiracy and copyright infringement to go against B King and IABFM. If you look at the edits, this kingbr attempted to change the name of this article on dozens of occasions and even fooled the editors.  http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/colorado/codce/1:2012cv00463/131596/48/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprintnoodle (talk • contribs) 18:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone is offering money to vandalize this page again. 

message: Not sure what Pinkbeast is talking about with AAFM got Eaten?  What does that mean and why is that important to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprintnoodle (talk • contribs) 13:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The above editor is obviously yet another whose purpose is clearly to skew the article in favor of AAFM.  They come, and they go (they may even be the same person) but they all do the same thing.  I've deleted their edits in toto as Pinkbeast has done previously (and as I have done in the past).  As always, if any real, uninvolved, non-conflicted editor wishes to change back certain parts of the edits I removed, it's fine by me, as long as the information is sourced with a citation from a reliable source.  This is the kind of article in which sourcing is extremely necessary, as AAFM-connected people keep trying to turn it into an advertisement for their scam. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

text: You are a GAFM-related single purpose account with a serious conflict of interest, and you will not be allowed to turn this article into an advertisement for George Mentz's latest scam for conferring worthless "professional certifications" for money.  Your edits will be deleted on sight. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  PinkBeast?  Keep the fact that the AAFM got eaten; rv the usual silly axe-grinding 

message: It should be notated that the successor - GAFM/IBS - is recognized by the CHEA International Quality Group 73.166.28.5 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide citations from reliable sources both as to the recognition of GAFM/IBS by CHEA, and that CHEA is a recognized, reliable, independent, organization whose recognition is worth noting.  Both are necessary before this edit can be made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find no mention of GAFM/IBS on the CHEA website. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The only place I can find a relevant statement "The GAFM ® Board of Standards is a founding member of the quality assurance standards memorandum of the CHEA International Quality Group" is on GAFM-related websites.  There are no other Ghits - so the reliable source needed had better be ultra reliable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have e-mailed the contact address given on the CHEA International Quality Group's website, asking for information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. It looks like this might turn into a case of adding WP:OR. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

text: This IP might also be used by , who as you saw has been trying to push GAFM-related material onto this article. I have not checked the edit history, but are you able to confirm if this is the case? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I did think of that, but the IP has essentially no edit history.  Doctorlaw, the master behind Spiritnoodle, used VPNs or proxies to hide their location, so there's really nothing to go on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2017