User talk:Andybinc

Denis Waitley Article
Please don't delete referenced information from the Denis Waitley article. I have added an additional link for www.waitley.com which I believe to be his Institutes web-page not his personal one. I have also added an additional request for citation for the number of books he has authored. For the time being I have left it as 16 as you have quoted. Please cite a source for this information and add the name of the two additional books to the list present on his page if you know which ones we have missed. Thank you. Jean314 (talk) 03:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

re your message to Jean314, which I moved from the userpage to the talkpage, I would comment that Wikipedia requires information that is verified by third party references. I would also suggest that removing content that is backed by such sources is inappropriate. If there are good sources with information that contradicts that already existing, then both may be included in the article to provide balance. I would however point out that a "notarized proof", presumably an affadavit, does not constitute a reliable third party reference. I would also caution you in respect of use of legal instruments relating to editing Wikipedia and interaction with its editors, that any edit that might constitute a WP:Legal threat will result in an immediate block and a review of any content in respect of said issue. Finally, I would note that I am returning the cited content relating to the the resume controversy and that nonconsensual removal again will be considered vandalism. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If you read the reference http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/896264/000110465907026138/a07-10015_1defa14a.htm no where does it state that resigned for any controversy, only that he wished to retire.

Also where is the 3rd party reference link to the report in (3) link. I respectfully ask you to remove the section "Résumé controversy" ASAP. Since there are no 3rd party reference to this subject. Thank you


 * The third party reference is cited and I have updated the reference to include a direct link to the article. I hope that meets with your approval.  Judging by your objections I'm assuming you would like us to remove all currently uncited information which would include the reference to his having graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy, his being a former Navy pilot and list of groups he is alleged to have counseled and the number of books and audio lectures he claims to have released.  Please get back to us about your opinion on this matter and we can remove all these uncited claims as soon as we all come to a consensus. Jean314 (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am asking the section "resume controversy" to be removed since their is NO "Third Party references" to backup this section. What "Third Party references"? I am not "assuming" anything but the truth. These so called "Third Party references" are not references that backup this section and are misleading and only lead to discredit Mr. Waitley. Mr. Wailtey has strong ethics and integrity, and this continued slanderous attitude towards him online has to stop today. NONE of the "References" have anything to do with any controversy about his resume and should be removed ASAP. This is NO controversy about his resigning. Remove this section ASAP. This is a slanderous by calling it a "Controversy". Enough SAID about his issue. REMOVE the section. period.


 * Andybinc please try and be a bit more cooperative. Simply because we have a difference of opinion is no reason for us to lose control of our emotions.  As it stand I disagree with your view on the section of the article.  There are sources present which have been accepted for some time by moderators who have much greater experience than myself.  If you would like to continue this conversation please move it to the discussion section of the Denis Waitley article.  I will update the article with additional sources in the hopes that will help end your concerns about what you think to be a lack of references.Jean314 (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)