User talk:JNEA

Regarding your disruptive edits to Wikipedia

 * 1) [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from . Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox.   Smee 06:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. It may be considered vandalism.  If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.  --Thisisbossi 05:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Reason for the Edits of EST section
I appreciate the thoughtful response. I was actually alerted to the material on Werner Erhard by Warren Bennis himself, who happens to be the step-father of my wife. He was incredulous that a big section of his biography in Wikipedia was on Werner Erhard, and that much of it seemed to have been written for another entry, as Warren Bennis was cited within the flow as of the section as another figure involved with Erhard's work. I asked Warren Bennis what was a proportional amount of his biography that should be devoted to Erhard and EST, and he said "none." I note that Warren Bennis is a friend of Erhard's, and does not distance himself from that relationship in any way- it just that a man who has written over 2 dozen books, was president of a major university, is arguably the most important expert on leadership in the world, advised Jack Welch, Howard Schultz, Sidney Harman, Al Gore, and Leslie Wexler, to name a few, should not have a large section of a rather short biography that is focused on his opinions about EST rather than on him. If the material seems important to preserve, I suggest it be moved to the Werner Erhard section, where it might be seen as adding another important point of view about EST.

I am sorry I deleted the section before discussion; I just read the section about disputes. I am a huge supporter of Wikipedia, and think it is one of the best resources on the Internet. I know Dr. Bennis feels, in the scope of his work, his relationship with Erhard and EST is not of significance importance. He is an extremely fair-minded and thoughtful academic- the point is not making his entry to his liking, it is making it representative of his work and life.

I could see a mention with a link to the Erhard entry, but beyond that is seems unbalanced.

I look forward to you response.JNEA 05:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)