User talk:Thomas Ptarmigan

Landmark Worldwide
1) Please stop edit warring, come to the talk page and talk about what changes you think are needed 2) Much of what you are trying to add is pure opinion of the writer and is not part of what is acceptable on Wikipedia 3) Some of what you are trying to add is already in the article 4) Forums and forum posts are not valid sources for Wikipedia and will always be reverted 5) It has already been agreed by editors not to include this content in the opening summery 6) Again, if you feel you have something new to add, something that can be included under wikipedeias rules and which does not give undue weight then come to talk page of the article and talk it trhough with other editors Jasonfward (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you have inserted additional information into the Lead section of the article. The Lead section (the 1-4 paragraphs at the top of the article) is only to be used to summarize information which is given in more detail in the body of the article. If you wish to include this information, please insert it into the History, Disputed religious character and/or Legal disputes section(s). My problem is not with suitably sourced material, but rather that the Lead paragraphs cannot contain information that is not already given on down in the article. See MOS:LEAD for further information. &bull; Astynax talk 07:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello! I removed the edit you made to the Landmark Worldwide lede, and I thought I would explain it further. The claim that a company is a cult is fairly extraordinary, and as such requires multiple high-quality sources. The Austria report from 2005 mentions Landmark in a list of sects and does not call it a cult. The company was removed from the 2006 list entirely, and there is no source to indicate that this is due to declining customer base or anything else. The remaining sources also only mention the company as a portion of a list (again, without providing any verifiable sources for its inclusion), or are just not reliable sources at all (such as listing the Cult Awareness Network as a source - it is clearly not a third-party reputable source).
 * Feel free to comment at the article talk page. It looks like there are a number of editors there who are familiar with the sources and history. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

caic.org.au discussion
Hello! As someone who has edited the Landmark Worldwide article in the past few weeks, I am notifying you of a discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard regarding the use of the website caic.org.au as a reliable source in that article. Please feel free to review or participate in that discussion.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Werner Erhard
I've cut your addition again as I'm concerned that it may be misrepresenting the source and libelling Erhard. I'd appreciate if you could give some context at Talk:Werner_Erhard and we can decide how best to put the information back into the article. Perhaps you could provide a direct quote from the book so that we can work out what's actually being said? Thanks. --McGeddon (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Landmark Worldwide, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 11:17, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

March 2018
Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Landmark Worldwide have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)