" June 2012 (UTC) 
 :::To answer your questions, I must have made a mistake and said 'here"" instead of ""there"".  I'll go back and check. Second, if you search for ""NXIVM"" in his archives, JW asked me not to edit it as I once called myself a ""hater"" and he said felt that people who hate people shouldn't be editing articles about them, generally.  I protest, because if you go and see where I said that in context it's very clear that I was using it as a synonym for the opposite of the word ""fan"", in the context of a discussion on the roles of fans and opposite of fans on Wikipedia; how fans and ""haters"" are responsible for most of the content on Wikipedia, as they are motivated, and both are biased, but they can still author NPOV articles; and that indifferent people, while maybe ideal authors for articles in order to get it NPOV, are very difficult to motivate to help author articles.  You being a case in point. 
 :::Also, I insist that my feelings toward him and it are not nearly as well described by the word ""hate"" as they are by the words ""concern"" or even ""alarm"", emotions I maintain that would happen to any person with normal human emotions who gets familiar with the WP:RSes on the topic, which in my case all stems from simply being a regular reader of the local broadsheet papers in this area.  And also although my feelings might explain why I'm motivated to push for article improvement, it doesn't mean that I want anything but a NPOV WP:""Good"" article there, and that it be ""done right"" as JW says.  That's all I've ever wanted and I think an investigation of the history of that and related articles and talk pages will show my behavior to have been exemplary.  I will admit, however, that the real reason I don't edit the article isn't because of what JW said that day (please also see his comment on the NXIVM talk page), but rather because they know where I live, if you know what I mean, and it's just a few miles from him and it, and that I'm just another nobody in particular who spends way too much of his life on Wikipedia; whereas they are mind-bogglingly rich, connected, and powerful people. 

 :::Again, please ignore all of that.  All you should know is what you read in Forbes; that is all you should know to edit or comment on the draft slated to enter the mainspace.  Thank you for your recent contributions to the article but as I was trying to tell you, that ""Bromfman Insident"" section is going to be deleted anyway and replaced with the final draft on the NXIVM discussion page, section ""Forbes coverage"", subsection ""draft"".  So therefore there's no point in your editing that section.  And also, have your read the magazine yet?  That's the first step, don't you agree, before anything else?  Tell me what I've got to say to you to get you to simply read this magazine.   

 Once again, here it is: 
 :The cover: http://www.rickross.com/images/esp2.jpg 
 :Art work that went with the article: http://www.rickross.com/images/esp3.jpg 
 :Article and sidebars about other executive coaching programs: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1013/088.html  
 :First follow-up: http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2006/0724/044a.html  
 :Second follow-up: http://blogs.forbes.com/docket/2010/03/29/the-bronfmans-and-the-cult/  
 :Draft describing the above, for you to look at with an eye to improvement, only after you have read the above: Talk:NXIVM#Forbes_coverage, subsection Draft.   

 The point is to compare the two and get the draft to match the article, and when it's ready to replace the ""Bromfman incident"" section of the article NXIVM.  That the draft properly describe the article you will have read by they time you look at the draft.  That is all.  Then maybe you should leave it alone and help me find another appropriate editor so the whole thing becomes a product of the hive mind and not them vs. you or me or any other individual, and I will ask no more of you.  My goal is also to entrust it to the community and leave it alone. 

 Please! And Thank You!   07:41, 16"