User talk:Sbundgaard

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

August 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Scott Bundgaard, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found here. Thank you. &mdash;  Fιηεmαηη  (talk) 17:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

our apologies
I apologize on behalf of the encyclopedia for the way in which the article on you has been handled. Even though you were the subject of the article, you were clearly justified in removing such material. However, it's best to let someone else deal with such improper material, at our Biography of Living Persons noticeboard or privately via WP:OTRS --this eliminates the possibility of your proper edits being reverted through a misunderstanding. I shall deal with the people who added the material. While I was there, I removed two items sourced only to unreliable sources. There is no reason why those legislative positions on issue cannot be restored, if proper citations are found--there would appear to be no difficulty in doing that. I suggest adding them on the article talk p. and letting someone other than yourself add them; if I do not notice them, askat my user talk page. As reviewing administrator, I  shall deal with those who added such material. I protected the page for a month against editing by new editors or those without a user name; if necessary this protection can be extended longer, and extended even to established editors. We have good ways of dealing with this other than deleting the article.

I do have to tell you that it is probable that a brief and proportionate summary about some of what was removed  might   be acceptable; The rule is that even negative information about the private lives of politicians can be included if done properly, because people in elective office are judged by their general character, as well as their political views. It requires unquestionably reliable secondary sources to show the material is important enough to include, and judgment and restraint in including it. (The sourcing requirement seems to have been met; the matter of proportionate coverage was not.) Perhaps at least it would be better  to include something more than " personal reasons. " -- I invite you to propose such a wording. I'm not now evaluating this, as I would want to see a suggested edit first.  DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)