Talk:Scott Bundgaard

NPOV

Removal of a large amount of information that was not cited properly. Much of the links were to top level pages with no information regarding the biography. Removing Fansite tag now but article still needs a lot of work to be brought to a neutral point of view. A lot the remaining citations are from very questionable sources, but I will let others who are more experienced deal with that.

Wvtalbot (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged one dead link and two unreliable sources (blogs). The remaining cites should be formatted using the appropriate citation templates. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Added sources and changed POV to be neutral. Manofradio (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm proposing that we remove the neutrality dispute on this article. I think the problems pointed out have been fixed. Anyone disagree/agree? Manofradio (talk) 18:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

This page has been hijacked, NPOV eliminated and content removed that was informational and correct and content inserted that is specious, malicious and libelous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbundgaard (talk • contribs) 17:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it has. I'm dealing with it. It's best to let someone else deal with such improper material , at our Biography of Living Persons noticeboard--this eliminates the possibility of your proper edits being reverted. I shall deal with the person 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 shall deal with those who added such material. If it is thought that a brief and proportionate summary should be included, this might be acceptable; please discuss it on the talk p. here before restoring it to the article. (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 multiple unquestionably reliable secondary sources to show the material is important enough to include, and judgment and restraint in including it.) DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

NPOV Edits in May June 2016

Hi all, I noticed user:Nurse12 has significantly changed the article and referenced http://www.scottbundgaard.com/ for rather contentious issues. I haven't been able to sort through all of the edits because my permissions are limited. I think the BLP noticeboard is the appropriate place to request help, so I will post this there. Lizzius (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

NPOV Edits in August 2016

Hi there, an unidentified user has significantly changed the article that I put a significant amount of time into researching. The issues that were added or edited were not contentious. It might be helpful if some specificity was added here by the unidentified editor, starting with a user name, and then some other specifics about what is contentious about the subjects place of birth, religious preferences; etc. I'd appreciate some help from objective parties, as opposed to the one or two users who have some special grudge against my efforts to engage on WP. 06:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)Nurse12 (talk)

Hi Nurse12! I appreciate that you may have done independent research to verify the content of this article, but unfortunately without secondary sources covering it they cannot be included here (See WP:OR, and WP:Secondary). I'm going to remove the volunteer section again for this reason, though we can certainly appeal to a wider audience if need be. Lizzius (talk) 15:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Lizzius, we're going to have to include an objective party, or maybe you should make an effort as I did to validate many of these items, that is if our interests are aligned to truly enhance Wikipedia entries. You are the ONLY user to pursue me and my work in this unfriendly manner. I've contacted others here for assistance and they've provided it willingly and kindly without the 'bull in a china shop approach.' Your criticisms would certainly damper a lesser person's enthusiasm to participate. Regardless, I'll restore the items you've removed once again and will spend some time adding secondary and tertiary sources to these items. In the meantime, because it's clear that sourcing is important to you, I've located two other politicians - one a democrat and one a republican - for you to review and modify. These two bios have issues similar to the issues you allege with the Bundgaard bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Cappiello, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Sullivan_(politician). Nurse12 (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nurse12. Please understand that just because the information is true (I'm sure most of what you have added is) doesn't mean it belongs in WP. Please review WP:SECONDARY and WP:NOTRESUME. I'm not commenting on the value of your work, only that it probably doesn't belong in here. As for everything else: please remember to assume good faith. I have reverted a few of your edits (you removed content claiming the sourcing doesn't support it when it actually does, please read the sources before making claims about them) and added a secondary source supporting the immunity claim. I will leave the volunteer work section for a time so you can provide the secondary coverage you alluded to, but if this doesn't materialize soon I will remove that as well.

Thanks for pointing out some other articles I may like to edit. I'll probably choose to spend my time here elsewhere, though you are certainly welcome to contribute to either of those if you saw particular issues that need to be corrected. Lizzius (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Nurse12, I went through your contribution history and found no evidence of you "contacting others for assistance". Your sole editing as Nurse12 has been to this article, an article of one of Bundgaard's political opponents (Ron Gould), and some direct copy-paste edits you made to Wind and Lightning after we had this conversation the first time (that conversation can be found title=User_talk%3ANurse12&type=revision&diff=725403789&oldid=725286276 here). If you have other accounts used to edit this article (or other articles on WP) they most likely have to be disclosed (see WP:SOCKPUPPET although there are a few cases where alternate accounts are okay).Lizzius (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Lizzius What a surprise to return from lunch to find - once again - that you had reverted my work. I took some time to review an article you created and found that you committed the same 'sins', if you will, on the first article I selected - issues with WP:OR, WP:Secondary; etc. You should sweep in front of your own doorstep first. I'll continue to review the other articles you've created as well as the sources you cited. I really appreciate the fact that you have rekindled my interest in editing on WP. I gave you two other local politicians to edit that needed secondary sources - a republican and a democrat - and you took a pass. Interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nurse12 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nurse12. Content disputes about other articles probably belong on their respective talk-pages. I will reserve comment on them for there if you would like to raise any issues with the content I restored. Lizzius (talk) 19:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Lizzius, you noted above that you went through my contribution history to find "evidence" of me "contacting others for assistance." A bit obsessive, but okay. In at least one case, I had an email exchange with Nigel, who has been very helpful in guiding me. I'm not using any other account.

Removal of Improperly Sourced Content

I would like to propose removal of this section. Not only is this section title (Presidential Appointment) somewhat ambiguous and the section content a bit fluffy, Bundgaard's name isn't mentioned in any of the sources cited. There might be subpages of the linked pages that mention him, but I couldn't find them. I have no doubt that Bundgaard served on the panel, but without verification and some other source establishing why it is important it doesn't belong here.

Additionally, I would like to remove the Volunteer Efforts section. I did a spot check through most of the listed activities and none specifically mention Bundgaard. Additionally, all links are to the organizations themselves and fail to establish why Scott's affiliation with the organizations was important enough to warrant inclusion in the encyclopedia. Secondary sources regarding Scott's affiliation/participation with these organizations would help establish that, although none are provided.

As such, both sections should be removed. This section was an effort to be more specific about the issues with portions of this article, but anyone with an opinion should also read some of the exchanges above to see some of the previous (albeit slightly disorganized) discussion. Nurse12 has expressed that she believes this information should be included, though none of her reasoning is based in policy as I understand it. Lizzius (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)