User talk:Sarunfeldt

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ..::Abb 615::.. 16:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Eckankar. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 18:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Eckankar, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 18:30, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will go back and move the references to the end. But I will also remove the misleading and false information from this page. --Sarunfeldt (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section titles

When considering section titles/headings, it should be encyclopedic, and should not read like a book. Please read wp:mos and avoid titles such as these. Thanks Pass a Method talk 08:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eckankar

I've responded to your comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group. I think it covers most of the basic options here. Like I said there, if you or anyone watching this page would want some of the material I can pull up off databanks regarding this topic or some subtopic, let me know and I'll forward what I can find. John Carter (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Sarunfeldt. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by NtheP (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Eckankar

i have pinged and left a message for you at the talk page of Eckankar. You must realize that since you have a clear conflict of interest with respect to this organization you need to be extra careful before you resort to edit warring and removal of reliable sourced material from the wikipedia article on Eckankar. Please continue this discussion on the talk page of the article since future editors to the article must know what is going on. Soham321 (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Your recent editing history at Eckankar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest to Sarunfeldt to always give edit summaries in his edits, particularly so when he is reverting the edits of other editors. Soham321 (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that a clever hacker will make a series of smaller problematic edits in order to prevent their being undone by a responsible editor. In this case, Soham321 made a series of problematic edits. Sarunfeldt (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that Sarunfeldt be reprimanded for making repeated personal attacks on me. NeilN, as you had noticed Sarunfeldt was claiming earlier that i was indulging in vandalism on the Eckankar page and you had pointed out to him on the talk page of Eckankar that this was not true. For a single purpose account, who moreover has a clear conflict of interest on the page he is editing, it is simply not on to question the good faith of other editors. Soham321 (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Eckankar. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that continued reversions without discussion and consensus will result in longer blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarunfeldt. Please do use independent sources to generate Wikipedia content. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using talk pages

I have removed this comment.

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines, not for general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest in Wikipedia

Hi Sarunfeldt. I spend time working on conflict of interest issues here in Wikipedia, along with my regular editing, which is mostly about health and medicine. I am not an administrator. You disclosed here that you are a member of the clergy within the Eckankar movement and your account is what we call a single purpose account.

Lots of people come to Wikipedia with some sort of conflict of interest and are not aware of how the editing community defines and manages conflict of interest. I'm giving you notice of our Conflict of Interest guideline and Terms of Use, and will have some comments and requests for you below.

Hello, Sarunfeldt. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Comments and requests

Wikipedia is a widely-used reference work and managing conflict of interest is essential for ensuring the integrity of Wikipedia and retaining the public's trust in it. Unmanaged conflicts of interest can also lead to people behaving in ways that violate our behavioral policies and cause disruption in the normal editing process. Managing conflict of interest well, also protects conflicted editors themselves - please see WP:Wikipedia is in the real world, and Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia for some guidance and stories about people who have brought bad press upon themselves through unmanaged conflict of interest editing.

As in academia, COI is managed here in two steps - disclosure and a form of peer review. Please note that there is no bar to being part of the Wikipedia community if you want to be involved in articles where you have a conflict of interest; there are just some things we ask you to do (and if you are paid, some things you need to do).

You have already disclosed your relationship to the movement in a talk discussion.

To finish the disclosure piece, would you please add the disclosure to your user page (which is User:Sarunfeldt? Just something simple like: "I am a member of the clergy of the Eckankar movement and have a conflict of interest with regard to that organization." would be fine. If you want to add anything else there that is relevant to what you want to do in WP feel free to add it, but please don't add anything promotional about the company or yourself (see WP:USERPAGE for guidance if you like).

I added a tag at Talk:Eckankar, so the disclosure is done there. Once you disclose on your user page, the disclosure piece of this will be done.

As I noted above, there are two pieces to COI management in WP. The first is disclosure. The second is a form of peer review. This piece may seem a bit strange to you at first, but if you think about it, it will make sense. In Wikipedia, editors can immediately publish their work, with no intervening publisher or standard peer review -- you can just create an article, click save, and voilà there is a new article, and you can go into any article, make changes, click save, and done. No intermediary - no publisher, no "editors" as that term is used in the real world. So the bias that conflicted editors tend to have, can go right into the article. Conflicted editors are also really driven to try to make the article fit with their external interest. If they edit directly, this often leads to big battles with other editors. I think you have experienced this some.

What we ask of editors who have a COI or who are paid, and want to work on articles where their COI is relevant, is:

a) if you want to create an article relevant to a COI you have, create the article as a draft through the WP:AFC process, disclose your COI on the Talk page with the Template:Connected contributor tag, and then submit the draft article for review (the AfC process sets up a nice big button for you to click when it is ready) so it can be reviewed before it publishes; and

b) And if you want to change content in any existing article on a topic where you have a COI, we ask you to

(i) disclose at the Talk page of the article with the Template:Connected contributor tag, putting it at the bottom of the beige box at the top of the page; and

(ii) propose content on the Talk page for others to review and implement before it goes live, instead of doing it directly yourself. Just open a new section on the talk page, put the proposed content there formatted just as you would if you were adding it directly to the article, and just below the header (at the top of the editing window) place the {{request edit}} tag to flag it for other editors to review. In general it should be relatively short so that it is not too much review at once. Sometimes editors propose complete rewrites, providing a link to their sandbox for example. This is OK to do but please be aware that it is lot more for volunteers to process and will probably take longer.

By following those "peer review" processes, editors with a COI can contribute where they have a COI, and the integrity of WP can be protected. We get some great contributions that way, when conflicted editors take the time to understand what kinds of proposals are OK under the content policies.

But understanding the mission of Wikipedia, and the policies and guidelines through which we realize the mission, is very important! There are a whole slew of policies and guidelines that govern content and behavior here in Wikipedia. Please see User:Jytdog/How for an overview of what Wikipedia is and is not (we are not a directory or a place to promote anything), and for an overview of the content and behavior policies and guidelines. Learning and following these is very important, and takes time. Please be aware that you have created a Wikipedia account, and this makes you a Wikipedian - you are obligated to pursue Wikipedia's mission first and foremost when you work here, and you are obligated to edit according to the policies and guidelines. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege that is freely offered to all, but the community restricts or completely takes that privilege away from people who will not edit and behave as Wikipedians.

I hope that makes sense to you.

I want to add here that per the WP:COI guideline, if you want to directly update simple, uncontroversial facts (for example, correcting the facts about where the company has offices) you can do that directly in the article, without making an edit request on the Talk page. Just be sure to always cite a reliable source for the information you change, and make sure it is simple, factual, uncontroversial content. If you are not sure if something is uncontroversial, please ask at the Talk page.

Will you please agree to learn and follow the content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward when you want to work on any article where your COI is relevant? Do let me know, and if anything above doesn't make sense I would be happy to discuss. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I have updated my own user page with a statement about my membership in Eckankar. And I agree wholeheartedly with what you say about conflicts of interest.

I must note, that I am not interested in recreating the Eckankar Wikipedia page. I have not created any substantial content there. However, I do monitor it and do take action when I see a conflict of interest or misinformed attack. I also edit when I see a positive statement made without citation. My intent, like yours, is to ensure that the page conforms to Wikipedia standards.

I would like to direct you to discussions regarding Wikipedia pages on religions. As with the guidelines on sources for businesses, sometimes primary sources are acceptable, especially when they describe the products and services a business offers, or in the case of a religion, the beliefs of the religion. As to the history of the religion, I agree that sources should be secondary. The same with controversies.

I have to ask whether Wikipedia has this sort of issue on the pages regarding other religions. Are only Non-Catholics allowed to create content on the Catholicism page, or are Muslims prohibited from adding content to the Islam page? Clearly not. And I do note that I am not prohibited from adding to the Eckankar page. However I have been admonished and temporarily banned for editing out derogatory and unsourced items in the past. Sorry, but my link above was faulty: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Religion/New_religious_movements_work_group/Writing_NRM_articles

Today, someone using a name of a man who was actually convicted of terroristic threats against Eckankar, added controversial, derogatory, unsourced an unfounded comments throughout the page. When this happens am I allowed to edit out the improper commentary? Or do I have another recourse?

And what about secondary sources that are themselves biased? Eckankar is the target of extremist anti-cult groups. And there is an individual who has a history nearly 40 years of attacking Eckankar. He is an academic who has written a book, but who has a clear conflict of interest. Should his writings be cited in the main body of the article? There are also one or two former members who have now started their own groups with books published. Can they be excluded or would they be better confined to a section on "Controversies"? I thought I saw a suggestion for something like that on a Wikipedia discussion regarding how to edit pages on religions.

Thanks for hearing me out on this. Sarunfeldt (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying! Quick note on the logistics of discussing things on Talk pages, which are essential for everything that happens here. In Talk page discussions, we "thread" comments by indenting (see WP:THREAD) - when you reply to someone, you put a colon in front of your comment, which the Wikipedia software will render into an indent when you save your edit; if the other person has indented once, then you indent twice by putting two colons in front of your comment, which the WP software converts into two indents, and so on, and when that gets ridiculous you reset back to the margin (or "outdent") by putting this {{od}} in front of your comment. This also allows you to make it clear if you are also responding to something that someone else responded to if there are more than two people in the discussion; in that case you would indent the same amount as the person just above you in the thread. I hope that all makes sense. And at the end of the comment, please "sign" by typing exactly four (not 3 or 5) tildas "~~~~" which the WP software converts into a date stamp and links to your talk and user pages when you save your edit.

Threading and signing are how we know who said what to whom and when.

Please be aware that threading and signing are fundamental etiquette here, as basic as "please" and "thank you", and continually failing to thread and sign communicates rudeness, and eventually people may start to ignore you (see here).

I know this is unwieldy, but this is the software environment we have to work on. Sorry about that. Will reply on the substance in a second... Jytdog (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the substance -- do you accept that you have a conflict of interest with regard to Eckankar, or not? I just want to clarify this fundamental thing, before we get into other things. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with formatting. As you say, this is the software environment we have to work with. Sarunfeldt (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicts of interest are tricky things. Certainly I have an inherent conflict of interest in my edits to the Eckankar page. This is why I have been 100% transparent about my role as an ECK cleric. Note that I am not paid by Eckankar in any way other than my own personal satisfaction for service.

Nearly all of the people who add commentary on the Eckankar page have a conflict of interest. Many have their own personal beliefs that are evident in the comments. Most do not disclose what those conflicts are. And even the Wiki editors who know nothing about Eckankar per se, have their own conflicts of interest. For example, the guideline regarding primary and secondary sources seems to be a big issue for some. And while that is a generally useful guideline, as we have seen, there are certain cases where it is inappropriate or simply unworkable. Regarding Eckankar, there is very little secondary resource material of any substance. The primary resource that is most often cited with regards to derogatory information was written by a person who has a very clear conflict of interest. This most recent hack on the page was written by an anonymous person who took on the name of a man who was convicted in court of terroristic threats. I seem to be the only person involved in this page who has openly addressed my conflicts of interest.

You mention "content and behavioral policies and guidelines, and to follow the peer review processes going forward." I believe that I am very familiar with the content and behavioral policies and guidelines. But I am unaware of the peer review processes of which you speak. When someone with a clear conflict of interest defaces the page, how am I to respond?

Sarunfeldt (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]