User talk:BardseySheriff

November 2020
Hello, I'm Schazjmd. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on John Procter (politician), but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Biographies must use reliable sources. Please read WP:BLP thoroughly before editing articles on living people.  Schazjmd   (talk)''  18:10, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of your edit

 * You wrote: Effective 01-07-2019, Procter is no longer a member of the Conservative Party. You cited https://www.europarl.europa.eu/meps/en/185628/JOHN_PROCTER/history/8|access-date=2020-10-30 but there is nothing on the page that supports your text.
 * You wrote the portion in bold: He ran a facilities management company before being appointed as Managing Director of an optical supplier, Dunelm Optical, having sat on the 3rd November 2016 North East Leeds Plans panel which approved a controversial planning application for the owners of Dunelm Optical. The application had been referred to Plans panel by Procters wife. You cited https://democracy.leeds.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=949&MId=7600&Ver=4 but there is no mention of Dunelm Optical or Procter's wife on that page.
 * You wrote: On 6th October 2020 Procter starred on hit BBC 1 programme "The Sheriffs are Coming" which saw two high court bailiffs enter his property to demand payment of un-paid debts by Procter's wife. You cited https://order-order.com/2020/10/08/former-tory-meps-new-primetime-tv-career/#comments, which is not a reliable source.

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia sourcing requirements. Schazjmd  (talk)  18:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP and edit-warring
Hi there, though I understand you are new here, you cannot add poorly-sourced and potentially defamatory or contentious content in a biographical article about a living person as you did here. Specifically, using a blog to make a subtle implication that the subject is having financial difficulties is not acceptable and violates our policy on Biographies of Living People. Wikipedia is also not a rumour mill and we're not here to drop gossip.

Note also that Wikipedia is a community editing project. While you are welcome to make bold edits, if those edits are reverted, your recourse is to open a discussion and seek consensus for the version you prefer, not to keep trying to force the content into the article. This is called edit-warring, and it is considered disruptive by the community. If you make the same problematic edit three times in 24 hours, you can wind up with your editing privileges interrupted. This is called the Three-revert rule (3RR). People who remove potentially contentious, poorly-sourced content are exempt from 3RR sanctions, so you would certainly wind up on the losing side of a dispute about this content. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

June 2021
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at John Procter (politician). Schazjmd  (talk)  14:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)