Talk:Jo Bamford

draft submission

Hello! I sent this draft in for review on Jan. 15. My new friend Megan B. looked it over and sent it back to improve. I contacted her last week and she said that a few other editors improved the article and that it looks good now. So I am going to click the submit button again today. I will keep working on the article. Thanks for everyone who helped! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Synoman_Barris#c-Synoman_Barris-2022-01-22T08%3A59%3A00.000Z-Eatthecrow-2022-01-21T20%3A29%3A00.000Z --Eatthecrow (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Political donations

I deleted a section about political donations. The content was largely about donations from JCB and the wider Bamford family. If there is verifiable content about political donations from Jo Bamford or from the companies he runs (WrightBus, etc), then a section might be restarted. Paul W (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Bamford / associates editing this article

Seeing a handful of edits from unregistered users - some are minor edits, some are big edits and reverts. The IP address locations are all in Leeds or Sheffield. And 195.85.193.46 is JCB Excavators Ltd, which is Jo Bamford's company. I take that to mean that either Bamford or one of his employees made that edit. @Paul W: What are the rules about this - is this a conflict of interest? Eatthecrow (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Eatthecrow, yes, I think it would be a conflict of interest. Wikipedia has clear guidance on this (see WP:COI): "Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. ... COI editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia."

New editors may not realise this and may be making changes in good faith, but once made aware of a suspected or potential COI, they should make appropriate disclosures, refrain from editing relevant articles directly, and ideally request and discuss changes with disinterested editors through the Talk pages of the relevant articles. I hope this helps everyone. Meanwhile, I will continue to keep the article on my watchlist and ensure that it remains neutral, balanced, appropriately referenced, etc. Paul W (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting these edits were good faith Paul W, the ones I made were. My edits have been to cleanup what felt more like a tabloid bio than something encyclopedic when I first read it. I have built one continuous career section, so you don't need to jump all over the page to read about him.

My last edit was reverted since I removed some information about a US court case that I felt was unnecessary (again very tabloid in my opinion). I have therefore left that in for others to discuss, but have re-added some additional information I discovered online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.71.80 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, '82'. The changes look OK to me, subject to a couple of typo tweaks, etc. You did not respond to the suggestion that you may have a COI. If you do, you should refrain from editing the article directly. If you do not, then please continue editing Wikipedia. Either way, we generally encourage users also to create a user account - see "Wikipedia: Why create an account?" WP:ACCOUNT. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey Paul W, thanks for your help on this page. I don't understand some of the edits that 82.47.71.80 made, nor do I understand why he ignored your comments about COI. I moved some of his edits to a section that made more sense. I'm not sure if he is a paid editor or works for the subject. I'm mildly suspicious looking at his contribution history. But I assume good faith, so I just moved some of his content to a different, more logical section. I don't know how to resolve this, but I could use your guidance. Eatthecrow (talk) 15:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi Eatthecrow. So far as I can see, the '82' IP editor has not returned to edit the article (or any others) since 26 July. They say they were trying to clean up what they felt was tabloid-type content (though their almost total focus on one subject may suggest some vested interest) but let's continue to assume good faith. I think your structuring of the article is logical; a strictly chronological approach may sometimes be used to 'bury' criticisms or legal issues; in other articles, I have also created legal or reputation issues sections where the subject has faced multiple issues. Best wishes. Paul W (talk) 20:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)