User talk:Hunzana97

Freedom Party of British Columbia (2023)[edit]

Once a deletion tag is in an article, the way to remove it is to participate in the discussion (linked in the tag) and hopefully get consensus that the article should be kept. Sjö (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023[edit]

Your recent edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom Party of British Columbia (2023) could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Sjö (talk) 05:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just stick to the sourcing being discussed, your personal views on the subject are not important in the context of an AfD discussion. We need extensive, reliable sourcing about the "thing" the article talks about. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No threats are being made. Someone appears interested in ensuring that this party gets NO coverage. Regardless of Wiki, this will not happen. The party will field candidates. The party will post widely on social media. The party will vociferously advocate its policies regardless of whether or not the entry stays on Wiki. If Wiki wants to diminish its reputation by taking a stance against this party and by allowing special interest groups to force the entries down, then so be it. The only affect that would have is to lower Wiki's standing as any kind of useful authority. It is the same reason that no one cares about "Snopes" any more. No one has any interest in making threats. Hunzana97 (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we don't care if they get coverage or not, we look at what sources are available. Again, we have coverage on the most trivial things imaginable. With proper sourcing, you can have an article about anything. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about the Emu War, which is magnitudes of importance lower than a political party. It is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other thing is ... who defines "reliable" or "extensive?" X is the new news media now. Mainstream media has largely been discredited for their lies during covid, and they are bought and paid for by the governments. Tucker Carlson's coverage on X about Donald Trump got 310 million views. No mainstream media platform on the globe can match that coverage. Perhaps you would be happy if we ran a series of articles X on the value of this party and gathered 100,000 views. Would you then stop your efforts to suppress the party? Hunzana97 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We discuss it as a community, generally sites that don't publish info that is proven to be made-up/false. That's why Fox News was depreciated, they admitted to lying to get higher views, in a recent lawsuit. Oaktree b (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter isn't peer reviewed and anyone can publish anything they want there, that's the problem. Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The left really hates that. Peer review is for the incompetent. It gives them the illusion they are part of an important community. Peer review is a herd of sheep. If it works for them, then I say have at it. But look at the embarrassment over the Climate Change situation. They got so brave that they thought they could actually do something about anthropogenic global warming! LOL. Imagine that level of lunacy. Hunzana97 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is what it is. Perhaps we're wrong, but it's what wikipedia uses. If you want to contribute, that's how we do it here. Oaktree b (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I see. Wiki is just too anal for me and too controllable, too controlling, and used a lot by special interests. This tells me they see it as a tool to get their way. In my journey through the political stratosphere, Wikipedia just never comes up. I only found this business about BC parties by accident. Wiki has zero value for me. Hunzana97 (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Hunzana97. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Freedom Party of British Columbia (2023), you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest 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, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Graham (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never met or spoken with anyone associated with that party or any of the others, other than the odd MLA. I am very politically active with thousands of X followers and such. As a retired person, I try to keep on top of provincial politics especially since special interest groups are constantly trying to own and control the narrative. That just won't be permitted. Not now. Not ever. Hunzana97 (talk) 05:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special interest groups are what this children's rights issue you're so passionate about. Anyone pushing an agenda has an interest. Oaktree b (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I am retired. I have no employer. I am somewhat reclusive and spend most of my time standing up for the rights of children and anyone who is oppressed or bullied by the fascist left. They will not now, or ever, gain ground to ply an evil agenda on our kids. Wikipedia is irrelevant to me. How long have I had this account and never done anything with it? Wikipedia is seen as a temporary phenomenon that will soon pass into the night. It might remain useful to the "special pronouns" segment of the population, and that is fine. It just has no standing in the real world. Hunzana97 (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's been around for 20 yrs, but enjoy your retirement I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 12:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's the plan.... But I think I'm busier now than when I worked :( Hunzana97 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]