User talk:BigCityOrigins

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, BigCityOrigins. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Amy Mek, 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 article subjects 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)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
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, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 22:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a conflict of interest as I have no personal relationship with the subject. I am, however, very well researched on the subject and know that the primary source for the article is a poorly sourced hit piece printed in the Huff Post.

It is very clear you are trying to present the subject in a negative light by using the headline of "active Twitter user" instead of "Investigative Journalist". The subject has published hundreds of articles (many at www.rairfoundation.com). Referring to her as "active twitter user" is analogous to referring to Elon Musk as "Active Twitter User."

It is very clear that the contributors to this article want to smear or portray anyone with influence in conservative circles as a radical or extremist.

One of the most prominent primary sources on the subject is the subject's youtube speech in front of the Parliament at the European Union. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_rNZ5wE7_E&t=1s. Why have references from this speech/video been deleted? Clearly the contents of the speech do not fit the narrative the contributors are trying to portray.

In addition, the subject has 2 Master's degrees from New York University - why have those references been deleted? Does showing she is more educated undermine the intended narrative?

I understand you clearly may not align with the viewpoints of the subject, but free speech disagreements do not provide you with a license to libel or misrepresent individuals. BigCityOrigins (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in addition, i listed specific changes on the Talk pages, and none of them were replied to, but the article was reverted back to its original form. BigCityOrigins (talk) 03:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is anyone who disagrees with your biased writing deemed to have a "conflict of interest? BigCityOrigins (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]