Talk:Jodie Emery

Heads up

Please see Talk:Marc Emery#Link to Canada. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

nomination rejected by Liberals

I don't know how to put this in with a reference, should go at the end of the section on political career. Her nomination to run for the Liberal party was rejected by the Liberal party. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/jodie-emery-s-bid-to-run-as-federal-liberal-candidate-turned-down-1.2916503 --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2021

admin bearcat is removing factual evidence after being approved by daniel case. bearcat should receive a penalty. Jodie and Marc both dealt weed ( drug dealing) and opened illegal shops in canada before legalization to make a profit. They are very very very lucky since something this severe would be lots of prison time.This is why wikipedia is not a reliable source since users/admins are removing factual evidence for unknown reasons or bias. Please have the highest level review the edit disputes. Fumarolo (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, the article already goes into detail about the context of her notability, so there is no need to highlight the phrase "convicted drug dealer" in the introduction as if it were a central feature of her basic notability — she's notable as a marijuana legalization activist, not as a "drug dealer" per se. If she had been just a "drug dealer" but not an activist, she would not even have a Wikipedia article at all, so the introduction has to prioritize the thing she's notable for.

Secondly, there's no such thing as administrators "approving" content on Wikipedia. That's not how our process works: there's no way for an administrator to "approve" content before you add it to an article, the only thing an administrator can do is step in after problematic content has been added to the article. So you cannot claim that the content was "approved" as a reason to revert anybody who disputes it, because "approving" Wikipedia content isn't a thing that even exists in the first place.

Thirdly, you'll kindly note that numerous people, not just me, have literally been reverting you left and right over the entire week during which you've been a Wikipedia editor — which should be a clue that you're doing something wrong.

Fourthly, your edit history otherwise reveals that you've made numerous other unproductive and improper edits, including falsifying the name that a Canadian politician is even known by, and tendetious allegations about the sexual orientation of another politician just because he held a meet-and-greet in a gay bar during Pride — you've really made almost no contributions to Wikipedia of any value or merit at all, and have already managed to get editblocked for a day, yet you think you know better than actual long-standing Wikipedia contributors who have already asked you multiple times to discuss these matters rather than editwarring over them? Fascinating.

The content isn't automatically acceptable just because you want to add it — you need to justify it, by providing a compelling reason why the introduction needs to place the phrase "drug dealer" ahead of the activism that made her notable enough to even have an article in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

she is not an activist though, it was a trick to justify them making money illegally. They were told multiple times to stop and raided but continued to operate. Defending a criminal is uncalled for. They also sold me wet bud at some point so I reported them. Both of them should receive atleast a decade in prison. don't defend money laundering criminals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fumarolo (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "defending" anybody — but Wikipedia has rules, and one of those rules is that we follow a neutral point of view and are not a forum for random people's unsourced personal opinions. If you want this article to portray her activism as a front for money laundering, then you must show a reliable source which explicitly states that she's been convicted of money laundering — and if you can't source it, then you can't say it on here at all.

You do realize that wet weed can be dried, right? So selling you wet weed isn't a reason to attack her as a criminal, when you can just stick the stuff in a bag of rice for a few hours. But it's fascinating to learn what this is really all about — not that it imbues your position with any authority or credibility, but it at least explains a few things. Bearcat (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

wet weed with who knows what else. Stop defending criminals you are crazy. Jodie Emery, 32, of Vancouver, was arrested and charged with: Conspiracy to commit an indictable offence Drug trafficking Possession for the purpose of trafficking Two counts of possession of the proceeds of crime. I will tell the courts to review her case. Shame on you Bearcat honestly

"Charged with" != "convicted of", and none of this equals "her activism was really just a front for money laundering" either. Wikipedia, again, has rules, and one of those rules is that we are not a forum for grinding axes with people you dislike. Honestly, go find yourself a new hobby. Bearcat (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Being charged with a crime merely means that the government has formally accused a person of a crime (as per google). This is worse than a conviction. In this case you are breaking wiki rules be siding with the article and glorifying illegal but whatever you say

If you have an axe to grind, send a photo of yourself with your arms crossed to the Toronto Star. You're beating a dead horse, move along until you've expanded your mind brah. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 21:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:PERP before you go; being charged with a crime is not, in and of itself, grounds for a Wikipedia article, and is not "worse" than an actual conviction. People are innocent until proven guilty, not vice versa. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Canabis tax

I am contacting you about the Canabis shops and prices they are not affordable to low income people the prices are ridiculousness definitely priced like all MEDICATIONS way to HIGH and I am interested to where the taxes are going. Thank you just want to give my opinion. Christine PURDABY B 371 4 AVE SE Salmon Arm BC V1E1G4 christinepurdaby@gmail.com 2604:3D08:B97E:F00:F96B:9D0B:16A2:E2AF (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2022

Jodie and Marc officially divorced on their 15th wedding anniversary, July 23, 2021 (source:Jodie & Marc's Facebook pages) 98.144.6.2 (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog (talk) 09:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)