User talk:Btnb

May 2019[edit]

Hello Btnb. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, such as the edit you made to Brent Coon, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially egregious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat SEO.

Paid advocates are very strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists, and if it does not, from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Btnb. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Btnb|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. John from Idegon (talk) 18:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MAY 14, 2019 - I have not been paid a dime to post anything. I do find it offensive that you immediately suggest that I have committed some conflict of interest by adding a legitimate news item to this listing. I also find such a claim, without full-basis and fact, could be considered libelous. I have been a reporter my entire life and this seems awfully suspect that less than three hours after I added legitimate content to the Brent Coon page, it was removed and I was accused of having a conflict of interest. I think you might want to review your wording and I also think you might want to disclose any other bias you might have against sharing something positive to a page and then making the accusations that you have against me. Question: Did I post a legitimate news item from a newspaper detailing a positive deed by Mr. Coon? Question: What do you have against this positive gesture to people who helped the Southeast Texas community following Hurricane/Tropical Storm Harvey? Question: Is it the goal of Wiki editors to ban anything positive regarding Mr. Coon's actions in his community? When you can answer these, let me know. I have not violated any terms of Wiki but you have proven there appears to be a bias against Mr. Coon and as an investigative reporter looking into this matter it is of grave concern to me and possibly millions of people who believe Wiki is a place of fairness and unbias. I suggest you replace the deleted content, if indeed, you care about keeping Wiki a place free of injustice. Thank you, Jerry Jordan - AND that's my real name, so Google it.

Btnb, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Btnb! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

June 2019[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Brent Coon, you may be blocked from editing. Wikipedia works the way it works. You are welcome to contribute here, but you'll do so within Wikipedia WP:PAG. Who you are or claim to be (we don't know or care which) is irrelevant so STOP MENTIONING IT. John from Idegon (talk) 01:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to ask you one last time to please learn how to do what you're trying to do. I don't know if you are right because you are too busy calling me names for reverting a small change you've made that I don't think improves the article. Content on Wikipedia is subject to consensus. This article has been a vehicle for promotion for a long time. I reverted your glowing tribute to him. This time, I reverted your removal of the advert tag, something another editor also did two days ago. DISCUSS IT. Quit trying to shout down your opposition, go to the article talk page and make reasoned, sourced argument in favor of your changes. I've asked that your edit where you've included your email address be oversighted and it will be. That's a strict violation of policy and it will be made unseeable for your protection. Senior administrators handle that, and I asked that whomever does handle it explain to you the problems with your editing. I know you find this hard to believe, but the only one doing anything wrong here is you. I explicitly did not ask for sanctions, but that isn't far away if you do not start doing this right. Frankly, you are looking very strongly like you are advocating for the subject of the article and not working to improve the encyclopedia. That is entirely due to the way you are acting. John from Idegon (talk) 02:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Brent Coon. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. John from Idegon (talk) 02:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of your obvious bias on this wiki entry. I am working to make this article fit the criteria but you have repeatedly removed verifiable information from irrefutable sources. That shows you don't care about this article and you have a personal issue. Back off long enough for me to fix all of the issues here and I will but stop removing legitimate content. I would suggest you go look at other wiki entries and see that I am well within the guidelines of the information I am posting. If you want to ban me from editing, I will just have someone else edit it and then I will get someone else and someone else. I can play this game forever. I tried to add one thing and you made this personal. I am now pissed because I have been accused of bias, which considering my professional past, could be considered libelous. If you have trouble with that word, it means I can sue you personally for your attack on me. I am willing to work with you but you don't leave much room to negotiate. I have never had this much trouble editing a wiki entry in the past. And before you say, this is the first time I have done it, that is not true. I just don't remember my previous login. If you will back off, I will get this wiki entry where it isn't an advertisement as you claim but I am not going to include only negative content. I see the links and cites and the majority of them are negative. That is not the tenets of wiki. I will be changing most all of the cites going forward but this is a process and can't be completed in a single session. However, I don't trust you right now, not to undo all of the work that I am putting into this page now. I had no idea when I submitted the entry for the concert tickets that I would end up taking on a rogue wiki editor hellbent on only having negativity on an entry. This was supposed to be a one and done entry but now I am spending a lot of time on something just to prove a point.

If you would read this cite and the information like a legitimate editor does, then you would see the information I am adding is accurate and adds value. Come on, the National Academies of Press is a legitimate organization and that study is the best white paper out there on Deepwater Horizon. As I said, John, I am going to keep adding it back and at some point, I will figure who to reach out to in order to have you blocked from this page. And if I can't I will reach out to other editors and have them back me up on this. I am trying to legitimately add content and completely redo this entry from start to finish to get the "advertising" warning off of it but you are too blind to see that. And if you are offended, it's no less offensive than you writing that I have a conflict of interest and am biased. I am dead serious about pursuing legal action against you on a personal level if it continues. You may, or may not, be aware that bringing actions against Wiki would be a difficult task but tracking you down and having you appear in court for your actions would definitely fall within the law. This is a courtesy notice, let me fix this Wiki entry on Brent Coon and when I am done, then come to me - you have my phone number, email and this talk relay - and we can go over what you think is unworthy. Again, originally I just wanted to make one edit but after my interactions with you, it is my goal to win this battle. I have several other Wiki editors watching what you have been doing to my edits. BTNB (talk)

December 2019[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So much for WP:NLT. Also WP:SOCK. Thanks Drmies. John from Idegon (talk) 03:46, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just got around to logging back in. John from Irdegon is a troll, who gets people blocked when they challenge him. That said, my edits were legit and he is a tool. Keeping this account blocked means nothing to me because I can always login from a different computer with a different IP and have. What I don't understand is why so many people acquiesce and do his bidding. If you go through and read all the complaints against him for the way he edits and treats people, you will see that I am justified in my indignance towards him. As for unblocking me, whatever, do what you wish but just know that all I tried to do was fix an attack piece against a legitimate businessman and attorney. I never received a single penny for my efforts, either. I have been a journalist for 30-plus years and never seen anyone with such a vendetta and John from Irdegon.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Btnb (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Unjustified retaliation by a cry baby who doesn't like to be challenged. Btnb (talk) 15:46, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests with personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 16:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.