User talk:Tomtom271

Speedy deletion nomination of Ricardo Cordero

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Ricardo Cordero, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising that only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an acceptable page. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item G11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this page is not blatant advertising, . Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. You are welcome to edit the page to fix this problem, but please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. As well as removing promotional phrasing, it helps to add factual encyclopaedic information to the page, and add citations from independent reliable sources to ensure that the page will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NHCLS (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2023

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. MrOllie (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Guide me how can i add external links! i am new to Wikipedia, started working here as a school project, but now want to add value to it.

June 2023

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Michelle Shocked, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Explanation was given on the edits made, moreover i am going to review the links again and will contact the Admins on Wikipedia for better understanding. Tomtom271 (talk) 23:04, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2024

Hello Tomtom271. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to Draft:Dr Krissy Jones, gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, 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 employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not, and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing, and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged 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:Tomtom271. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Tomtom271|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. Sam Kuru (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I am not doing any paid editing, i am aware about the policies and guidelines, i am a fan of Dr Krissy Jones and do follow her on internet, it is my personal interest to create her page, although i was trying to add some links on her page but those platforms are somewhat not allowed to be referenced on Wikipedia, Doing this i understood that she is not that notable to be on Wikipedia, so i am leaving the page as it is until she is worthy enough to be on Wikipedia Tomtom271 (talk) 18:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

You've used blatant SEO sources and were blocked from adding others that were even more fake paid placement. Given your history of paid editing and previous userpage, I've blocked this account until you can make the proper disclosures as required by our terms of service. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I used to do the paid editing in past, almost a year ago or more then that, and as far as I understood Wikipedia for adding sources, any information that is verifiable by any independent source! that could be added on Wikipedia! Correct me if i am Wrong!

And i would like to know how can i know if a source is blocked from adding on Wikipedia, as well as i would love to understand how to examine a source if that is reliable or not ? I am not good with these parts, giddiness would be more appreciated! Tomtom271 (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The Discloser of my Paid Editing is already there when i used to do it, but now i am not doing any Paid Editing! If i was a paid editor and was good in it, why would i be making such errors and make my clients unhappy!!

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Tomtom271 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I Am not a paid editor

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=''I Am not a paid editor''  |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=''I Am not a paid editor''  |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=''I Am not a paid editor''  |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Tomtom271 (talk) 18:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The 'usatoday' very clearly notes "This story is paid for by an advertiser. Members of the editorial and news staff of the USA TODAY Network were not involved in the creation of this content". The story also notes the author as the 'imperium group', which is an incredibly amateur blackhat SEO PR firm. This is very, very hard to miss. 'techbullion' is a blacklisted paid placement blog owned by a SEO firm, with silly spam articles and content like "Dr. Jones stands as a luminary in the sector, providing valuable mentorship and well-informed insights to traders and enthusiasts". Jesus. 'entrepreneursbreak' is another blacklisted garbage SEO blog, with the same obvious problems.

There is zero chance that you happen to be "fan" of this completely unknown Forex spammer, and that you're a recently reformed paid editor. Our civility guidelines prevent me from describing this more succinctly. No one has time for this gaslighting nonsense. Sam Kuru (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Why would i have an issue accepting that i am a Paid editor! i have mentioned it in the past when i was!! It does not make sense to me if i am adding a reference and that tend to be not written by members of the editorial and news staff of the USA TODAY, How do i know that was a paid advertisement! The Ban on my Profile is without baseless,

You being an Admin want to use your authorities on me and want me to put "I DO PAID EDITING" although i am not being paid for any contributions even after that i will write it to get my block removed! because i know if i create a new account then you will block my IP just to satisfy your ego!! Tomtom271 (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)