User talk:Tonto Misty

Welcome!

Hello, Tonto Misty, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Nat Gertler (talk) 23:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Molly Bloom (author). While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently editing for unambiguously promotional purposes. You have added laudatory text about people, and also every edit you have made has added a link to one web site. You are clearly seeking both to promote the reputations of the people concerned and to use Wikipedia to publicise the web site. You have continued to do this even after being informed that promotional editing is not acceptable. If inappropriate links to one web site keep coming, we can add that site to Wikipedia's spam blacklist, which will mean that the Wikimedia software will not allow anyone ever to link to that site, even if one day someone has a legitimate reason to do so.

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 ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

This seems really harsh. I didn't know what I was doing was wrong. I was trying to update the pages with the most current info. Right now you have many pages that are lacking current facts about people and it's a blatant misrepresentation of the subjects. I used a source that I found with current information and linked to it. Yes, I used the same source for all the edits- that's because I was looking through that site. I have no connection with it at all. It was just a verified source that seemed trust worthy. Please unblock me and I will expand my data searches.

Decline reason:

I might believe this except for one little detail: User:Jessica Welch was also editing Wikipedia from the same IP as yours, and lo and behold, someone with exactly that name is a "Marketing Content Associate" at BigSpeak. So I suggest you might want to explain this coincidence in future unblock requests. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 00:50, 7 March 2018 (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.