Caleil1212
November 2017
editThere have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.
If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}}
at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:
- Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
- Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
{{unblock|Your reason here}}
at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~ GB fan 19:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Request Unblock - Valid User Account
editCaleil1212 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Decline reason:
Darkhorsecomicsofficial (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Caleil1212 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Decline reason:
- Okay, that's fine. I can submit another unblock request and include this in it. Thanks.
Caleil1212 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Darkhorsecomicsofficial (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- I've done the rename (from User:Darkhorsecomicsofficial), and someone else will review your unblock request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks.
Caleil1212 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Requested username:
Request reason:
Accept reason:
Request Unblock
editCaleil1212 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
In recent contributions to an article, I attempted to cite the additions thoroughly with links to several websites. It's my understanding that the links back to the publisher website were the main issue that caused the block. This user account and contributions are in no way intended for promotion or advertising. I will not provide citations or links back to the publisher website in the future in order to avoid this issue. The contributions were intended solely for the purpose of adding factual information to relevant pages. If you need further information, please let me know. Caleil1212 (talk) 20:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline - only one request open at a time. GoldenRing (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
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.
Again, promotional edits
editNo sooner were you unblocked than you added promotional material to EC Comics. Just because you're not linking to Dark Horse doesn't mean that you can write promotional blurbs regardless. Please do not add that material again or admins will be notified, and in all likelihood will issue a longer block. The proper procedure is to go to the article talk page, discuss your proposed edits, and try to reach consensus with other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not trying to add promotional material here. I am not very experienced with Wikipedia's current editing particulars, however, and unfortunately this seems to have given the wrong impression. Rather than trying to be promotional, the original intent was to show that this information was coming from a reliable source, and in this case, citing the website that shows the list of titles currently being published seemed a logical way to do that. I had thought that this would be a relatively quick and simple edit to an article, adding another current listing to match the others already on that page (e.g. Fantagraphics). It was suggested that the individual titles involved be included in this listing for additional clarity, but if those need to be removed, I can do that--or, I had expected that another editor would suggest the removal or themselves remove that from the addition. I did not realize that the Talk section was the preferred method to suggest changes before applying them in any form, especially for a small edit, but I can certainly use the Talk section to suggest additions in the future.
I appreciate your note here, as previous interactions have been very terse and haven't helped me understand what the real issue was. Caleil1212 (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
COI Disclosure
editThe following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this draft. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles: |