There 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.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{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)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Caleil1212 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

caleil1212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

This account is not intended for advertising or promotion. I intend only to add factual, cited information to pages relating to publishing comics and related content.

Decline reason:

The username would be acceptable. If by "cited information" you mean "I added lots of links to our website", I don't think Wikipedia would be improved by those kinds of contributions. Huon (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darkhorsecomicsofficial (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Caleil1212 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

caleil1212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

The citations in the recent edits included a majority of links to related Wikipedia articles, as well as links to websites including The New York Times and Dark Horse Comics. Not intended for promotion or advertising; just adding the fact that the reprints are currently with this publisher, which is at present not listed on the Wikipedia article at all. If some links need to be removed in order to comply with Wikipedia guidelines, I can certainly make that change. One link shows the catalog of titles in print, the other shows the catalog of titles in digital format.

Decline reason:

I think that in order to be unblocked you would have to agree to not post any links (including citations) to Dark Horse Comics. PhilKnight (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fine. I can submit another unblock request and include this in it. Thanks.

Caleil1212 (talk) 23:50, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Darkhorsecomicsofficial (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Thanks.

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Caleil1212 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

caleil1212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Username already changed, thanks. My intent as an editor is only to add relevant facts to pages such as the recently-edited EC Comics page. I will not link out to the Dark Horse Comics website now or in the future if this is problematic. I can instead use only internal Wikipedia related links and external citations such as a relevant New York Times article. I included various links in my first version of the edits as an effort provide external sources for further information and citations, not for any other reason. The other listings in the Reprints section of the article in question are what I was attempting to match and expand upon.

Accept reason:

I am unblocking you on the basis that you will not add any links to Dark Horse Comics. Please also read our policy on reliable sourcing and understand what is and is not a reliable source. Any admin may reblock you immediately if you add links to Dark Horse Comics, and I will advise you that repeatedly adding links to other non-reliable sources is likely to lead to you being blocked again. GoldenRing (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caleil1212 (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2017 (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).

Caleil1212 (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)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline - only one request open at a time. GoldenRing (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2017 (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.

No 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding these Wikipedia articles: EC Comics Mike Richardson (publisher)

Caleil1212 (talk) 21:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]