User talk:YourCalyx

Welcome

It surprises me that a site as Wikipedia is not-for-profit. This does not only impress me but also inspires me immensely. This has informed how I feel about Wikipedia: I LOVE WIKIPEDIA.

As Wikipedia is dedicated to rendering quality information for free, even so I hope to support it in this blitz as much as I can.

To you now, my friend; what brings you here? Let's talk.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dubai Aquarium & Underwater Zoo has been accepted

Dubai Aquarium & Underwater Zoo, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey YourCalyx, I saw that you reached out to TonyBalloni and I wanted to talk to you about your article. In general it looks good. There were a couple of sections that came up as possible copyright violations because they had been copy and pasted from a Gulf News article, but these can be easily fixed by paraphrasing the article a little bit more. Otherwise thank you for your hard work! Bkissin (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Bkissin; thanks. I affirm I didn't paraphrase one or two texts because it either seemed perfect or was a text of specification. I'll fix that, although I see I've got a bit of a challenge I have to fix. Thanks. YourCalyx (talk) 20:59, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SPI case

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wwsurfers. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:05, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrOllie, this action is against me but I take sides with you in saying you have a good reason for this. But the divide would be that I do not know what this reason is. This is not defending myself, but I want to say that I have nothing to do with the blocked account whose link you've shared with me. Bbb23, TonyBallioni and Bkissin, I hope you see this. I'd like my contributions to be vetted for abuse and if my account were reinstated, I'd like to be monitored for abuse.

Bbb23, there's a typographical error of Uhrobo on the "Ughelli" article. I corrected that, among other things, but it has been reverted. You should kindly correct that. The correct spelling is Urhobo. See Urhobo language.

Thank you, MrOllie. YourCalyx (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MrOllie and Bbb23, it's indisputably unprofessional to be silent at a time like this. It's been three days. With due respect, this shows how unseriously you ostensibly take an editor. No matter how serious the suspicion is, you should also hear me out, except the complexity of life is bare before you.

Given the silence, you probably are done here but I am not. Imagine not having your accounts. If you value yours, you clearly shouldn't trifle with others'.

I am especially disappointed that my good faith effort Bkissin dubbed a meaningful contribution was swept away on the basis of some accusation, a blind eye turned at all my constructive efforts. By the way, Izno has thanked me for an edit, among other edits, on Reliable Sources (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources). That particular one was swept off, the formatting and re-grouping I made left.

For the record, if I am demanded to defend myself (which MrOllie did) and I did, technically, it is expected that I should get a response. It must be stressed that I mentioned the accounts concerned and yet got no response. It feels now that some people are taking this personally. Whatever it is, I believe Wikipedia is civil and democratic and so its administrators as well as editors who purport to be administrators should be of the same disposition.

Block me if I have to be blocked but kindly show why I must be blocked indefinitely. I know I've been told something that culminates in that I serve as a pun to another account. But that's not all, as verification manifest in a defense was required.

If apology for anything is what you want, I tender it with all of my heart -- only monitor my account closely for abuse. Guide me where needed, not quickly busting me as though I were a thief or intent on evil.

If you're wondering why I value my account, I gain much pride in it. I feel seraphic to say I made this contribution and that contribution on Wikipedia. You all probably feel the same way. #TonyBallioni #Jauerback YourCalyx (talk) 10:33, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]