User talk:Skirts89

Hi Skirts89

Hello Skirts89 --Shirt58 (talk) 11:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Shirt58! Skirts89 (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tom_Barbalet

I am writing to ask for a review and reversal of the deletion of the wikipedia entry about me and my project, Noble Ape. The entries deleted were created by a series of listeners to my podcasts from 2007 through to about 2013. To be clear, I am only interested in the reversal for Noble Ape and Tom Barbalet on Wikipedia. The other two articles are less important to me.

While I appreciate the articles that were deleted were not ideal, the articles Tom Barbalet and Noble Ape did represent my work in a form which was comparable to others who have contributed a similar extent to the field of artificial life and still actively represented on Wikipedia - OpenWorm, Critterding, Avida, Boids, Polyworld.

They also show through Wikipedia and external academic references (http://www.nobleape.com/sim/#Academic) that my work is not a walled garden. It has contributed to a number of different areas and been used by Apple and Intel for their development.

As the article on Artificial life organizations also shows I have also fostered a community of developers and dialogue in the field of artificial life.

Probably unknown to you through this process is that a number of the external references to Noble Ape are currently being suppressed through payment to Google and other search sources by a comedian who aggressively promoted a comedy tour and album under the same name from 2016 to the present. This has lowered any chance of finding external references to Noble Ape.

I continue to work on Noble Ape to this day totaling more than ten hours per week on average. This is a voluntary effort to further ideas in social evolution, philosophy and open source software. I appreciate that working on Wikipedia is also a voluntary effort. I thank you for your time and considering my request to appeal this deletion.

Barbalet (talk) 23:44, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Christian Schoyen

Hello Skirts89, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Christian Schoyen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: full of claims of significance. If you doubt notability, take it to WP:AFD instead. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. So Why 09:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SoWhy: Thank you! I am still a bit rusty with edits so I appreciate it. Skirts89 (talk) 09:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, it's not the easiest area on the project. If you have any questions, you can always leave me a message on my talk page. Regards So Why 09:18, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Can you please look at my reply on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aleksandra Pileva (2nd nomination)? Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:58, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Love from Jesus

John1427 (talk) 20:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I'm not entirely sure what to do with this. It is not the typical way I would choose to spread the good news, so I'm going to assume you're trolling. If so, that's not very respectful to those who hold these beliefs strongly. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Thank you. Skirts⁸⁹ 09:52, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please

explain about why you shall not be restrained from further participation in deletion-discussions in light of your generic !vote spamming (you managed to !vote over 10 articles in a span of 10 minutes, today). Thanks, ∯WBG^converse 15:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Winged Blades of Godric, I am a regular contributor to AfD. I follow the approved AfD process and that is why I flagged the recent speedy deletion as one which was taken without consensus. Skirts⁸⁹ 15:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How were you !voting over 10 AfDs in the course of 10 minutes? Explain that, please. ∯WBG^converse 15:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll notice, I have been engaged in those discussions for several days. There is no limit to how frequently a WP editor can edit, just like there is no need for hostility. Skirts⁸⁹ 16:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you know of your contribution-history being publicly view-able? Those 10 were your very first edits on those 10 AfDs (and on any nearby locus). I have been engaged in those discussions for several days deviates from the truth extremally

And given the arguments you are putting forward; it won't be (likely) long for the TBan-hammer to strike.

Also, please read WP:JUSTAPOLICY. ∯WBG^converse 16:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

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 ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're still spamming CultCelebrities.com in article leads, I've indefinitely blocked you. I asked you once before to clarify your relationship with this website, but you blanked the question. You will have to answer this now if you want to edit Wikipedia. Please be aware that if you are paid to edit Wikipedia, you must disclose who has paid you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2019 (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).

Skirts89 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, I have never been paid to edit Wikipedia. My relationship with Cult Celebrities is entirely casual, one of my friends is a writer there and I also am a huge cult movie fan so I usually add his articles. Is this allowed? I didn't think it was a COI conflict. Skirts⁸⁹ 07:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is indeed a clear violation of WP:COI. Additionally, you've been violating WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Yamla (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2019 (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.

January 2020

M. Skirts89, I wirte to you since I see you have a misplaced remark on my vandalized Wikipedia (only english) entry, prettending not to find references to my Theorem. There are three published books to my proof of Catalan, so you are obviously not really interested in science, but in ... other things.

https://www.springer.com/de/book/9781848001848 https://www.amazon.de/Problem-Catalan-Yuri-F-Bilu/dp/3319100939 https://books.google.de/books?id=5Lp-tGZR25sC&pg=PA529&lpg=PA529&dq=henri+cohen+catalan&source=bl&ots=Rp3kaARyH3&sig=ACfU3U1l6vjyzgus-6xFH23c7MzAsQa5WA&hl=de&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwizm7mDlYXnAhUIKVAKHerECHYQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=henri%20cohen%20catalan&f=false

You can see in these books that my proof given in 2002 made it customary to call the former Conjecture with my name. So I first challenge you to withdraw your superficial, undocumented and insulting insinuation from the discussion page, and/or replace it with public appologies. People have been searching for my Wiki page and signalled me that a page that has been existing all right for 15 years has been vandalized. And remained in the vandalized state. I do not know if you are involved in the vandalizing, but your inserting totally unverified insinuations in public brings you in the duty to act for repairt ANYHOW. There is something deeply unserious about the way Wikipedia seems to work, allowing anyone to vandalize a page, and let it in this state for years, and there seems to be no responsible person to restore it. You have all the information needed, please restore the page to the working state it was in before vandalizing, NOW. I am much obliged and wish you a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PredaMi (talk • contribs) 08:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]