User talk:Small Victory

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Dear : Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:


 * Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community Portal
 * Frequently Asked Questions
 * How to edit a page
 * How to revert to a previous version of a page
 * Tutorial
 * Copyrights
 * Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~&#126;). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! FloNight  talk  11:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Bauchet map
Thanks for the note, I replied on my talk page. Alun (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe
Please stop your vandalism on this article by removing perfectly valid studies and changing the numbers. 1) Peireira analysed only Iberians and NOT other europeans. 2) Studies by Cerruti, Calderon which analysed GM and KM immunoglobulin in Sicily and Spain are two of the most renowned european genetists so dont remove their studies as well. If you continue this vandalism I will ask the administrators to block your account--90.36.158.27 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're the anonymous punk who's vandalizing the article. 1) Pereira reports frequencies for other groups obtained from peer-reviewed studies, so they're perfectly valid. 2) Adaptive autosomal markers can't be used to quantify admixture, so no frequencies should be given since the article is about admixture.


 * It's obvious that you have an agenda to emphasize admixture in Southern Europeans while downplaying it in other Europeans. That violates Wikipedia policy, so if anyone is at risk of being blocked from editing, it's you. Small Victory (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

This is supposed to be about african admixutre in EUROPE, not just Iberia. Please, don't hidde the african admixutre of other european countries, for example NOrway has 1.4% and Finland has 2%

DNA Truth (talk) 03:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Admin Request
Small victory I agree with your idea]ls of trying to make Wikipedia a fair and balanced place even in the face of Afrocentrists and people who are racist against southern Europeans so I wanted to see if your O.K with a request of Adminship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Small_Victory In other words I will help you be a Admin if you like and I hope you will help me be a Admin http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/SOPHIAN.

Sincerely SOPHIAN (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree !!

DNA truth (talk) 3:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

E1b1b
Hey Small Victory. There's a discussion going on on the E1b1b talk page regarding one particular quote, where (when you have the time) your input would be most appreciated. Cheers, Causteau (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Many edits have been made to the article since your last one, and the quote is still there. Also, the discussion in question seems to be over. But I'll keep an eye on that article as well. Small Victory (talk) 11:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Tone of discussion
Can you please write with a less aggressive tone on talk pages? The sub Saharan admixture article was called to the attention of many editors on genetics articles some back, as a case with a lot of editing disagreement over a long period of time. Any neutral appraisal of the article will indeed show that it has been a very controversial mess, needing a lot of work, or possibly deletion. I believe I've posted no unreasonable questions or comments, deserving of remarks like the ones you have been posting. If everything is so clear and simple then why are there no clear and simple responses being given to constructive questions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I can not see anything in any comment posted by you or anyone else which justifies calling this deletion something to do with original research. This was an extremely basic and uncontroversial paragraph. Please explain what was original about it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

To me this and this seems overboard? Do you want to explain yourself? You gave me a "what if" question and I answered you in a clear way, more than once. FWIW, I did not accuse you of any particular theory of R1b origins, but just mentioned as a side issue that your "what if" is distractingly unrealistic. On the other hand, you have had several chances to answer in some way that shows you read my response, and instead you deflected discussion into an increasingly ad hominem attack which is only about the "what if". Deflection and ad hominem seems to be things you do relatively often, , ,. Why not just stick the subject?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? It's clear that you still don't understand my analogy, even though I've explained it and corrected your misapprehension several times. What do I have to do, draw you a picture? LEARN HOW TO READ!


 * And then you wonder why I talk down to you. Small Victory (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe your explanations are just poor? I don't see how you can justify calling someone a chimp just because you can't get your point across. I think assuming that communication problems are all someone else's problem is a common cause of communication problems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't call you a chimp. I asked: "...would I have better luck explaining [the analogy] to a chimp?" The fact that you didn't understand that makes your claim that our "communication problems" might be my fault quite laughable.


 * Again, LEARN HOW TO READ! Small Victory (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again please do not divert to side issues, and do not divert to personal attacks. Such diversions make communication impossible, irrespective of the quality of other peoples' reading skills. The edits I cited were simply unacceptable, and unconstructive, as are your responses here. If you have anything to say about that, please do. Otherwise just please do not do it anymore. Just explain what your positions are concerning Wikipedia wordings.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Your pursuit of bad communication and disruption continues. Concerning [this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eurasian_Adam&diff=311641535&oldid=311617570], I move discussion of your irrelevant posting to your own talkpage just to point it out: You seem unable to ever back down on any subject no matter how small or simple, nor to listen to what others try to communicate with you. You always reply by looking for an escape away from the subject, using a smokescreen of personal stuff. Do you even know you do it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh my God. You can't be for real. As usual your introduction is ad hominem, disruptive, unconstructive, unnecessary and basically infantile.
 * The article is not about "that theory" at all. I did not say it was intended to be. I explicitly admitted it might not be intended to be.
 * "that theory" doesn't exist. You made it up yourself. . Are you seriously saying that there is no theory that M168 "happened" in Asia?
 * Eurasian Adam does not imply that M168 is Eurasian. It never has and it never will. What a term is intended to imply obviously can be quit different from what it does imply to people, especially if someone creates a special article written in an unclear way, and I think you are smart enough to understand the difference?
 * Do you understand that? And there is the closing, just like the opening.

August 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Your chart analysis are, in fact, OR. Irbisgreif (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but no official ruling has been issued concerning that. The debate is ongoing. In fact, I've just provided further evidence that it's not OR. Please familiarize yourself more with the subject before offering an opinion and taking sides. Small Victory (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I welcome and appreciate your contributions, but I cannot accept original research. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Please, do not remove reliable information as you do it on Genetic history of Europe. Thank you! Jingby (talk) 12:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ''This has gone on long enough. Added to your admission a few lines above that you do, indeed "talk down" to other editors, it is becoming apparent that you are not here to edit in a collegial atmosphere. Your extensive use of bullying and insults in order to belittle other's contributions is beyond the parameters of the Wikipedia project. This is a final warning to desist.'' ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 12:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please be aware that a user has raised concerns about your recent edits at Wikiquette_alerts. You are more than welcome to tell your side of the story. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Same at WP:ANI.  Wknight94  talk  14:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from calling people liars in the edit comments. ''Sub-Saharan African influences: There's no consensus on Muntuwandi's version. That's a huge lie. Myself and PB666 have criticized it extensively on the Talk Page: #17.1.1, #23, #25, #31, etc.''. PB666 yap 05:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't. I said his statement was a lie, which you know as well as I do. Please direct your reprimands to the person telling the lie and not the one exposing it. Small Victory (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A classic Small Victory answer. You keep missing the point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The "point" is that Muntuwandi told a blatant lie, and you and PB666 are backing him up. You should be ashamed of yourselves. Small Victory (talk) 13:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you were and are being being asked not to call people liars. That is unacceptable according to Wikipedia policies, and your communication problems are also clearly affecting the quality of articles you work on. BTW, it is also silly to both deny there is any consensus, and then tell all the majority of people that disagree with you that they should be ashamed of backing up an Afrocentrist. If a majority disagree with you, then how can you describe this as one person with back up? You should not just throw around this word Afrocentrist as an excuse for anything you like. It is not helping you get you points across is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're backing him up on this particular issue by tolerating his lie and reprimanding me for exposing it. That's what you should both be ashamed of. I didn't use the word 'Afrocentrist' at all. Why do you always misrepresent what people say? Small Victory (talk) 13:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Which particular issue? All discussion here is about you calling people liars, and not any particular example. You do it often. To the extent that your use of silly exaggerations in order to explain edits makes people see your editing as negative that is your fault, but I am personally always trying to see past these mistakes of yours where I can. I am only writing to tell you to stop those exaggerations. More generally, please edit and converse in a more constructive way in order to get your points across!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The particular issue of Muntuwandi lying about there being consensus for his version. And he's still being deceptive, inserting the same heavily criticized, POV material and referring to it simply as "more info on SSA". Small Victory (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Sockpuppet investigations/Victorius III. Thank you. NW ( Talk ) 15:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not blocked. The CU came up as unrelated.  lifebaka++ 15:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

African admixture in Europe
It s probably worth mentioning to you that I am glad you have started to edit on African admixture in Europe. You seem to see everything on Wikipedia in terms of Afrocentrists versus defenders of righteousness, but that is nonsense. I am open to any requests for advice from you (or Muntuwandi) about this. I hope the article will turn out OK. "Listen" to people, and always ask what good thing they are trying to do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not be disruptive
Regarding your statement at Deletion review/Log/2009 August 27, please do not re-nominate the article for deletion. Doing so would be disruptive and will result in your being blocked. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * After a reasonable amount of time passes, I have every right to renominate the article for deletion, and that's exactly what I plan on doing. The user who recreated it is the one being disruptive, and the Administration's inability to recognize this and take the correct action is mind-boggling. Small Victory (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * From your linked "right to renominate": It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome. This is the aspect that I believe RoySmith is referring to, since disruption can result in a block.  In response to your apparent belief that there is an over-arching "administration" here, please refer to my comment in the deletion review. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was referring to. Let me be clear here.  If you renominate this article for deletion, the AfD will be immediately closed and you will be blocked from editing for a substantial period of time.  We welcome your additions to this article.  You obviously have much knowledge about the subject area and Wikipedia can benefit from your input.  I understand that you have substantial disagreements with other editors about the content of the article.  That's fine.  What you should be doing is working with those other editors in a constructive manner to find a common ground.  That's not always easy, but that's what you need to do.  If you are unable to do so, then maybe it's just time to move on to working on other articles.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Stop threatening me. You cannot block me for doing something that Wikipedia Policy states I have the right to do:




 * I will wait for what I believe is a "reasonable amount of time" to pass and then renominate the article for deletion. Small Victory (talk) 11:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You have no rights on Wikipedia - noone does. RoySmith's warnings are correct, and also grounded in policy - all we are saying is be careful.  What exactly do you think a reasonable amount of time is, for example? Fritzpoll (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia Policy leaves that to the discretion of the nominator, so I'll renominate the article whenever I determine the time is right. Already, a user has proposed merging the content into Genetic history of Europe, which (surprise!) was the community's consensus in the first place. Small Victory (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you are as usual missing the whole point. Wikipedia policy does not decide anything here. The question in both deletion cases so far was what the arguments were for an against, and that will also be the case next time. Your frustrations are coming from the fact that you are so bad at putting your case, or indeed that you refuse to ever bother making a case, except by insulting the intelligence of other people and demanding your "rights". You tried to revolve your whole case around a technicality (that a similar article had been deleted before) and so people quite rightfully ignored you. I think Wikipedia is not getting much value out of you until you learn to work with others as collaborators, which means learning how to communicate and put together not only your own case, but also to understand other people.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Stay out of my Talk Page. Your next post here will be deleted. Small Victory (talk) 13:33, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Feel free to commit whatever childish acts you like including holding your breath, but you're responsible for the results and don't think you are going to convince anyone of anything by threatening to make a public exhibition of yourself. Deleting attempts to communicate from talkpages was a great tactic for User:SOPHIAN, and I'm sure it will work just as well for you. Crazy idea but why not actually try to listen to people instead of making yourself look like a spoilt 13 year old?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have yet to say anything worth listening to. Now don't post here again. I have no interest in "communicating" with you outside of article talk pages. And even there I'm losing patience. Small Victory (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing block
You have been blocked for 48 hours because of your disruptive edit to African_admixture_in_Europe. When the block expires, please try to contribute in a constructive manner. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You might be interested in
You might be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Black_African_genetic_contribution_to_the_population_of_the_European_continent


 * The above un-signed comment was posted by User:SOPHIAN--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Eurasian Adam
Despite having no consensus on the talk page, Andrew Lancaster has again tried to delete Eurasian Adam. Your input in appreciated: Articles for deletion/Eurasian Adam (2nd nomination). — Reinyday, 16:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above AfD has been moved, it is now at Articles for deletion/Eurasian Adam. Cheers.  lifebaka++ 21:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing again
You recently made a third attempt to add a number of warning tags to African_admixture_in_Europe. You have persisted in non-constructive behavior which is detrimental to this project, despite a large number of people attempting to educate you and provide guidance about what is appropriate and what is not. Wikipedia simply cannot afford to have so many people spending so much of their time dealing with you when that time and energy could be devoted to improving the encyclopedia. Therefore, I have blocked your editing privileges for a month. Hopefully, in a month's time you will be willing and able to return to the project and contribute in useful ways. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I think reviewing admins will want to look at the full picture here. I got involved with this as an independent editor/admin at the NORN noticeboard and subsequently on my talkpage. This is an editor, who since his/her first edits in 2006, has been mainly focussed on the issue of admixture in Europe (on multiple articles). Since that time, there has been a long history of tendentious editing, poor interactions, incivility and rudeness, failure to get the point, rejection of community input, and lack of consensus building, including posts at various noticeboards (ANI, ANI WQ NORN)
 * This particular block is for long-standing disruption of the encyclopedia; the specific act at issue was readding, amongst others, a notability tag (which states that the article may require deletion) to an article that had already had the notability issue determined at an AFD, reviewed at DR, and which this editor had promised "to nominate the article for deletion again until the "consensus changes" to the right decision", an action pointed out to be disruptive in itself (see discussion above). But the block log and comment made by the blocking admin is clear that this edit is simply a final straw to the overall pattern of disruption.  The unblock request itself shows a lack of any insight into the way this editor's actions have contributed to the battleground mentality on these articles, despite the efforts of other editors to direct the discussion in a more productive direction.
 * I believe that a long block is in order —(though am unsure that a full month is required)— to allow reflection on more effective ways to participate here.  The short block had no apparent effect on the "I am right, you are all wrong" pattern of contributions.  I myself am clear that unless there is a drastic change in strategy and tone, this editor is not a net contributor to the project.  --Slp1 (talk) 12:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Small Victory, why are you insisting on the tags, specifically? Obviously you have problems with some of the consensus decisions that have been made regarding the article (such as the recent DRV) but you were asked to be specific about your concerns and cannot hold an article hostage to demands unreasonably.  Dispute tags are used to alert the reader to specific issues in actual dispute, not to detract from the article in order to appease a detractor whose arguments have not gained traction.  What, specifically, is text in the article that you feel is not in line with WP:NPOV?  What, specifically, is text in the article not supported by pre-existing research?  What, specifically, is your notability concern, and why has that not already been addressed at the AfD and DRV?  I can't help but agree that, given your repeated refusal to address these questions, your insertion of the tag is a case of repeated disruption.  Regardless of whether the duration is appropriate, I'm not going to unblock you when I expect you would return to disruptive behavior.  Mango juice talk 00:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I cannot verify the allegations made on Talk:White_people/Archive_3 in which SV is known to be associated with anti-social websites. If they are true then month long block may be too short and a permanent solution to the problems may be required. I have previously mentioned, that this is a classic case of How disruptive editors avoid detection. After 3 years of persistent incivility, its hard to see any change in behavior. In 2006 he wrote telling frank Sweet, "Read the goddamn study, you idiot! " . It's the first time I am seeing these threads and they are quite disturbing. I therefore don't think a month is long enough. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see what my past behavior has to do with anything, especially when it dates back three years. This is about whether or not adding warning tags to a contentious article is against the rules and merits a month-long block. Yes, I've had disputes and disagreements with other editors (who hasn't?), and no, I'm not the nicest guy in the world during these heated debates (which is not necessarily equivalent to incivility), but the fact remains that I've never been sanctioned for anything before. Up until these two recent (and unjustified) blocks, my record was clean. The only reason there's been so much focus on me lately is that a particular editor (Muntuwandi/Wapondaponda) has been forum shopping trying to have me blocked and my sources prohibited because I vigorously challenge his OR and POV (he's doing it again right now in this thread).

Which brings me to why I'm insisting on the warning tags. The article in question has a long and storied history. It started out as Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, which was recently deleted, with the consensus being that its contents should be merged in abbreviated form into Genetic history of Europe. So the content dispute continued there. Then, just two weeks later, Muntuwandi recreated the article, going against the consensus and Wikipedia policy. Well, Mangojuice alluded to what happened next with the new AfD and subsequent DRV, but I maintain that the article was saved on a technicality, which is an absurd reason, and that the original consensus that the subject isn't notable enough to be treated separately still stands. Point is, the same content has been discussed ad nauseam on multiple talk pages and in two deletion discussions. Thus, I've made my concerns perfectly clear over and over again, especially regarding Muntuwandi's OR and POV, which I'm by no means alone in recognizing. Causteau, Jingiby, The Ogre, Victorius III, AnwarSadatFan and Hxseek have all reverted and/or expressed concerns about his edits (and I'm sure there have been others as well). Just ask former Admin William M. Connolley, who noticed this pattern too.

And since we're going after people for their past behavior, let it be known that Muntuwandi has a terrible record and that he's created a whopping 76 sockpuppets to try to circumvent his many blocks. He's currently on 1RR probation, which he violates constantly, but no one does anything about it. Why he's allowed free reign while I'm blocked for adding a measly (and totally justified) warning tag to his biased article boggles my mind. And it should boggle yours too. Small Victory (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So the community should ignore a very long pattern of unchanging, single minded (some might say obsessive), unapologetic, behavior, and focus instead upon the fact that many editors have expressed concern at Muntuwandi's edits? (I would add my name to the list you made, because he has certainly been criticized by me.) Please try to understand that this is not a very convincing argument, and borders on being an insult to everyone's intelligence. Muntuwandi is not the only person you have come in conflict with. I can not think of anyone you work well with. And anyway, there are a few big differences about Muntuwandi, which I list not because they are relevant but in the hope that they might help you understand: 1. He has generally made efforts to communicate civilly with others about the subject at hand (not ad hominem), even during some of his edit wars, 2. He has changed behavior over time in a positive way, 3. He works on actual articles (which is why he gets caught out doing reverts more than you) and not just the controversial bits, while you mainly work on talk page abuse and wikilawyering, and when you work on articles it is on very specific controversial passages concerning the one or two subjects you monitor on Wikipedia. These differences are potentially important to the rest of the community because they could show that the past might not be repeated, and that a net contribution is a realistic expectation.
 * I am honestly constantly surprised by how simplistically you keep using the same debating technique: change the subject, and if possible change the subject into irrelevant accusations against other editors. My surprise comes from the fact that it must surely be obvious to you by now that it makes you and your ideas look silly. It does you a lot of damage, and in some cases you've probably had a reasonable position somewhere, but been treated as wrong because of your terrible way of explaining yourself. It has never helped you or Wikipedia in any way. Hopefully this remark will not simply cause yet another aggressive rant, but I thought it worth making another effort to explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

@ UltraExactZZ - Since when does a single individual constitute a consensus? Other editors had left most of my warning tags in place. Even RoySmith didn't remove them at first. It was only Andrew Lancaster doing that. So you're wrong about there being a "consensus...that they do not apply". If anything, Lancaster was the one going against consensus and being disruptive. Regardless, if it's edit warring that I'm now being punished for, then the other participant should be punished too. Lancaster's request for specific information is a disingenuous ploy to get away with reverting my edits. As I said, I've been debating the same content with him (and others) for the past several months. I've expressed numerous concerns about it, both general and specific, at that article's talk page, at other talk pages and at deletion discussions. He has all the information he needs. He just chooses to ignore it. Small Victory (talk) 13:23, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If I might try and answer on Ultra's behalf, it isn't about a consensus relating to the tag but to the message of the tag. Whatever your view, an AfD and a DRV have determined a consensus that this article is on a notable subject, so repeatedly adding a notability issues tag is both disruptive and against an established consensus. Hope that explains Ultra's comment adequately Fritzpoll (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the first time anyone has ever given me that explanation, which makes me think that you just made it up to try to cover Ultra's gaffe of upholding the block on a false premise. After all, he used the word "tags" (plural) and referred to OR, POV and Unbalanced -- but not Notability -- so obviously he wasn't saying what you're claiming he was. The fact remains that only one other editor of that article objected to the tags enough to remove them all. That means there was no consensus for me to go against. And btw, recreating the article was "both disruptive and against an established consensus", but no punishment was given for that. Small Victory (talk) 12:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, as I don't know Ultra at all, I have no idea why I'd be "making stuff up" to support him. That is simply my interpretation of their comments, and may be very wrong.  Had I been declining the unblock, it is one of the things I'd have said to you.  If the article recreation was against consensus, you should have applied CSD G4 - then there was another discussion, and consensus changed:  WP:CCC.  That you are frustrated by this outcome is understandable, but your chosen outlet of tagging the article as having issues and then reverting when they are removed with edit summaries suggesting taking it to the talkpage, seemingly ignoring the requests of others including neutral parties, and generally being disruptive is not the way forward. You said you'd bide your time and renominate.  If you don't like the article, leave it alone and come back to it later - continue down this path and an escalating block length is in your future.  That's not a threat, but you're clearly a good content contributor, and I don't want you booted because you're being stubborn about something like this. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Obviously, I know now that I should have applied CSD G4 instead of allowing another discussion. That's the "technicality" I've been talking about. But by the same token, you Admins should have had enough sense to realize that an error was made, and that it was in fact a simple case of a recreation against consensus of a recently deleted article. I'm pretty sure more than two weeks need to go by for WP:CCC to kick in. The consensus didn't change because of new information or because "the world changed", but simply because the people involved were not fully aware of the situation. So invoking that policy here is a bit ridiculous.


 * As for the block, you're still playing fast and loose with the facts. There were no "others including neutral parties" removing the tags and making requests. There was a single other editor, with whom I've been debating these same issues for months. We had a mini edit war over the tags, but only I got punished. And I wasn't "generally being disruptive". I did one single thing -- added warning tags -- which was deemed "disruptive", while the removal of the tags by the other editor was not. These are the facts, and everyone here is distorting them to try to justify an unjustified block. Small Victory (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)