User talk:Small Victory

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Small Victory: 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 {{helpme}} 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 (~~~~). 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)

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)

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 [1], [2], [3], [4]. 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:

• 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.

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)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Genetic history of Europe, 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. Thank you. 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, including your edits to Genetic history of Europe, 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 as you did at Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe#Information_Suppression, 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 Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Developing_Situation_with_User:Small_Victory. 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#Persistent incivility by User:Small Victory. 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 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Victorius III. Thank you. NW (Talk) 15:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock|I was just cleared of the charge of sockpuppetry following the results of a CheckUser. Now I get blocked based on "behavioral evidence"? Someone is going around copying me. He's the one you should be investigating. Please perform another CheckUser. This is ridiculous.}}

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 Wikipedia: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:

After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page.

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)

Editing block

You have been blocked for 48 hours because of your disruptive edit [5] 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)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I've apparently been blocked for adding the appropriate template messages to a heavily disputed article. The blocking Admin called it "disruptive", but it's just responsible editing. In fact, most of the templates I added have been left in place, only formatted differently. I apologize if I did it wrong, but I don't think that's a reason to block me. My intention was only to warn people of the issues affecting the article.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I've apparently been blocked for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=prev&oldid=311833251 adding] the appropriate template messages to a heavily disputed [[African_admixture_in_Europe|article]]. The blocking Admin called it "disruptive", but it's just responsible editing. In fact, most of the templates I added have been left in place, only formatted differently. I apologize if I did it wrong, but I don't think that's a reason to block me. My intention was only to warn people of the issues affecting the article. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've apparently been blocked for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=prev&oldid=311833251 adding] the appropriate template messages to a heavily disputed [[African_admixture_in_Europe|article]]. The blocking Admin called it "disruptive", but it's just responsible editing. In fact, most of the templates I added have been left in place, only formatted differently. I apologize if I did it wrong, but I don't think that's a reason to block me. My intention was only to warn people of the issues affecting the article. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I've apparently been blocked for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=prev&oldid=311833251 adding] the appropriate template messages to a heavily disputed [[African_admixture_in_Europe|article]]. The blocking Admin called it "disruptive", but it's just responsible editing. In fact, most of the templates I added have been left in place, only formatted differently. I apologize if I did it wrong, but I don't think that's a reason to block me. My intention was only to warn people of the issues affecting the article. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}