User talk:Moidart

Welcome!

Hello, Moidart, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Somerled have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or 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. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  Cresix (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Hello, I'm TYelliot. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions to Somerled because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. TYelliot | Talk | Contribs 03:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah yeah. T.Y. I'm getting frustrated with trolls posting racially biased and contentious fringe arguments without proper citation and censoring the counter argument. Sorry for being unconstructive. What do I do?

Moidart (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Somerled

"Cresix, you have censored my biography of Somerled and reverted it to a ridiculous and scant piece of work missing citations and providing a false and one sided argument. You claim that I didn't cite my work properly. If this is so erase the part that wasn't properly cited. The previous work is not only false and biased but clearly based on racial hatred of the indigenous Pictic people of Ireland and Scotland as no mention is made of Somerled's descent from the Picts of which I provided many references. I have included many reliable sources for my information and I request that you do not censor information about my people. You obviously have something against Catholics as you go around deleting this material. It is time that you get over this censoring rubbish and realize that the truth is going to come out and that those people who go around censoring it are wasting there time and energy. We now have reliable DNA evidence and unscientific un peer reviewed studies cannot justify the exclusion of the truth. Somerled was not a Viking and his haplotype was R1b not R1a1a. I request that you do not publish any more lies about my ancestor."

Moidart (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)"

If this is what you consider my "censoring" and your providing "many reliable sources for my information", then where in the hell are the citations'? Read WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verfiablity, not truth." The fact that they are "your people" doesn't bestow a privilege of editing without following Wikipedia policies. And the article is not "your" biography of Somerled; read WP:OWN: "No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular article." Now, I'll kindly ask you to back the hell off from making false accusations and not message me again unless you wish to defend yourself at WP:ANI. If you can't treat other editors with civility without getting your panties up your ass every time someone points out a policy, you don't need to be editing here. Cresix (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No way am I going to back off. You back off my ancestor Cresix. The citations are all there but you have chosen to ignore them. Your edit was not only racist and contentious but was lacking in citations altogether for one whole paragraph so who are you to talk? Where do you get off threatening people like this? I don't think a person who prints RACIST PROPAGANDA based clearly on unscientific studies and IGNORES HUNDREDS OF YEARS of documented lineage is civil or gentile so you can cut the act because the only person you are fooling is yourself. You are the one acting like you 'own' the article and you are obviously not an expert. In terms of ethical standards the descendants of Somerled should be allowed to write his biography as we have privileged information about his DNA. This DNA is in our blood and our marrow. We know the history of our clan intimately for the stories past down over hundreds of generations which has been documented by the Seannachies. You have chosen to ignore the material readily available and have censored original work by his descendant without good reason. There are numerous citations and if you have an issue with any of this work specify which sentence you are referring to otherwise you cannot call yourself an editor but a censor and it is a complete joke for you to mention Wikipedia policy when you are flouting it yourself. If you don't want to look like a complete fool in regards to this topic I suggest you are the one to back off and do not contact me again. The difference between me and you Cresix is that I would rather die than back off as this issue affects me personally. You are a complete hypocrite. One whole paragraph of your edit had only (missing citation) as a citation. You obviously just don't like the truth written in all the reputable history books. This is not 1984 Cresix. Do something more constructive with your time.

Moidart (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Where are your citations in in the information I reverted?

"No way am I going to back off.": I take it that you haven't been using Wikipedia very long. Let me give you a little friendly advice. You can either heed it, or get blocked; your choice. Read WP:HUSH for harassment of a user on his talk page. Read WP:NPA about personal attacks by falsely accusing editors of racism. If I get ONE MORE MESSAGE FROM YOU about my simple revert of your unsourced edit (and I labeled your edit as "good faith", by the way) you will be explaining yourself at WP:ANI. Just to make sure you get my point, let me repeat it: DON'T LEAVE ME ANY MORE MESSAGES. If you wish to continue editing Somerled or any other article, I suggest just moving on. I already have more than enough evidence to block you, and my patience is wearing thin. Cresix (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Moidart. You can't add your personal opinions into the article. Read the talkpage. Every last thing you have added about DNA is your own opinion. Your beef with Somerled's supposed genetic marker has nothing to do with anything. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia. You can't take out-of-date and out-of-copyright sources and trump modern sources. Cut it out with the battleground mentality. No one cares about your imagined ancestry.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

MacAmhlaidh, this is not my personal opinion. This is documented evidence which I have referenced. You claim that Somerled is R1a1a is both contentions and offensive as there is plenty of evidence against this. You are a descendant of Olave not Somerled and as such you have taken a biased view of his heredity. You did not include the numerous arguments against it. "Cut it out with the battleground mentality" Grow up! "imagined ancestry" Don't message me with this offensive and insulting rubbish. We have had DNA testing done which is more than you can say and it verifies the documented heredity of Somerled as written in reputable sources such as the M.S. History of the Macdonalds by Hugh Macdonald a Seannachie from the 17th century, Donald Gregory, The History of the Western Highlands and the Isles of Scotland 1493-1625 among others. . and the Highland Parers. ". Moffat and Sykes do not explain the R1b subgroup of Clan Donald and if you are trying to say that the Macdonald clan was raped by marauding Picts then where is YOUR evidence? How do you explain this which coincidentally concurs with the history books and the traditional lineages the Macdonald Clan as it is the same as the dynasty of the High Kings discovered in Ireland? . We KNOW about the rape of Culloden. I have sighted Against Our Will by Susan Brownmillar who mentions that the Scottish reported "systematic widespread rape by the English". We also know from studies such as Am J Hum Genet 2006 February: 78(2): 334-338. Published online 2005 December 8. The American Journal of Human Genetics that the Pictic haplotype is seldom found elsewhere in Britain other than the region of the Western Isles and central Scotland occupied by the descendants of Somerled. This is not "opinion", this is a scientific FACT. We also KNOW that the average percentage of Viking male lineage haplotypes found across Britain are significantly LARGER than 23%. So even a random sample of British people have more Viking blood than the so called descendants of Somerled. What evidence have you given to prove that the Chiefs of the clan which Sykes bases his theory on ARE descendants of Somerled? The Lord Lyon is not scientific proof and in no way independent or objective. All you have is your opinion and a couple of half baked studies based on unscientific evidence. It is clear to me that both Sykes and Moffat set out with an agenda and Sykes has been publicly ridiculed in the past for previous 'studies' which turned out to be wrong. You haven't included any other arguments in your work which is contentious. Intellectual property relating to Somerled belongs to his patrilineal descendants and although you are free to have your opinion, that is all it is. I suggest you don't censor other people's work without considering your own POV in regards to ethics. In response to Cresix, don't threaten me or message me again. If you message me I am entitled to respond and having a hernia pointing out regulations is only going to make you ill. Learn to meditate or go to an anger management course and get rid of all that anger constructively. Blocking people and censoring people is really unconstructive and if you don't have any constructive criticism other than the blatantly false accusaation that I didn't cite my work don't bother interacting with me in the first place. Just because you don't agree with someone's argument doesn't mean you should get your panties in a twist. Be collegiate and civil like a gentleman. You are not the self appointed Wiki Police, leave me alone and I will do the same for you.

Cresix, the link you provided said that you are not to make racist remarks. It says nothing about accusing people of racism. I requested that you not publish racist arguments about my ancestor. Take your own advice. Publishing material which attacks the valid claims and documented lineage of my race the Pictic people, the indigenous people of Scotland and Ireland is racist and I request that you stop immediately.WP:NPAIt is the racism that is considered a personal attack not the accusation of racism. Read it yourself. Your accusation of harassment is unfounded and is in itself harassment. Your revert was contentious, lacked citations, racially biased and scant posing a fringe argument without reference to the mainstream position. Why bother?

Nomination of Somerled the Viking Slayer for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Somerled the Viking Slayer is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somerled the Viking Slayer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Restoring a speedily deleted article

Hello. You have restored an article that was speedily deleted by an administrator, in fact a member of the arbitration committee. That was not a very wise thing to do. In the case of articles like this—POV forks that are not permitted on wikipedia–you can ask for a copy of the deleted article in your user space, but you may not immediately recreate the same article on wikipedia as you just did. The discussion is ongoing at the AfD. and at WP:ANI: it might be an idea if you explained your actions there. Otherwise I suspect your account will be blocked for disruptive editing. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I have again speedy deleted Somerled the Viking Slayer. Note that creating this article again (with this or another title) will get you blocked here. Fram (talk) 07:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

His user page is a copy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. Your repeated POV editing, creations of WP:POVFORK articles, then recreation of the same articles after deletion, posting full article text to others' user pages, removal of AfD templates from articles you have created, and unsubstiantiated claims of censorship and racism have led to the regrettable conclusion that you are not here to improve the encyclopedia. Please note that indefinite is not permament; if you are able to demonstrate that you are willing to abide by Wikipedia's policies on reliable sourcing, verifiability, original research and neutral point of view, you may be unblocked; I suggest you read the guide to requesting unblocking before requesting any unblock. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked unfairly as a measure to censor me from publishing material that contradicts a contentious and racially biased fringe argument. This fringe argument denies the well documented heritage of a minority group

Decline reason:

This does not come close to addressing the reasons for your block - disruptive editing, edit warring, battlefield approach, POV editing, adding original opinion, editing without reliable sources, repeated creation of POV-fork, and simply not listening to the multitude of voices explaining what you were doing wrong. Further requests that place the blame on everyone else will be declined, and if this line of argument continues for too long, you are likely to lose the ability to edit even this talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

this block is a personal attack on me and the accusations are also a personal attack. Somerled's Pictic ancestry is not a POV fork as I have explained numerous times and is not an original opinion. I have included reliable sources and the battlefield approach despite your denial to accept any blame was instigated by a group of people censoring the argument that Somerled was a Pict. Edit warring takes two and unfortunately a group of people decided to edit the Pictic argument out of the history books without listening to reason. Continual bullying and harassment occurred including false allegations of providing unreliable sources when the article being edited contained whole paragraphs without citation and scientific studies that had not been peer reviewed. The revert preferred lacked alternate POV and citations. This was not neutral at all. The page I put up after it was deleted had been edited to remove use of synthesis and POV but was deleted without being reviewed. Because you are a majority or 'multitude' and I am in the minority does not make it right. I listened to you and made changes but the comments were not constructive and intended to suppress the argument which was allegedly 'POV' rather than assist with editing. I feel that this is not a scholarly approach but a bullying tactic and I will not be contributing to the discussion or using Wikipedia again. I realize now that it is an unreliable source for information due to racial bias on the behalf of the so called editors. I don't think pointing out racial bias to an argument is a valid excuse for blocking me but you can do what you like because I have learnt all I need to know about your culture and want nothing to do with you. Enjoy partaking in the farce and I hope that all your work is deleted before you discover how ridiculous this fringe argument is in the face of reliable DNA studies. Good luck changing the history books. I am really disappointed in you as you have not made me feel welcome. You have attacked me personally by excluding the representation of a minority group which I belong to and by blocking and harassing me including making false allegations against me.Moidart (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that contain personal attacks aren't going to be considered, and besides it's patently obvious you're the only one attempting to rewrite history. That you would complain about personal attacks and proceed to blast everyone above with the giant wall of text above only further convinces me; another unblock request like this and you'll likely have your talkpage access disabled. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

---

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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

'The Blade of the Northern Lights'. The name says all about your POV argument. Read the reference books before you accuse me of rewriting history. No points for being original. I really don't care if you block me because the Aryan bias is wearing thin with me so go ahead. You obviously didn't intend to include the counter argument to your fringe hypothesis that Somerled was a Viking so why would I waste my valuable time. I tried to make your encyclopedia better but none of you would listen to reason. I had heard that you were racist but I didn't realize that you went around behaving like this. Pretty ridiculous. If you refuse to listen to reason and include the well documented lineage of a historical Pictic hero then it is a waste of my time contributing to this discussion. Please block me and disable this account and in future do not contact me as I find your allegations and threats of censorship really offensive and predictable. It says more about you than it does about me 'The Blade of the Northern Lights'. I don't know who you are and I really don't want to. You already made up your mind to enforce your own POV so why bother pretending that you are an editor when this is clearly censorship and unconstructive editing. What a joke. Don't bother replying I don't want anything to do with racist Aryan fanatics

Decline reason:

Due to your repeated personal attacks and WP:NOTTHEM arguments in your unblock requests, along with chronic refusal to listen, your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked. If you wish to request unblocking, please contact WP:BASC at arbcom-appeals-enlists.wikimedia.org The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

---

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.