User talk:Cassandrathesceptic

Hello there, could you possibly publish your essay entitled "SCOTS LANGUAGE: Inconvenient Truths" as an online essay somewhere. Its really quite good and deserves to be read outside of wikipedia as well. I think the debate on Scots as a language is very one sided and your essay would be excellent as a source of factual citations. Please could you publish it online and leave a link here as it could then be a source for further debate just as the sources that are often cited by those arguing the opposite case are often shared (at least in this case it could be a source containing the findings of many other sources!). Cheers.

Thank you for your kind comments. Copies of the essay have been circulated to a variety of recipients. I do not claim any copyright - so please feel free to reproduce it anywhere as you, or anyone else, wish. Cassandra.Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Kingdom of Scotland are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why thankyou for taking an interst Mutt.

Presumably I must also thank you for the following:

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sock puppet of 92.5.15.139 (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to editing habits, contributions or the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer for evidence. This policy subsection may also be helpful.

Since you already know that I'm not really a sock puppet but simply have one those IP adresses which changes of its own accord, might I invite you to withdraw this needless and unfounded slur.

Cassandra

Though you may have been ignorant of your changing IP at one point, you have been informed on numerous occasions over years now that editing abusively from multiple addresses and the ability it gives you to evade blocks makes you as much a sockpuppet as one who changes user name. The range blocks that were imposed on you several times for POV-warring had the undesirable effect of blocking any genuine editor in the same range and you continued your pattern anyway when the block was lifted.

Further, you had long been advised that registering as and editing from a single user account would be a step towards an indication of good faith. That you have finally done this might have been a cause for optimism had you not commenced with a typical

WP:OR as customary. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

That wasn't intended as advice that your best course of action to avoid sanctions was to return to IP-socking again. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of any visitor to this page I should emphasise that I have never been a 'sock puppet, nor ever 'edited abusively'. The sole source of such claims is Mutt Lunker. Despite my input to a multitude of Wikipedia articles no one except Mutt Lunker has ever objected to my contributions. Range blocks have indeed been imposed on me - three times - but in each case only as a direct result of M. Lunker's actions. M Lunker appears simply to be unable to cope with opinions and facts which contradict his own views. Unsurprisingly I don't seem to be the only Wiki contributor to have been 'Lunkered' - though I suspect that by refusing to be intimidated I've attracted more harassment than most. Ah well, we all have our crosses to bear. Cassandra

Creating a user ID, then dropping it to return to IP-hopping when you clocked the scrutiny it put you under.

How does that appear

?

Ok, here are some range blocks:

Plenty of other editors involved in these and the associated ANI discussions etc.. As you appear to trawl the talk pages of closely or loosely connected articles to WP:COATRACK the same POVs where you feel you can hang them and over the years have edited from numerous and changing IPs (aside from this recent, and still occasional amongst your edits, foray into the use of a user name) in the full knowledge that this hampers scrutiny, is it any wonder your campaign remains obscure? Once again it's not a dispute about "facts" it's that they are

synthesising

(to be charitable) or downright misrepresenting sources. I find it difficulty to tell whether you really do continue to misunderstand all this.

I notice, despite knowing otherwise, you still repeat the assertion that I supposedly have an "unshakeable conviction that Scots is a language"; all this seems to tell us is that you have an unshakeable conviction that it is not. The Scots language article states in the second paragraph of its lede that "Because there are no universally accepted criteria for distinguishing languages from dialects, scholars and other interested parties often disagree about the linguistic, historical and social status of Scots". You however would seem to be discontented at anything other than, against the reliably sourced diversity of opinion on the matter, that it is stated that, to quote you "the 'scots language' is in essence a modern Scots nationalist creation myth". That I have criticised the continued pushing of your own POV implies nothing about convictions held by myself and the conclusion that I hold some supposed opposite view is fallacious. Does this reversion, for example, chime with your crude thesis about me? Article talk pages are for the discussion of improvements to that article, not a forum for general discussion: that is it, plain and simple.

Just to note that your "unshakeable conviction" about the Scots tongue is far from the only topic for WP:OR you have posted on talk pages, with the advocacy of the creation of a word(?!) at Xenophobia, your theory about women consenting to rape and the flogging of a dead horse discussion already addressed by a link to another article, in which you advocate the supposed currency of a term simply because you use it, though the Oxford English Dictionary regards the use as "dated or offensive, chiefly British Old-fashioned term for American Indian.". To name a few.

There's also the odd bit of common or garden vandalism (you'd hold that the editor who reverted that gem only did so because they support the SNP no doubt?).

The latest addition at

WP:NOTFORUM. Maybe there are internet chat rooms that would be better suited for you? This is not the place. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Braveheart for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bemused. Why do you persist in this campaign of sifting through such a bewildering variety of article talk pages to try to find discussions that you feel you can bend to push the same array of POVs? What is it that you are having difficulty in understanding? Can you at least tell me if you have read

WP:SOCK etc. please? I have linked them to you above, and numerous times in discussions and in edit summaries (when you restricted yourself, over most of your edit history to IP-hopping and had no talk page to post on that was often the only place I could put them)? Are you struggling with the comprehension of any aspects of them, in which case by all means ask for help? Please. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Again, have you read

WP:SOCK? Do you understand them? Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Decided to return to IP-hopping again then I see. Mutt Lunker (talk) 19:32, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed Mutt. I do indeed understand POV, Coatracking, Sockpuppetry etc. On the issue of POV I have an exceptional understanding of the concept, having spent much of lifetime sifting fact from opinion, and the objective from the subjective. If you examine all my postings you will detect a common theme - absolute opposition to POV and encouragement of NPOV reportage. Like everyone else I may of course, in passing, express a point of view or opinion - but it is always the facts, and only the facts, which count with me.

Might I, for a second time, refer you to the Wikihounding page and invite you to consider your behaviour in the light of what is said there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment

Cassandra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Harassment

Can you not see that to post on an article talk page, as you did here per the most recent warning above, because that is not a forum for general discussion that "to address the problem (you've) posted an essay... on (your) own wikipage" in fact compounds the problem? Promotion of original research, synth etc. has no more place on a user page than an article. See

reliable source

.

I have said all of this to you before but your idea of what constitutes "only facts" is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Aside from when you simply misrepresent sources, you either extrapolate from sources to make statements that they do not explicitly say or combine elements of a number of sources to say something that none of them say individually (

the policy "Correct use of an editor's history includes... fixing... violations of Wikipedia policy". What's more, you will note that though I have addressed many of your forum-posting edits I have also left untouched or given the benefit of the doubt to many others, even if at times I suspect more may lie behind them. For example I reverted your coatracking edit under this user name, at Lothian on the 17th but not the IP-hopping ones you made on the same day; I did not intervene at your Red Indian campaign, however dubiously OR that became. Your enjoyment would be best enhanced by accepting Wikipedia policy and participating accordingly. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Defending Scots as a Language

Fair points. But I think that there are couple of mental obstacles to understanding the subject. The first is that when we use the expressions 'Good English' and 'Bad English' what we really mean is nothing more than 'Correct Standard English' and 'Incorrect Standard English'. But Standard English isn't the English Language it is merely a common standardised version - the English Language is the totality of everyday speech, writing , accents and dialects - the whole package, and that includes those dialects called 'Scots'. The second hurdle is the unfortunate, or at least misleading, name 'English'. Calling the language 'English' inevitably, but incorrectly, identifies it with England rather than with Britain. If we'd named the language after the Saxons rather than the Angles, there wouldn't be such confusion or debate. Cassandra.Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps its called "English" because that's what native speakers have traditionally called it.

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:History of Scotland are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know full well that this is about persistent coatracking of your personal POVs in forum posts on talk pages, usually by tacking them on to unrelated or at best very tenuously related discussions, as you did here. You also know well that I treat forum posts by users with opposing views to your own (as expressed by you) in the very same manner, as I do with forum posts on entirely unrelated topics. In this instance, you had a general point that you were determined to make and which has no specific bearing on the improvement of a Wikipedia article, the purpose of talk pages, and you decided to make it at the end of a discussion about whether it is pertinent to mention Charles Bertram's forgeries?! Surely even you are hard pressed to paint him as a Scot Nat conspiracist? Irrelevant as they are to that thread though, wise words from Mitchison (if you have represented them accurately this time): "the most extreme and absurd (bogus visions of the past) tend to be those connected with nationalist themes", the very themes you appear to be attracted to with your POVs. It does not appear that she is singling out nationalist visions of nationalist themes for their absurdity, if anything, from your quote, highlighting those in opposition to nationalist visions in addition (or even instead): "Sometimes these bogus visions of the past are deliberately created or fostered by the governing group.". The point seems a general one but if you intend applying it to present-day Scotland's governing group, remember the quote is from 1984 when the governing group was in Westminster and decidedly Unionist. Nationalist themes attract absurd visions of both, or all, POVs. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do of course have a POV. It is that history should be accurate, objective, honest and comprehensive. I simply make the observation that 'pop' history in general, and Scottish 'pop' history in particular, often fails to meet those standards. Anyone with serious interest in history should always maintain a healthy scepticism and wherever possible check claimed facts and if necessary correct them. That POV seems to me wholly consistent with Wikipedia's aims. Taking an opposite POV seems to me perverse. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cassandrathesceptic (talk • contribs) 19:02, 10 April 2015

If by “’pop’ history” you mean commonly held views unsupported by any basis in reliable sources, or by an accurate representation of them, time to turn a mirror on yourself. A questioning scepticism is healthy; rigid contrariness in holding to one’s unsupported prejudices is a different thing entirely. Scouring through sources to cherry-pick, synthesise or misrepresent - or disregarding sources altogether by touting your WP:OR/personal speculation - to bolster those prejudices is not indicative of an open mind.

You are no sceptic but a true believer. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly Mutt. You make the point most eloquently "Scouring through sources to cherry-pick, synthesise or misrepresent - or disregarding sources altogether by touting your WP:OR/personal speculation - to bolster those prejudices is not indicative of an open mind". And that is exactly the point I am making: it perfectly describes the current Wikipedia articles about the Scots language, and much that has been written on the subject since the 1970s. Meanwhile I don't for one moment want anyone to simply 'believe' anything I might write, much rather I hope it will encourage them to actually take the trouble to check the facts, all of the facts, for themselves and draw their own conclusions. Meanwhile the difference between us Mutt is that whilst I am happy to tolerate views which may be contrary to my own, you seem by contrast to be unwilling, perhaps unable, to tolerate not only perspectives, but facts too, which contradict your deeply-held beliefs. I find it very odd. You may find the Wiki article on cognitive bias helpful. Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How can you still, after all these years, be carrying such an absolutely fundamental misunderstanding, or failure to accept, what this is about? Also, more importantly, what it is not about. Talk pages are not a forum for people to air and discuss their personal, unsupported, views and opinions. If they do, that is what is not tolerated, not the views themselves. Wikipedia is happy to tolerate any view, if it is directly supported by reliable sources. After years now you have failed to provide sources that actually outrightly say the vast majority of the views that you post, in the terms you post them, without "cherry-pick(ing), synthesis(ing) or misrepresent(ation)", as mentioned. You know very well that I counter forum-posters expressing all sorts of views, you are not special. If I was countering forum posting on the basis of opposing the views expressed, I'd have to simultaneously hold some diametrically opposed viewpoints. You have absolutely no basis for supposing what my beliefs are, deeply held or otherwise, or that your views contradict or support them. (On the basis of what you seem to think my views are, you'd be astonished, but this isn't a forum so I keep them to myself.) Making assumptions that my views must be opposite to yours (if I could work out what that actually meant) is not helping you grasp why what you do is wrong. If you replaced the article on the Queen with "I love Betty" and I reverted it would you assume I was a republican, or if you replaced the article with "Lizzy smells" and I reverted it that I was a monarchist? Your disruption may be slightly more nuanced but the principle is the very same, if you conclude the counter-measure is on the basis of belief rather than policy. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop forum-posting and socking. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And in return I simply invite you once again to try and refrain from vandalising and sabotaging other people's contributions. Meanwhile on the question of the Reed/Red Sea and the Wycliffe Bible, I agree with you, and I have posted accordingly. Cassandra.

Original research, as you know, is not a valid contribution and is explicitly barred. It is neither here nor here nor there whether you now agree with my dismissal of your personal theory about the wording in the Wycliffe Bible, its unsoundness and the easy dismissal merely being a side note; the important part is that as a theory dreamed up by you, original research, it has no place on Wikipedia, not whether the theory is credible or not. So, more to the point, do you acknowledge that there is

reliable source put forward your theory about Wycliffe's wording? Is there such a source? If not, do not bring it here, or any other personal theories. Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

This does not allow talk pages to be actively used as a forum for the promotion of OR. So you acknowledge your postings are original research and unsupported. Talk pages are to discuss improvements to articles; OR must not be added to articles; discussion of it can not validly affect an article; general discussion, of matters which have no bearing on improvement to articles, is not allowed on talk pages .

WP:NOTFORUM. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Scottish Lowlands for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And do, please Mutt, refrain form malicious vexatious editing just because you don't like the content or the contributor. The contribution you have recently deleted was both factual and highly pertinent. I have now restored it. If however you disagree and think that it was either not factual or not pertinent then take it to arbitration - I'm happy to abide by any third party decision. But I am confident that any third party will tell you the obvious - that you're being rather silly. Cassandra.

As if that is what it is about, as you well know. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. agtx 15:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AGTX. If you really haven't read the essay on the main page I do urge you to do so. I think you will find it of real interest. Cassandra.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note you have returned to your old IP-hopping sock activities. Please refrain. Mutt Lunker (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Still at it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My response to your allegations of sock-puppetry remains the same as on previous occasions Mutt. See above. I do wish you would join me in trying to counterbalance popular myth with serious history. In the meantime I've been doing a little more research on the subject of the 'Scots language' and have recently updated my report 'Scots language uncomfortable truths' attached to the previous page. You may find the additional information of interest. Cassandra.

Quack. Mutt Lunker (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Forgotten your log-in? Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

&. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:23, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:88.108.115.224 Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:88.108.127.36 Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and

WP:QUACK, as recently as yesterday. Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

As ever Mutt your enthusiastic defence of the romantic version of Scottish history is matched only by my own enthusiasm for factual Scottish history. I must offer you my genuine thanks for introducing me to a subject about which I decade ago I knew comparatively little. So much of Scottish 'history' has been distorted over time that ferreting out the real facts and contrasting them with the claims is an endlessly fascinating exercise. I very much hope that my own modest contributions will encourage other Wikipedians to follow suit.Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.249.12 (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A rebuttal of WP:OR addresses and rebuts that OR; it does not address let alone defend any other "version".

I see you're not even up to signing in on your own (very occasional) user account's talk page. Can't break the habit... Mutt Lunker (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, been reading a few of your discussions with Mutt.

So regarding the concept of Lowlanders referring to themselves as English, I agree they did this and I do recall reading about them doing so (even into the 1700s, 1800s etc.). I'm wondering if you have any specific sources offhand that I can offer to people, as when I tell them that the Lowlanders considered themselves and were considered ethnically English, up until the 1400s at least, they are incredulous. I know for example Gaels called them Saxons, seemingly not distinguishing between them and the 'English proper', I know Gaels referred to the Lowlands as 'the Place of the Foreigner'. But people seem interested in what they called themselves, even though I personally find this quite irrelevant. To give an example North Macedonians and Bulgarians are still Slavs despite naming themselves after ancient Greeks and Turkic nomads respectively.

It seems that language was explicitly tied to ethnicity in these earlier times, a concept that doesn't really seem to exist today, at least in the English (or shall we add the redundant -speaking to English?) world? And this seems to be the source of most people's inability to grasp it or wrap their minds around the concept that people who were politically Scots were in fact still ethnically English. I try to put them into the frame of mind of a historian in the time of Bede, who would have recorded today all the peoples of the British Isles as ethnic English with small pockets of Welsh and Irish. While these English people would be politically disparate and perhaps grouped by regional and tribal distinctions, they would still all be viewed as one race, in much the same way the English, Welsh and Irish of these writers' times were politically and culturally fractured but still considered 3 distinct groupable peoples due to their shared languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 02:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's quote from Wikipedia which may help:

In the late 12th century Adam of Dryburgh described his locality as "in the land of the English in the Kingdom of the Scots"[3] and the early 13th century author of de Situ Albanie thought that the Firth of Forth "divides the kingdoms of the Scots and of the English".[4

3.^ "in terra Anglorum et in regno Scottorum", Adam of Dryburgh, De tripartito tabernaculo, II.210, tr. Keith J. Stringer, "Reform Monasticism and Celtic Scotland", in Edward J. Cowan & R. Andrew McDonald (eds.), Alba: Celtic Scotland in the Middle Ages, (East Lothian, 2000), p. 133. 4.^ A.O. Anderson, Early Sources of Scottish History: AD 500–1286, 2 Vols, (Edinburgh, 1922), v.i, pp. cxv–cxix; see also Dauvit Broun, "The Seven Kingdoms in De Situ Albanie: A Record of Pictish political geography or imaginary Map of ancient Alba”, in E.J. Cowan & R. Andrew McDonald (eds.), Alba: Celtic Scotland in the Medieval Era, (Edinburgh, 2000, rev. 2005), pp. 24–42

By far the oddest feature of Scottish history is that by the end of the 15th century the English of the Lowlands were calling themselves Scots, and calling the original Gaelic-speaking Scots of the Highlands 'Irish' (often spelled Erse)to which they very commonly added the word 'savage'. I cannot pin-point a precise date for this change of perceived identity.

Meanwhile, if you have not already read it, may I recommend to you the essay which is attached to the main page overleaf. Thank you for your interest. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.102.197 (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I read the essay last night, very illuminating. Would you say then, perhaps even, that David I of Scotland founded a new kingdom, in effect. And that the Kingdom of Scotland he in many ways created should be considered a separate entity to the 'Kingdom of Scotland' that is idealized as having existed from 900 to 1124? I've also been looking into how Scotland was effectively a vassal at many points of its early history to the Kingdom of England, which nobody really seems to address much.

It's mainly a political thing, I believe, the ethnogenesis of the Lowland 'Scots' from their English kinsmen to the south. I find it bizarre to alienate yourself and siphon yourself off from what is literally your ethnolinguistic heritage, that would be the Anglo-Saxons, but people are strange. People in parts of Scotland proudly take interest in regional Norse heritage but when it comes to Anglo-Saxon (who were ironically incredibly similar to the Norse) it's shunned and negated and minimized.

I've also been researching just how 'English' the Lowlands were and how early which opened my eyes quite a bit. I wasn't aware of the Anglo-Saxon stone crosses in Dumfries and Galloway for instance. Or of the fact a Mercian king besieged a fellow Anglo-Saxon king in Stirling (which itself is probably a placename derived from Old English?) in the 600s!

I've read that English was contained to Lothian and the southeast from around the 500s until David I of Scotland, but is this actually rooted in fact or is it attempts to negate and minimize again just how English Scotland was this early on? Looking at hobgacks and their prevalence and density in Scotland, it seems the Lowlands must have been pretty extensively English early on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do I think David I created a new kingdom? Personally yes, I do. I think that is what the facts tell us. The name of the kingdom was recycled or continued because David's title was 'king of the Scots', but the nature of the administration was so transformed (literally turned upside down, north/south) that it became a completely new Anglo-Norman lowland kingdom, one with 'Scottish' provinces to the north. At least that's my own conclusion. Others may of course disagree. I only invite fellow Wikipedians to investigate the life and times of King David, and see what conclusions they draw once they have familiarized themselves with the less well-known facts. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.246.225 (talk) 14:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources for how prevalent English was in the Lowlands and how early? I was totally unaware of Anglo-Saxon stone crosses in Dumfries and Galloway AND especially of hogbacks and how widespread and dense their placement is in Scotland. I honestly do not buy that English was contained to Lothian and the southeast from the 500s until David I, it seems patently false. A lot of Scottish placenames with clear Old English derivations also seem to be being ignored or glossed over, Paisley for example, and almost certainly Stirling (historically also known as Sterling).

There seems to have been fairly prolific early (as in around the 600s) English influence in Fife (the Oswald surname is still found in its highest concentration in FIFE) and settlement there, which again seems to be being ignored. However even if English was contained to Lothian and the southeast, which it clearly wasn't going by archaeology and other evidence, that's 8% of Scotland's entire modern landmass that's English from the 500s onwards, which maybe contains 15% of the entire population or considerably more since it was one of the wealthiest and most fertile and developed areas of the region. 25% would later fall under Norse control as English itself also spread out throughout other parts of Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 18:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't. Neither can anyone else say with any certainty or confidence just where linguistic boundaries were throughout the second half of the first millennium. All one can say is that the Angles established their 'English' kingdom of Bernicia south of the Firth of Forth in at an early date. But no one can say to what extent what languages were spoken there, and exactly when, until much later. Of course that doesn't prevent people drawing historical maps and making untestable claims. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.246.225 (talk) 19:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I would agree it's likely to some extent each region would have speakers of different languages (it's also possible even pre-Celtic was spoken by a lot of the lower castes for a long time when Celtic languages initially spread into the British Isles around 500 BC) and a great deal would likely be bilingual or more as well.

However it's often just assumed that with Gaelic there was a total displacement of the indigenous languages in any regions the Gaels conquered, even if they only held those regions for a short time. I would wonder how exactly this would occur when these early entities lacked any kind of developed infrastructure (lacking even fixed towns until David I of Scotland) and lacked schools and the ability to really effectively Gaelicize or Anglicize large populations within their borders.

I would imagine in Gaelic areas, just as in Norse and English areas, there would be many speakers of the former rulers languages and a great deal of pidgin speak. But if we are to just assume linguistic conversion takes place within a reasonably short space of time then it needs to be applied to all languages present in Scotland at the time, and not just Gaelic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, Mutt thinks I'm you. And he's reported me or something. Incredible. Is there any way I can prove to Wikipedia we are, in fact, distinct individuals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I took no action, your activities have simply been clocked. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you just have an individual monitoring your talk page? What does this even mean, I have been clocked? Don't you think it would be a little silly for me to comment on Cassandra's talk page if I was trying to avoid any association with her?

Again, happy to prove to you I am very non-female. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. I've been 'Lunkered' so many times over the years it's water off a duck's back. I've been accused so often of being a sock puppet (which I'm not) by Mutt that I've long ago lost count. The transparent tactic is to try and discredit the messenger in the hope that this will somehow diminish the validity of the message. But factual history is much preferable to mythological and romantic history. So don't be discouraged. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.246.225 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've just socked on your own talk page, for goodness' sake.

Again, if you behave like the pair of you do on Wikipedia, that behaviour will attract attention from other users, independent of me, as in this case. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He keeps deleting my comments while we're having a discussion. What are the English if not a West Germanic people, Mutt? I mean that's surely an objective, unavoidable fact and editors provided numerous sources supporting it but you emotionally block any attempts for people to state they are such on the English people page, because? You don't like the concept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, none of us know the gender identity of Cassandrathesceptic, so any "proof" of you being non-female demonstrates absolutely nothing. Also I'm not sure where these comments are being deleted. If this is happening at their own talk page they're fully entitled to do so per

WP:BLANKING etc. If you don't want this to happen, your best solution is to stop trying to talk on their talk page. Keep you discussions to article talk pages only. This of course means you need to discuss ways to improve the article based on reliable secondary sources. Not "objective, unavoidable fact" or any other nonsense you care to bring up. Nil Einne (talk) 07:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Mutt also appears to have deleted 2 comments on the Kingdom of Scotland talk page, although it could have been someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.216.40 (talk) 08:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for a delayed response. I've been away on holiday. In the interim I see that you've been 'Lunkered' i.e. you're IP address has been 'barred'. Perhaps you can register with a Wiki-user name then start again? Though I'd avoid arguing with M Lunker in future, since it's never productive. Best just to stick to facts and quotes. Extended arguments are in general best not indulged in, whatever the provocation. Time is best spent in doing solid research.

Another productive act might be simply to copy the essay on my subpage and disseminate it widely.

As for gender. User-names, still less ISP numbers, do not indicate gender. Or very much else. Thus Mutt Lunker might well be an old lady of 80 named Mable living in Florida, and I might be a 55 year old academic and former body-builder from Aberdeen known to his friends as ‘the Hulk’. You might be Samantha from Oxford. Who knows? In fact it was simply Mutt who unwittingly prompted my selection of the user-name Cassandra: I always tell the truth, but like the Cassandra of Greek legend I seemed destined never to be believed by him (or her).

Best wishes Cassandra.

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's

Many of your edits are already disruptive enough, and not logging in just makes that worse. Drmies (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest. However I'm afraid you appear to be mistaken about Wikipedia policy. As far as I can discover there is no requirement on anyone to log in when making a comment (I very rarely edit). Perhaps there is one about having multiple accounts, but since I only have this one account that policy doesn't apply to me. It is however quite true that I often don't bother to log in; it's pure laziness, but it isn't against the rules. As you will see I'm not logged in now.

As for reports of 'disruptive editing' I don't do any. Indeed if you or anyone could point to such an example I'd happily hold my hands high and plead guilty. Your informant Mutt Lunker often makes such unfounded claims. For years he has regularly accused me of being sock puppet (which I most definitely am not). Mutt's problem is that he reacts badly to all contributions which contradict his own views and beliefs. He simply chooses to categorise such contributions as 'disruptive' in order to sabotage and suppress factual historical information he doesn't like. I'm very sorry you've been bothered. Best wishes Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.15.48 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per our sockpuppetry guidelines, editor's cannot mislead others into thinking they are multiple people when participating in discussions etc. This means when editing the same articles or their talk pages, you need to ensure every edit you make is properly connected to your one identity. If you are going to edit logged out, you need to make it clear that you are Cassandrathesceptic when logged out. Even then, there is a risk your editing will be seen as evading scrutiny. Really unless you have a good reason to edit logged out, it's generally best not to do it do the same articles or highly related articles or subject areas. Note if you are using public computers and do not want to risk your account details being compromised, a simple solution is to create a "Cassandrathesceptic-public" account, properly disclose the connection via both accounts and then use that. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sustained campaign of misattribution of views. Nil Einne (talk) 08:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use talk pages for inappropriate discussions, as you did at Kingdom of Scotland. Mutt Lunker (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is NOTHERE behaviour by Cassandrathesceptic. --Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:55, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Guy (help!) 21:56, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK.

Let me then simply address the two points complained of.

The first complaint was that I had incited a barred fellow Wikipedian to repeat his earlier sins by inviting him to ‘start again’.

I did use those words, but the context was omitted from the complaint.

My actual text reads as follows:

“I see that … your IP address has been 'barred'. Perhaps you can register with a Wiki-user name then start again? Though I'd avoid arguing with ****** in future, since it's never productive. Best just to stick to facts and quotes. Extended arguments are in general best not indulged in, whatever the provocation. Time is best spent in doing solid research.”

This was clearly not any sort of incitement to disruption, but rather questioning the possibility of making a fresh start, and an encouragement to taking a different and more productive approach in future.

The second complaint was an allegation of ‘disruptive editing’.

The ‘offending’ text posted by me on the Kingdom of Scotland Wikipage comments page, which the complainant had deleted, and which I then restored, reads as follows:

“The Elephant in the Room in the history of the Kingdom of Scotland is the Norman Conquest. Few writers give it any emphasis. Some ignore it altogether. Some report that the Normans were simply 'invited' into Scotland by King David. Perhaps it just doesn't fit the preferred national narrative. But just read the Wiki pages on the life and times of David I and one can see that the 'Davidian Revolution' was far more than just about a new feudal system or establishing new towns. It was a literal revolution in which the old Gaelic Kingdom of Alba or Scot-land simply ended. Only the name of the kingdom persisted in what was really a new kingdom, an Anglo-Norman Lowland kingdom with northern Gaelic provinces, rather than a Gaelic Highland kingdom with southern Anglian provinces. The Davidian Revolution was a complete and total inversion of the previous order. A real Norman Conquest, and moreover one in which any suggestion of political or national continuity presents a quite misleading picture. Cassandra”

This is a perfectly normal, helpful, and indeed typical, Wikipedia comment.

Its deletion by the complainant seems to me to be the act of ‘disruptive editing’ rather than its restoration. Such deletions and restorations are of course quite normal on Wikipedia, and hardly grounds for imposing bans on users.

In the circumstances I would be most obliged if you will now lift the ban currently applied to my personal Wikipage.

Best wishes

Cassandra.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:39, 26 September 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.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Oh Dear

I see Mutt Lunker is on the rampage again.

Mutt has been hounding harassing and disruptive my contributions now for years.

Not content with making repeated and entirely spurious claims that I'm a sock puppet he has on at least two occasions contrived to have my account suspended.

In reality all my contributions are well researched and pertinent.

It is in fact Mutt who is the 'disruptive editor' since he takes delight in deleting information he doesn't like.

Mutt is a serial complainer and pernicious edit-warrior. He has regularly used allegations of sock-puppetry against me as a means of harassment. Mutt well knows that I’m not, and never have been, a sock puppet (Although it’s perfectly true that I often don’t bother to ‘log-in’). Over several years Mutt has initiated or prompted a number of complaints about me. No one else ever has.

The tactic is simple – if you don’t like the message shoot the messenger. Or to use a football analogy – if you can’t play the ball then play the man.

The underlying problem is that Mutt seems to regard a number of Wiki pages as his personal fiefdom; all of them pages concerned with Scotland and Scottish history. He defends those pages with great vigour, and reacts with vindictiveness and anger whenever anyone questions the content, suggests subjects for further investigation, or the inclusion of information that he doesn’t like. I have repeatedly been subjected to stalking, harassment and hostile editing from Mutt.

Mutt’s personal attacks on me began some years ago when I questioned the validity of some of the information on the Wiki pages concerning the ‘Scots language’. A little research on my part, checking sources, revealed that many of the assertions made therein appeared to be untrue, and that key factual information had been omitted from the narrative. The pages seemed to have been constructed with the deliberate intent of presenting a single and factually-misleading POV.

Mutt threw down the gauntlet and challenged me to prove my suspicions.

To Mutt’s evident dismay I did, in fine and well-evidenced detail - the Wikipages were demonstrably historical garbage. As the author of hundreds of published articles with historical themes and the co-author of several dozen history-based books I am no stranger to historical investigation – and to the many ways in which real history can become distorted by politics and sentiment.

Thanks to Mutt’s strenuous obstruction however that sorry situation still pertains, real history takes second place to romanticism and nationalism – to the all-too-obvious disadvantage of every Wikipedia user with an interest in the subject.

The large amount of critical information I unearthed still remains in limbo attached to my personal Wikipedia page. Thanks to Mutt’s active opposition none of those fundamentally relevant (and frequently surprising) facts as yet appear on the appropriate Wikipedia pages.

Lest anyone doubts my sincerity, let alone my personal and professional integrity, I simply invite you to read the paper attached to my personal page and then read the comparable Wiki pages about the ‘Scots Language’. In doing so you will readily appreciate exactly what it is that really triggers these attacks from M. Lunker.

Personally I’m a polite, courteous and cooperative individual: but I abhor bullying. So I’m quite prepared to stand up to Mutt’s attempts at intimidation. As I hope you are too.

Finally I would invite you to reflect on something which should be self-evident: I am a committed Wikipedian with an honest wish to add to the sum total of human knowledge. By contrast Mutt Lunker, is the antithesis of that – an anti-Wikipedian, someone whose objective is to control and curtail Wikipedia users’ access to knowledge: an aggressive promoter and protector of propaganda and national myth at the expense of accurate, objective, factual history.

I’ll end as I began: please look a little closer – and you will inevitably conclude that you are simply being ‘Lunkered’

Best wishes Cassandra

Decline reason:

For someone who criticizes a "serial complainer", you spend an awful lot of time complaining about Mutt Lunker. Please make a new unblock request that follows the advice in

WP:NOTTHEM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:29, 25 September 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.