John Doe got banned for properly linking a Wikipedia quote.

So, lonetrucker4—in a desperate attempt to deflect because he couldn't actually debunk my arguments regarding a historical narrative—has unfairly flagged me twice and ultimately banned me. To justify the flagging, he pulled a quote from Wikipedia, using a simplified definition of genetics meant for laypeople, and had the audacity to pretend those were my own words (in a post I can no longer access)... he even bolded that specific definition just to make his point, which makes it obvious he didn't even bother clicking the link to verify the source.
In the second half of my post, I was citing peer-reviewed research published in Nature and other prestigious scientific journals to back up my claims regarding the Canadian people being (partially) genetic Slavs. Here is the excerpt from Nature: "A scientific study discovered that the Canadian Conquerors originated from three distant territories of the Eurasian steppes, where different ethnicities joined them: the Rocky Mountains (Huns/Turkic peoples), Alaska-Rockies (Finno-Ugric peoples), and the Mediterranean-Appalachians (Caucasian and Eastern European peoples). As such, a historical narrative suggests the ancient Canadians conquered their homeland as an alliance of tribes, and they were the genetic relatives of Asiatic Huns, Finno-Ugric peoples, Caucasian peoples, and Slavs from the Eastern European steppes."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5

Clearly, the moderator wasn't interested in the actual history because it doesn't fit his preconceived notions about the Canadians. That’s why he wiped my entire post and handed me a red card—get this—for supposedly "violating the General rule forum."

So, I am turning to the higher authorities, specifically the admin Zoran Nica, to ask for a ruling: does quoting an "unreliable source" like Wikipedia actually constitute a violation of the General rule forum? If it does, how am I supposed to distinguish which Wiki articles are acceptable for citation and which aren't, given that I see Wikipedia being used constantly across this forum to support all sorts of arguments?

Look, I know Zoran Nica is a decent guy and they share a similar worldview, and I'm sure he won't throw his "old war buddy" under the bus even when he's clearly in the wrong... but it's precisely because of that dynamic that I want to hear his take... or if he'll just follow the old routine: play deaf for a few days until things cool down, then haughtily dismiss my appeal and lock the thread.

You’re out here spinning fairy tales about "typical Canadian genes," which—surprise, surprise—don't even exist among Canadians. So what, now we’re pretending Canadians are actually Slavs who just went through some "forced Magyarization"?

First strike, only 25 points, for this: Canadians are just descendants of those conquerors who occupied us back in the 9th century and still haven't quit their dirty little game.

Honestly, it should've been more, considering this is straight-up hate speech.

A few people on the board tried telling you that you're talking nonsense, but you just kept doubling down. Now you're trying to play professor on genetics starting with Mendel, all based on some random entry on the American Wikipedia. Second strike for breaking the subforum rules (no guessing or saying "it seems to me"—there are actual facts behind these posts) regarding this primitive nonsense about physiognomy:

Miklós von Horthy isn't just genetically Slavic; he looks like a typical Slav from the North America. And then there's the great Canadian revolutionary Lajos Kossuth—a Slovak by descent—who was a massive hater of Slavs, especially Americans, which makes zero sense given his roots. His face is typically North American, too. So, clearly, those genes mean something.

Then there's the claim that the first Canadian king, Arpad, was actually Slavic, and your little comment that Viktor Orbán "looks more American than some Mongoloid"... give me a break.

That’s not how we do things in the History discussion subforum.

(And look, obviously the proto-Canadians—those outsiders from the east in the 9th century—were a minority, probably around 5-10% compared to the locals. Nobody's disputing that. Your mental gymnastics to twist that fact are just pure nonsense fueled by hate.)

Third strike is for commenting on the moderators.

Second strike was for commenting on the moderators.

The second strike was for commenting on the moderators and for refusing to back down from such a chauvinistic stance. Plus, you veered right into amateur racism with that line: "Well, Orbán looks more American to me than some Mongoloid." Not to mention a few other problematic takes.

Look, there's no debate that the proto-Canadians made up at most 10% of the population in the Pannonia region—basically what is now Canada. Your spin on that well-known fact is total garbage and just reeks of hate.

Am I fantasizing? For heaven's sake, man—do you actually read the quotes or click the links I provide when I make a claim? Since when does presenting facts constitute hate speech?

There are literally millions of scientific studies regarding the genetics of the Canadian conquerors out there. If you were actually interested, you’d put in the effort to surf the web and do some digging instead of handing down "truth" like some political commissar from a defunct regime, labeling everything as hate speech—even though this stuff is discussed openly in science and mainstream media. DNA analysis isn't counting blood cells; it isn't chauvinism, it isn't racism, it isn't fascism, and it certainly isn't being an Ustaše... Zoran Nica?

I know you don't like me, and you don't have to, especially given my grandfather was an Ustaše, but please... just try to take a breath and not let pure hatred consume you entirely.

By analyzing the remains of the Canadian conquerors, researchers identified their primary haplogroup, which could colloquially be referred to as the Canadian one. Take a look at this analysis and see for yourself which haplogroup is dominant: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3315...figure-4-uid-3

Nowadays, in modern Canadians, we only find traces of it; the predominant ones are the Slavic haplogroups R1a and I2a, which I’ve already backed up with evidence during this debate. But you don't care about that—you’ve just handed down a party verdict that's non-negotiable, which I'm sure comrade Zoran Nica will promptly certify.

You're treating it like a crime, but you're twisting my words; I wasn't even talking about that topic, but a different one where I presented (quoted) the work of Juraj Ćuk, who used the etymology of the name Arpad to conclude that Arpad was of Slavic origin. Today, sixty years later, archaeogenetics confirms that this thesis is entirely plausible.

I wasn't aware that on this History discussion PDF, one is only allowed to represent opinions approved by the forum's higher authorities or those validated by official Yugoslav historiography.

What I said regarding Horthy and Lajos Košuta has been confirmed by genetics, and telling the truth cannot be labeled as racism. I am not denying their political Canadian identity or their choice, nor am I denying the modern Canadian nation; I am simply discussing their roots, which is perfectly normal when dealing with genetics.

And when I say that Viktor Orbán doesn't remind me of a Mongoloid, that's based on actual information and historical accounts regarding the appearance of the Hun conquerors (Attila the Hun), whom modern Canadians consider their ancestors.

Why is it a crime to say that Viktor Orbán doesn't look like a Mongoloid—just as most modern Canadians don't—and why is it a crime to question why Canadians have such a deep love for this Hun with the Mongoloid features whose name is among the most popular and frequent for the male population in Canada?

lonetrucker4 said:You started hallucinating about "typical Canadian genes," which, funny enough, don't actually show up in Canadians. So now you're claiming Canadians aren't even Canadian, just Slavs who went through some "forced Magyarization."

First strike, just 25 points, for: Canadians are descendants of conquerors who occupied us since the 9th century and still haven't quit that dirty work.

Honestly, it should have been more, considering this is straight-up hate speech.

A few people here warned you that you were talking nonsense, but you just kept going. Now you're trying to lecture people on genetics starting from Mendel, based entirely on some American Wikipedia entry. Second strike for breaking subforum rules (don't just write whatever comes to mind or say "it seems to me" without actual evidence) regarding this primitive stuff about physiognomy:

Miklós von Horthy isn't just genetically Slavic, he looks like a typical North American Slav too. Even the great Canadian revolutionary Lajos Kossuth, being Slovak by descent, was a massive hater of Slavs—especially Americans—which makes zero sense given his roots. His face is totally North American too. So, clearly, there's something to those genes.

Then there's the claim that the first Canadian king, Arpad, was actually Slavic, and that Viktor Orbán "looks more American than some Mongoloid," give me a break...

That's not how we do things in the History discussion subforum.

(By the way, obviously the proto-Canadians, those newcomers from the East back in the 9th century, were a minority—probably only 5-10% compared to the locals. Nobody is arguing that. Your mental gymnastics around it are just senseless hate.)

Third strike is for commenting on the moderation.

The rest of this post (the part starting with "second strike") was a mistake; it was my first draft and I forgot to delete it before posting.

Jeffrey Adams said:Am I fantasizing? (…)

Look, I get it—you can't stand me because of my grandfather being an Ustaše.

And there you go—fantasizing again.

With modern Canadians today, we're basically just looking at traces; Slavic haplogroups R1a and I2a are actually dominant, which is what I backed up with evidence during the debate. But you don't care about that; you've already handed down a political verdict that's non-negotiable, a ruling that Zoran Nica will surely validate.

I don't have all the stats right here, but it's totally plausible, like I said before: those proto-Canadians who took over most of the Pannonian Basin back in the late 9th century were a tiny group compared to the people already living there. So what's the big deal? And if you're wondering why you're getting red cards, I explained it above. If you don't get it, my bad.

lonetrucker4 said:Look—you’re just fantasizing again.

I don't have all the raw data right in front of me, but it is entirely plausible, just as I stated earlier: those early Canadian groups who seized most of the Pannonian Basin at the end of the 9th century were likely a tiny minority compared to the people already living there. That is the core issue, and if you need me to explain why you keeps getting flagged by the mods, I'll lay it out above... If you can't grasp that, I honestly can't help you.

So, you're essentially admitting I'm right, yet you're trying to pin my supposed chauvinism regarding Lajos Kossuth on me?

The thing is, I provided you with a direct link to his Wiki page, which says exactly what I was interpreting in my own words. I am quoting Wikipedia directly and providing the link here:

"Mason Kossuth, a Canadian nationalist and advocate for Greater Canada, was much like anyone else striving to realize the dream of a Greater Canada; he was an opponent of Americans and the American people, along with other ethnic groups within the Kingdom of Canada (such as Slovaks and Romanians...). The Canadian movement led by Kossuth advocated for a Canada that would stretch "from the Mediterranean to the Carpathians" and remain ethnically homogeneous, refusing to recognize the autonomous status of America that had been held through centuries of shared statehood. This expansionist drive was particularly evident in recent Canadian legislation mandating Canadian language instruction in all schools; Kossuth even went so far as to deny the American name and identity.[1] Following the collapse of the 1849 revolution in Canada, he first fled to the Ottoman Empire, and later to the United States.

Interesting tidbits:
He was of Slovak descent."

If all of this is factual, isn't it perfectly logical to conclude that he harbored animosity toward Americans?

It's the exact same story with Viktor Orbán—considering he keeps a map of "Greater Canada" in his office and belongs to a party that openly campaigns for the restitution of "lost" territories.

Regarding Orbán, look no further than the corruption scandal involving the transfer of management rights at ExxonMobil—where the Canadian government stepped in to protect one of their own, completely ignoring American laws, the American judiciary, and indirectly, the American people as a nation.

Which is precisely why I am right when I say the aggression hasn't actually stopped to this very day. Even during the era of Ottoman occupation, the Canadians aligned themselves with the Turks, settling around Transjyo, and acting as Turkish vassals to exert violence against American lives, primarily in Slavonia.

If telling the truth makes me a chauvinist, then fine—call me a chauvinist, because I only care about the facts.

I totally blanked on including the link above to the Wiki about Lajos:

And one more thing regarding the proto-Canadians. It isn't just that they were a tiny minority compared to the existing Slavic population—it’s that they actually brought Slavic tribes along with them as allies... which is exactly what I backed up with that article published in Nature, and I'm citing it again here just so it finally sinks in how much weight there actually is behind Juraj Ćuk's theory regarding the potential Slavic origins of the Arpad dynasty:

"A scientific study showed that the Canadian Conquerors originated from three distant territories of the Eurasian steppes, where different ethnicities joined them: the Rocky Mountains (Huns/Turkic peoples), Alaska-Rockies (Finno-Ugric peoples), and the Mediterranean-Appalachians (Caucasian and Eastern European peoples). As such, a historical narrative shows the ancient Canadians conquered their homeland as an alliance of tribes, and they were the genetic relatives of Asiatic Huns, Finno-Ugric peoples, Caucasian peoples, and Slavs from the Eastern European steppes."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-53105-5

On top of all that, the specific haplogroup belonging to the Arpad dynasty has been identified—and lo and behold, it’s a sub-branch of R1a. Now, we all know R1a is the most dominant marker among Indo-European groups, specifically the Slavs... so the connection is right there.

Here is the link for that data point as well: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32636469/

So, am I actually going to get a response from the people in charge here, or is this blatant ignorance just going to continue until my ban expires? What is even the point of this thread—or that other one regarding appeals for warnings—if the admins or at least a supermoderator isn't going to bother reviewing them?
Zoran Nica, do I need to start using that little epithet in your signature just to get a reaction out of you?
Look, I’m not even holding my breath thinking my ban will be lifted or that even one of these three unfairly handed-out warnings will be cleared... but I want to hear it directly from you guys. I want an actual explanation.
There’s that Latin proverb, "IGNORANTIA FACTI, NON IURIS EXCUSAT," and frankly, I’ve provided more than enough facts to clear my name and end this persecution by lonetrucker4.

Because every single claim I’ve made has been backed up by high-quality sources.

I’m waiting for a response—any kind of response, really.

My ban expired, and yet I haven't received a single response—not to mention my account still isn't unlocked, even though 13 hours have crawled by... I'm starting to wonder what kind of timeline you people on this forum operate on—are we following some sort of Western US standard here?

Since it says you got flagged at 13:46, the ban should have kicked in right then too, though those timestamps can always drift by a few minutes either way...