User talk:Aetolorhode

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aetolorhode. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  asilvering (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2025 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here I have no idea for the other user that i have been accused. I used to have another account over 5 years ago, but i stopped editing and I even have not keeped my password. Thus, i made a new account. I have only suggested changes, i do not want to change anything without concensus, and obviously i have not any other accounts now. If my suggestions were so suspicious, you can delete my account. I just made a suggestion for ancient macedonian language/dialect, because if you see the references from 2010, 2012, 2017, 2018, 2020, 2022 etc, all refer to the ancient macedonian as a dialect.

Decline reason:

You need to directly address the concerns given at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aetolorhode. Yamla (talk) 11:31, 11 August 2025 (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 accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Your reason here. I cannot edit anywhere else than here. It is not true that i have stopped editing after the comments of the "sockpuppet". I still suggested redirect edits after its comment. For example Aetoliki Sympoliteia for the Aetolian league, and Makedoniki for Macedonian Greek pages respectively. I have no relation with that user you mentioned.

Accept reason:

My error. asilvering (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

This wasn't a block based on technical evidence, so {{CU needed}} for a double-check. -- asilvering (talk) 03:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• @asilvering:- Unrelated. PhilKnight (talk) 12:53, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, @PhilKnight. @Aetolorhode, I'll unblock, one moment. -- asilvering (talk) 16:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, I've unblocked the other editor now, too. Again, sorry about that, @Aetolorhode. Your behaviour had little to do with that, so please don't take this as a statement that your suggestions were particularly suspicious or that there was anything wrong with your editing. It was the other editor's behaviour, creating an account and then immediately supporting your proposal, a couple of days after you'd posted it and received no response, that I found so suspicious. Failure of WP:AGF on my part. -- asilvering (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Arjayay. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Siege of Tyre (332 BC), but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 21:44, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello, in the article below, there is a clear mention of 223 ships instead of 120. More specifically it mentions 80 plus 120 plus 23. This is why i changed it. Aetolorhode (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

I mean at the wikipedia article itself at the siege section Aetolorhode (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Angelis Gatsos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Please do not remove again Joseph's name. There is no justification for that. For Blazek and Holst Ancient Macedonian is a Paleobalkan language. You cannot chose to put it separately as related to Greek as both Greek and Macedonian are Paleobalkan. Woodard concludes that "”the Macedonian language departs conspicuously from Greek in showing voiced unaspirated rather than voiceless aspirated reflexes of the earlier Indo-European voiced aspirated stops”. Do not remove his name.

MacedonLinguist (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The hypothesis that Ancient Macedonian is closely related to Greek and the hypothesis that is not more closely related to Greek than it is with Illyrian or Thracian etc are both part of the hypothesis that are Ancient Macedonian is a Paleo-Balkan language. Imagine that you have a brother. Your brother(Macedonian language) and you(Greek language) are children of your father (Paleo-Balkan). You cannot treat as if you and your father are brothers. MacedonLinguist (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes, of course, both Greek and ancient Macedonian belong to the IE Paleo-Balkan languages. But some linguists like Georgiev and Hamp consider that then Paleo-balkan was split into Illyrian, Thracian, Greco-Macedonian and Phrygian. And then Greco-Macedonian, also called Hellenic sometimes, finally was split into Greek and (ancient) Macedonian. Most recent consensus also considers Phrygian and Hellenic forming a sub-group before splitting, the Graeco-Phrygian. Most recent works consider Ancient Macedonian to be a Northwest Greek dialect. However there is also the view of a Greek-Macedonian, (i.e., Hellenic) branch. And finally, there is also the view you mention that Ancient Macedonian and Greek are not more related than Greek is to Thracian or Illyrian. Aetolorhode (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

NebY (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Howdy Aetolorhode. It seems that you're young and don't understand some things, and that's okay. I was once young too. You should ask yourself why no one else participates in most of the discussions. The reason is probably that they don't object. It's better for you to just check whatever I write and confirm whether what I claim is true or not by reading the sources. For now, just do that and let the other experienced editors do their job. Okay? MacedonLinguist (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Haven' t you realised that it is not me the editor that reverts most of your edits, but other more experienced editors? I just restore the sources you remove. I have not removed any of the citations you added. In any case, okay, do whatever you want. I did not stop you from anything. Other editors that are more experienced just remove your entire edits as they are POV. Aetolorhode (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking about the article talk page. Can we please agree to let the more experienced editors do their job? You can focus on correcting typos and checking if what I write is factual. The purpose of adding a topic to article talk pages is to resolve issues. By claiming things that are wrong, you're creating a problem. No one else is participating because they don't object. There are many other editors. It's OK if you wish to continue opposing things, but then we will go to Wikipedia:Third opinion. It's better if you let the other editors do their job. Do we agree on that? MacedonLinguist (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Explain more please on what you want me to agree. I did not understand before that you are talking about the talk page. In the talk page I mentioned that you remove sources, text and citations again and again with the paragraph on Strattis as the last example. I oppose unjustified removals. Aetolorhode (talk) 15:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Regardless of what NebY is saying, if a topic has been on an article’s talk page for a significant period—such as one week—and all interested editors have had ample opportunity to see it, then the lack of participation indicates that no one disagrees. The reason no one participated in the discussion regarding the citation (https://projekty.ncn.gov.pl/en/index.php?projekt_id=532398) for an entire week is that they agree I am correct. By disagreeing without understanding what you are disagreeing with, you are creating a problem that will need to be addressed through Wikipedia:Third opinion. If you do not reverse your objection by tomorrow, we will proceed to Wikipedia:Third opinion. OK? The citation refers to an unfinished project taken by Sowa. MacedonLinguist (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Which of the Sowa references you refer to? There are three. Aetolorhode (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I suppose you refer to the one of 2022. I don't think there is any rule about unfinished projects in wikipedia. If there is, proceed with the removal. More experienced editors should help here. Nonetheless, the main issue is that you remove with no reason 1-2 sources per day, no other editor can follow this rate. Aetolorhode (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Please create another topic for this and present your evidence. MacedonLinguist (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

for what? Aetolorhode (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

That I remove 1-2 sources per day. Regarding reaching consensus it says "A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections". That means that if an editor has ample time to check a talk page and doesn't object then he agrees. OK?

Wikipedia:Consensus#Achieving consensus MacedonLinguist (talk) 17:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I say again, which rule of wikipedia for unfinished projects you bring up here? Does any such rule exist? If it exists, i do not object. If it does not exist, i do object to another removal. For the constant removal of sources the last five days, you can see the history of the ancient macedonian language page. Aetolorhode (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Please do not claim that "The reason no one participated in the discussion for an entire week is that they agree I am correct"; other editors might think Aetolorhode is correct or have other reasons for not engaging in that particular thread, and such claims give a poor impression of either your reasoning or your efforts to instruct Aetolrhode. NebY (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Please do not claim that "No one else is participating because they don't object." It is not safe to assume that other editors have seen your recent edits yet, and when and how editors choose to intervene is their own choice. NebY (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You can always go to Wikipedia:Teahouse and ask them if the 2 sources I object to can be used in wikipedia. MacedonLinguist (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

You want to remove them, you should do that. Aetolorhode (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Do you object to me removing this citation? (https://projekty.ncn.gov.pl/en/index.php?projekt_id=532398)

If you object then tomorrow we will have to go Wikipedia:Third opinion

"Yes I object" or "No I don't object"? MacedonLinguist (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not obliged to answer to whatever you want. I think another editor objects, check the talk page. Aetolorhode (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

We got lucky, but if you ever see an editor's marked the article as In Use with {{In use}}, putting a banner at the head of the article, it's best to stay away until that's removed. In this case, I was doing some substantial copying and pasting which might have overwritten your edits. NebY (talk) 15:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't know, sorry. Aetolorhode (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

That's OK - just something to watch out for in future. NebY (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Jingiby (talk) 17:41, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

ok thanks, i will. Aetolorhode (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Aetolorhode! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore your preferred version of Byzantine Empire. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Byzantine Empire, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Bogazicili (talk) 22:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. There is this text on the current article: After 800 AD, Western Europe called them "Greeks" (Graeci), as the Papacy and medieval German emperors regarded themselves as the true inheritors of Roman identity.

Following the empire's fall, early modern scholars referred to it by many names, including the "Eastern Empire", the "Low Empire", the "Late Empire", the "Empire of the Greeks", "Empire of Constantinople", and "Roman Empire. Isn't "Greek" referred twice as an exonym? Aetolorhode (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello. Please create a topic in Talk:Byzantine Empire and make your argument there, to gain consensus. Bogazicili (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

I am not that interested, I thought it was obvious. I didn't put the link to the ethnic group of Greeks page, but to Byzantine Greeks terminology section where it is already mentioned that they were called Greeks by West, slavs, etc. I wanted to emphasize that it was used as exonym. Aetolorhode (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Ancient Greece

added a link pointing to Aigai

Greece

added a link pointing to Central Greece

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Greeks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Chaeronea.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Amantia, Atintanians and the territory of Oricum are widely held to have been in Illyria, not in Classical or Hellenistic Epirus. See their articles for more info. As such, they should be described as "disputed" on an Epirus map rather than as unquestionable parts of Epirus. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not make the map. Cheers Aetolorhode (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

And I actually put it for the depiction of the borders between other regions like molossia, tymphaea etc. I found it in Ancient Thesprotia wikipedia page, where you did not remove it. I didn't even notice amantia and oricum. For Antitania i have read the wikipedia page yes. Nonetheless there are many less accurate maps already in these articles anyway. Aetolorhode (talk) 21:26, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

I know there other inaccurate/misleading maps on enwiki, but that does not mean we should add even more such maps. Unfortunately those who have made maps about ancient topics on enwiki have largely produced low quality works. If you know how to make maps or modify existing ones, you are welcome to do so. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't. You are right about antitanes and Amantia but the map was much more detailed and accurate about main epirote regions like Molossia. Aetolorhode (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amydon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paeonia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macedonia (region), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip II was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2026 (UTC)