User talk:MacedonLinguist

Your editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. That means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Instead of reverting edits, please stop editing the page and discuss on the talk page to create a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a Third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you break the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if it looks like you intend to continue reverting. Khirurg (talk) 16:59, 30 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) 12:26, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Ancient Macedonian language. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Ancient Macedonian language, you may be blocked from editing. NebY (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Stick to Talk:Ancient Macedonian language, instead of harassing other editors and falsely accusing them of "disruptive editing". Thank you. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Ancient Macedonian language. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. NebY (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm SuperPianoMan9167. An edit that you recently made to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Piccco (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

You are exactly one bad edit away from a report to the edit warring noticeboard that would almost certainly see you blocked for edit warring. Rather than dropping templates on multiple editors pages, I would really strongly advise you (and I mean this as a friendly warning, meant to help you avoid a block that will trash all your efforts) to discuss your edits on the talk page in a calm manner. There is no hurry. The article will be here tomorrow, and the log of your edits is permanent. If you can get consensus for any of them, they can go back in - but you MUST discuss them now. You must convince us why the edits are right, and you should be prepared to accept that, at the very least, some changes may be needed.

Take this to the talk page. Keep calm, don't rush, and engage in conversation. That is the only way to gain consensus at this stage. We don't want to see you blocked, but that will happen if you can't work with other editors. Good luck. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm seconding this advice, as an administrator watching the situation. Please also tone it down at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:38, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. signed, Rosguill talk 15:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not associated with any sock puppet account. You're 100% wrong. I'm from N. Macedonia and I'm interested in ancient Macedonia history and linguistics. MacedonLinguist (talk) 17:09, 4 November 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).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not associated with any sock puppet account. You're 100% wrong. I'm from N. Macedonia and I'm interested in ancient Macedonian history and linguistics. Please provide evidence for your decision. Your arguments don't stand to scrutiny. The whole country of N. Macedonia has strong opinion for the Ancient Macedonian Language. Your arguments are all wrong. What do you mean by "by and large, the sources are not Greek."? This doesn't make any sense. Provide prove. What do you mean by "in particular, the tendentious argumentation at Ancient Macedonian language is striking because it has very little basis in the state of the article itself" how can this be a valid argument for a connection of 2 people? What do you mean by " I note that even without the evidence of sockpuppetry, MacedonianLinguist's behavior and argumentation across multiple pages is a hair's breadth away from earning them a topic ban for WP:BATTLEGROUND" This is not a valid argument. How is even possible as evidence to be used check user result Possible to Kelmend Highlande when he is not even helen's sock puppet? This is mistaken identity. MacedonLinguist (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"I'm not a sockpuppet", said nearly every sockpuppet ever. The behavioral evidence is very clear that you are SolderUnion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 4 November 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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I'm not nobody's sock puppet. Your claims don't stand up to scrutiny. The entire population of North Macedonia has strong feelings about anything related to ancient Macedonian history. By your logic—that because I'm interested in ancient Macedonia and have strong feelings—you effectively exclude the whole country from voicing its opinion. They would all fall under your definition of sock puppetry for HellenHIL. I added some information that was well sourced, and other people removed it against WP policies. This information proved that the ancient Macedonians needed interpreters to understand Greek, and this was removed by other editors. Why are you allowing this to happen? Can an admin check how is possible for the check-user find connection between me and Kelmend Highlander when he is found not to be a sock puppet account and the findings to be "possible"? Furthermore how can the check-user connect me with Kelmen Highlander and ARBRSH when personal data are deleted after 90days and ARBRSH has been blocked from 30th of June and Kelmen has not participated from 1st of July? Please check if the right procedures were followed.

MacedonLinguist (talk) 11:17, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have checked; the correct procedures appear to have been followed. I can affirm dbeef's original check, and I would go a tad further and call this one  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely), myself. If you would like to be unblocked, you are going to have to address your disruptive editing, which Rosguill noted is a hair's breadth away from earning them a topic ban for WP:BATTLEGROUND. You may have some luck with an unblock request if you agree to a topic ban and a one account restriction. asilvering (talk) 04:25, 6 November 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 declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

The previous admin Asilvering who declined my unblock request said, "If you would like to be unblocked, you are going to have to address your disruptive editing." But I'm not blocked for disruptive behavior. I'm blocked as a sock puppet account.

Can an admin allocate a little time for my case and confirm if proper procedures were followed? How come the CheckUser dbeef could find a connection between me and Kelmend Highlander when he was found not to be a sock puppet account and the findings to be "possible"? This is extremely irrational. Furthermore, how can the CheckUser connect me with Kelmen Highlander and ARBRSH when personal data are deleted after 90 days, and ARBRSH has been blocked since 30 June while Kelmen has not participated since 1 July?

My block is based on Rosguill arguing, "I'm seeing a clear behavioral match here—in particular, the tendentious argumentation at Ancient Macedonian language is striking because it has very little basis in the state of the article itself; by and large, the sources are not Greek." His whole argument doesn't stand up to scrutiny and is arbitrary and tenuous. The entire population of North Macedonia has strong feelings about anything related to ancient Macedonian history. By his logic—that because I'm interested in ancient Macedonia and have strong feelings—the whole country should be excluded from voicing its opinion. They would all fall under your definition of sock puppetry for HellenHIL. What does he mean by "by and large, the sources are not Greek."? How can this connect me with any other account? His whole argument should be discarded.

If I'm not a sock puppet account and I'm blocked for disruptive behavior, then I should be unblocked and a new case should be raised to defend myself.

My editing is not disruptive. Over the span of six days, I added three paragraphs to the section on Macedonians in classical sources, demonstrating that the Macedonians required interpreters to understand Greek. This information was removed in violation of Wikipedia policies. How am I being disruptive when I follow all the rules and substantiate my claims with quality sources that no-one can dispute? These include ancient historians and interpretations by modern scholars. How can others remove this important information and then accuse me of disruptive behavior?

Every person who attempts to contribute content supporting the opposing view is attacked from all sides. They are either discouraged from continuing or provoked into reacting, resulting in a ban. What kind of game is this?

I went to ANI and I reported them. Why am I being blocked?

MacedonLinguist (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

"I'm not disruptive" said every disruptive editor ever. At this point I don't think it matters if you are blocked as a sockpuppet or for disruption, but it's clear you should not be editing if you fail to see what's wrong with your approach here. Sennecaster (Chat)

16:16, 6 November 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.

I did allocate the time. Proper procedures were followed. That you got caught out in spite of them is not a failure of process. -- asilvering (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there! Regardless of whether you are a sockpuppet, your talk page has several warnings over the past six days regarding disruptive behaviour. Multiple administrators have reviewed the sockpuppetry and ensured that the correct policies were followed, though the evidence shows that it's possible you aren't a sockpuppet. However, you still have a pattern of disruptive editing you should address before being unblocked. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:51, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: Thank you for answering. If you check the history of the article regarding Ancient Macedonian Language up to 18:35, 2 November 2025 I have added 3 paragraphs that were all well sourced and were proving that the Macedonians needed interpreters to understand Greek. Then another user removed this information making it unrecognizable. His intent is obvious. This maybe falls under the definition of "malicious removal of encyclopedic content". Can you please check a little more deeply. At the moment any content that mentioned that the Macedonian language was a separate IE language has been removed. How can someone interpret this except as "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content"? People are provoked into reacting and then accused of disruption. After checking if you agree that my behavior is disruptive I will accept it. ~~~~ MacedonLinguist (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I will refer you back to the notice you received on November 3. Looking at Talk:Ancient Macedonian language, I'm seeing a lot of discussion with a lot of disagreement, particularly with editors disagreeing with you. Regardless of whether you are Right™, you should not engage in an edit war. Content on Wikipedia is based on consensus, which is developed through discussion and what is provided in reliable sources. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade: If you check the sequence of events in the article on the ancient Macedonian language carefully, you will see that before the major changes NebY made on November 3, he had participated and added information to the section. There was thus agreement from him, and consensus was established. He made the major changes without establishing consensus, so I reverted them and opened a new section on the talk page. Everything was done according to WP rules. In the context of the highly controversial and politicized subject of ancient Macedonian, the removal of 80% of the content from the section can only be interpreted as malicious. There is no other interpretation. All information stating that the ancient Macedonians needed interpreters to understand Greek and that Greek was a foreign language to them was removed. I have argued that “There is a well-known debate between North Macedonia and Greece regarding historical claims to Ancient Macedonia. On top of that, there is a debate between North Macedonia and Bulgaria over claims that ultimately go back to Ancient Macedonia, so people from Bulgaria tend to support the view of Greece. This pits editors from a combined pool of 20 million people against editors from a pool of 2 million. This creates an artificial consensus that silences other views.” The differences in editor numbers that you see are artificial. MacedonLinguist (talk) 11:49, 7 November 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).

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

---

Request reason:

You have blocked me on fabricated evidence claiming that I’m a sock puppet of HellenHIL. You have connected me to Kelmen Highlander, who was proven not to be a sock puppet, and presented the CheckUser result of “Possible” as incriminating evidence against me. How can a connection with a non sock puppet can be used as incriminating evidence? You have connected me to ARBRSH and presented the CheckUser result of “Possible” as incriminating evidence against me, but ARBRSH was blocked on 30 June, which is 120 days in the past and far beyond the 90-day retention period for personal information that Wikipedia is allowed to keep. The same applies to Kelmen Highlander. Hence, you’ve blocked me on fabricated evidence, and you’ve been caught red-handed. It’s impossible for CheckUser to have returned a result of “Possible” because both accounts have not been used for more than 90 days. This should be investigate as is serious breach of WP policies. Resguill blocked me after I posted at 13:46 on 4 November 2025 on the NPV noticeboard about how Greece conducts nationalistic archaeology and linguistics, with high-quality sources that no one can dispute. Can someone take a closer look? Why was this information removed, and why is Greece so strongly supported? I was blocked by Resguill after my case was dormant for 4 days. Nothing had changed between 30-10 and 4-11 in terms of information that proved I'm a sock puppet. The blockage was triggered by my post in NPV noticeboard. One of the weirdest things is that Piccco informed me on 14:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC) about my case in my talk page and then Resguill blocked me on 15:04, 4 November 2025 (UTC) while my case was dormant for 4 days. How is it possible for Piccco to inform me 13 min before the block was applied and after 4 days of my case being dormant if he didn't have prior knowledge and if he didn't have some kind of contact with Resguill through background channels? This should be investigated. Resguill action of blocking me and Piccco's prior knowledge of the block should be also investigated. Rosguill’s arguments are just excuses and don’t stand up to scrutiny. The entire population of North Macedonia falls under his definition of HellenHIL sock puppetry. I never had the opportunity to defend myself against accusation of disruptive behavior. I have built 3 paragraphs in the span of 6 days and consensus was established by the fact that other editors didn’t object and by participating in improving the section. NebY made improvements on 14:48 31 October 2025, 14:56 31 October 2025, 15:56 31 October 2025 and 15:59 31 October 2025. Many others also contributed establishing a consensus. Then NebY on 18:37 - 2 November 2025 reduced the whole section to 1/5 of the original without establishing consensus and removing important information. In the context of the highly controversial and politicized subject of the ancient Macedonian his reduction can only be interpreted as conscious malicious removal of encyclopedic content. Hence the whole argument that I was disruptive is wrong. Everything was done in accordance with the WP policies and NebY was the one that was disruptive. You have no right calling me disruptive and you have no right to support old editors simply because they are old. After the lock on the article about the ancient Macedonian language expired, the editors established an artificial consensus and removed every mention of it being a separate language and of the Macedonians needing interpreters to understand Greek. You now tacitly imply that I’m not a sock puppet account but that I was blocked for disruptive behaviour and can be unblocked if I address this issue. This is called gaslighting. At the same time, you’re turning a blind eye to the removal of well-sourced material by people who create an artificial consensus by attacking and discouraging new editors or provoking them to react, as a result of which they get banned. As proof, I show Kelmen Highlander. As soon as he said something that some perceived as going against Greece, he was attacked, and the poor guy never went to the trouble of participating in this toxic environment again. Mission accomplished! The opponent was eliminated. I would like the admins to unblock me and to conduct an investigation into my block and into the potentially malicious removal of well sourced material. I want proof that substantiates my connection to Kelmen Highlander and ARBRSH, and proof to substantiate me having disruptive behaviour fully addressing the sequence of events. MacedonLinguist (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Decline reason:

WP:NOTTHEM. If you are, in fact, not a HelenHIL sock (which you prove more that you are the more that you argue, I should note), then you should, as advised below, take the WP:STANDARDOFFER. Another unblock request along the lines of this one - one more, not six - will almost certainly see your talk page access revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 9 November 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.

MacedonLinguist, you are not being gaslit. Gaslighting is a kind of subtle manipulation of a person's understanding of reality, with the intent that they go insane or believe themselves to be insane. No one is trying to do that here. What we are trying to explain is that a) you were blocked for suspected/presumed sockpuppetry; that b) there is technical evidence that supports this conclusion; and that c) your behaviour needs addressing in any case before any unblock would occur. I can assure you that the entire population of North Macedonia does not fall under Rosguill's definition of HelenHIL sockpuppetry. I understand that you won't believe me about this, but it is true. And any checkuser is able to themselves verify my work on this question. -- asilvering (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

No this is not correct. If I'm a sock puppet I'm not allowed to enter WP even if I address my "disruptive" behavior hence you're lying. Everyone can see you are lying and you're an admin that blocks people. MacedonLinguist (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Hey @MacedonLinguist, I get why you're feeling frustrated and persecuted, but attacking other editors (especially admins) isn't going to get you anywhere.

All you're doing is stressing yourself out and making yourself look worse to anyone who comes across your Talk page.

I can't (and won't) weigh in on the merits of all this; instead I want to suggest a possible way forward.

If your appeal is declined I'd like to suggest you consider the Wikipedia:Standard offer. You edit on another Wikipedia project for six months or so, usually Simple English Wikipedia because it's so similar, then submit a new unblock request. You can then present proof that you're a trustworthy, productive editor who can safely be unblocked.

You don't need to reply to this, it's just an option I hope you consider. Blue Sonnet (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I will stop at 10 unblock requests. If I don't succeed I will follow your advice. Thank you. MacedonLinguist (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend this; you'll likely have talk page access revoked long before 10 unblock requests. Given that your unblock requests so far have mostly been accusatory of others, you're likely very nearly there. If you don't have talk page access, it gets quite a bit harder to be unblocked. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 20:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I second this - you're already at four, which is highly unusual.

There's a saying about doing the same thing over and over, yet expecting a different result; you're burning through admins as well as any remaining good faith. This is just wasting your time and it would be a good idea for you to step back for a bit and take stock of the situation. You can't remove declined unblock requests and every one is going to be a stain on future appeals.

You're not going to win every argument, even if you're right. No-one can, and one of the most important things we can learn as adults is when to let things go.

There's also the fact that there's a pretty big backlog of unblock requests right now - being frank, your appeals are taking time away from others who have a chance at a successful appeal.

If you were somehow allowed to submit six more requests, that's time we could be spending on six of the thirty-odd blocked editors who are patiently waiting their turn.

For everyone's sake, please take a step back and consider the Standard offer. Simple Wiki is almost identical to English Wikipedia and you can have a completely fresh start without having all of this mess hanging over your head. Come back to this another time, when you've got a better chance at appealing. Blue Sonnet (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)