Aetolorhode

Blocked for sockpuppetry

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)

September 2025

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)

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

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)

Ancient Macedonian Language

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)

Introduction to contentious topics

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)

Dispute

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)

Citations in talk page

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)

Best not edit while tagged In use

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)

November 2025

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)

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

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)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

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)

Epirus map

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)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

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)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macedonians (Greeks), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Archelaus was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Naming

Infoboxes and article leads of places follow the name of the article. If the article needs to be moved to a different name, then open a move request. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:33, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

The full names or alternative names can be added in the lead. Additionally check the citations before removing the text taken from them. Aetolorhode (talk) 09:38, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

No, it would go in with text such as “also known as” or “officially named”. As for the citations - as I’ve said three times now, you’ve got all you need for a move request citing those sources. As of right now though that’s the name of the article so that’s the name that goes in the infobox and lead. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:40, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

then just add also known as or officially named instead of removing it Aetolorhode (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to do so. I personally explicitly dislike those terms which is why I don't add them. I won't remove them however. I do remove content that doesn't belong, such as names which contradict the name of the article as I've explained multiple times. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:43, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

ok I did Aetolorhode (talk) 09:44, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I didn't know about this wikipedia policy, it sounds logical. However you can check the official site, where there are multiple names, Kavala airport, Kavala Airport 'Megas Alexandros'. Or the references/citations that have the name in Greek. Aetolorhode (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I've never once said that I don't believe the citation or the accuracy of the naming - and I've explained I don't know how many times now that if you believe the article needs to be renamed, there's a process for that. However for as long as the article is named as it is currently, then any other names don't belong in the infobox or the main part of the lead. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 09:53, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't believe that the article needs to be renamed, I just believe that the full official name needs to be mentioned in the lead as it was before. The same applies for the name in Greek in the infobox which is not in the article title Aetolorhode (talk) 09:56, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

For the last time, stop changing the infobox name to something other than the article title. If the native name is incorrect then please do fix it - but it must be what the article is called, not something different. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Aigain, the current article title in Greek you have is not the translation of the current article title in English. Aetolorhode (talk) 11:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

International translates to Διεθνής, not Κρατικός. Aetolorhode (talk) 12:03, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

That's all well and good - so why are you repeatedly adding in the part of the name that isn't in the article title? Seriously, stop Danners430 _{tweaks made} 12:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I stopped. I added it because if you check the sites, that is the common name. And this is also a common practice in other infoboxes, just check Athens International airport. Aetolorhode (talk) 11:14, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

If it is the common name, then perhaps the article should indeed be moved - it's very easy to start a move request, and if you can supply a couple of sources which prove it's the WP:COMMONNAME then there's unlikely to be much opposition to renaming the article.

My suggestion would be to install WP:TWINKLE, as it gives you a user interface to create a move request without having to figure out templates etc. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 11:20, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Aetolorhode (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Kavala International Airport. 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. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:36, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Macedonian Struggle when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. Note I have likely fixed the error by now so check the history of the page to see how it was fixed. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:55, 17 May 2026 (UTC)

Tinkering with head notes

Aetolorhode, can I ask you to please, please, please stop the obsessive tinkering with disambiguation notes and other hat notes. I know you are trying to do something useful there, but you are not. You have tried adding new hat notes to Macedonian language at least seven times since April alone (, , , , , , , ). Not a single one of these additions has been an improvement. They are all wrong. Every time somebody rejects one of your "suggestions", you just go and try a different, equally bad one the next day. That's not learning from your mistakes. You are not learning. You show no sign of even the most basic understanding of what hat notes are for. You have done much the same on every other article vaguely related to Macedonia. This is disruptive and has to stop. Just walk away and stop editing hatnotes. Hatnotes need to be used judiciously and sparingly, and only where they clearly serve to remedy a user search journey that otherwise would lead people to the wrong page. Less is more. You edit without any such consideration, apparently on the assumption that "more is better". It is not. Just accept that our articles have enough hatnotes; they don't need more of them. Having to revert you day after day after day becomes tiresome. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Wait, are all of them useless? Many of them have remained. I hadn't seen this message the last time I edited Macedonian language. I do believe that "more is better", this is why I have added in many pages, not only related to Macedonia. I also believe and try this "Hatnotes need to be used judiciously and sparingly, and only where they clearly serve to remedy a user search journey that otherwise would lead people to the wrong page." In any case, I think that this "Just walk away and stop editing hatnotes." has to be more specific since many of my edits have remained. I would ask you also very kindly to stop comments on my understanding like "You show no sign of even the most basic understanding of what hat notes are for." please. Aetolorhode (talk) 15:57, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I won't suggest any more for Macedonian language for sure, since whatever I add is considered not useful and reverted. Tell me other pages you want me to stop adding disambiguation and other hat notes, and I will. Aetolorhode (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

All of them. Simply. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

thank you very much. I will avoid all of them. Aetolorhode (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

BTW, if you have issues with my claim that "You show no sign of even the most basic understanding of what hat notes are for", well, let's look at one of the latest ones you added on some other, minor article, shall we? First, here's the principle of what you need to consider when adding hatnotes.

1. You have a search term, something that a user might enter in the search box, which currently leads to the article "X" (either because it's the title of that article itself, or because it's a redirect to it).
2. You first ask: is this search term going to have a significant number of people coming through it? If the answer is "no", you stop there.
3. Then you ask: is the majority of the people who used that search term likely to be at the right topic they wanted, at "X"? If the answer is "no", something is fundamentally wrong and you should fix something more than just a hatnote.
4. Then you ask: will there still be a significant minority of users who actually meant to go to a different topic? If the answer is "no", there is no problem to solve.
5. Then you ask: Could that minority of users, who meant to go to a different topic, find the right target by just reading through the lead paragraph of this article and find the link to the related topic there? If the answer is "yes", there's still no problem to solve. Only if the answer to this fourth question is "no" is there a case for considering a hatnote.

Now, look at this article: Macedonian Thrace Brewery. Here's what you added to it: "Vergina Beer" redirects here. For the town in Central Macedonia, Greece, see Vergina. For the symbol, see Vergina Sun.. In all seriousness. So, your search term is "Vergina Beer". People who enter "Vergina Beer" will actually want to go to the article on that Brewery, so we are in the clear for steps 1 through 3. Now, what in the name of all that's holy makes you think that any of the users who type "Vergina Beer" in the hatnote would actually want to read about the town or about the symbol instead? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Most people in Greece know Vergina beer and not the full title Macedonian Thrace Brewery. Vergina (the town) is famous for the ancient Macedonian Royal tombs. Vergina beer's company has its base according to the article in Komotini, which is a town over 200km away from Vergina. I wanted to help any reader that would associate the beer as being local in the Vergina (town). Aetolorhode (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Nothing of that has anything at all to do with hatnotes. Yes, you still lack the basic understanding of what they are for. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the steps 1 to 5 apply here. Aetolorhode (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

No, a significant minority of users who have typed "Vergina Beer" will not have wanted to stop typing when they got to "Vergina"; in other words, consideration 4 above tells you to stop and not add a hatnote.

I wouldn't have bothered pointing that out if you'd simply done as you said above, "I will avoid all of them", and I presume it was in hope that you would that @Future Perfect at Sunrise left the matter here. But you've persisted, today adding this hatnote that once again is contrary to the 5 considerations above. That, like the failing citations you pasted into Greek Civil War as described below and have not corrected, makes the encyclopedia worse, not better. NebY (talk) 13:54, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

I did it while I was editing League of Corinth and Hellenic League. Check please if changes there are also wrong. I added a disambiguation note in League of Corinth, because the meeting place for the hellenic alliance in 480 BC was Corinth, and this was also part of the reason that Corinth was chosen again by Philip II in 338-337 BC. For the citations I copied, I will try to fix them by copying them fully. Aetolorhode (talk) 17:37, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

None of that justifies or even addresses that addition of a hatnote to Second Persian invasion of Greece#Hellenic alliance. NebY (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

My point is that League of Corinth could also refer to the Hellenic Alliance (due to its meeting place), that was formed during the second persian invasion of greece in 480 BC. And there is not any disambiguation redirect from League of Corinth to the Hellenic League page that mentions this league of 480 BC. I tried to fix this. Aetolorhode (talk) 22:43, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

Copying without bibliographic data

With this edit, you've copied text that refers to Weinberg (2005) and Resis (1978), but haven't copied over the necessary bibliographic data so that those references resolve to specific publications. That always needs doing to satisfy WP:V, unless the publications are already cited in suitable form. NebY (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2026 (UTC)