ArchivioItalia

LLM cleanup

Hi, sorry for bothering you, but I'm writing to you again because I see that instead of taking part to the cleanup of your LLM-written edits (that's currently being done by @Lovelyfurball: alone) you're instead adding new copyrighted contents in the articles that you had written with LLMs and meanwhile had been deleted. This was not what you agreed to do only some months ago, as you said Just give me some time I will fix all my articles one by one. If your word is not sufficient to make you respect your commitments, I fear that I'll have to bring the issue to the administrators' noticeboard and let them handle the situation, it's not acceptable that while other users are cleaning up your mess, you only add new mess that other users must fix, I hope that you understand that. --Friniate ✉ 16:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello there I have fixed nearly all articles made using LLM like Battle of Chazepetovka, Capture of Gorlovka, Capture of Stalino and others. While cleaning the LLMs I run into copyright issues which were initially fixed by Diana but after realising it I fixed it myself , it's true while Lovelyfurball surely have fixed some of my articles like Second Assault on Rome, First Assault on Rome, Sinking of Bulgaria, Battle of the Volturno majority of others are fixed by me. It's appears like the fixed articles haven't been updated on my LLM articles list ArchivioItalia ✉ 17:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

and remaining all are fixed by me. ArchivioItalia ✉ 17:59, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Let's take a random article. here you simply reworded a paragraph, but the rest has remained the same. I assume that you checked all the sources of the remaining paragraphs and that there everything is fine? --Friniate ✉ 18:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

As I said to you months ago, rephrasing is not sufficient by the way, you have to actually check if the sources say what you wrote in the articles Did you do that? --Friniate ✉ 18:17, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes you will find the sourced content matching with it's source in most of my articles that I reworked on to remove LLM content I have understood my mistake you can even verify the new articles I made after fixing them, these articles aren't LLM written and also the sources and content match each other. If there are any other mistakes that failed to come under my notice I am willing to fix them too after pointing them out. ArchivioItalia ✉ 18:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I doubt that you really did what you're claiming. Let's check a random paragraph of Turkish–Venetian wars: The fall of Constantinople in 1453 had also demonstrated for the first time the true naval, as well as land, power of the Ottoman Empire, which had replaced the Byzantine Empire in the territories. Venice, although allied with the dying Eastern Roman Empire until the end, after the fall of the ancient imperial capital was quick to show its compliance with the new masters of the Eastern routes. On 18 April 1454, the ambassador Bartolomeo Marcello signed a treaty of mutual recognition with Sultan Mehmet II.

The paragraph is sourced by "Finkel, Caroline (2006). Osman's Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300–1923". But if I check the source at page 200 I find an account of the activities of the Sultan Osman in the XVIIIth century, nothing to do at all with the fall of Costantinople or Venice. That's not "a mistake", you clearly didn't check anything on that article, because there's no chance that the LLM got everything right from a non-online source. --Friniate ✉ 19:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

The paragraph isn't generated from LLM but taken from the Italian version of the article here I didn't pay that much attention to this because the article is already present in another language Wikipedia without any issues for years. ArchivioItalia ✉ 01:15, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

It's important to carefully check translations. Wikipedias in other languages often get things wrong, much like the English language Wikipedia does. Lovelyfurball (talk | contribs) 03:17, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

@ArchivioItalia On the Italian version there isn't that source though, you've added it all by yourself. It's not the paragraph per se the problem, but the fact that it doesn't match the source. --Friniate ✉ 08:24, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

So in short I need to rewrite this whole article again with the information matching the sources? ArchivioItalia ✉ 10:51, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, if you add sources they have to match the text in the article, yes. It's not absolutely needed to rewrite the article, since you can freely translate any Wikipedia language edition as long as you follow Wikipedia:Translation, but obviously when you add a source it becomes often necessary to rewrite the paragraph, since it's rather difficult to find the exact same sources that were used to write the original text in the first place. --Friniate ✉ 12:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Source integrity is very important. Even if you aren't using an LLM, the most important thing is that when a source gets attached to a claim, that claim can be verified using that source by anyone checking. Verifiability is one of the most important policies on Wikipedia. Lovelyfurball (talk | contribs) 15:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Got it guys will fix it now ArchivioItalia ✉ 05:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, but now I'd like to see a more structured process in place in order to be able to monitor the cleanup process and not to waiste yours and other users' time.

I think that what's needed now is a list of the articles that you wrote and need to be:

• rewritten in the case of copyviols
• checked and rewritten in the case of LLM-written articles
• checked and likely rewritten in the case of false sources

Ideally I think that you should make a list yourself in a sandbox of yours and then you'll tick the articles one by one once you've fixed them. If you don't have time to do a thorough review you can simply revert all your edits on a specific article or ask for the deletion of the article (criterion G7) if it was created by you and no other user has made relevant edits on it.

Please be aware that this is really the last chance, if the next time that I'll check I'll see that you are doing other things instead of cleaning up your mess or I'll find other false sources, copyviols or LLM-written paragraphs in articles that you claimed to have fixed, I'll bring you to ANI. --Friniate ✉ 21:26, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Turkish–Venetian wars, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Salamis, Candia and Cretan War were added. 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) 23:25, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Issue regarding Fall of Constantinople page

Hello, I saw your reverting my changes on the page. Could you tell what the issue is? You responded to my other account wich I don't use anymore, this is my main account. HistoryMarch05 (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Hello HistoryMarch05 the issue was your edits were conflicting with other users. It would be better if the edits are done after a proper disscusion in the Talk page of the article where you represent your sources and other users would support or oppose you. In this way we can get a decisive result which would last for a longer duration. Thank you. ArchivioItalia ✉ 18:50, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, ArchivioItalia. I completely understand wanting to keep the page stable.

The main issue is that User:Trabzonluyuz-rumuz-elhamdulillah is the only editor doing this. They are blanket-reverting the page to force those fringe numbers (3,600 vs 840 KIA) without providing any modern academic sources to back them up, completely ignoring the warning they got a few days ago.

I actually did bring proper proof—my edits were fully cited with standard historical sources, including specific ISBNs and page numbers from respected modern historians like Steven Runciman and David Nicolle, which reflect the actual consensus of heavy Ottoman losses and tens of thousands of Byzantine casualties during the sack.

Since the other user is refusing to engage productively and is just forcing unverified numbers through edit warring, could you help look at the actual sources I provided so we can get the accurate version restored? Thanks! HistoryMarch05 (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you to represent your sources with quotes and page numbers on the Talk page of the article for other users to review which would most likely be accepted since the historians you mentioned are reliable and the changes would be done accordingly. ArchivioItalia ✉ 19:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the great advice! I just went ahead and opened a new topic titled "Inaccurate Infobox Casualty Figures" on the article's Talk page.

I laid out the exact quotes, page numbers, and ISBNs for both Runciman and Nicolle. I completely stripped out the enslavement statistics to focus purely on the death counts, and clearly proposed the specific consensus numbers that should replace the un-cited ones (estimating 15k–30k Ottoman casualties and 4k–5k Byzantine deaths based on the literature). I appreciate your help in guiding me through the proper process to get this fixed! HistoryMarch05 (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I am not an administrator kindly remove the prefix ArchivioItalia ✉ 20:01, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Done HistoryMarch05 (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi ArchivioItalia. Thank you for your work on Mirahvara. Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

A lot of issues with the first 3 sentences. Arjuna seems to have been his uncle, not brother. Also "he was succeeded by his brother who ... was his son Miratakhma"

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Ertuğrul Çelebi

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ertuğrul Çelebi, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A ISBN error. References show this error when the ISBN value or formatting is invalid. Please edit the article to ensure the value is correct, that only one ISBN is used, that the proper optional separators are used, and that no other text is included. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2026 (UTC)