User talk:Mill 1

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Rather belated, so I am sorry, but the links may come in handy....although you seem to be doing fine so far. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 14:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I placed a redirect to my Talk page on my User page. I now regret this decision. How do I remove the #REDIRECT from my user page? Mill 1 (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Simply click on this link - it will allow you to access the edit window for your userpage - simply delete the REDIRECT line and replace it with whatever else you would like on your User page. Mike1901 (talk) 10:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please DON'T just change death dates etc without adding a reference. This is a common pattern in "subtle vandalism". I nearly just reverted you (which I would have been perfectly entitled to do) and had to spend several minutes checking that you were in fact correct. The French article is still wrong, btw. You can use trhe same ref. Johnbod (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

my reply

Pope Hilarius died February 28, 468; that is his Feast Day. Please stop adding him to February 29. General Ization ^Talk 20:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Since I got no reaction to my message on your Talk page I moved pope Hilarius from DOY page February 28 to February 29 again. I believe I have good reason to believe the date of death 28 February is erroneous. Let me state my arguments:

1. The website of the Vatican itself states Feb. 29 as the end of the pontificate. This source is used as a reference on article Pope Hilarius
2. I checked other wiki's on this topic. The Italian, French and Spanish wiki's all state Feb. 29
3. If I perform this Google books search on Feb. 29 I get relevant results. This is not the case when I run this Google books search on Feb. 28.

You state that Feb. 28 is the feast day of the pope. I can not find corrobating evidence for that. I seems that the major source for it is the wiki page in question.

I understand that in light of conflicting data we should strive for consensus. I also would like my edits to be as factual and neutral as possible. I hope I made my case.

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to February 24, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Mufka ^{(u) (t) (c)} 08:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I need help searching for specific phrases in articles. I've worked with regular expression before but apparently I'm too thick to understand the Perl-dialect.
For instance: I want look for persons who died on 24 June during the 10th century (=from 900 AD until 1000 AD). Help:Searching and Help:Advanced search do not provide proper examples how to use wildcards.
If I would know the specific year I could just use this query.
However, I want to look in the range 900 – 999. What do I enter in the search textbox? Or better yet: what would the equivalent of this query look like?
Thank you in advance.

Mill 1 (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, if you want help looking for something, you may want to go to the reference desk to ask for help looking for information. For help with the search function (and other questions about how Wikipedia works), go to the help desk to ask this question. Also, if you have any suggestions, or problems with the search function, go to the technical village pump and raise the problem there. Sorry I couldn't be of more help though. If you need any more help, click here, or just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  22:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks! Mill 1 (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Per {{infobox film}}, we don't credit executive producers in the infobox, but if the producer is notable, he can be added in the article prose. I frequently do this with Roger Corman, for example. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip NinjaRobotPirate! Can't believe that up to a few moments ago Clayton Townsend did not have a bio by the way.. Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 22:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Bert Röling, Mill 1!

Wikipedia editor Semmendinger just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice job, article looks great!

To reply, leave a comment on Semmendinger's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mill 1. I would appreciate if you give your opinion on this discussion. I saw you make a couple of points in the earlier discussion on referencing the DOY. Thanks :)--Rochelimit (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Mill, I realize we don't see eye-to-eye on the direct sourcing requirements for DOY entries, and I've spent a fair amount of time in the past few days going through the births section of a couple of DOY pages, finding problems and cleaning them up. (Take a look at my recent edit history.) What I've found is that more than 75% of the births listed on DOY pages for living people who are not athletes have no reliable sources for the DOB in the biographical article that is supposed to have them. In many of the cases where there are refs in the articles for the DOB, it's an WP:IMDBREF.

Before you comment at Village Pump, could you take a look at any DOY page that I haven't recently cleaned up and start at the bottom of the birth section and look at the linked articles for the first dozen or so non-athletes to see if there are reliable sources there?

You're clearly an exemplary contributor and I think if you see the mess that the "bluelink is good enough for DOY pages" practice has created, I think you might change your opinion. Please consider doing this. It would only take a few minutes. Toddst1 (talk) 00:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

***Reaction*** Mill 1 (talk) 21:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Nick Moyes. Mill 1, thanks for creating Heok Hui Tan!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. More evidence is needed to support notability. Do they have any species named after them/or have authored, for example? See WP:GNG and WP:NACADEMIC for the criteria we use.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Nick Moyes (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Yang Jun-Xing, Mill 1!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Please do not cite Wikipedia, or Wikispeices, per WP:CIRCULAR. They are not reliable sources. Also, please review WP:SCHOLAR: merely naming species, or being linked from other Wikipedia articles, may not be sufficient to demonstrate notability.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

--Animalparty! (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mill 1, I read your preference at the top, however I've always preferred to respond on the fellow editor's talk page. In your edit summary, you claim to have "corrected" some details. I have read your source; if you want to remove the part about the dutch consul I have no qualms about that. However the 3000 figure is problematic; have you read a more detailed academic work about this subject than this 1 article? We can never know the exact number of Damascene Christians that were massacred in July 1860, historians have always provided us with estimates; the majority of estimates differ between conservative and liberal estimates. The liberal academic estimate maintains that 20 000 Damascence Christians were massacred, however the conservative academic estimate has maintained that 10 000 Damascene Christians were massacred. For many years the long standing figure on this wiki page has maintained the conservative estimate. Leila Trazi Fawaz on page 226 of her book maintains 12 000 Damascene Christians were massacred. If you're interested in this subject, I highly recommend reading Fawaz's book in its entirety (which relies on a lot of primary sources), it won't take you long, you can finish it in 3 days.

Moreover, I would like mention something else, the article you employed as a source is written by a Turkish historian, Mill 1, in my experience over the years, Turkish academics tend to downplay the atrocities the Ottomans committed. To provide you with examples, about 40% of Turkish historians deny and dispute that 1 000 000 Armenians were massacred during the Armenian Genocide. When the American channel PBS, decided to air a documentary about the Armenian Genocide with credible non-Armenian historians in it, the Turkish government successfully lobbied 2/3 of PBS stations to run a following documentary that presented a number of Turkish historians who openly denied the Armenian Genocide even took place. Worse, some of them made silly generalizations that the Armenians were "enemies" of the state who openly colluded with foreign governments against the Ottoman Empire; this canard has been debunked. Therefore, one has to be very cautious and diligent about what the author of your article is claiming. Where did he get this 3000 estimate? For decades the conservative estimate has been 10 000. George Al-Shami (talk) 07:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your elaborate reply. I have changed the article accordingly. Furthermore I share your dismay and concerns regarding the denial of the Armenian genocide by a large portion of the Turkish public. In my country it is an ongoing source for debate and controversy. Regards Mill 1 (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I rather instinctively reverted this edit of yours. Did I miss a deeper meaning? Favonian (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Doing some tedious work that a bot should do. Copy paste errors. Thx for cleaning up after me. Getting late in Europe.. Mill 1 (talk) 21:57, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries. We are in the same timezone. ;) Favonian (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

LOL. Love Nyhavn! Mill 1 (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Christian Goetz. Since you had some involvement with the Christian Goetz redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:32, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Rosguill: Put in my two-cents Mill 1 (talk) 18:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Imagine my surprise to find that Brownie Mary was killed by a drunk driver. Are you using a bot of some kind to make these edits? The reason I ask, is because nothing in that source says she was killed by a drunk driver, it says her daughter was killed by one. Anyway, have you had anyone go back through your edits to check for errors? Viriditas (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thx for spotting the error. I do not use a bot, I compile the entries manually. I do however use a tool to identify and generate entries. It speeds up the tedious tasks greatly. It also tries to determine cause of death based on certain keywords found in the bio. If found I normally doublecheck it but this one apparently slipped my attention. Sloppy.

Screenshot of the tool, displaying the info on Brownie Mary

I'd welcome someone checking my work. I have encountered little interest during my efforts to bring the deaths lists to a higher level of quality.

You can find a bit more info on it on the Talk page of Deaths in 1998. Mill 1 (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. It would be helpful if we could broaden our thinking on error-checking in general, and widen it to include a general purpose tool that could check against Wikidata or some other established baseline for death list data as well as other datapoints. I’ve always envisioned a bot running 24/7/365 through the database checking for errors and reporting back to active watchlisters who opt-in for that kind of thing. Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The section for {{BD ToC|deaths}} is the default 3, if the births section has subheadings, and is 2 if the births sections does not have subheadings. "Standardization" does not include making incorrect links, or removing correct links, such as Deaths in January 2005. I have no object to removing months=12; it is unnecessary unless the deaths section has an "unknown" subsection. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I did a careful comparison of the (tops of the) Deaths sections regarding the years 1996 until 2019. I found that they are largely the same but that there are differences. The edits I made resulted in more consistency. If you feel this strongly about the sections I invite you to do the same comparison analysis. Please have a look at years 2000-2003 and 2007-2018 regarding {{BD ToC|deaths|section=2}}. Also compare the deaths sections of years 2004-2006 and determine for yourself that they differ from all other years. Please apply the consistency yourself instead of reverting my work. Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 20:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Which years have Deaths in month year? If, as a preliminary analysis indicates, it's all of 1999 through 2019, it seems to me better to include all monthly links, rather than just the annual link. The death links for completed years (with no "unknown" sections in deaths) should be {{BD ToC|deaths|section=2}} if there are no "births" subsections, and {{BD ToC|deaths}} if there are the full 12 births subsections. My take is there should be births subsections ONLY if there at least 60 births, but, at this point, I only object to adding subsections. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I've adjusted 1990 through 2007; the inconsistencies are related to which "main" articles have been created. Perhaps you can fix the rest of the {{Main}} links, if you are so inclined. If not, I'll get to it some other time. The {{BD ToC}} sections are correct — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I now see what mean, although I am still a bit puzzled about the link between {{BD ToC|deaths|section=2}} and the "Births"-section not having any subsections. As to your question which years have Deaths in month year-articles: you asked the right person. For some time now I've been (almost exclusively) concerning myself with improving the quality of these types of articles; I noticed that some Deaths in year-articles were getting very long and started to split them up. I've been working my way back from 2005 and I am now halfway 1998. You can find a bit more info here.

I think it is a good idea to add {{Main}} links and I will add them to the year pages 2008-2019 when I have the time. One remark though: I think it is cleaner to add the {{Main}} link in between the month-subsection and the images (see f.i. 2004#Deaths and 2005#Deaths). On a mobile app this looks better than having the link underneath the images (see 2006#Deaths). Do you agree? Mill 1 (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Being bold I created a little application that moved the {{Main}} links of the Deaths section to directly beneath the month-subsection (years 1999-2007). I will add the missing main links to the year pages of the years 2008-2018 the next couple of days using this same application.

Done. Mill 1 (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are not blocked. If you are blocked post the entire block message here. PhilKnight (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)}}.

@PhilKnight: No I am not blocked. There is a person who does not like my enforcement of some guidelines. To him/her: @HelloKittyGold: I do understand your frustration that your edits are reverted. I've had a project of mine nuked which had cost me hundreds of hours. But in the end we're trying to create and maintain a credible encyclopedia and to do that we sometimes need to apply some changes for the greater good. Again: you are free to start a discussion about adding images to these types of list pages although technical reasons (load time) exist why they shouldn't.Mill 1 (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I wonder why the obsession with 1995? Deb (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

It is a reaction to this initiative in which I updated the 1995 articles in order to match format and style of other deaths pages. Even wrote some software for it. Need to process four more months (September-December 1995). After that I'll run them through another tool of mine that automatically adds/updates references to obituaries in the New York Times. Still a lot to do! Thanks Deb Mill 1 (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Harmen Siezen should not be an WP:O. Mill 1 (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding this edit you made in April, song titles are put inside quotation marks on the English Wikipedia, not italics. Only album and EP titles are italicised on en.wiki. See MOS:POPMUSIC. Thanks. Ss112 14:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for clearing that up and fixing it. Mill 1 (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Mill 1

Thank you for creating Soo Hugh.

User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Nice work

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@North8000 Thanks! Mill 1 (talk) 20:54, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Mega Top 30 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega Top 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

North8000 (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Can you revert this please? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/1105116556&type=revision Shktriib1 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Shktriib1 Done Mill 1 (talk) 18:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No you did it wrong. You are supposed to move Earl David Inge up and place him between Richard Palumbo and William Pierce, Jr.--Shktriib1 (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Shktriib1 Not my edit. Mill 1 (talk) Mill 1 (talk) 19:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you do it manually please? --Shktriib1 (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Shktriib1 Again, I was not responsible for the edit you are referring to. I just closed my laptop. Ask 73.235.180.215 who made the edit. Regards Mill 1 (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I talked to him and he said he wants this idiot to stop reverting the edit every time he does it because this idiot named sundayclose thinks he knows everything yet does not even check its validity before reverting.--Shktriib1 (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Shktriib1 Yes, browsing through your Talk page I already noticed that sundayclose is not your biggest fan ;) Mill 1 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

So will you do it please? --73.235.180.215 (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC) I asked him to ask you. --Shktriib1 (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

This IP is a sock of prolific sockmaster Cadeken, who has created dozens of accounts and used even more IPs. See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Cadeken/Archive. IPs in near Tulare, California always pop up when a registered sock is blocked. They always deny it, but if there ever was a case that satisfies the WP:DUCK test, this is it. Sundayclose (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Sundayclose I already established that fact and chose not to respond. First time someone tried to mobilise me as a meatpuppet. Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 09:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Beste Mill1,

Misschien kan jij mij helpen met een 'probleem' die veroorzaakt wordt door Deb. Zij is een administrator en voert op dit moment onnodige wijzigingen door op de Engelse Wikipedia jaarpagina's. Onder het mom van alle informatie moet voorzien zijn van citaties (ofwel bronvermelding). Ik heb haar medegedeeld dat dit vaak niet mogelijk is en wanneer dit niet vermeld wordt dan creer je 'blanco pagina's'. Zij is nu alle informatie aan het verwijderen die geen citaties hebben. Ik ben vanaf 2008 editor en heb haar medegedeeld dat zij dan alle jaarpagina's maar moet nachecken en informatie zonder citaties maar moet verwijderen. Kan jij mij advies geven of mogelijk helpen om deze onnodige acties een halt toe te roepen! Peters01 (talk) 23:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Peters01,

Deb is correct. The exemption of the rule regarding project WP:DAYS has been lifted since 2018. Regards Mill 1 (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Een vrolijk kerstfeest voor jullie beiden! Deb (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

@Deb Wishing you a merry X-mas as well. All the best for 2023! Mill 1 (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Beste Mill1,

Kan jij mij misschien vertellen waarom de topic van de jaarpagina's zijn veranderd. Hoe kan ik deze weer op de "oude" versie zetten? Vriendelijke groeten, Peters01 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Bedoel je de nieuwe skin? hier staat hoe je die weer kunt uitzetten. Mill 1 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anton Smit is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anton Smit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Georges Beaucourt, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. GiantSnowman 10:31, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

User:GiantSnowman To answer your question '- and which reference is that then?' It was the link to Beaucourt's bio that was already present.

Thanks for contributing to the article Richard McKenzie (actor). However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 23:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:2024 births indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI we almost never put {{WikiProject Categories}} on categories (eg).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I note your recent edits to Deaths in December 2005. In the process, you have removed a number of deceased persons with a Wikipedia entry. Could you please explain why these valid entries were deleted? Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I've been transparent about the need that some kind of filtering should be applied to these lists. I raised the topic three years ago and last year I have answered your comment about this very subject (see bottom of the topic). Also see this (quite lengthy) useful discussion about it with Braintic. I made an exception for executed convicts but I see that I missed some for which I am sorry. Mill 1 (talk) 07:30, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:486 deaths indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 01:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Howdy. It's standard operating procedure (see other bios) to change the 'dashes' to a solid line. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have seen a lot of bio's. Regarding WP:MOS this page states that in date ranges dashes should be used. Mill 1 (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

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

Deaths in December 1990

added links pointing to Ed Bell and Thurn und Taxis

Deaths in February 1990

added links pointing to Bernard Bernstein and Tony Holiday

Deaths in December 1989

added a link pointing to Gustav Engel

Deaths in November 1990

added a link pointing to Jill Day

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mill 1, are you planning to continue your semi-automated (LLM-based) approach to creating biographical articles? The cases of Ranjabati Sircar, Carlos Cachaça, and David Maurice Graham have shown that the rate of LLM hallucination is very high (a substantial % of the claims in these articles was either incorrect or pulled from unsourced works). That is before getting to the more subjective issues of LLM editorialization or SYNTH. It seems the better approach would be to just create these articles manually, without LLMs. If you agree, would you potentially be willing to show this as a case study at WP:AIC? I think the editors there would be very interested in an analysis of this experiment and what it could mean for our (present and future) LLM policies. NicheSports (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @NicheSports In one word: no. I am quite disappointed with the article creation capabilities of the LLM of choice: ChatGPT v5. I am a software developer and I use AI increasingly to generate software code. I only experienced some forgetfulness on ChatGPT's side but no hallucinations. Nor did I experience that behavior when asking questions on a wide range of topics. I am not a great writer so that's where I got the idea to use a LLM to set up an initial version of a Wikipedia biography using existing reliable sources.

Let me give you some small context. I created software that cross-references obituary archives from The New York Times and The Guardian, identifies overlapping mentions of deceased individuals, and checks whether those individuals already have a biography article on Wikipedia. The reason for creating the application was the following: If someone's obituary is published in both the NYTimes and The Guardian than he/she surely will be notable enough to have a biography. Since I already have two reliable sources I could use AI to generate bio's for individuals who for some reason or another still don't have one.

The software works great (repo). Jacques Fauvet was the first bio I created and published using both my app and ChatGPT v5. The suggested page structure, infobox and categories were great and saves a lot of time. Obviously I checked the sources with the generated text but found no big discrepancies. After that I went on to discover eight other individuals who met the criteria. I created a bio for each of them. They all died in 1999 by the way (the starting year of the Guardian news api). I was just processing October 1999 when you alerted me to the LLM shortcomings.

This is the list of the nine biographies I created this way:

1. Jacques Fauvet
2. Vera Tolstoy
3. Geoffrey Wigoder
4. Angus MacDonald (piper)
5. Joe Hyman
6. Carlos Cachaça
7. David Maurice Graham
8. Ranjabati Sircar
9. Mary Bodne

This is the last prompt I used for ChatGPT to generate the inital article. Per article the prompt differs in two ways:

1. The provided URL's to the source citations
2. The maximum number of words (based on the combined length of the obituaries, implying importance)

You are a Wikipedia editor. Write a neutral biography in encyclopedic tone in valid English Wikitext. 

URL's to the source citations:
https://www.theguardian.com/news/1999/nov/18/guardianobituaries3
https://www.nytimes.com/1999/11/16/arts/ranjabati-sircar-36-indian-choreographer.html

If available merge in a third citation (e.g. The Independent, The Washington Post) for balance. Do NOT use SFGate.com as a source.
Use and merge content from these sources paraphrased (no copying wording).

Other requirements:
- About 300 words maximum
- Use an Infobox person when appropriate.
- Add appropriate internal wiki links (e.g., [[Nigeria]], [[Nancy, France|Nancy]], ''[[Le Monde]]'').
- References formatted with <ref> and {{cite news}}.
- References section with == References == and {{reflist}}.
- Add property url-access=subscription regarding the NYTimes reference.
- Add appropriate Wikipedia categories at the end
- Between the references and categories add the following two:
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:LASTNAME(S), FIRSTNAME(S)}}

- Output only valid Wiki markup for a new article draft.

I hope I have given some explanation how this situation arose. I fear the other seven biographies will have issues as well, although I did fact-check the sources before publishing them. I am willing to show this as a case study at WP:AIC, just tell me how. Regards Mill 1 (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Mill 1, thank you for this context. It was very informative and interesting. Some context of my own: I am active at WT:AIC in patrol/cleanup of cases of LLM misuse. I came across Ranjabati Sircar while searching newly created articles for highly-conserved phrases that LLMs frequently insert into article leads. Your case was interesting because from what I have seen, the majority of editors who are unsuccessfully using LLMs are newer editors. I have come across a few experienced editors who are using LLMs, but you were the first to be open about doing so (your mention of "semi-automation" on your user page). Typically when I discover editors (mis)using LLMs I will revert/draftify/{{ai-generated}} tag the articles. But because you are experienced and were open about your use, I figured it would be better to more thoroughly check the references, because I was WP:AGF and wondered if you were actually using them successfully.

I really want to thank you for your openness and collaboration here btw. In terms of taking this to WT:AIC as a case study, I think you can largely replicate your comment above (and provide some context for how we identified the extent of the LLM hallucinations). I would definitely keep the detail, especially the LLM prompt. Don't worry about "looking bad" - I think the community there is going to be very supportive and appreciative of the information. The one thing that would be interesting to add is a quantification of the frequency of LLM hallucinations. I am thinking something like:

• Ranjabati Sircar: N tangible claims, X hallucinated or unsourced (Y%)
• Carlos Cachaça: N tangible claims, X hallucinated or unsourced (Y%)
• David Maurice Graham: N tangible claims, X hallucinated or unsourced (Y%)

etc. What do you think? NicheSports (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

@NicheSports I am very sympathetic to your cause. I will respond tomorrow since I work full time and I am beat right now :) Mill 1 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I started writing the account to be used as a use case. About the quantification regarding the hallucinations in the nine articles: will you help me with that? I light of objectivity I don't think I should do those checks. And which version of the article will checked? I already corrected Ranjabati Sircar and Carlos Cachaça. Would be better to check an older version I think. Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I can take care of that analysis tomorrow. Will post it here in this thread so you can review, consider it a PR! NicheSports (talk) 12:00, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that's great. Spoken like a true dev ;). What timezone are you/where are you based btw? Mill 1 (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

American living in Calgary, Canada, but currently visiting my company's office in India. Will be in Frankfurt next week haha. I was a developer in a past life NicheSports (talk) 12:09, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Greeting from rainy Holland, but you must´ve gathered as much from my User page. Mill 1 (talk) 12:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Indeed :) NicheSports (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

One thing: please bare in mind that in my draft space I did a lot of corrections to the articles myself, fixing hallucinations and adding other sources manually for instance. You'll be quantifying the extend of AI errors I let slip after publication. Mill 1 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes makes sense. I think we can characterize the hallucination rate estimate as conservative, given you did some reference checking NicheSports (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

I spent the last few days writing the account how LLM failed when creating bio's. Although I realize you're not a LLM fan, while writing the account I think I found a way how to apply ChatGPT conservatively and succesfully. Before you spend time checking the 9 faulty bio's who originated from a flawed prompt, could you check next three drafts I created the new way using the LLM:

1. Donald Gallup
2. Frederick S. Clarke
3. Charles Mérieux

Could you check them for hallucinations, LLM editorialization and SYNTH? I checked them myself already and found nothing. I only tweaked them minimally as you can see in the page history.
I am happy to share the new algoritm. Regards, Mill 1 (talk) 10:36, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I can take a look at these. And yes if you can share the new prompt that would be great. Btw did you test the new prompt on the three articles where we found extensive hallucinations? I think that would be the strongest test. NicheSports (talk) 11:33, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do both and get back to you on it shortly. Mill 1 (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi NicheSports,

You can find info w.r. to the new prompt here.

I rewrote Ranjabati Sircar based on the new prompt. The other two follow tomorrow. Cheers, Mill 1 (talk) 15:42, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Just reviewed - it looks like the primary change was to turn off memory and web search? I also saw the rewrite of Ranjabati Sircar which is an impressive improvement. I have some more thoughts on the above which I'll share later. Also sorry for the delay on my assigned tasks above - I took an impromptu day trip this weekend. I will get to the review tasks when possible this week - they remain a priority for me here NicheSports (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

@NicheSports It's the weekend; you should do whatever you like. Love the word 'impromptu' by the way. Mill 1 (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

Turning off memory and web search was one change. As a consequence the actual source texts are sent in the prompt instead of the url's. I also added "only use the information provided in following two texts to answer the question." (and a reminder at the end of the prompt). That was missing in the original faulty prompt. Mill 1 (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

On the plane back from India, taking a look at the first of these Carlos Cachaça. There is no doubt that your new approach is an improvement. I would say that the "super objective" hallucinations are gone. But I found multiple subtler issues. I think the LLM is having a hard time representing "concepts" without dipping into minor hallucination, synth, or non-neutral language.

• an Afro-Brazilian style blending percussion and urban themes": this is garbled. the source talks about a percussion based music with lyrics focused on urban themes. You can't blend percussion with the theme of your lyrics. Btw "blends X with Y" is a peak LLM tell that very frequently contains synth/OR/puffery/hallucinations - it might be the single "worst" LLM construct. You might want to consider automatically removing it from any LLM output you're working with
• including themes for Mangueira’s carnival parades such as "Pudesse Meu Ideal" and "Alvorada": the source does not state these were theme songs. Alvorada is implied to not be one. Pretty clear, if minor, hallucination here
• Cachaça’s compositions, including "Clotilde" and "Não Quero Amar Ninguém" ("I Don’t Want to Love Anyone"), remain part of Brazil’s popular music heritage. This seems to be LLM synth, along with some puffery. The source doesn't mention heritage as it relates to these songs and just says they remain popular today. Minor but characteristic of LLMs
• He is remembered as a foundational figure in transforming samba from local street music into a symbol of national identity. Blech. This is almost supported by the sources but the LLM takes it a step far with the "symbol of national identity" phrase ("symbol" and "identity" also being very LLM). More representative (and encyclopedic) phrasing would be something like "remembered as a foundational figure in the development and popularization of samba music in Brazil"

NicheSports (talk) 17:58, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'm curious about what your further analysis will dig up. Have a good flight. Mill 1 (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Mill 1. Thank you for your work on Nina Verchinina. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Well-written, clear, and discussing a notable ballet dancer; thanks for the contribution!

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

Klbrain (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! Mill 1 (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I saw that a category you created, Category:Iraqi restaurateurs has not been used on more than one page. According to the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, categories should be populated with multiple articles. Please help by adding other articles to the categories you create. You can take a look at the categorization FAQ. If you need further help, feel free to ask me or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 01:44, 19 March 2026 (UTC)