User talk:VitisArchivum

Thanks for your contributions to Kratošija. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has too many problems of language or grammar. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Joy (talk) 21:13, 25 September 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.

Children Will Listen (🐄 talk, 🫘 contribs) 00:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

My focus is on contributing accurate, well-sourced information and collaborating in good faith, strictly following Wikipedia’s core principles of neutrality and verifiability. VitisArchivum (talk) 10:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Then stop using an AI to do your writing for you. AIs have not learned how to write for Wikipedia properly, and they often hallucinate sources. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist, thank you for the comment — I genuinely appreciate measured and realistic feedback.

Just to clarify, I never use AI to generate sources or claims. All the references I cite, I have personally read, and any AI assistance is limited strictly to helping with English phrasing, without altering the substance of what I write. I am very aware of AI hallucinations and the risks they pose, so I’m careful not to rely on it for anything that could compromise accuracy or verifiability.

My aim is the same as yours: to follow Wikipedia’s core content policies and contribute well-sourced, neutral material.

Best regards,

--VitisArchivum (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You used an AI for that reply too, according to AI detectors. You aren't helping yourself here. Keep that up and your account will be blocked. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Anachronist,

According to WP:LLMCOMM, artificial intelligence detection tools cannot be used as evidence on Wikipedia. Many of them produce false positives or false negatives. Also, according to WP: LLMCOMM, I quote: "LLMs can be used to correct or condense existing text and to generate ideas for new or existing articles. Every article edit must comply with all applicable policies and guidelines. This means that the editor must familiarize themselves with the sources for the topic in question, and then carefully assess the text for overall neutrality and verifiability against the cited sources."

However, if preferred, I will not use LLMs on talk pages. Noted. That matter is settled for me and

and I would rather focus on the article's content.

Respectfully, VitisArchivum (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

My own brain, based on extensive experience in recognizing LLM output, is my primary detection tool. I also refer to WP:AISIGNS. Any initial suspicion derived from those things is backed up by referring to technical tools. If there is ambiguity in the results, I don't make the accusation. I am 100% confident that you have been using an AI to write for you, and this is especially unwelcome on talk pages. We have no interest in conversing with anyone but other human beings. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)