User talk:Artful Historian

Please refrain from making edits generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) to Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Violence in art. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Diff/1334246844 edit and AbuseLog/43230986 speak for themselves. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, since the page have multiple issues, I wanted to create a foundation to work over, with a good structure to begin with. I should have used the sandbox for that. I'm quite new here and haven't used it yet. Thanks. Artful Historian (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Gurkubondinn. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Ricardo de Ungria. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Artful Historian (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (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) 09:36, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Giuseppe De Santis, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neorealism was 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) 19:49, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lluís Dalmau, links pointing to the disambiguation pages Keystone and Santa Maria del Mar were added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:33, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (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) 18:49, 16 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Jin guliang. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing as a live article at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted it 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. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I understand, I had a couple of sources for his biography and career but there was a wikipedia notice saying those websites were not considered reliable and could not find anything about his life offline. Artful Historian (talk) 09:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Artful Historian LLM use. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have replied already. Artful Historian (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Artful Historian, I'm not seeing any posts from you in the above ANI thread, perhaps you want to try to repost your comment? Blue Sonnet (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Sonnet: I am think they are talking about the reply that they posted to WP:LLMN § User:Artful Historian, probably confusing it with ANI. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they might be getting confused, thanks! @Artful Historian can you please click on the blue link from Gurkubondinn right at the bottom of this page and talk to us there? Blue Sonnet (talk) 15:22, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Artful Historian: can you click this link and respond to the concerns there instead?

• WP:ANI § Artful Historian LLM use

When there is an ANI case, it is better for you to respond there. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is quite confusing for me still. Not so familiarized with technology, sorry. Here's my reply:

Thanks for pointing out, but I only use AI for English translation. Regarding José Víctor Fuentes, I don't see any problem with the text I wrote and it can all be understood from the original source (his words):

1. " José Víctor Fuentes: Festivalito started in 2002 and we always knew that we didn't want to be a film festival, we wanted to be a festival where we made films." " And it also brings about a coexistence between all the filmmakers, actors and technicians who come here, and the people who live on the island of La Palma, who end up participating in the filming, either as actors, telling stories, leaving their houses or providing locations." " But the fact that different locations on La Palma are shown over and over again gives us a very interesting cultural impact, because it makes us highlight its different values.

Festivalito also has a very important economic impact on the whole island because we’ve been trying to be a sustainable and zero-kilometre festival for many years."

Taken from the cite: https://cineuropa.org/en/interview/463995/

2. "Today, his works are still widely read and appreciated, and he is remembered as one of the greatest poets of the Tang Dynasty." taken from https://www.lovingchinese.com/cao-song-biography/ I made a mistake with the cite, and I have corrected just now.

3. I used that cite for that phrase, but I could use many other cites since most of them state the same. "De origen desconocido, aunque probablemente valenciano, la figura de Luis o Lluís Dalmau está documentada entre 1428 y 1462."

Please point out which content is not verified, I might have made mistakes or not based my statements strictly to the source. Also for the case of Lluis Dalmau I have looked into scholars studies about his works. I tried to do the same for Cao Song but could only find listings. Artful Historian (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:ONUS is on you to verify and read the sources before you insert them to Wikipedia. The diffs that I liked in § January 2026 point to you not reading the ChatGPT output before pasting it into Wikipedia.

The ANI thread is: WP:ANI § Artful Historian LLM use

--Gurkubondinn (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought what happened in January was already solved. I'm replying here to different claims. Is my reply wrong? Artful Historian (talk) 16:16, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How was it solved? --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all the edits were removed. Now someone alleged I was adding info with no verification and provided some examples. I have replied how that information is verified and which source was taken from. Please let me know if I'm still doing something wrong. Thanks Artful Historian (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs are not the problem, they are a symptom of the problem. --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I try to do my best creating pages that are not in wikipedia English yet, but I'm surely making mistakes. I try my best to find reliable information online and offline, extract it and redact it the best I can. One of the reasons I could not complete Jin Guliang article was that, after creating it in a word document (I still don't know how to use the sandbox properly), and starting to paste it in wikipedia, I got a notice that 2 of the websites were considered not reliable. And so I had to quit that article, since I couldn't find any offline information. This is the way I'm working now. If you think there is a problem in it, please point it out and I'll try my best to correct it. Thanks Artful Historian (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem. When (and if) you use AI, you have to carefully check its output. Sometimes you feed diamonds in, and out comes poop slop. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 18:35, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Artful Historian: can you click this link and respond to the concerns there instead?

• WP:ANI § Artful Historian LLM use

When there is an ANI case, it is better for you to respond there. (apologies for the double message, just want make sure that the editor finds the ANI thread and respond there) --Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Artful Historian I want to ask again for to please click on the link right above this message and continue the conversation there.

Because this matter has been reported to a public noticeboard for administrator attention, we need to talk about this on the noticeboard so the admins can see and understand what's happening.

If you don't join the discussion, you won't get to have any say in the outcome. Blue Sonnet (talk) 19:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think 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) 19:04, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I was not expecting this, to be honest. I was quite aware you were closely watching what I was doing and I tried my best to do things right following suggestions. I just made the mistake of making the gallery section of the article using AI because I'm not familiar with the format, but I then looked for the pictures in wikimedia commons and replaced the lines. I admitted my mistake and promised not to do it again. And the reply I get is this block.

I really want to contribute to wikipedia and want to do things right, but I'm human and make mistakes. I consider myself to be a person who learns from mistakes and try to always do things better. So I would ask you please to unblock me and give me one more chance to do things right. AI won't be an issue anymore, I got it very clear.

Thanks for your consideration Artful Historian (talk) 23:54, 28 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Artful Historian, right now you're only blocked from mainspace, so you're able to submit edit requests. WP:ERW can help. Once you've got a history of accepted edit requests, it will be much easier for you to successfully request unblock, which you can do using Wikipedia:Unblock wizard. -- asilvering (talk) 05:13, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand, thanks for clarifying. Artful Historian (talk) 06:10, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting for anyone who reviews this or any unblock request later; in the ANI thread, when called out about AI usage at Manuel Barron y Carrillo they responded initially with But to my surprise you believe I have used AI. I really would like to know why you think so, so I can have a chance to explain why that is not the case which is, it should be clear, a complete and bald-faced lie, since just a couple of comments later they backtracked to Yes I used it just to create the gallery, mainly because of format issues. [...] This is true, I didn't think that would be a problem,

I am rather disinclined to trust in the good faith of someone who will happily attempt to deceive the community if they think what they're doing is not a problem and they can get away with it. Athanelar (talk) 10:51, 29 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Athanelar, I'd like to clarify. I was pointed out there was an issue with my cites in that article, and that they were AI generated. I looked for the sources myself and made the cites myself, so I couldn't understand why they thought they were AI generated. I knew they were watching closer what I was doing, so it makes no sense I would use AI to create the written content of the article. Later, another user said the problem was with the gallery. So then I understood, and as you point out, I admitted I used AI to create the gallery from wikimedia commons, mainly because I don't know which wikitext format I had to use. I then replaced most of the pictures for the ones I though were more suitable for the article. And yes, I didn't think this would be such an issue, since I was taking for granted that the serious problem is when you use AI to generate de written content, and not when you use it to generate a gallery out of wikimedia commons. Now I've learned the hard way AI can't be used at all. Artful Historian (talk) 03:50, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's more that it causes so many errors that you need to know Wikipedia editing inside-and-out, so you can detect when it's made errors and also know how to fix them. Experienced editors can do this, except experienced editors don't need to use AI - it's just an extra step that needs checking, so overall it's not useful at all for Wikipedia editing. Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. I want to do things the best way possible, and I am in that learning process. Thanks for your comment. Artful Historian (talk) 05:40, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

---

Request reason:

If you look at my history, you will see I was warned once about the use of AI back in January.

When I started in wikipedia, I started doing small edits to familiarize with the technology. One day, following wikipedia's encouragement of being bold when editing, I decided to modify a whole page about violence in art, which had multiple issues. I used AI because I wanted to create a good structure to work on, and was experimenting on the use of AI, but I understood I should have done that at my sandbox. All my edits were deleted and I completely understood.

More recently, I was accused of using AI to create the content of several pages. I defended myself giving proof of that not being the case, and nobody replied to this proof, not even the user who alleged I was using AI and gave several examples of that. I admitted I was using deepl for translation from Spanish into English, since I feel more comfortable writing in Spanish. And some user suggested not to use deepl and write directly in English myself.

So that's what I did in the next article I created. It took me several hours to create this article, basing it on a journal and supporting this journal with good reliable online sources from museums, government institutions and so on. I knew I was being watched closely, so it didn't make any sense for me to do things not following suggestions and guidelines.

I made the mistake of using AI to generate the gallery section, mainly because I was not familiar with the wikitext format. Once created I even replaced most of the pictures from wikimedia commons for those who I thought would be more suitable for the article. I really didn't think this would be an issue, since I thought the serious problem comes when creating the written content with AI.

When some users pointed out I had been using AI for my cites, I could not understand what they meant, since I looked for the sources myself, so I asked for some explanation. Some user said the problem was with the gallery, and then I realized and admitted I had used AI just for this.

I have learnt I can't use AI at all. I really enjoy contributing to wikipedia by bringing information from reliable sources that is not yet available in English wikipedia. And I feel this block is truly unnecessary.

It's crystal clear to me I can't use any sort of AI and I really want to keep on contributing to wikipedia, which I think I've done ok so far. So I would ask you please to consider unblocking me.

Thanks for taking the time to read. Artful Historian (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While you might think that you'll be able to "learn how to use wikitext by looking at other pages", we'd like to see proof of this. Asilvering's advice of getting a good history of accepted edit requests will be useful in your next unblock request. I recommend that you follow it. It would be an easy way to show that you want to improve the encyclopedia more than just wanting your account to be fully unblocked. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

(Non-administrator comment) I can see that Asilvering suggested that you make edit requests and speak once you've had several of them accepted, as proof that you know how to edit Wikipedia without using AI to support you. Can you please explain why you'd like to be unblocked immediately, without following the recommendation of the blocking administrator? Blue Sonnet (talk) 04:47, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blue Sonnet. Sure, thanks for giving me the chance to explain myself. I know I can learn how to use wikitext by looking at other pages edit format, so I wouldn't need to use AI for this. It will take more time for sure, but it is the way I can use right now. I don't need AI for nothing. I thought I'd need it to write in a proper English, but I learnt my English is enough for this too. I really think I can do a good job at editing with no AI at all. I'm aware of my limitations, but I'm sure I will improve very quickly. Thanks again for your reply.

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure you're getting the point here. You were blocked for using AI/LLMs and the evidence was pretty clear cut. You have denied this. You can contribute to Wikipedia by using edit requests, which you seem to have forgetten or not realized. Instaed, you are attempting to be unblocked after doing nothing to change anybody's mind about your block. (I was the "some user" who noted you left AI tell tale signs in the gallery.) It's worth noting as Blue Sonnet mentioned that AI just adds another extra step, and most uses of it already put you under the notice and judgement of a lot of Wikipedians. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 19:17, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ThatTrainGuy1945. Maybe I'm not getting the point. So let me recap.

As far as I understood, I was blocked because I used AI in my last article to create the gallery section, as it was proved and I admitted.

I'm requesting an unblock because I think I got the point and I'm sure I'm capable of editing articles without using AI, as I have proved before. I made mistakes, I learnt from those mistakes and I'm not making them again because I want to keep contributing.

I believe I have a right to request an unblock, as I'm sure the administrators have their right to deny it. And if so, I will have to make a request for every minor edit I'm allowed to do, until they consider I have proved I can edit without "using AI to support" me, as Blue Sonnet wrote. But again, maybe there's something I'm not understanding here, due to my lack of experience and/or knowledge. So I'd appreciate very much if you can point it out.

Thank you Artful Historian (talk) 19:43, 30 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you need to make requests to make edits for now. It is highly unlikely that another administrator will unblock you until you have made some good edit requests, though I cannot and will not stop you from trying. -- asilvering (talk) 00:32, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. That's what I will do. Artful Historian (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I want to clarify I wanted to do things right before being blocked. I didn't think creating the gallery with AI would be such an issue, now I know it is. As I now know using AI in any shape or form is an issue that can get you blocked. Artful Historian (talk) 05:30, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge you try to improve pages which get more traffic and recent talk page discussions. Starting a conversation on a page like Talk:Manuel Benedito which was last edited 2 years ago may not get much traction. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what do you mean by traction? Artful Historian (talk) 14:56, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I feel pages with more traffic and talk discussions are already taken care of and little changes are usually applied. Why not trying to improve pages that are not being taken care of (for 2 years now)?

Thanks for your comment. Artful Historian (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's no use in commenting on pages no one looks at or watches when you need edit requests to get unblocked. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 15:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Little changes are what you need right now. 🚂ThatTrainGuy1945 ^{Peep peep!} 15:14, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatTrainGuy1945, this is incorrect. -- asilvering (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824, it doesn't matter how well-trod a talk page is if you make edit requests. Those go into the edit request queue and are handled by editors who patrol that queue specifically. -- asilvering (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying. I would rather put time in improving a page that needs lots of improvement than in other pages that are already being taken care of. Artful Historian (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about edit requests, but AH was (rightly) following the steps mentioned in Wikipedia:Edit requests at Talk:Manuel Benedito, which included starting a talk page conversation, which is why I gave that advice. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:13, 1 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]