User talk:IntegersInSpace

Hello, IntegersInSpace, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you created or edited was Draft:TJ Norris, which appears to be a draft of an article about yourself. Writing about yourself is a common mistake made by new Wikipedians.

As this is an encyclopedia, we wouldn't expect to have an article about every contributor. We require individuals to meet Wikipedia's definition of a notable person to accept articles about them. A page you created about yourself may well be deleted from the encyclopedia. If it is deleted and you wish to retrieve its contents, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The Teahouse

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using 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! Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 11:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Sarsenet. An edit that you recently made to Draft talk:TJ Norris seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications is usually unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and may contain factually inaccurate statements, fictitious citations, or other problems. You should instead read reliable sources and then summarize those in your own words. Your edit may have been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 11:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, a yes/no question for you: Have you used an AI chatbot (large language model) to generate Draft:TJ Norris or any of your discussion comments here? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 23:33, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

To answer your question: Yes, in part, as I have used an LLM solely as a drafting assistant to help organize the prose and ensure the formatting meets Wikipedia’s basic standards. However, as noted in my COI disclosure, I have personally verified all factual claims against the cited sources and edited the text to maintain a strict neutral point of view. IntegersInSpace (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

The draft and your comments on the talk page clearly do not meet Wikipedia's basic standards for formatting, and exhibit the same stylistic patterns as the hundreds of LM-generated drafts that we have seen here in the past few years. Using LLMs to create drafts or participate in discussions is prohibited, and lying or hedging about LLM use is a very bad idea. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 00:24, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I want to be clear that I'm not lying or hedging. I wrote the core structure and content of this draft myself and have been using an LLM primarily as a translation tool to help me navigate Wikipedia’s Manual of Style and neutrality requirements, which are still somewhat new to me. However I hear what you are saying and will respond to your helpful feedback in that the resulting prose still carries those stylistic patterns. That wasn't my intent, but I recognize why it’s a concern. I’m going to step back and do a full manual rewrite to ensure the draft meets community standards for tone and formatting without any AI interference. My goal is to get this right, and I appreciate the heads-up on how strictly these patterns are monitored.IntegersInSpace (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

In this edit you declined your submission yourself, and also removed the review templates again – you have already been told not to do this. Why do you have such difficulty with the instruction, Do not remove this line! These mistakes are almost always the result of pasting the output of a chatbot into the draft. Someone who is carefully writing or rewriting their draft manually is unlikely to make such mistakes. ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 03:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you ClaudineChionh. You are right to call this out directly. I did use an LLM to assist in organizing the draft, and I should have been clearer about the extent of that from the start. The accidental removal of the review templates was a result of pasting and not reading carefully enough — exactly the kind of careless mistake you identified.

I am not going to resubmit until I have done a full manual rewrite that I can stand behind completely. I recognize that my credibility with reviewers has been damaged and that I need to earn it back through careful, transparent editing rather than by arguing about the current draft.

If you or another experienced editor would be willing to look at the sourcing concerns raised by Netherzone at some point, I would genuinely welcome that feedback. I understand if that's not something you're willing to do right now given the history here. IntegersInSpace (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You already said you were going to do a full manual rewrite and delivered more chatbot output. Why should we believe you again? You should also be replying to us in your own words, without using AI at all. If you are TJ Norris, an arts professional and native English speaker, why are you relying so much on a technology that has been proven to lie, hallucinate, and steal from artists? ClaudineChionh (she/her · talk · email · global) 13:58, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

You say you are "using an LLM primarily as a translation tool". Are you saying that you are translating from a different language where you have a stronger understanding? I'm sorry, but this is English Wikipedia, and on English Wikipedia, competence is required, including in the English Language. The problem with LLMs, even if they are fact checked, is that they still produce bad writing that other editors need to clean up. Have you considered contributing to the Wikipedia in your native language? Every other Wikipedia is smaller than this one, so I'm sure your native Wikipedia would appreciate it. guninvalid (talk) 09:00, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you guninvalid. To clarify: English is my first language. By 'translation tool' I meant using the LLM to help navigate Wikipedia's Manual of Style and formatting requirements, which was a poor choice of words on my part. I take the point about LLM-generated prose creating cleanup work for other editors, and I've already committed to a full manual rewrite above. IntegersInSpace (talk) 12:42, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the recent verification comments: I've located direct institutional links that might have been missed in general web searches. The monograph Shooting Blanks is indexed in the Amon Carter Museum of American Art Library via the CDLC catalog: https://tcu.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma990002606030108722&context=L&vid=01TCU_MUS:01TCU_MUS&lang=en&search_scope=CDLCLibraries&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=SelectLibrary&query=any,contains,TJ%20Norris&offset=0

Additionally, the Vanhaerents Art Collection is documented in the hardcover catalogue Man in the Mirror (ISBN 978-9401414722, page 8, 29, 42), and another notable exhibition curated by James Voorhies, Of Other Spaces (2012) (project site: https://jamesvoorhies.com/projects/of-other-spaces), resulted in a 128-page catalogue (ISBN 978-0615654638). These aren't minor brochures; they are institutional publications held in library archives. I hope these specific references help clear up the verification concerns.IntegersInSpace (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Having your self-published book in a library does not contribute to notability whatsoever. It's puffery; highlighting a trivial fact to make it seem significant, a common "tell" of AI ChatBots that are trained to puff up aspects with important sounding language. And this factoid is written such that it sounds like your art work is in the collection of the Amon Carter Museum of American Art, which it is not. This is misleading. Additionally, it's sourced to a blog in the draft.

Your work was in a group exhibition curated by Voorhies but you or the ChatBot is making it sound like the 128 page catalog for the show is all about your work. It's not. And the fact that the catalog is in libraries does not contribute to notability. And the link you provided to Voorhies' personal website does not state that your work is held in the private collection of Walter Vanhaerents. It simply mentions your name among 22 other artists as being in the show. Nor is it mentioned in this citation in the draft nor this citation.

So it seems that either the AI ChatBots are hallucinating, or this is one of the hazards of writing an autobiography WP:AUTOBIO: it is natural for people to exaggerate in writing about themselves. –– Netherzone (talk) 05:16, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Netherzone — I appreciate the directness. You're right on the Amon Carter reference; I've pulled it. I've also reworded the Of Other Spaces entry so it's clear this was a group show. Worth noting the rewrite in my Sandbox was already underway yesterday morning — if you have a moment to look and tell me what still doesn't hold up, I'd genuinely welcome that. IntegersInSpace (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

You have claimed in a comment above that neutrality requirements are still somewhat new to me, however you have been trying to create a autobiography about yourself since 2007. If you still don't understand the core policies of WP, well then sadly it seems your goal here is not to build an encyclopedia, but rather to promote and showcase yourself. WP:PROMO. I am sorry to have to point that out, however creating autobiographies are strongly discouraged, and any type of promotion or showcasing is against policy. Netherzone (talk) 14:46, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

That's a fair point and I've heard it before. I've been at this a long time, which probably says something. The sandbox draft is there if anyone wants to look at the sourcing — I'm not going to resubmit until someone else has had a chance to weigh in. IntegersInSpace (talk) 16:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Please note that pages in your personal sandbox are not allowed to be filed in categories as if they were already finished articles in mainspace, per WP:USERNOCAT. The page must stay out of any categories so long as it's in sandbox, and this is not an optional or flexible or negotiable rule at all. (Nor is it a legitimate detour around the AFC process — if you're having trouble getting the draft approved, then the answer is to improve the draft, and maintaining a duplicate copy in your personal sandbox that you file in categories as if it were already an approved mainspace article is not on your list of alternatives.)

As I've had to remove the page from categories three times in as many days, do not readd it to categories again, because it isn't allowed to be in categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and for catching this — I wasn't aware that categories aren't permitted in sandbox pages. I genuinely thought the sandbox was a free space to experiment with the full article format. I won't add them back. I appreciate your patience. IntegersInSpace (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2026 (UTC)