User talk:Java.H SAMSON

Welcome!

It appears you may have used a large language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT, in your edits. While LLMs are powerful, machine-generated text often contains serious flaws. They may introduce bias, errors, plagiarism, libel, or even hoaxes. Specifically asking an LLM to "write a Wikipedia article" can sometimes cause the output to be outright fabrication, complete with fictitious references. Editors must verify all LLM-generated text before using it in an article. Completely LLM-generated articles may be quickly deleted. If you are unsure about your wording, an alternative is to suggest it on the talk page for another volunteer to look at it. If you are creating a new article, you may use the Articles for Creation process to get feedback on your work.

As you get started editing Wikipedia, you may find the pages below to be helpful:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page, and someone will be along to answer it shortly. In your messages, please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. Happy editing! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewer,User:Jimfbleak

I am writing to address the concern that my draft, "Compensatory Support Obligation Litigation", was generated by an LLM. I would like to firmly state that I did not use any large language models (such as ChatGPT) to generate this text.

I understand why the article's structure might appear "machine-like" or overly rigid, and I would like to provide the context for this to clear up the misunderstanding:

Translation of Legal Documents: The content is a direct synthesis and translation of actual Japanese legal briefs, specifically the Special Appeal (Tokubetsu Kōkoku) and court rulings referenced in the article (Case Reiwa 8 (Ra-Ku) No. 9, etc.). The rigid structure, bullet points, and specific headings (e.g., "claimant's argument," "ruling") reflect the formal structure of Japanese civil procedure documents, not AI formatting.

Specificity of Information: An LLM would likely hallucinate or generalize legal details. However, this draft contains highly specific, verifiable, and novel data that does not exist in English training data, including:

Specific Japanese case numbers (Reiwa 7 (Ie) No. 58, Reiwa 7 (Ra) No. 2292).

Precise dates of recent rulings (August 20, 2025; December 22, 2025).

Direct translations of novel Japanese legal theories like "Compensatory Support Obligation" (Baishō-teki Fuyō Gimu) and specific income figures (11.71 million yen vs 6.5 million yen).

Source Material: The article cites specific Japanese sources (including note.com entries hosting the legal summaries and official court statistics) which I have manually compiled and translated.

I have spent significant time organizing this complex legal history into an encyclopedic format. I kindly request that you review the content based on its verifiability and sources, rather than its formatting style. If the formatting is the primary issue, I am more than willing to adjust the prose to be less "list-heavy," but I assure you the content is original human work.

Thank you for your time and volunteer work. Java.H SAMSON (talk) 07:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Jimfbleak! See THIS PAGE. Java.H SAMSON (talk) 07:08, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your text had, for example, non-human formatting, eg Family Law and 150,000 yen, bolded and/or capitalised, "Neuro-law" bolded, capitalised and quote marked, and had editorialising eg Furthermore, the case is a pioneering example.... Most of your text was unsourced, written in list form instead of sentences and with very few wikilinks. If it isn't LLM produced, why does it have so many characteristics of a bot? I'm prepared in principle to restore, but you need to be aware of the multiple issues and indicate how you will address them Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also you talk about direct translations, so there may be copyright issues to address, since a translation of copyright material is itself copyright Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:16, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Reviewer, User:Jimfbleak

Thank you for your detailed feedback and for your willingness to help restore the draft. I appreciate your vigilance in maintaining Wikipedia's quality. However, I must respectfully but firmly reiterate that I did not use any AI or LLM to generate this text.

I am a native Japanese speaker, and English is not my first language. What you perceive as "bot-like" characteristics or "non-human formatting" are, in fact, the result of my effort to organize complex legal concepts from a different linguistic and legal system into English.

Here are my specific responses to the issues you raised:

1. Regarding "Non-human formatting" and Lists: The heavy use of bolding (e.g., Family Law) and list structures reflects the conventions of Japanese legal documents, which often prioritize distinct categorization and visual emphasis for clarity over flowing prose. My attempt to strictly structure the information for readability—translating the rigidity of a Japanese legal brief directly into English—resulted in a style that may look "robotic" to a native English speaker, but it is 100% human-written.

Action: I understand this does not meet the English Wikipedia Manual of Style. I will remove the bolding and capitalization, and I will rewrite the lists into proper prose paragraphs.

2. Regarding "Editorializing": Phrases like "a pioneering example" were intended to reflect the legal arguments presented by the Claimant in the court documents, not my personal opinion.

Action: I will revise these sentences to clearly attribute them to the source (e.g., "The appeal argues that this case is a pioneering example...") to avoid any appearance of editorializing.

3. Regarding Sourcing: The draft cites specific Japanese court documents and case numbers (e.g., Case Reiwa 8 (Ra-Ku) No. 9). These are the primary sources.

Action: I will ensure inline citations are correctly placed to show exactly where the information comes from, and I will add more Wikilinks to relevant Japanese law concepts.

4. Regarding Copyright Issues: There are no copyright infringements in this draft for the following reasons:

Public Domain Nature of Texts: The source materials are court judgments and legal proceedings in Japan. Under Article 13 of the Copyright Act of Japan, "judgments, decisions, orders and decrees of courts" are ineligible for copyright and are in the public domain.

Factual Summarization: The draft is a summary of facts and legal theories asserted in open court. Facts and legal arguments themselves are not copyrightable. I have translated the meaning and structure of the legal assertions for encyclopedic purposes, which constitutes legitimate reporting, not a violation of creative expression.

I am ready to make the necessary stylistic changes (prose conversion, de-bolding) immediately upon restoration. I ask that you please judge the article based on its verifiability and content, bearing in mind the linguistic context, rather than the formatting errors of a non-native speaker. Java.H SAMSON (talk) 07:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Jimfbleak! See THIS PAGE.

More

OK, thanks for detailed reply. I'd actually checked the copyright issue myself. I'll recreate the draft shortly. I don't think it will be accepted as it stands, but if it's rejected you can always resubmit. Let me know if you want me to have a look at any stage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:00, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

To. User:Jimfbleak

I am writing to respectfully request a review of the draft article Draft:Compensatory Support Obligation Litigation and assistance in moving it to the mainspace.

Context and Notability: This article documents the emerging legal doctrine of "Compensatory Support Obligation" (Japanese: Baisyo-teki Fuyo Gimu), which sits at the intersection of Family Law and Tort Law. The concept addresses the "remedial gap" where statutes of limitations bar traditional tort claims for domestic violence or child abuse, leading courts to consider spousal/child support as a functional substitute for reparations. To ensure compliance with WP:GNG and WP:NPOV , the draft is structured not merely as a report on a single pending case, but as a comparative legal analysis involving:

1. Canadian Precedents: The article integrates the seminal Supreme Court of Canada decisions Moge v. Moge and Bracklow v. Bracklow , which established the "compensatory" basis for support obligations, providing a global context for the theory.

2. Japanese Jurisprudence: It covers the landmark "Reiwa 8 (Ra-Kyo) No. 7" & "Reiwa 8 (Ra-Ku) No. 9" appeal, utilizing it as a case study for the application of "Trauma-Informed Justice" and the legal challenges surrounding the statute of limitations in abuse cases.

3. Academic Discourse: The draft references the shift from "maintenance-based" (survival) to "reparative" (compensation) support models.

Request: Given the specialized legal nature of the content—which includes specific translations of Japanese legal terminology and analysis of civil procedure—I believe this draft requires a reviewer with subject-matter expertise to properly assess its sourcing and neutrality.

I have verified that the draft relies on cited legal frameworks and avoids original research (WP:OR). If the content is found to be satisfactory, I request that the page be moved to the article namespace.--Java.H SAMSON (talk) 04:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I started changing your headings to sentence case, but got bored, so you need to complete that. References with Japanese titles should have an English translation using the trans-title= parameter. I still don't like the list format, but let's see. I don't normally formally review articles, and in this case I don't think it would be appropriate anyway since I've edited it. Just wait for a regular reviewer to pick it up. Don't move it yourself, I think there are still issues that might be picked up. I think it will be rejected anyway because most of your text is unreferenced Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]