User talk:TheAlienMan2002/Archive 2

September 2023

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Teen Big Brother: The Experiment, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that you have done this several times, such as here. Please note that "programme" is not a misspelling of "program"; it is the correct spelling in British English, and per WP:ENGVAR, it is the form that should be used in articles about UK subjects. Thank you. CodeTalker (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, I did not realize that the article was written in British English. I will read more about WP:ENGVAR. Thanks for the message. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 12:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Teahouse

You have made only 304 edits over two years and you are now handing out bad advice at the Teahouse? Please rethink your approach and only answer Teahouse questions when you are highly confident that your answer is correct and useful. Advising an editor to go to WP:ANI about a content dispute was neither correct nor useful. Now, that editor is being cross-examined because you gave bad advice. Please be more careful. Cullen328 (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cullen328 If the user has a conflict with another user, then ANI would be the right place for it. But carefully examining it, I saw that it was not the best choice. People make good and bad choices, and it certainly won't happen again. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems. It is not for routine conflicts with other users. Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

TheAlienMan2002, I think perhaps you missed the point Cullen was making; editors with little experience or depth of policy knowledge shouldn't be advising others. There's a lot of nuance that requires more than 300 edits to absorb. There are also myriad tasks on Wikipedia that could use the help of a willing volunteer such as yourself that don't involved providing opinions or advice.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:25, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

While my 300 edits signify substantial interaction with Wikipedia, they don’t inherently denote comprehensive cognizance or mastery of the platform’s myriad functionalities and norms. Edit quantity is merely a singular metric of engagement, not a holistic representation of one’s proficiency or insight into Wikipedia’s operational mechanics and content stipulations. There exist individuals with fewer edits who may possess a more nuanced apprehension of Wikipedia’s foundational principles and constructive contribution strategies. The essence of contribution lies not in volume but in the quality, relevance, and constructive nature of the edits, impacting the platform’s informational accuracy and utility. Thus, a lesser number of edits doesn’t necessarily equate to a deficit in understanding or knowledge of responsible and effective Wikipedia use. Thanks, TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You are continuing to give bad advice in areas that you do not understand. You have done so at ANI and again at the Teahouse. And whatever that apparently ChatGPT-generated word salad above is supposed to mean, it is not helpful. I suggest that you focus on improving articles and avoid the WP namespace until you have a lot more experience. Your current behavior is putting you on course to get blocked from editing. CodeTalker (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

First of all, what reason am I getting blocked for? I have done nothing wrong on this platform, and your accusation saying I have "Chat-GPT" generated messages is absurd. Please rethink when you're replying to people on Wikipedia. Please do not violate WP:NOPA.

In case you don't understand what I meant, the article states: "It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways.".

I made a mistake, I already expected myself to not let it happen again, but please refrain from the accusations. Thanks, TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You've say you've done nothing wrong? Three different editors (two of them administrators) have told you what you're doing wrong in this very section that you replied to. If you're not able to understand the problems with your behavior after it has been clearly explained to you, then that's certainly one of the reasons for which you may be blocked. CodeTalker (talk) 18:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

They've told me I apparently "gave bad advice" to Wikipedians at different articles. If you can redirect me to an article where it says that I am not allowed to give out bad advice to Wikipedians then that would be fantastic because it's a way for me to learn from my mistakes. Thanks, TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

User:TheAlienMan2002 I'm replying in your talkpage archive since you're clearly bothered by this, but prohibition from giving out bad advice to Wikipedians is covered by WP:CIR. Although classed as an essay, CIR blocks do occur. I saw that after making these two edits clearly misunderstanding a question, you began looking for advice on how to give better advice.

The best thing to do is lurk more. Read discussions, read guidance pages, and watch how things are done in practice. If you're not sure about an answer, let somebody else answer it. I don't know if you have been visiting the site a lot during the months of not editing between January 2022 and August 2023, but it seems like you don't have sufficient experience to be participating in the way you're trying to. Just have patience about it. We all start out inexperienced. It can be speedrun with a whole lot of reading, but you're not ready yet. Folly Mox (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

“intractable behavioral problems”. The person clearly had behavioral problems with another editor. Thus, making the right choice, honored. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

My username

hi, I'm sorry that my username caused you any type of discomfort. This name just popped up in my head for no particular reason so I really don't mind changing it, how can i do that? Lean Harvey Oswald (talk) 13:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Lean Harvey Oswald Please read WP:BLPABUSE to find out more about your username. It states that you cannot put a notable deceased person as your username.

To read about changing usernames, go to WP:RENAME to do so. Make sure to read EVERYTHING before doing so, and once you change your username, your old username will be available for other people to use, if that is the case.

Finally, to change usernames, go here: Special:GlobalRenameRequest to change your global username. Or, if you need a different option, click this link: Wikipedia:Changing username#Venues.

Thank you, TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 14:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Do not post "AI"-generated inanity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You seem to be making a habit of posting "AI"-generated inanity in various places on Wikipedia. This behavior is unambiguously disruptive; if you do not cease, you may be blocked from editing. --JBL (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

JBL Please do not, in any circumstances accuse me of using "Ai-generated" messsages. I just have erudite conversations sometimes and mostly I try my best and word things out as I can.

Please read WP:PA because your message clearly violates it, and you don't have proof whatsoever of this "AI-generated" stuff, there's no ground to stand on. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

it's hard not to accuse you of it, while you're doing it. and that is in no way a personal attack. ltbdl (talk) 05:36, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ltbdl It is a personal attack. Or at least an attack based on my vocabulary. But nontheless you cannot accuse someone of something without verifying. If I said to you "Oh, your message 'it's hard not to accuse you of it, while you're doing it. and that is in no way a personal attack' is Ai-Generated" would I be telling the truth? No of course not, because theres no proof or validation that you used an AI, just like there's no proof that I did use an AI, (which I never ever used in the first place).

I find your accusation and this whole conversation right now, to be irksome. It's your right to state your opinion on the matter, that's why I kept your message. Your point of view for this has no lead, no proof, no evidence, just accusations and your asseveration on me saying I have Ai generated message is just, absurd, and rude, too.

Familiar yourself with other people using vocabulary words that you, do not understand, please. Please be wise on your messages because the more i read them the more I think you're being an egotistical presumptuous human being. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 12:42, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're being an egotistical presumptuous human being

thanks, that made me laugh. ltbdl (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you never even responded to my message but payed attention to the end of the message where it said what you are as a person. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

You've tipped your hand whether you realize it or not. Now that you've been accused your writing style has totally changed, and you're very obviously cramming in complex words (which does not improve communication but rather impair it) where they don't fit in an attempt to keep up appearances. GabberFlasted (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The correct course of action for a person in your position is to apologize for using LLMs, apologize for the egregious personal attack towards ltbdl, and commit to not repeating either of those behaviors again. If you do that, I personally will be happy for our interaction to be completed and I will leave you in peace. If you persist in either of these disruptive behaviors, you will doubtless be blocked from Wikipedia in short order. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ltbdl You still haven't answered my question of what I am being blocked for, a/also politely asked you to give me a redirect link that I am breaking. You don't have evidence I used LLMs or anything. I used excessive verbiage on my comments when someone did an ANI because I was infuriated by the fact that someone had reported me then.

There was nothing egregious about the accusations you and himself have put onto me, yeah definitely not. Your assertion @GabberFlasted, "Now that you've been accused your writing style has totally changed". Well of course it did, if I continued using the so called "excessive verbiage and the 'ai' thing" or whatever, then people would think I was using an extra tool to amplify my words. So I slowed down the verbiage and since then I was being articulate about my wording and ensuring that nobody assumed I was utilizing a tool or maybe using a tool for bait.

It was your own oversight, to venture onto my talk page and make the presumption that I was using an AI tool.

If Im accusing someone of using a tool then I would have to get proof right? Just like proving that COVID-19 exists or maybe the Ebola outbreak. You needed proof for those things right? Of course. So, maybe get some proof for my wording, and of course the AI thing, and avoid using the denunciatory language please. That would be nice so that we can all, be civil, on my own talk page.

I'm not sure what you mean by cramming up the words to make them 'impaired', please explain more. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 20:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

the proof is the edits linked by jbl. ltbdl (talk) 00:17, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What am i being blocked for? Simply question, don't say that “Oh, it’s the linked that he provided you.” No, no, no, the links point out to my messages for which I have wrote myself. The user doesn’t have any proof I used an AI, I could say the same for JBL using an AI to my find my messages. See how that works? TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 09:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

This honestly could be the guy's writing style. I currently cannot, but can someone run the edits through CheckGPT or some similar resource? Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 12:23, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@dialmayo: yeah, those check gpt things are useless. i plugged in the first paragraph of sun and it told me it was ai generated. ltbdl (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeahhh, there really isn't much way of knowing, then, I suppose. At the very least, the diffs linked indicate problems with the user's understanding of situations:

-Telling someone to report the user to Wikipedia’s appropriate dispute resolution forum responding to a report on the user on Wikipedia’s appropriate dispute resolution forum

-Saying while my 300 edits signify substantial interaction with Wikipedia while the 300 edits are being used against him to signify the opposite

-Whatever this is

@TheAlienMan2002, this is what the issue is. All of these responses strongly resemble AI responses without enough context. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 16:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

And to answer the "block" question, repeatedly giving out bad advice and wasting time, having a combative attitude, and incivility, though given where these altercations are occurring, it's more likely to be a partial block from the Wikipedia namespace rather than a full block CiphriusKane (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

What part of my message counts as not being civil? It's really funny when someone cant back up their claims. Not you. The other Wikipedians on here. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 17:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're being an egotistical presumptuous human being this is a ad hominem personal attack, which are considered to be incivil CiphriusKane (talk) 18:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

I really think you and the others should apologize for assuming someone of using an AI to improve wording when it’s just the vocabulary and my meticulous writing.

A/also violating the WP:CIVIL guidelines and the WP:HA because what I think is the only reason why you and the others ventured onto my Wikipedia talk page is so you can think of an excuse and try to get me blocked without any validation or any proof whatsoever that I clouted an AI for my writing.

Anyone can write like an “AI” or someone who used excessive verbiage for paragraphs, it’s almost impossible to identify a user, specifically on Wikipedia that someone is using AI to improve paragraphs.

But the infuriating urge, to respond you in this way, is acceptable to myself, simply because this conversation probably is irreverent. I’d already suggested you stop being obsessive with me.

1. Because I don’t use Ai

2. I already told you the only thing I actually violated was being civil, unfortunately i couldn’t control that role, because you’ve angered me so much, i’d had to respond to the others in a way, would be looked as being disrespectful or ad hominem, like you said.

3. I’ve asked many times for either a link, or some reasoning why I am being blocked, but after I somehow violated a civil rule, you’d decided to put that as your input. There’s no rule using AI, and I don’t think AI counts as an LLM.

Your quotations

“Yeahhh, there really isn't much way of knowing, then, I suppose. At the very least, the diffs linked indicate problems with the user's understanding of situations:

-Telling someone to report the user to Wikipedia’s appropriate dispute resolution forum - responding to a report on the user on Wikipedia’s appropriate dispute resolution forum

-Saying while my 300 edits signify substantial interaction with Wikipedia - while the 300 edits are being used against him to signify the opposite”

I’m not sure where you’re going with this, I’d said to the user to report it to the correct place because I did not know where the exact location was so I just said “the correct dispute form”.

The 300 edits thing was absurd because a Wikipedian said to me that i “didn’t have any experience” with Wikipedia. Even though I know a lot more than they think + reading guidelines for the website.

I enjoy conversations like this, but hopefully we can all, come to a consensus about this. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Look, I get that having 5 different people come to your talk page and yell at you in such a heavyhanded way is stressful (which was part of why I held off posting until now), so please, stop acting like everything we're saying is a personal assault against you and stop acting like you have to respond to everything. All it's doing is causing escalation. Just read this and take the advice in it. We're not out to get you, just trying to get you to understand why we're having issues with your edits before blocks become necessary. Because stuff like repeatedly giving out contradictory, unclear and bad advice, being combative in responses, using machine-created text, and resorting to personal attacks in messages have all led to blocks before, and we're trying to avoid that CiphriusKane (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You have no evidence I used machine-created text. But I'm archiving this because it doesn't really matter anymore. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 12:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It certainly does matter, you may be blocked over this issue. You are taking absolutely none of this advice to heart and it shows. Dialmayo (talk) (Contribs) she/her 15:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I am most definitely taking this advice, but it is tiring of you coming and responding in a critical way. The conversation isn't going anywhere since we cannot agree on each other. Plus, I don't think you've actually read my comments, otherwise your response would be longer than that. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reversion at Alpha Omega Alpha

Hi! Just checking to see if [1] this was an error. I didn't want to just roll it back without checking with you. Joyous! Noise! 20:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it was an error because i accidentally clicked the "restore revision" button instead of the undo button. Unless if I did click the undo button. You reverted the revision the same time as I did so it mixed up the edits. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 21:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

No worries. I think we tried to revert the edit at the same time and I was a microsecond ahead of you. If it helps, I reverted a Cluebot edit accidentally, less than an hour ago. Sometimes the fingers just get twitchy. Joyous! Noise! 21:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Your meticulous and detailed editing of Wikipedia is truly commendable. Thank you. TheAlienMan2002 (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2023 (UTC)