User talk:Cyril voyant

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cyril Voyant (July 19)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by GoldRomean were:
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
GoldRomean (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Cyril voyant! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! GoldRomean (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, my draft about Cyril Voyant was declined. I’d like to understand what I should improve. The subject is a physicist with over 130 peer-reviewed publications, international collaborations, and a strong citation profile. I’ve declared my conflict of interest and submitted in good faith. Could someone help me identify what’s missing for acceptance? Cyril voyant (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, replied at my talk page. Let me know if you have any other questions. GoldRomean (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

[edit]

Information icon Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Alexf(talk) 23:24, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I understand and fully respect Wikipedia’s policies on neutrality and non-promotion.
Just to clarify, I am indeed the subject of the draft and I’ve declared my conflict of interest as required. The goal was not self-promotion but transparency, as I’ve been asked to make my work and collaborations more accessible (especially for prospective students and research partners).
That said, I’m open to revising or removing any phrasing that seems promotional. If there are specific sections or expressions that feel too much like advertising, I’d appreciate your guidance so I can adjust accordingly.
Thanks again for your time and for helping improve the article.
Best regards,
Cyril Voyant Cyril voyant (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm GoldRomean. An edit that you recently made seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. 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. GoldRomean (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

[edit]

If you use an LLM again, I will block you.

You have an obvious conflict of interest, please don't write about yourself, your friends or relatives and read the guidance below:

  • When you write about a person, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that they meet the notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the person or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.
  • Publications written by the person should be listed as such, in a separate section if preferred, with no references for the items. They should not be used as references either, since by definition they are not independent third-party sources as required here.
  • You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.
  • There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
  • You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources.

Everything you write must be sourced to independent third-party sources, see above, be human-written and without external links, including doi links other than in a list of publications. You have had two attempts, so take your time and make sure you get it right, this will be your last chance Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:06, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m withdrawing my draft. The editorial process here doesn’t suit me, and I’ve felt a lack of objectivity. As far as I know, editing about oneself is not strictly forbidden during draft submission, especially when transparent. I did provide the requested references and used basic editing tools like spelling/grammar checkers, which I don’t believe should be an issue.
The tone of the exchanges has been unwelcoming. I respectfully suggest that Wikipedia reconsider this type of approach if it wants to remain an open, useful platform.
Thank you to those who took the time to review.
Best regards.
Cyril Voyant Cyril voyant (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry about your experience, but this commonly happens when a new editor comes along whose goals are something other than building an encyclopedia.
Unfortunately the initial impression you gave is of someone intent on publicity or promotion. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not a publicity platform. If you give an impression that you aren't here to build an encyclopedia, you will naturally be made to feel unwelcome.
The type of license used by Wikipedia requires attribution of content to individual editors, and this is not possible if you use AI / LLM to generate prose, because all provenance is lost. It violates the terms of the license, and is therefore also unwelcome here.
That said, if you have a draft that you have written yourself (not AI-generated) you are welcome to follow the instructions at WP:AFC to create a draft that you can submit for review. I would be happy to review it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (August 7)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cyril Voyant (August 9)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Pythoncoder was:
Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Their outputs usually have multiple issues that prevent them from meeting our guidelines on writing articles. These include:
Please address these issues. The best way is usually to read reliable sources and summarize them, instead of using a large language model. See our help page on large language models.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 09:49, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]