User talk:Ctuineab

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

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, which will be reviewed by other editors. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, if you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution you make, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation to comply with our terms of use and our policy on paid editing.

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Best practices for editors with close associations
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• The Teahouse, our help forum for new editors

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, visit the Teahouse, 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! 331dot (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I am actualy tring to create a page for a very promenint prof... I thought that is my internal page. I am really lost... Thansk a lot.

You need to disclose any connection you have with these professors, please see the above message. Your first draft is now at Draft:Cristina Tuinea-Bobe where it may be submitted. I would suggest using the Article Wizard to create further drafts. 331dot (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

The preferred term for the content of the encyclopedia is articles, not the broader pages. An article is a page but not every page is an article. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ChrysGalley was:

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 comment the reviewer left was:

The subject seems to notable, but as a WP:BLP the sources need to be quite tight. I also suspect that LLM / AI /chatgpt is being used here, which is not allowed. Any sections that were LLM generated need to rewritten by a human.

So to take one specific example, rheo-optical instrumentation in the Research section, this is sourced back to the subject's bio on the university website. Except it does not mention rheo-optical. There are at least six other examples of this. Each point needs an independent reliable source, with a few exceptions. So it is OK to source his professorship to that source, but not other things.

This needs to be done carefully, to like good quality sources (not necessarily a lot of them) to the text presented. It's also OK to cut back on the text to summarise his career, the article reads somewhat promotional in tone rather than the crisp language of an encyclopedia. Use the Teahouse to get more direct advice.

Final but important point: if you have any connection with the subject this must be properly declared under WP:COI.

If this all sounds daunting, have a read through WP:YFA for a basic introduction to writing articles.

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Ctuineab/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ChrysGalley (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chrys,

I didn't use chat gpt on the text (this shouldn't be lightly thrown at contributors this days) - I used for the code because for me i can not see the Visual Editor.

The sources are reputable - journal articles peered reviewed are the top in the scientific world, news articles published by university. Academic life is disseminated that way.

I really want to create this piece of work as will help others understand that polymer work is required. Any help is much appreciated. I have the word version where I wrote the material.

Please do help me to make this happened.

Have a lovely Christmas,

Cristina Ctuineab (talk) 09:10, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Right, so first question (but for the third time of asking): are you the subject or do you have any connection with the subject? If so this needs to be disclosed via WP:COI. If this is some random professor you have never met then kindly clarify that so that you stopped being hassled about it.

Secondly the sources are good and will help with the article, but as mentioned above you need to relate the very specific fact to the very specific point of the source. So see my point about rheo-optical instrumentation, the source used did not say this, so it is improperly sourced at that point. That same source is OK for other facts, but for WP:BLP this tie between source and fact has to be very tight. I fully accept that "in the round" you can say the sources support the overall story, and I'm personally more relaxed about that than some reviewers. However with a suspected COI there is no such leeway.

Consider a slightly shorter article to begin with, since the notability guideline just needs to satisfied under WP:NACADEMIC. In particular if there has been a Critical Notice of the subject's work, that is really useful. However I suspect Criteria 8 applies? I guess there is a challenge about whether this is a major publication or not, but see below that text for the specific guidance on the sources used here. The other point about the shorter article is that with having to support every fact, even trivial uncontroversial ones such as being active in the church, have to be sourced, just in case someone says "no, I'm sure he's a full on Pagan". There are some legal factors behind this too, but I'll spare you the exegesis on that. One that shorter article is through the hurdle then there can be further improvements (with some complications is COI applies, but there are workarounds).

Not a big issue, but the usual area for draft articles is a space known as Draft, sandbox is really for just playing around. But it's fine where it is for now.

As for AI - well maybe that is on your word processor? It does flag up for LLM usage, and chatgpt is one of many such tools. Good luck with your editing, and I hope you can consider editing other articles on other subjects of interest. ChrysGalley (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Chrys,

Phil and I used to work together while I was in Bradford. Now I moved to university of Leeds so not working any longer together. I have no interest other than promoting good science around polymers. |he is special as he created a technic of self reinforcement via die drawing and that makes these products highly recyclable.

Regarding the "rheo-optical" that is a technic applied to measure flow field of an entangled polymer melt what that paper is about. Many times we use microscopy for example to characterise things but we wouldn't call it generic in the paper microscopy but atomic force or confocal characterisation. I can change that if we want to use the specific wording from the paper but might be more useful for reader the generic terms.

For the church - would something like this be ok: https://moortownbaptistchurch.org.uk/jane-coates-thanksgiving-service/

Thanks a lot for all the help.

Kind regards,

Cristina ~2026-95792 (talk) 15:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

For the COI - have a look at WP:COISELF. It seems to me that you do know the subject, so it would be better to say something on your User page or the subject's talk page. There is a standard form of words, but by all means say that you were former colleagues some time ago, or whatever common sense comes to you about this.

For the church, well yes I suppose that is a source, but I'd be hesitant to use it, it is a bit intimate / not intended for wider circulation. If you can't find a source now - quite common - just take the sentences off to a copy version somewhere, and update it later when a source becomes available It's presumably a big part of the subject's life, but not necessarily a big part of why the subject is notable.

Thanks for the clarification on rheo-optical. I'm sure you know this area far better than me, but for someone who is still alive it's important that source material and the words in the article are pretty close. The reason is, imagine the subject does not want an article, many people don't. Well it's not their decision, but if you put in something that was incorrect then that may give the subject an arguable case for legal proceedings, which may drag down you and the Wikipedia Project. If the words involved was a sensible rephrasing of an article in "XYZ Magazine", a publication known to be reliable, then Wikipedia's and your perfect answer would be "go and talk to XYZ, we acted in good faith here".

The really good source here is if any of his publications got "Critical Notices" or book reviews in academic publications, even if not particularly enthusiastic reviews. Not just plain citing, but gold dust in Wikipedia sourcing is someone independent of the subject saying something about the subject or their work. ChrysGalley (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Ctuineab! 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! ChrysGalley (talk) 14:06, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Ctuineab. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cristina Tuinea-Bobe, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2026 (UTC)