User talk:Cyril voyant

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Cyril Voyant 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.

GoldRomean (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Hiya, replied at my talk page. Let me know if you have any other questions. GoldRomean (talk) 22:43, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I see that you are continuing to use an LLM. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi jlwoodwa, Anachronist, and all reviewers, Thank you for the feedback and the warnings. I understand I have a conflict of interest and that parts of the draft still looked too promotional or LLM-written. I have stopped editing the draft myself. I have prepared an offline version with : only independent sources (Corse-Matin, Corse Net Infos, Nice-Matin, Nature Top 100, ANR, CORDIS, PVSEC award, etc.) and self-published papers moved to a simple list in “Publications” without using them as references - neutral and shorter text. If an experienced editor or reviewer willing to look at the cleaned version and paste it for me ? I will not touch the draft again to respect COI rules.

Thank you in advance for your help. Cyril Voyant Cyril voyant (talk) 21:05, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Actually, submitting a draft for review is the only valid way on Wikipedia in which an editor with a COI can get something published. With a backlog of over 3000 drafts to review, however, reviewers aren't willing to review and clean up AI slop.

You aren't violating any COI rules by continuing to work on your draft. If you have a wholesale replacement ready for review, go ahead and replace the current draft and resubmit it. Ping me if you need help.

I have to ask, why do you want an article about yourself on Wikipedia? Vanity? Publicity? SEO? All of those reasons are prohibited here. If you are notable, someone unconnected to you will eventually come along and write about you. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Anachronist, thanks for your reply. Just to answer your question honestly: I’m not looking for vanity or publicity. My academic career is already established in my field, and I don’t need a Wikipedia page for that. What I want is simply a neutral, factual place where people can find correct information about my work. There is a lot of scattered or outdated stuff online, and I’d rather point to one clean, verified page than let wrong things circulate. I’ve rewritten the draft from scratch with independent sources, in short form and I’m trying to follow the COI rules as correctly as I can. If the draft is still not good enough or if I’m not considered notable enough, I’ll accept it, no problem. I just want something accurate and not promotional.

Thanks again for taking the time.

Cyril Cyril voyant (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

I think you would be better off maintaining a page about yourself in a place that you control, at your university. Wikipedia isn't a web hosting service. An article about yourself on Wikipedia isn't necessarily a good thing. If an unpleasant but verifiable fact appears about you in a Wikipedia article, you would have no recourse concerning its removal. "Neutral point of view" means we present the good with the bad. The "scattered or outdated stuff", if verifiable, will find its way into the article anyway. In an encyclopedia, nothing is outdated; history doesn't disappear just because time has passed. ~Anachronist (who / me) (talk) 05:55, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Draft:Cyril Voyant (2) contains multiple AI fictitious references. Please stop using LLMs/chatbots; you are not reviewing them sufficiently. jlwoodwa (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Cyril voyant. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cyril Voyant (2), 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) 23:07, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Cyril voyant. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Cyril Voyant".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)