User talk:Toddphen

Your submission at Articles for creation: State space model (December 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by I2Overcome was:

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:State space model 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.

I₂Overcome ^talk 00:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Toddphen! 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! I2Overcome talk 00:53, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: State space model (March 9)

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

Your draft shows signs of having been generated by a large language model, such as ChatGPT. Wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of LLMs to write articles from scratch. In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing
  

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 it after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:State space model 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.

Nighfidelity (talk) 16:42, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

[Reposting here in case it's better -- just noticed it today]

Hello Nighfidelity. Thanks for taking the time to review the article I submitted. I admit to being new to the process, so hopefully this is an appropriate way to get clarity on the rejection.

In short, I'm at a loss for what to change/edit to make it seem less like an LLM generated piece. I'm not sure if it's my academic training that results in suspicious writing (I'm a professor at a world class research university), but I can vouch for all content in detail, all references and links have been checked, and I'm an expert in this area. Unfortunately, I'm not able to turn these instructions into textual changes:

"In addition, LLM-generated articles usually have multiple quality issues, to include:

• Promotional tone, editorializing and other words to watch
• Vague, generic, and speculative statements extrapolated from similar subjects
• Essay-like writing
• Hallucinations (plausible-sounding, but false information) and non-existent references
• Close paraphrasing"

Taken in turn, there is no promotional writing, it is all factual about the structure and applications of SSMs. It is not generic, vague or speculative, as there is thorough sourcing of all claims, many of which are quantitative. It is not essay like (presumably in the sense of trying to prove a thesis). There are no hallucinations. I'm not sure what 'close paraphrasing' means, I suspect that means some of the phrases are similar to the the content of references, but I'm not sure how that is to be avoided when stating the claims demonstrated by those references.

Again, apologies if this isn't the place to get clarity, but it seemed like a natural place to start.

All the best. Toddphen (talk) 17:24, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

@Nighfidelity, just a quick update. I spoke to the help desk and they suggested there were too many blog/github references potentially. As a result, I removed 3 of the blog references and replaced them with citations to the original sources the blogs were discussing (notably the blogs were written by the same authors as the original sources, but blogs were indicated to be undesirable for wikipedia articles). There are now only 2 blog and 2 github references. Toddphen (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Toddphen. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2–3 days of inactivity. Message added by jolielover♥talk 14:30, 7 July 2026 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

Your thread has been archived

Hello Toddphen! The thread you created at the Teahouse, Puzzled about AI 'rejection', has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by KiranBOT, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). —KiranBOT (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2026 (UTC)