User talk:Ivara96

This is Ivara96's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chessup (October 27)

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

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:

• 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.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Chessup 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.

—pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ivara96! 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! —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 16:50, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...

Request for feedback on Draft:ChessUp (smart chessboard article)

Hi everyone 👋

I’ve recently created and submitted a new Wikipedia draft for ChessUp, a smart chessboard developed by Bryght Labs.

📄 Draft link: Draft:Chessup

The goal is to document ChessUp’s development, features, and community history in a neutral, well-sourced article. It’s currently pending review, but I’d appreciate any early feedback or help refining sources and structure before it’s approved.

Any suggestions or improvements from experienced editors would be greatly appreciated — especially around references and neutrality.

Thanks in advance! ♟️ — Ivara96 (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC) Ivara96 (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined this draft, @Ivara96. qcne (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chessup (November 11)

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

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

• in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
• reliable
• secondary
• independent of the subject
  

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Chessup 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.

qcne (talk) 10:57, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

November 2025

Hello Ivara96. The nature of your edits gives the impression you have an undisclosed financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. Paid advocacy is a category of conflict of interest (COI) editing that involves being employed (or being compensated in any way) by a person, group, company or organization to promote their interests. Paid advocacy on Wikipedia must be disclosed even if you have not specifically been asked to edit Wikipedia. Undisclosed paid advocacy is prohibited by our policies on neutral point of view and what Wikipedia is not and is an especially serious type of COI; the Wikimedia Foundation regards it as a "black hat" practice akin to black-hat search-engine optimization.

Paid advocates are strongly discouraged from direct article editing and should instead propose changes on the talk page of the article in question if an article exists. If the article does not exist, paid advocates are strongly discouraged from attempting to write an article at all. At best, any proposed article creation should be submitted through the articles for creation process, rather than directly.

Regardless, if you are receiving or expect to receive compensation for your edits, broadly construed, you are required by the Wikimedia Terms of Use to disclose your employer, client and affiliation. You can post such a mandatory disclosure to your user page at User:Ivara96. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Ivara96|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. If I am mistaken – you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits – please state that in response to this message. Otherwise, please provide the required disclosure. In either case, do not edit further until you answer this message. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi — thanks for the message!

I am not paid or compensated in any way by Bryght Labs or anyone else. I am not affiliated with the company and I have no financial interest. I am just an independent fan of the ChessUp product who wanted to create a neutral informational article using reliable sources.

I want to follow Wikipedia policies correctly, so please let me know if there’s anything I should change about the draft. I’m happy to continue through Articles for Creation and improve the draft based on feedback. Ivara96 (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay- then you are such a passionate fan that it appears you work for the maker of this chessboard. Fans often appear to be associated with a topic because of their strong feelings about it and persistence.

The design and software sections are completely unsourced. One source (chess.com) is basically an advertisment, possibly a paid placement given the website is associated with the board, and it's unclear that it would be a reliable source(with a history of fact checking and editorial control) The Chess Advisor source just seems to be the website owner posting their views on the board, they are not a professional reviewer nor did their review go through an editor(since they posted to their own website). The other source you have just documents the existence of the fundraising campaign. You don't have any sources with significant coverage of this product that show how it is a notable product.

When you link to another page on Wikipedia, the whole url is not needed; you just need the title within double brackets, like [[Draft:Chessup]] which renders as Draft:Chessup. Using the whole url locks readers into a version of Wikipedia they might not prefer(mobile or desktop) and clutters the page. 331dot (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]