MistaKoko

Talk

Your submission at Articles for creation: BoomCase (September 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DGG were: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:BoomCase and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:BoomCase, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, 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.

DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MistaKoko! Having an article 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! DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:BoomCase

Hello, MistaKoko. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "BoomCase".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: BoomCase (March 27)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by VersaceSpace was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:BoomCase and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:BoomCase, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

versacespacetalk to me 02:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: BoomCase (July 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 Ravenswing was:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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 when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:BoomCase and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:BoomCase, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 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.

Ravenswing 22:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:BoomCase

Hello, MistaKoko. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "BoomCase".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: BoomCase (October 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by MicrobiologyMarcus were:  The comment the reviewer left was: 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:BoomCase 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.

microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish)} 14:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Marcus,

Can you please help me understand how CNET, Wired, GQ , Huffington Post, Sf Chronicle, New York Times, gizmodo etc are not Reliable sources? The material in almost all the links are not just passing references but full interviews or in depth coverage. MistaKoko (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that some of those articles are physically published as well as you can see here - Press | The BoomCase© - there are a lot more but unfortunately Its hard to find a lot of the articles fully online.

For instance, how would I cite the books if I cant find links to their content online? MistaKoko (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: BoomCase (February 13)

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

CoconutOctopus talk 07:08, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for looking at my article - Can you please help me understand how CNET, Wired, GQ , Huffington Post, Sf Chronicle, New York Times, gizmodo etc are not Reliable sources? The material in almost all the links are not just passing references but full interviews or in depth coverage. Some sources are short but they help cite specific things that are otherwise hard to source. Please let me know. MistaKoko (talk) 01:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: BoomCase has been accepted

BoomCase, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

She was ^afairy 01:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very much taking the time to read the article I started almost 4 years ago. It means a lot to me.

I will keep working on it and new articles when I can. MistaKoko (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of BoomCase for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article BoomCase is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BoomCase until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Sadads (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

BoomCase conflict of interest

Your Wikipedia contributions for the last four years have been nearly exclusively dedicated to getting the company's article into mainspace. That's not normal. Do you have a conflict of interest regarding BoomCase? – Teratix ₵ 14:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

How is that not normal? Is there some chart or page that shows what a normal person who tries to create a wiki article does after their first article they put a lot of time into gets denied? Does everyone who takes it upon themselves to research and write an article create multiple articles at the same time? Is there a rule against only working on one wiki article at a time?

I started the article way back in 2019 with no experience on Wikipedia really. Of course, my first submission wasn't very good and I just modeled it after other speaker companies I liked and knew about on Wiki. Discouraged I completely forgot about it for a bit then came back to it a few years later. I got some feedback on removing certain sources over the years and just kept at it.

I have now cited 32, I think, reputable sources. Being that I have got the hang of wiki and the little project I started in 2019 has Become a page, I have started to branch out working on other things that interest me such as Boxing.

Im sorry I dont and didnt have a lot of free time to start more than one article over the years but no I don't have any conflict of interest other than I like speakers and I like BoomCase. I think its perfectly fine to write about something you have an interest in.

Thank you. MistaKoko (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I'll take you at your word for now.

I just modeled it after other speaker companies I liked and knew about on Wiki which speaker company articles were these? It might be the case that these articles were created by paid editors and you came away with the impression that this was just how company articles on Wikipedia were supposed to look.

I have now cited 32, I think, reputable sources It's about the quality, not the quantity of sources – and by quality, I mean the quality of the actual article being cited, not the quality of the source in general. (For example, BoomCase cites The New York Times, which is a high-quality source, but the particular article cited only mentions BoomCase in passing [For playing music with friends, he picked the BoomCase by Mr. Simo, a vintage tweed suitcase modified with speakers and batteries to provide portable powered sound. "I’d bring it on a picnic," he said. "It sounds good, and it’s loud."] so it does not contribute to notability).

To understand where scope_creep and I are coming from, I recommend reading our notability guidelines on companies, or at least the sections on trivial vs. significant coverage and what counts as an independent source. The reality is it is incredibly common for unimportant companies to try to promote themselves on Wikipedia so editors will come down quite hard on articles with subpar sourcing. Because of practices like churnalism, it's common for sources to appear reputable but in actuality contain virtually no independent content. – Teratix ₵ 08:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read my full reply and give me replies back. I really appreciate it where as some just automatically dismiss anything I say.

I used Boombotix - Wikipedia as my format and of course now I see that in 2023 it was labeled advert *sigh*

I understand the quality for sources - the NYT one yeah is too short but it just is mainly to help show it was in the NYT as stated in history.

I think the articles from CNET, HuffPost, Cali Home/Design , GQ, MELO are of more quality and those helped me actually write the more substantial things. I feel like these are independent content as well.

I would like to keep working on the article but unfortunately it looks like it might get deleted.

Thanks again. MistaKoko (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I used Boombotix - Wikipedia as my format and of course now I see that in 2023 it was labeled advert *sigh* OK, yeah, that explains a lot. That's a really understandable thing to do and it wasn't your fault for presuming it was an example of what a company page should be like.

I think the articles from CNET, HuffPost, Cali Home/Design, GQ, MELO are of more quality and those helped me actually write the more substantial things. OK, I will write up a more thorough evaluation of these particular sources for the AfD.

I shouldn't have been so terse initially. I'm sorry. – Teratix ₵ 08:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you . MistaKoko (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. – Teratix ₵ 02:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Hello, I'm Scope creep. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to BoomCase have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. scope_creep^Talk 06:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

All my 32 sources are independent and reliable.

If there are some that are not please let me know.

While we are here can you help me better cite the 3 books that BoomCase is in? I would like to cite some of the txt but not sure how since the txt isnt available online. Thanks MistaKoko (talk) 06:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello MistaKoko. The nature of your edits, such as the one you made to BoomCase, 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 compensated by a person, group, company or organization to use Wikipedia to promote their interests. 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:MistaKoko. The template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=MistaKoko|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. scope_creep^Talk 06:30, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Scope,

I am not being compensated directly or indirectly for these edits. No one in their right mind would pay me for this article haha. Everyone seems to hate it unfortunately.

Can you please let me know what recent contribution appeared to be promotional? User @ForsythiaJo did an edit once which I thought helped it out a lot in terms of tone and not sounding like an ad. I have re written it many times over the years and I think now is the best it has ever been after a few other editors put some effort into it as well.

I just wrote this above but putting it here so you can read my COI reply -

I started the article way back in 2019 with no experience on Wikipedia really. Of course, my first submission wasn't very good and I just modeled it after other speaker companies I liked and knew about on Wiki. Discouraged I completely forgot about it for a bit then came back to it a few years later. I got some feedback on removing certain sources over the years and just kept at it.

I have now cited 32, I think, reputable sources. Being that I have got the hang of wiki and the little project I started in 2019 has Become a page, I have started to branch out working on other things that interest me such as Boxing.

Im sorry I dont and didnt have a lot of free time to start more than one article over the years but no I don't have any conflict of interest other than I like speakers and I like BoomCase. I think its perfectly fine to write about something you have an interest in.

Thank you

MistaKoko (talk) 06:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The majority of your edits have been to this advertising article and I don't believe you. scope_creep^Talk

Yes the majority have been to this article. When you work on a project you keep working on it till its finished. Im sorry im not a full time wiki editor. I started something for fun and just worked on it randomly over the years. Just because you dont believe me doesn't make you right. If you have anything with substance to say it would be helpful but just making things up doesnt help your argument. MistaKoko (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

BoomCase

Following your request on my talk page, I have WP:USERFIED the deleted article at User:MistaKoko/BoomCase. Olivier (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

@MistaKoko you will need to declare your COI before you even contemplate returning this to mainspace or you will likely be blocked for UPE. cc @Scope creep @Teratix Star Mississippi 13:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

We already established that I don't have a COI. I am not trying to bring the article to main space I just want a copy of it so I can work on it when I find some more material to source etc. I worked on this article for a long time and I just don't want it to disappear.

Thanks for continuing to be so helpful and nice. MistaKoko (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nothing of that sort was established, nor did you disclose the discussions before requesting the draft from @Olivier

You will need AfC approval from an editor in good standing before you can move it back given the questions around accounts at the AfD and AfC draft.

I highly suggest you edit something else. To paraphrase my colleague @Robert McClenon, if you don't want to be accused of being a paid editor you should not act like one, which is what you've done. Star Mississippi 17:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

How am I acting like one? By starting an article 4 years ago and randomly working on it off and on for 4 years?

I even forgot about it withing these years and had to request for it be restored from a draft.

I am not trying to resubmit the article right now. I just requested a copy so I could have it to work on when I get some time and fine more sources.

Also if you look at my conflict-of-interest discussion it was established there was no evidence of COI. I can copy and paste that discussion if you cant find it. Just because Scope creep constantly accuses me of it doesn't make him correct.

I have edited many other things as well. You can check my edits to see what I have also been working on. MistaKoko (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

MistaKoko, sometimes when you find yourself in a hole it's best to stop digging. Why not try editing in another topic for a while instead? Asking for the article to be restored so soon after an AfD isn't doing you any favours – you just look more suspicious. – Teratix ₵ 14:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Im not asking for it be restored. I'm just asking to have a copy of it so I can keep working on it when I feel like.

Why are you so hell bent on destroying an article I worked on/off for 4 years? It has has merits and I just need to find a few more sources. Thanks for trying to keep me in hole. So nice of you. MistaKoko (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I have also edited plenty of other things. I am continuing to work on mainly boxing related articles and a few random things that interest me or I find that need a little help. MistaKoko (talk) 17:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much Olivier! I just want to have a copy of this for when I find more sources to cite. MistaKoko (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Why did you work on and off on an article about a company for four years, if they weren't paying you? Wasn't that a waste of your time? It is true that sometimes we get an editor who says that they are a fan of a company or a person and is determined to get them an article in Wikipedia. Either they are a paid editor, or they are an ultra. Also, if you were working on something off and on for four years, why didn't you keep a copy of it on some sort of storage medium that in the twentieth century was called disk? That's what disks are for. Even if they are called something else, you can still keep a copy of your work on your own media. Working on and off on something for four years and not keeping a copy is acting like a sloppy paid editor. There is only so much that Wikipedia admins will do to help sloppy paid editors, or editors who act like sloppy paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there some rule that says you cant work on an article off and on when you have a little bit of free time on your hands?

It wasnt a waste of time because it wasn't that long of an article, and I obliviously didn't work it on constantly. I also started working on it during the covid era so when I had nothing else to do I messed around with it.

I see you are trying to smart and funny by talking about something called a disk but the article had been on Wiki for 4 years and I never needed to make a copy of it. But even with that I do have a draft of it saved. I just was just requesting to have the last draft available as a txt. I am not trying to restore it.

I certainly wish there was someone paying me for 4 years to be this so-called sloppy editor. What a gig that would be huh? 4 years of randomly working on something that constantly got deleted?

Thanks for all the positivity you and your friends have showed towards me. Its really nice to see. MistaKoko (talk) 17:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)