User talk:Aleshia Battle

This is Aleshia Battle'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.

Your submission at Articles for creation: NEW MOON Impact Productions (January 4)

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 brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of 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:NEW MOON Impact Productions 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) 12:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, NEWMOONFilmpro! 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! qcne (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Melissa Lahti (January 4)

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

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

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:Melissa Lahti 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) 12:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mistake. I just submitted the article too quickly. I was confused because when I put in my first article it said that it would take up to 2 months to review so I submitted what should have been a working draft and then I didn't edit it quickly enough. I'm very sorry for the confusion and waste of your time. I'm trying to get access to editing back so that I can do a proper job and resubmit a version that isn't essentially cut and paste from her team portfolio. She definitely warrants an article though. Please allow me to put together a proper presentation. I'm a volunteer for NEW MOON and I recently requested access to a bunch of private records to put together resources for making their work more transparent to the public. Right now I'm really embarrassed that I did such a bad job getting started. NEWMOONFilmpro (talk) 13:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Private records cannot be used as sources on Wikipedia. Sources need to be able to be verified, so they must be publicly available. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'm suppose to be using their records as a guide for putting information together that is suitable for wikipedia. I'd like the opportunity to resubmit drafts that are better researched and presented. I just didn't think they would be reviewed so quickly I'm very embarrassed. NEWMOONFilmpro (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, NEWMOONFilmpro. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template), including links or details of reliable sources that support your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. qcne (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Melissa Lahti (January 4)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Qcne was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

qcne (talk) 12:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Melissa Lahti (January 4)

Your recent article submission has been rejected and cannot be resubmitted. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reason left by Qcne was: This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was: Please do not re-submit, there is absolutely no indication this person merits an article on Wikipedia. Please carefully read our policies.

qcne (talk) 12:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because it has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. Also, your username gives the impression that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or website, which is against the username policy.

If you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization, you may request unblock and a username change. In your reasons, you must follow all these steps:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement; and
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked; and
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked; and
Provide a new username.

To do this, insert the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked.

Please note that the new username you choose cannot already be taken and in use by another account. You can search to see if the username you'd like to choose is available. If the search returns that no global account with that username exists, that means it is still available.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. 331dot (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be saying on your user page that this is a shared account, that is not permitted. Each account is for the exclusive use of a single person who cannot share access. 331dot (talk) 13:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Aleshia Battle (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Aleshia Battle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

This was a mistake. I'm a volunteer at NEW MOON and at a recent team meeting where we were discussing creating more public transparency I recommended Wikipedia because its my go to for a lot of information and frankly I really love the platform. They gave me the all clear to independently research and submit but because I'm new to contributing I made some mistakes including referencing their social media handle in my name and bio. I didn't realize I couldn't do that I was trying to also be transparent about being a volunteer. I was still in the process of editing everything and didn't realize it would get reviewed so quickly. In the future I will be a lot more careful before initially submitting articles or edits to my bio

Accept reason:

See below. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please place new posts at the bottom. Your user page states "NEWMOONFilmpro is the regular social media handle for NEW MOON Films. It is generally overseen by the managerial staff at NEW MOON including by Aleshia Battle, a volunteer manager & coordinator on the team"; this suggests multiple people have access to this account. 331dot (talk) 13:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They don't, I'll remove that. I'm just trying to quickly figure out how. That's in reference to the handle Instagram which I also help with. It's also their handle on TikTok & YouTube which I'm not actually affiliated with. I can alter my bio to say all of that explicitly. Or I can give up helping on Instagram since they have a lot of people helping with that and I'm the only one that suggested putting information on Wikipedia. NEWMOONFilmpro (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've renamed you. I'm going to remove this block and then give you some advice. 331dot (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot Have also undone my rejection of the draft after an AGF discussion with the user on the IRC Live Help chat. qcne (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern was that the account was shared; you've resolved that concern to my satisfaction, so that's why I removed the block. What you do on Instagram is your business. I would suggest that you edit your user page to just say you have a conflict of interest as a NEWMOON volunteer.

Wikipedia articles must primarily summarize what independent reliable sources choose on their own to say about the topic, showing how it is notable as Wikipedia uses the word. In Melissa Lathi's case, you will need to show that she is either narrowly a notable creative professional or more broadly a notable person. Currently you don't do that- you just summarize her activities and work. You need to summarize what independent sources say is important/significant/influential about her(not what the company thinks is notable about her).

Your Melissa Lathi draft is sourced to

the official company bio, not an independent source
IMDB, which is not a reliable source as it is user-generated
her LinkedIn profile, which is not an independent source
a YouTube video- I haven't viewed it, but YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources as they are user-generated(unless the video is from a reputable news outlet on their verified channel)
an interview with her, which is not an independent source as by definition an interview is her speaking about herself
a documentary hosted on Amazon, which is not significant coverage of the subject(it just seems to document the existence of her work)

As this stands Melissa does not seem to meet the notability criteria. That doesn't mean that she never will, just that what you have currently doesn't do it. Writing a new article is the most difficult task to perform on Wikipedia, we usually recommend that users inexperienced in it not dive right in, but first gain experience and knowledge as to how things work here by editing existing articles. I see that you say your goal here is to "increase transparency"- the best place for an organization to do that about itself and its personnel is on its own website and social media. Wikipedia is primarily interested in what others say about a subject, not what it says about itself- and what those others say might not be what the organization wants said. Another way to put it is- Wikipedia does not lead, it follows- it's the last place to write about something, not the first. If Melissa and the company truly merit articles, the best sign of that is when people completely unaffiliated with them choose to write them.

Also be aware that an article is not necessarily desirable for a person. There are good reasons to not want one. 331dot (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My advice really would be to- if you still want to proceed- blank the draft and start from scratch(leave the notice at the top). First gather any independent reliable sources that you have. Forget about anything in private hands, anything the company knows, any materials its puts out, any materials she puts out, brief mentions, etc. If you can find three such sources, put them here and we can tell you if they help establish notability. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Melissa Lahti has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Melissa Lahti. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]