User talk:Elmpine

February 2024
You have used sources that are either clearly noted as paid placement, unmarked press releases or marketing content, or blatant fake content farms which house unmarked SEO placement. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. These sources step far beyond those policies. Please carefully evaluate your references in the future, and ensure that you are in compliance with our mandatory paid editing disclosures. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your feedback on the sources used in my Wikipedia draft for Cerissa A. Brown. I appreciate your effort in reviewing the article and your commitment to upholding Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing.
 * Thank you for your feedback on the sources used in my Wikipedia draft for Cerissa A. Brown. I appreciate your effort in reviewing the article and your commitment to upholding Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing.
 * I would like to clarify that the sources I used, namely from Birmingham Business Journal, Women's Journal, and CEO Weekly, were chosen based on their coverage of the subject in a journalistic context. I understand your concerns regarding the nature of these sources, and I assure you that there was no paid placement, unmarked press releases, or marketing content involved. The intention was to utilize what I believed were reputable, independent journalistic sources providing factual information about Cerissa A. Brown's career and advocacy.
 * However, I acknowledge your concerns and take them seriously. I am committed to ensuring that the article adheres to Wikipedia's verifiability and neutrality standards. If these sources are deemed unsuitable for Wikipedia, I am open to guidance on how to better identify and select appropriate sources. I understand the importance of using sources that are beyond reproach in terms of independence and credibility.
 * Regarding the mandatory paid editing disclosures, please note that there has been no paid editing involved in the creation of this article. The draft was prepared and submitted with the intention of contributing factual and notable information to Wikipedia, adhering to its core policies.
 * I would welcome any specific guidance or suggestions you might have that would help improve the article and ensure it meets Wikipedia's strict sourcing criteria.
 * Thank you for your time and consideration. Elmpine (talk) 03:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)



Addressing the Concerns Over Sources
I would like to address the concerns raised about the sources used in the article. It’s important to clarify that neither was I paid for this article nor did I pay for the publication of these articles. My choice of sources - from Birmingham Business Journal, Women's Journal, and CEO Weekly - was made in good faith, under the belief that they were reputable and provided objective journalistic content. The inclusion of a disclaimer about branded content in these publications was not interpreted as impacting their journalistic integrity.

Furthermore, Cerissa A. Brown is a real, notable individual who has been recognized for her work in mental health advocacy, as evidenced by her candidacy in the 2021 Birmingham, AL mayoral race, a subject already covered on Wikipedia. The intention of the draft was to provide a comprehensive view of her contributions and public life, supported by what I believed were reliable sources.

Given the real and verifiable impact of Ms. Brown in her field, and the public recognition she has received, I request a reconsideration of the decision, taking into account the authenticity of her contributions and the non-promotional nature of my editing. I am open to suggestions for alternative sources or modifications to the article that would align it more closely with Wikipedia's standards. Elmpine (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As noted, the sources you've provided are garbage. 'ceoweekly' is a paid-placement SEO blog. 'womensjournal' is pretty sketchy, and also labeled as sponsored content. You've also attempted to use other blatant SEO/PR sites and were prevented by our blocklist. Regardless of the terrible sourcing, you're also adding adcopy and puffery like "a recognized leader in the mental health industry", "provide unique perspectives on the intersection of faith and mental wellness", or "These commitments highlight her dedication". In the future, you will need to use reliable sources, and will will need to avoid using promotional language - this is a online encyclopedia, not Linkedin. Sam Kuru' (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback on the Cerissa A. Brown article. I understand the concerns about my sources and the tone. I’m rethinking my approach and would appreciate your guidance on a couple of points.
 * Firstly, I see the issue with “CEO Weekly” and will avoid using it. If I stick to the Birmingham Business Journal and a more carefully vetted selection from Women’s Journal, ensuring the content used is purely factual, would that be acceptable? My aim is to rely on sources that meet Wikipedia’s standards.
 * Also, I want to clarify my intent isn’t to promote Cerissa but to share her work in mental health and her mayoral run in my city. I admire her contributions and realize my language might have come across as promotional. Phrases like “a recognized leader” will be toned down to maintain neutrality.
 * Could you advise if this approach, focusing on these two sources and a more neutral tone, aligns better with Wikipedia guidelines? Any further advice you have would be really helpful.
 * Thanks for your help and patience. Elmpine (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to be more clear: do not use paid junk sources. "Carefully vetted" is meaningless - your sources must stand on their own. You'll also need to establish some kind of notability. Just running for office isn't notable since these are open elections. Find reliable sources, avoid puffery.Sam Kuru (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)