User talk:Akkun no Baka

Welcome!
Hello, Akkun no Baka, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
 * and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for message.

You said I wanted to introduce the term to a wider audience and thought that is what Wikipedia was for.; no, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia which hosts independently referenced articles on topics which meet our notability criteria.

You have an obvious conflict of interest, please don't write about yourself or your own research, and read the guidance below:


 * When you write about a person, you must provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that the topic meets our notability guidelines. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to you or an associated organisation, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the person claims or interviewing them. Note that references should be in-line, so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls.


 * Your text has no in-line references at all. There is an unformatted list of publications at the bottom, but we don't know what fact each is supposed to support
 * Those sources are questionable anyway. One, you claim, is self written, and only one appears to be a secondary source. If the last item is a book, it should have an isbn, not doi, and the relevant page numbers.


 * You must write in a non-promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic, with verifiable facts, not opinions or reviews.


 * It's basically an essay presenting unsourced claims and your opinions as facts; a dynamic field with ongoing research and advancements... Crisitology professionals ensure that individuals affected by crises receive appropriate and sensitive assistance that respects their rights and values... the role of Crisitology becomes increasingly crucial... offers valuable insights and tools for individuals, communities, and organizations facing crises... plays a vital role in promoting the well-being and recovery of individuals and communities affected by various types of crises. and there's self-praise;  is widely credited as the founder of Crisitology. His groundbreaking research and pioneering work...


 * I honesty find it difficult to pick out any real facts from what is basically an unsourced bundle of aims, objectives and mission statements


 * There shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections.
 * You must not copy text from elsewhere. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial; text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.


 * I didn't check since the article was unacceptable anyway, but I note that your first edit added 7kb of text without a single wikilink (not even crises) or in-line ref.

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the information. I apologize for the rudness of my last message. I am writing over it with this post. Do you think it would be better to try and add a section to an existing page like "Crisis Theory" or something like that? Akkun no Baka (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Crisitology at Crisis
In this edit to Crisis, you added a new section "Crisitology" in which you defined a neologism based on a citation to an article that does not appear to exist (LeBlanc, Adam. (2023). Crisitology: The Study of Crisis and its Implications. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.79967960). The DOI link fails to resolve to any known article, and a search for the title at Google Scholar also fails to find any results. Further, the only relevant result in a general Google search for the term "Crisitology" is Adam LeBlanc's LinkedIn profile. I have reverted this change for now. Crisitology does not yet appear to be a topic of sufficient notability to merit coverage at Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia does not publish original research; a topic does not merit coverage in Wikipedia until it has become well enough known that independent reliable sources can be found. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)