User talk:Mihal.emberton
Welcome!
[edit]Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia: click on the 
Introduction link to get started!
| Introduction
| ||
 Simplified ruleset
|
 Your first article
| |
 The five pillars
|
 Manual of Style
| |
 Task Center
|
 More help pages...
| |
Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
Do not use AI chatbots or large language models when editing Wikipedia. Their use is nearly always prohibited.
Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view.
Take particular care while writing about a living person. Controversial and negative statements must be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
Don't edit war or abuse multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add advertising, promotional messages, or text that is not related to an article's subject.
Use talk pages to discuss article improvements, but not as a forum for general discussions.
If you have any questions, ask them on the Teahouse or on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 19:13, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
Your sandbox article 'Belief-Behavior Systems archetype'
[edit]You may remember that I commented earlier on this on the Help Desk. [1] Since you seem intent on working on it further, I feel I should advise you once more that your efforts are likely to be in vain. More specifically, I have to point out that Wikipedia content has to be based on published reliable sources - the personal communications you refer to in your 'Reception, Criticism, and Impact' section are entirely inadmissible. Not only would such unpublished material be seen as irrelevant in terms of establishing the notability of the subject, they are unverifiable, and thus almost certainly subject to deletion as contrary to policy.
The only way Wikipedia is going to have an article on this topic is if it can be shown that the topic is directly discussed in depth in multiple published sources relevant to the topic matter. Personal endorsements aren't relevant. Citations of sources used to arrive at the hypothesis aren't relevant. Wikipedia articles are required to be based around published independent sources, and without them, there can be no article. This is core Wikipedia policy, arrived at by consensus by the editing community, and it isn't optional.
Needless to say, before I commented on this, I made a reasonable effort to see whether such independent sources exist online, and have found nothing of any significance. If such sources do exist, you need to cite them in the article, and use them as the source for its content. Wikipedia is (or attempts to be) an encyclopaedia: a tertiary source, summarising what secondary sources have to say on a topic. It isn't a platform for people to explain their own theories. No independent sources, no article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Can you please at least give an indication that you have read the above? I am trying to give helpful advice, but can see no merit in continuing in the face of total silence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)