User talk:LearnCivics

Welcome!
Hi LearnCivics! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Mark Jacobson
Hi LearnCivics. I just wanted to let you know that I've reverted your last 3 edits to Mark Z. Jacobson, for reasons I explained earlier on Talk:Mark Z. Jacobson. The issue is that for claims about living people, Wikipedia requires secondary reliable sources. We just have to be patient and wait for news reports to cover the developments. FWIW, personally my sympathies are with the defendants in the case. BTW if you'd like to be notified of changes and discussions on this article, you can add the article to your watchlist, as explained here. Take care, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Please explain how Untied States Federal Court documents are an unconfirmed source? I completely understand if the sole source was a tabloid (i.e The National Enquirer) in which case a second source would be necessary. LearnCivics (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. You're correct that Wikipedia requires sources to be reliable. The issue - and this is something that isn't widely known about Wikipedia so a lot of new editors run into it - is that Wikipedia also requires articles to be based on sources that are secondary, as opposed to primary, in nature. This doesn't have anything to do with the number of sources you cite - we use the term "secondary" in the sense of what type of source it is, not in the sense of "two of them". Our definition of "secondary source" is here. Does this make sense? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 20:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * P.S. Some good explanations of why Wikipedia favors, and in some cases requires, secondary sources are here. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 21:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the rational for a secondary source for citation did make sense but that leaves two questions:

1) I DID add a secondary source, Forbes Magazine, in an article about the decision. This meets the requirements, therefore why has it been removed?

2) what about statements of overt fact without interpretation, such as "on (date) the (name of court, judge) so ordered (docket citation) that (plantiff's/defendant's) motion was (granted/denied/withdrawn)." Surely there is no interpretation of that statement that it must come from a secondary source? It makes no sense that unless a newspaper reports a court order, the decision of the court cannot be reported on a Wikipedia page. LearnCivics (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@clayoquot: thanks for the direction and references. As per wp:primary policy, " A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

Therefore the statement "the court ordered that on (date) judge (name) ordered that (plantiff's/defendant's) motion was (granted/denied/withdrawn)" should be allowed, especially if the primary source is the court.Gov website which is irrefutably an incorruptible source. LearnCivics (talk) 02:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Let's on the article talk page so that other editors can notice the discussion and comment, and so that future editors can find it. We've been discussing both of these sources on the article talk page, where we've referred to the Forbes Magazine source by the name of its author, Robert Bryce. Are you involved in the court case in some way? Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 05:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Greetings! Assuming you meant "open" the article talk page so others can discuss. (Don't worry, auto correct and fast fingers kill me too) I don't know how, but go ahead if you can.

I just posted question to talk: Jacobson: lawsuit and anti SLAPP undue weight in lead?

Red Rock Canyon comments "if it's not reported then it probably doesn't belong in the article" but that's exactly my fear and contention, if an accepted newspaper doesn't pick up the story, then it didn't happen? That's a disservice to readers that a simple statement of fact that motion by the plaintiff or defendent had been granted or denied.

That's is also directly against wp:primary allowing for simple statements of facts. I further stated the climate case website is superceded by the direct federal government website of the court itself, dccourts.gov but that point was missed that this is an irrefutable source not subject to outside influence, as secure as it gets. It's a legal document signed by a federal judge.

Simply, I wholely agree there is no place for long interpretation of lengthy legal documents. But by also restricting "motion granted/denied", 2 words, which is zero opinion and necessary and viable information to readers.

Thanks for the help and lmk if I need to click something and where to open discussion to all editors. Cheers! LearnCivics (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

P.s. no I'm not connect to the case.

Should I just select-all, copy, and paste to talk: Mark Z Jacobson and if so which thread? Lawsuit anti SLAPP...? LearnCivics (talk) 06:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I created a discussion and hopefully put a clearer case there. It's in the talk page of the subject Mark Z Jacobson. See discussion: Questions re: primary source, statement of fact, waiting for secondary source (specifically about lawsuit outcome anti-SLAPP case)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mark_Z._Jacobson#Questions_re%3A_primary_source%2C_statement_of_fact%2C_waiting_for_secondary_source_(specifically_about_lawsuit_outcome_anti-SLAPP_case)

My Android device won't let me insert hyperlinks into the reply. How else do you do it?

Thanks for the suggestions! LearnCivics (talk) 10:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Are these two additional secondary sources sufficient to add the statement in question?

https://www.energyindepth.org/judge-rules-100-renewables-researcher-must-pay-attorney-fees-for-his-dubious-lawsuit/

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/09/stanford-prof-ordered-to-pay-legal-fees-after-dropping-10-million-defamation-case-against-another-scientist/

Unfortunately no other editors replied in the talk page as you had suggested. LearnCivics (talk) 17:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi LearnCivics. I would consider energyindepth.org to be a "questionable" source and therefore not sufficiently reliable for claims about a living person (See Verifiability). Retractionwatch is probably good enough. There was a discussion about it in Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197. P.S. I don't know anything about editing with Android, but a good place to ask about that is the WP:Teahouse. Gotta run now but I hope this helps. Take care, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 04:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

October 2023
Hi LearnCivics! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Waveguide that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. ''When you insert "not" into a sentence it changes the meaning. That is not a minor change. Minor changes must not change the meaning of the sentence. Constant314'' (talk) 02:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of U.S. hectobillionairs
Hello, LearnCivics. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of U.S. hectobillionairs, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of U.S. hectobillionairs


Hello, LearnCivics. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of U.S. hectobillionairs".

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. When 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! 17:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)