User talk:MgEqFan1

Steven Levinson edits
Hello, I'm Yamaguchi先生. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Steven Levinson, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yamaguchi%E5%85%88%E7%94%9F&action=edit&amp;section=new Yamaguchi先生] 23:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please use secondary sources and avoid walls of text in references. Materialscientist (talk) 05:36, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I can understand your frustration with the attempt to provide information and be rebuked. The attempt to rely entirely on secondary sources eliminates many things in the world that could benefit the WP audience if included although it has not made secondary source status. And as for walls of text--having worked as support staff for the state legislative attorneys and trained as a archivist and records manager, I guess some people just do not understand how court systems function. The area of legal actions seems like the exception that WP may very well have to alter its secondary source qualification especially as court report publications can be no more secondary than trial transcripts. Or that every judicial event is news media "worthy" and not every issue adjudicated in court has a secondary publication audience, particularly professional publications. If the same standards of reliable citations were applied to such topics as medieval European history then most of those articles would be blank as many are absent inline citations and if lucky only suggested reading, the latter of which is just as useful as the absence of an inline citation (but god forbid deleting those portions of those articles!).66.74.176.59 (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I read the latest post regarding your attempt at contributing to the article at question. Just so that there is absolutely no confusion, I am not "Materialscientist" and from what I have found in WP that "editor" very much will tow the proverbial WP line about WP content being supported by "acceptable" (my word), "credibly viable" (most likely WP definition style) sources that are secondary, not primary. It can be confusing in WP just what is what when it comes to understanding what goes with what. These confusion can just create more confusion and in disagreeable situations many more unneeded critical posts. I doubt seriously that WP will venture past its practice with secondary sources although the area of law is very unique. What is particularly interesting in regards to the WP credible secondary based inline source is that in regards to law, it may be acceptable to include in testimony opinion, such as provided by an expert witness or what someone thinks, but in WP if that speculation is published in a viable secondary source then it can be included in the article although it most likely would need to be represented in the manner in which it was carried in expression and communication. If there has been confusion I hope that this has helped.66.74.176.59 (talk) 20:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)