User talk:Hagis69

Original research
Hi and thanks for your comment.

You made the following statement on my talk page, "So are you saying that something that hasn't been said somewhere else before by somebody else can never be included in Wikipedia?" That is exactly what I am saying, although it's not just me saying it, it's Wikipedia policy. Here is a quote from the policy: "The only way you can show that your edit does not come under this category is to produce a reliable published source that contains that same material."

We don't take anyone's word for anything here on Wikipedia. I have no idea who you are (and vice-versa) and so neither of us can any confidence that the other knows what he or she is talking about. Providing reliable sources allows us to demonstrate who has made the claim and anyone can then determine how reliable that information is likely to be. Unsourced information can be removed immediately.

If you have the links supporting your claims, add them to the article using something like the cite template or at least leave them on the talk page. The welcoming committee may be able to help as well. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 05:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. On the advice of Euryalus I have posted a comment on the discussion page of the article. Hagis69 (talk) 06:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Escort agency
Hi, and thanks for your message. I'm sorry you feel your contribution was "rubbished" - that certainly wasn't the intent. The problem with what you added was it was not verifiable from reliable sources. Essentially, all material in Wikipedia needs to be referenced from somewhere else, and that "somewhere else" needs to be a source independent of the material and with a record of reliability. So for example, if the New York Times did an article on escort agency scams, or an academic wrote a book on them, or a credible government agency posted warnings of what to watch for, the material directly referenced from those sources might be able to be included.

I'm not saying what you added was wrong - I have no idea either way. However, your or my personal knowledge of an issue is not sufficient to reference material - its called original research. I know nothing about this topic and I'm happy to believe your statement that you know a lot about it. That makes you well-placed to contribute to the article but only if what you want to add is supported by reliable sources as outlined above.

I notice you've re-added the matewrial with two sources attached. Unfortunately neither are particularly reliable sources - the SAAFE page is a self-published website and while I'm sure its well-meaning and possibly accurate there's no way for a Wikiepdia reader to have any idea of how reliable its contents are. The same problems exist with the other link you added. These are just my opinions - I suggest we take discussion of these to the talk page of the article and see what others think rather than continuing it here.

Please feel free to let me know if I haven't adequately expalined the problem with the material in the article, or if I can help in any other way. Euryalus (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way I agree wtih you re the "Emperor's Club" sentence, and have removed it. Euryalus (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And on reflection, it was a little rude of me to revert your edit without dropping you a note why or commenting on the article talk page. Sorry about that - edit summaries are all very well but they don't replace a detailed explanation, especially as what you were adding was in good faith. I stand by its reversion but I should have explained myself better. Euryalus (talk) 06:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have taken your advice and posted a comment on the discussion page of the article. Hagis69 (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)