User talk:Louiscelli

Welcome!

Hello, Louiscelli, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! SmartSE (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Wikileaks
Hi Louiscelli, unfortunately your edit to WikiLeaks is not suitable to be included here as we have a policy against original research which your edit contravened. Essentially, we can only write about what other people have already written about something, not what we think is relevant ourselves. Please reply below or on my talk page if you're not sure what I mean. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Your edit was removed by another user a minute after you posted it, as you can see in the page history. Unless the sources mention WikiLeaks, then the kind of content you are adding is original research, since no one else has written about "the people’s right to know", linking it with WikiLeaks, and the fact that it isn't in the US constitution etc. Does that make sense? SmartSE (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you also read WP:3RR - repeatedly adding the same material, rather than discussing it with others on the article talk page (Talk:WikiLeaks) is edit warring, and can lead to contributors being blocked from editing.


 * As Smartse has already explained, your contribution is original research, as the material you cite doesn't discuss Wikileaks, and it is you that has made the connection. In any case, since neither Wikileaks nor Assange have any direct connection with the U.S., the relevance of the constitution is somewhat questionable, at least until any legal action is taken there - at which point, sources making the connection are quite likely to become available. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I was responding to the "The Washington Post reported that the department was considering charges under the Espionage Act, a move which former prosecutors characterised as "difficult" because of First Amendment protections for the press.[65][67] entry (above) with a clarification regarding journalistic privilege. I believe that the entry is slightly misleading and wanted to address it with fact.  I wasn't simply trying to repost the material; I thought I was removing any inclusion of non-verifiable information – that’s where I thought I was getting held up.

Is there a proper way to include this information without it being considered Original Research?Louiscelli (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Only if sources like [65] and [67] mention something like what you've written. While you may be making the article more factual, the ability to verify information is more important. SmartSE (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * They do, specifically source 65 "A relic of World War I, the Espionage Act was written before a series of Supreme Court rulings expanded the First Amendment’s protection of speech and press freedoms."


 * Also, all of my information was verifiable and hyperlinked to the sources, most of which were Wikipedia entries.


 * So ultimately, I don't see why the inclusion of the information is considered Original Research when it addresses an unclear and un supported statement made in the post.


 * ...And thank you SmartSe, you have been a great ambassador as I try to work with Wikipedia for the first time.Louiscelli (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem, trying to work out how to do things round here takes a while! The problem with your edit, is that you using sources to imply something that none of them actually say. WP:SYNTH hopefully makes this clear. The sources in the article now discuss the problems with charging WL, as reported by the media. Your info is essentially saying that what the media have written is incorrect and that WL is not protected by the first amendment. The part from [65] you mention could be added if you like, but that doesn't seem to equate to the other information you were adding. This might be of interest to you, but I'm not entirely sure it would be considered 'reliable' and it would need discussing on the talk page. SmartSE (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)