Talk:Former Wikileaks employee destroys unpublished leaked documents

Review of revision 1276675 [Passed]

Revision 1276675 of this article has been reviewed by Phearson (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1276675 of this article has been reviewed by Phearson (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

• There's additional copyedit post-review that probably merits being looked over by both contributor and reviewer. The cut'n' paste from some word processor brought in odd quote characters; plus, the use of ellipsis was inappropriate. A few other issues with needing more active wording too. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 00:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A factual error

{{editprotected}} According to the Sydney Morning Herald article (see paragraph starting with "In his book released this year"), in the book he said why he "took away files" not why he has "destroyed" them (see "he revealed his motives for destroying the files" in our article). When fixing this, could you even interlink the Italian translation it:Impiegato di Wikileaks distrugge documenti non ancora pubblicati. Thanks -- Codicorumus  « msg 16:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

• What you're missing is he took away files and the keys they were encrypted with. By subsequently destroying the encryption keys, he's rendered the files inaccessible. Thus, the article is substantively correct. If - given it's before 7am - I am missing something else which merits a correction, please be a little more specific. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 06:28, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  On second thought, not a big issue, probably. Maybe because I'm not fluent in English, I read "In his book published this year, 'Inside Wikileaks', he revealed his motives for destroying the files and taking the encrypted system" as saying that in the book there are the reasons for the actual destruction and not only those which later led to the destruction. If it is not: no issue at all :)  -- Codicorumus  « msg 07:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)