On 2/7/07, Brad Patrick <bpatrick(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
/me pops his head up
Fred Bauder wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fred Bauder [mailto:fredbaud@waterwiki.info]
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 02:53 PM
>> To: 'English Wikipedia', 'English Wikipedia'
>> Cc: bpatrick(a)wikimedia.org
>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] For your consternation...
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Andrew Gray [mailto:shimgray@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2007 02:23 PM
>>> To: 'English Wikipedia'
>>> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] For your consternation...
>>>
>>> On 07/02/07, George Herbert <george.herbert(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> For your consideration and consternation...
>>>>
>>>> Is it:
>>>> A) Ilegal
>>>> B) Immoral
>>>> C) Fattening
>>>>
>>>> ...if US Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Agency
>>>> staffers remove an image repeatedly from a Wikipedia article, which
>>>> came from a Department of Energy press photo, showing the Q clearance
>>>> badge of the now-former head of NNSA. The claimed reason for deletion
>>>> is that it's illegal to show the badge, despite the fact that
Linton
>>>> Brooks wore it in public all the time, there are numerous public press
>>>> photos of it, and that the image in question came from an unclassified
>>>> government press image freely released (though, they subsequently
>>>> erased that section of the image with photoshop)...
>>>>
>>>> Several of us have asked the people removing it to identify themselves
>>>> and explain whether the image was subsequently classified or tell us
>>>> what law prevents us from legally hosting it, if there is one, and
>>>> have heard nothing back. All they are doing is deleting it over and
>>>> over again.
>>> I am reminded of a nice chap, editing from somewhere deep in *.mil,
>>> who kept trying to remove a map of the Green Zone, citing "operational
>>> security" reasons. The fact that we had obtained the map from the
>>> website of a US Congressman didn't seem to faze him...
>>>
>>> (On examination, that claim boiled down to the user not understanding
>>> that a rule which said *he* couldn't talk about something didn't
have
>>> to apply to everyone else)
>>>
>>> In this case... if there is a legal issue, please direct him to Brad
>>> and ask him to cite chapter and verse.
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Andrew Gray
>>> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
>> Done
>>
>> Fred
>
> Well, No I did not refer him to Brad, but gave Brad a heads up. There is a chance
that there is such a law, after all, and it is a public relations problem at any event.
Hey Brad... If you can take a look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:205.254.147.8
...when you get a sec, that's the second and more persistent of the
two anon editors in question. I pointed them at the Foundation
contact page and to talk to you; you can change that if you want.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com