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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_clearance&action=history
On 07/02/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
...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. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_clearance&action=history
Block the range. Let us know so I can let the comcom know too.
- d.
Generally speaking, anyone who leaves an edit summary of "You're breaking the law!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" (sic) is probably not someone with legitimate authority. 18 exclamation points does not a legal point make.
-- Jake Nelson
George Herbert 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_clearance&action=history
On 07/02/07, George Herbert george.herbert@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.
On 2/7/07, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 07/02/07, George Herbert george.herbert@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.
Can someone ensure that Brad is aware of this and doesn't get blindsided by a call from someone at the Department of Energy raising random threats of government security stuff?
Thanks...
If the image is clear enough that it could conceivably be used as an aid to falsified badges, then there is probably a problem.
And I'd add that until we have better information, it'd probably be better to remove it and err on the side of caution.
Parker
On 2/7/07, George Herbert george.herbert@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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Q_clearance&action=history
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Parker Peters stated for the record:
If the image is clear enough that it could conceivably be used as an aid to falsified badges, then there is probably a problem.
And I'd add that until we have better information, it'd probably be better to remove it and err on the side of caution.
Parker
Take care of that for us, will you?
- -- Sean Barrett | My wife says I should get up and go to sean@epoptic.com | work, but the voices in my head say | I should stay home and clean my guns.
George Herbert wrote:
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 really really hope my large number of tax dollars is not paying the salary of this lamer...
Stan
George Herbert 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,
/me goes to get a copy and put it up at http://thisimageisillegal.ytmnd.com/
On 2/7/07, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
George Herbert 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,
/me goes to get a copy and put it up at http://thisimageisillegal.ytmnd.com/
Not needed, the Internet Archive has a copy of the original already...