[WikiEN-l] For your consternation...

[Jake Nelson]

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
>