PeterZed

{{Security Risk}}

Embassies

I don't think the mapsyou are adding to embassy pages are very useful. Someone looking to read about the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. is unlikely to be wondering where Washington is, and if they are they will merely click through to the article on D.C. The photo is far more useful. - SimonP 15:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure they're copyright violations - Google and the providers of their maps own the copyright to any map downloaded from their server by Google Earth or on their website. I will delete these soon, just letting you know what's up. --Golbez 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Peter please read the text of {{software-screenshot}}. That something is a screenshot does not give us the right to use it anyway we like. - SimonP 19:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, replace the diplomatic "pretty sure" with the more assertive "absolutely sure it's a blatant copyvio". The words "Image (c) 2004 ........." can just barely be made out on the bottom. If I load up Google Earth and pull up the same map, I see: "Image (c) 2004 MDA EarthSat". Yes, it's a screenshot - but a screenshot of copyrighted info. That doesn't negate the copyvio of the picture that the program is showing. Based on that philosophy, having a text of Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone would be bad, but having a screenshot of Notepad displaying it would be kosher. --Golbez 20:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Thank you for your co-operation until this matter is resolved by the proper authorities" The proper authorities that are heavily voting to delete the template, you mean? Or are you referring to other authorities? And stop with the illusion that it fits under screenshot copyright. I am part of the proper authorities, and removing blatant copyright violations is part of my job. --Golbez 20:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no editing or updating of that image that can be performed and make it legal; it has been deleted. You are welcome to upload a free-licensed map, or a screenshot of one. You can also now adapt the templates to not use that map. --Golbez 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Much better. Thank you. --Golbez 20:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

3RR doesn't apply to the page, it applies to the user. It does not mean the page can only be reverted 3 times in 24 hours; it means YOU cannot revert it more than 3 times in 24 hours, nor can anyone else. This is not a license, but a guideline and a limitation. --Golbez 20:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.--Doc ^ask? 20:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"Security specialist"?

So what are you qualifications for calling yourself such? And how, exactly, could a "security specialist" include as a "security risk" the listing of the street address in the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. article, despite the fact that the Embassy itself does so at the top of its own home page? --Calton | Talk 01:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

do not overwrite other people's comments

Don't erase other people's comments on talk pages. Especially on Jimbo's talk page. Consider yourself warned. -- Natalinasmpf 05:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

User, they were my own comments that I modified and deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterZed (talk • contribs)

Yes, but you deleted other people's comments in the process, which were replies. You can't. -- Natalinasmpf 06:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Example of Security Risk Template

The following is not an actual template used on Wikipedia but an example of a template that was created and deleted in a nonstandard process here on Wikipedia. The same rules that were applied to other candidates for deletion were not applied to this template.

	This article may pose a risk to international security and should be reviewed by a Wikipedia administrator.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.

Actually, it was nominated for deletion on Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion, and following a standard vote in which some 40 users voted to delete the article and the sole keep vote came from the above user, the template's creator, the template was appropriately deleted. This is exactly the procedure that is to be followed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 00:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• Despite the comments left above, there was nothing standard about said voting process and the vote count provided above is not accurate. The template was deleted before fair due process was given. All other candidates in the Templates For Deletion section were given a longer frame of time during which voters could elect to KEEP or DELETE said template. PeterZed 09:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Security risk template

Hi Peter, I know that that the debate over this template has caused some stress for you. I'd like to help clear up any misconceptions you may have—do you understand why users are voting to delete the template or why they feel that the information in that article isn't a security risk? I'll do my best to help straighten things out. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Listen to Knowledge Seeker. I am not supportive of your template.--Jimbo Wales 06:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Well the latest from Jimbo Wales himself is "I am not supportive of your template." I am confused by this comment. Is that to mean he is not supportive of the template in its current form and would advocate for its total exclusion or simply a modification? Or is he suggesting that the idea of allowing editors to flag certain articles as security risks be completely disallowed here on WP...Can somebody from Wikipedia please clarify this? PeterZed 07:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Since Jimbo told you to "[l]isten to Knowledge Seeker," it's pretty plain:

• Read -- actually read -- the comments on Templates for Deletion.
• Ask Knowledge Seeker if you're confused.

I also believe he was saying, politely, that he doesn't buy your rationale.

And while I'm here, I should point out you haven't answered my question about how an address posted by the British Embassy itself constitutes a "security risk" if published here. Since you tried to (clumsily) censor my original response to your posting on Jimbo Wales' talk page, I'm somewhat skeptical of the chances for a reply. --Calton | Talk 07:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sir, this user did not make an attempt to censor your work and this user apologizes if that is your misconception of the facts. This user had attempted to correct the exclusion of the actual template from that page and it was not my intent to delete your comments. PeterZed 07:31, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• ...your misconception of the facts. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it, since the fact is you did it TWICE -- overwriting it and your first comment with another version of the same message[1] when all you has to do, if you were seriously attempting to "correct the exclusion of the actual template" was modify the text of the template (exactly as Natalinasmpf did), and then deleting it again when it was restored [2], having the incredible chutzpah to write Moved from above, please don't delete/vandalize again. I won't modify this if you wont)[3].

• As a general rule, the more transparent the lie, the more insulting I find it, not matter what spin you put on it.

• In any case, I see that you have once again not answered the very simple question I asked above. To recap: how does an address posted by the British Embassy itself on its own home page constitute a "security risk" if published here? And what exactly ARE your qualifications to call yourself a "security specialist"? --Calton | Talk 12:30, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• (edconf) You might want to start with explaining how exactly an encyclopedia article could cause a risk to international security. Frankly the whole idea moggles the bind. Radiant_>|< 12:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• For the record, I am a long-term admin and I don't support your template either. Peter, I fail to see situations where the template would have been useful! - Ta bu shi da yu 16:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Stop creating so many stupid userboxes

Enough with the stupid userboxes. I'm getting tired of deleting them. Kelly Martin (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

• Please read WP:POINT. If something you create is deleted because people call it stupid, do not create a bunch of stupid things that will likely end up deleted anyway. Radiant_>|< 13:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is Anti-USA?

The admins here have recently elected to begin deleting my userboxes and targeting my templates in what seems like a political message that may give the impression that Wikipedia is anti-American. User box templates of User:PeterZed were deleted without warning and commented upon by an administrator that indicates a very anti-US bias on the part of Wikipedia.

Also, I hardly believe calling US-themed user boxes "stupid" is civil behaviour for a citizen of Wikipedia who is supposedly striving to keep the application of policies uniform. Are you also going to delete those user boxes found here also: User:Knowledge_Seeker??? I suppose it is okay to be a fan of Star Trek on Wikipedia, but NOT a supporter of the United States? What gives? Why do some people have the right to freedom of belief and expression here but others do not? Why is it okay to identify yourself through a userbox as a user of the Firefox browser but it is not okay to identify yourself as a drinker of Coca-Cola or as a user of Taco Bell?

Please clarify this matter with other admins or, in fairness, delete all userboxes. If equality of adminship is what is being sought, than Wikipedia executives should seriously consider what message they are sending by deleting the contributions of some individuals who wish to express an affinity for a particular organization while keeping the submissions of other questionable organizations - I'm specifically pointing to contributions of supporters of the Animal Liberation Front, a known terrorist organization.

It is becoming clear that Wikipedia itself is becoming an international security risk and should be blocked from some legal jurisdictions before these matters in question can be settled. You have users User:SimonP posting addresses of North American embassies and identifying themselves with the logo of the incorporated city of Ottawa, Canada when they may or may not be affiliated with said organization. Please clarify and comment. PeterZed 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Peter, that's absurd. We routinely delete unnecessary templates, and you have made a considerable number that are just not needed. There is really not much that is Anti-American about this website. However, some answers:

• The Firefox template is useful for us to know: I can think of several examples: people may have various plugins that are useful for viewing the site, etc. There may be specific Firefox issues that we need to sort out on the site. The fact that you eat at Taco Bell or McDonalds is not relevant for the site. I can't think of one useful reason why I would need to know this!
• Further, drinking Coca-cola or eating at Taco Bell is not a political action. I have eaten there also, that tells me nothing about my political leanings! Joining the Animal Liberation Front is a political action. This is useful for us to know!
• The addresses of embassies is public knowledge (as has been pointed out to you numerous times). This does not constitute a security threat. It is ridiculous to say otherwise.

Please, use some common sense. We have many articles that need assistance, and I'm sure you could help considerably! There really are some battles out there that aren't worth fighting: and you are fighting most of them. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Enough

PeterZed, I understand that you've experienced some confusion over Wikipedia policies and are having a bit of a rough time getting started here. However, your behavior has been inexcusable. Many editors before me have attempted to explain why the template was inappropriate and why the information is not a security risk. Your refusal to acknowledge their arguments, refusal to answer their questions about flaws in your logic, deliberately refusing to acknowledge efforts to help you understand, selectively acknowledging messages for you, and deliberate misinterpretations of others' comments are counterproductive and suggest that you are more interested in causing trouble here than in helping us improve Wikipedia. I still want to help you, but you must participate in the discussion as well. In addition, the increased frantic nature of your posts as well as the diverse locations you're posting are becoming disruptive, especially when you don't respond to people's replies. This is an encyclopedia. Our primary purpose is to write a great enyclcopedia. If you would like to help us with that, we'd like to have you; if not, I'm sure you can find a good Internet forum or chat room to discuss your ideas.

I'm going to block you from editing for now. You can still edit your talk page, and we can discuss and hopefully resolve your concerns. I will respect your statements and take them seriously, and I ask that you do the same for mine.

Let's take this one step at a time. Are you still concerned that there are articles that have security risks? If so, please provide an example of an article and security risk. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

How long is the block in effect for

How long will this block be in effect for and what specific reasons are you blocking my IP?

I have been treated with a great amount of disrespect for posting edits to this encyclopedia that concern users who are posting information that could present a security risk to the governments of the United States, Britain and Canada. The very fact that you have once again banned my IP without sufficient justification or warning or based on non-equally-applied policies/rules/standards demonstrates an incredible amount of inconsistency on behalf of those who represent the stated goals of this project and of those administrators on Wikipedia who are connected to Jimbo Wales himself.

The template was deleted without due process, that which is similarly provided to other templates which are considered for deletion. The templates for deletion page still contains dozens of other templates that have not been deleted within the same timeframe.

Are you also going to be blocking the IPs of all users who are posting sensitive security information including photographs and addresses of embassies as well as those users who are providing support for known terrorist organizations (ALF) in the United States? The provision of this information on other websites is provided by these governments on their behalf, none of which is known to be provided by the editors of Wikipedia.

Given your apparent connection channels to the founder of this project, can you please explain to me the process by which certain user templates created by myself (McDonald's...Taco Bell...Coca-Cola...Support the Troops were deleted and then somehow re-appeared withour adequate record of such? These templates and their record of creation is somehow confusingly 'lost' here on Wikipedia. In the interest of providing the public with a fair and balanced NPOV project, should the Board of Directors not account for the existence of these weblogs to find out who is editing and re-editing log information here?

Also, how is it possible that users are able to edit and manipulate my personal user information and discussion pages AFTER my IP has been blocked from this website. Should these pages not be locked? Do these pages not belong to a blocked user? If a user has been blocked, is it truly fair that other editors here have access to their "accounts"?

Finally, given the incorporation of your organization within the United States, am I not correct when I suggest that Wikipedia executives and others associated with this company are failing to seek the input of proper law enforcement mechanisms when dealing with information that could presents a risk to both national and interntional security? While I have referred this matter to others in the security community, I hope that officials from your organization have also done the same.

Before you go around demanding answers to your questions, perhaps you could take the time to answwer a couple yourself. To recap: how does an address posted by the British Embassy itself on its own home page constitute a "security risk" if published here? And what exactly ARE your qualifications to call yourself a "security specialist"? --Calton | Talk 03:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Given your position as a Medical Doctor, I don't expect you to have all the answers to these questions. I have read your posts and respect your position as a leading Wikipedian who spends much of his/her time on this site creating, updating and editing this information source. If you are a member of the board of directors here at Wikipedia, I hope that you can convey my utmost hope that this matter can be resolved expediently so that users can continue to have "free" and unfettered access to Wikipedia.

I would like to continue editing Wikipedia, please inform me specifically what I must do to have my IP unblocked so that I my continue to do so. I appreciate your attention to this matter and I congratulate you and your organization on being a leading member of the international effort to educate the citizens of Planet Earth. Again, anything I can do to return to the good graces of Wikipedia is of crucial importance to me. This mostly English-language project is an inspiration for liberty, democracy and the power of innovation.

PeterZed 02:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. The atmosphere surrounding these issues was rapidly growing toxic. Too many messages posted in too many places, with people leaving complaints and not listening to one another. This block is not a punishment, but an attempt to keep the discussion in one place, between just you and me. I'll work to get all your concerns straightened out. I'm sure we'll be able to get you back to editing soon, but let's keep talking for a little bit; I am confident we will be able to resolve all issues.

Look, if we want to work things out, we have to break things down. There is too much in your last post to address at once. Let's tackle the first item you mention, information that may represent a security risk. This also corresponds to the question I asked you: Are you still concerned that there are articles that have security risks? If so, please provide an example of an article and security risk. Or, if there is a different issue you'd like to address, please do so. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia concerns need to be addressed by Jimbo Wales/Wikipedians

• Your Block quote: "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "PeterZed". The reason given for PeterZed's block is: "hopefully temporary block; user is becoming increasingly disruptive but User:PeterZed hopes this will encourage two-sided discussion" As a society, have we really come to this point? User:PeterZed cannot understand why a member of this community would be blocked twice within 72 hours for pointing out that some of the information presented here (Editors and admins supporting known terrorist organizations - see Animal Liberation Front - could present a security risk to Western interests. Now, there are death threats involved, as has been posted on the pages of Jimbo Wales, is it not your responsibility as a physician to immediately address these situations with the appropriate law enforcement representatives in your particular legal jurisdiction?

It was not User:PeterZed who has been engaging in uncivil or disruptive behaviour. If you track the posts that have been made, and the subsequents deletes and edits that have mysteriously appeared and re-appeared, you will notice that accusations that have been directed at User:PeterZed have been quite rude and derogatory. With that in mind, have you also taken fair and balanced measures to ban or block other admins and editors who have unfairly targeted this user?

The continued support of known terrorist organizations by Wikipedia and its representatives is a matter of great concern. Since an admin is granted rights beyond those of a regular surfer, User:PeterZed can only assume that Wikipedia provides editorial support for these users. Since User:PeterZed has been blocked for bringing this to the attention of the Wikipedia community, the next logical conclusion is that Wikipedia is very likely being used as an avenue to support terrorism.

Also, could you inform User:PeterZed and the Wikipedian community what jurisdiction you practice medicine in? I am concerned whether the advice that physicians currently giving medical advice on this website - which has become a generally accepted information resource - is within the bounds of the legal limits of their areas of practice.

One last thing, when proprietary business information is posted here, what are Wikipedia representatives doing to ensure that said information is immediately expunged? Knowing that Wikipedia.org is registered in Florida, and that the .org suffix indicates your operation within the jurisdiction of U.S. laws and regulations, certainly Wikipedia and their representative administrators would never post information, be it medical advice or information related to the operation of any private business or organization that would jeopardize the health, safety and good standing of Americans or their interests. PeterZed 06:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give medical advice; see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer. While there are articles giving information on medical topics, like all other topics, none of it should be regarded as advice for any particular individual in any particular situation; you're better off consulting a doctor. Similar disclaimers apply for anything that might be construed as legal advice.

The .org suffix is an international gTLD, and does not imply any connection with the United States. There are some legal precedents to the effect that, since the registry is located in the U.S., it is possible to bring the domain itself under the jurisdiction of the U.S. courts, in an action against the domain rather than the person or organization who owns it, and this is sometimes done in cybersquatting cases to force a registry or registrar to transfer ownership of a domain name that is allegedly infringing on somebody's rights. This does not bring the organization itself under the court's jurisdiction if it is not otherwise so, and can't be used to force anything on the organization other than loss of their domain. That's moot, however, since as you note the Wikipedia Foundation is legally registered in Florida, and hence subject to court jurisdiction there, as it would be even if it used a different domain suffix such as .tv (in Tuvalu).

Just which editors and admins are you claiming as supporters of the Animal Liberation Front? Are you so labeling anybody who doesn't agree with all your edits there, or is there more explicit indication of support?

You still haven't given a straight answer to the questions which several people have made of you regarding just why it's a security risk to publish embassy address information that is widely available from many sources including the embassies' own sites. Do you really think the Department of Homeland Security should be keeping track of everybody who looks up an embassy address online? *Dan T.* 13:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Vote disputes

If you check the voting record, there was more than one instance of users electing to keep this template. Please confirm. This contradicts comments that both admins and editors of this site have made in relation to the inclusion of a very important template that would ensure the safe operation of this website. PeterZed 06:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I count two "keep" entries in total, one of them from you and the other from User:Mistress Selina Kyle, against dozens of "delete" and "move to wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense". So, you seem to have convinced one editor of your side on this. *Dan T.* 13:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Disappointed

Mr. Zed, I'm disappointed in you. I'm trying in good faith to discuss with you, and yet you refuse to respond to comments that I or anyone else makes. How do you expect anything to be resolved if you ignore what others are saying? This is the third time I'm asking you: Are you still concerned that there are articles that have security risks? If so, please provide an example of an article and security risk. When you're ready to talk, I'm ready to listen. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify. When you write long posts like that that have nothing to do with previous topics, it makes it very difficult if not impossible for discussion to take place. For now, pick one (1) topic—whatever bothers you most, or whatever you would most like to see resolved—and we can talk about it. The sooner we resolve your concerns the sooner we can both get back to editing Wikipedia. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Attention User:Knowledge Seeker. What were the specific reasons User:PeterZed was blocked and when will the unblocking occur? The very specific answer that is being sought is whether or not the medical licensing board in your legal jurisdiction knows of the information you are currently posting on Wikipedia and whether that falls within the bounds of your current license, or if it has not yet been procured, whether it will affect your candidacy for the title of Physician ? You have identified yourself as a medical doctor here have you not? Please post your contact information here so that users can contact you personally regarding this and other health matters. Are you and other physicians currently providing medical information on this site able to accept personal financial liability in the event that information provided here is found to be harmful? PeterZed 09:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

For now, pick one (1) topic—whatever bothers you most, or whatever you would most like to see resolved—and we can talk about it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

All right; even though you were not able to limit yourself to one topic, I don't wish to be unreasonable and will answer these questions. You were blocked for disruption. Constructive criticism of Wikipedia is quite acceptable and should be welcomed. However, you were making complaints about seemingly random issues, none of which seem to correspond with actual Wikipedia deficits. When other users questioned you or commented to try to elucidate your concerns or explain how they were inaccurate, not only did you ignore them but would leave even more bizarre comments making even more extravagant claims. To date I have yet to see you respond directly to anything anyone's asked of you. Despite multiple requests, you have not been able to provide an example of a security risk in an article. Wikipedia's purpose is to build am excellent encyclopedia. Constructive criticism helps us do that. Your comments do not, in my opinion. In fact, the things you say suggest you are more interested in creating discord or in angering people than in helping us improve Wikipedia. I'm not saying that you are, but the lack of response to people's concerns is disruptive. This is disruption. That's why you were blocked. However, I am willing to unblock you to see if you can contribute to Wikipedia without being too disruptive. That's not to say you can't complain about Wikipedia, but try to do it in a constructive manner, and be responsive to others' concerns. Regarding your legal questions, you should probably ask at one of the reference desks, as legal matters are better answered by someone more well-versed than I. My contact information is available at User talk:Knowledge Seeker, but people should not contact me regarding health matters, as Wikipedia does not give medical advice. It would be unwise for someone to make medical or health decisions based on something they read in Wikipedia and I certainly would not be responsible for such a foolish act. Wikipedia is not a doctor, and I do not provide medical advice here, with the exception of referring users to discuss the matter with their physicians. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, you will UNBLOCK me as soon as I agree to not criticize Wikipedia? When will this unblocking occur? Soon? While I do not agree that it is constructive policy to block editors for offering criticism of this project, I seek an UNBLOCKING simply for the fact that I believe there was an error in judgement made and that User:PeterZed should be allowed to continue editing Wikipedia in order to provide fair and equal access. Also, please point me to the page which spells out conditions for BLOCKING users so that I can make every attempt to abide by these policies in the future. PeterZed 22:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreeing to "not criticize Wikipedia" is not something any editor is ever asked to do as a condition for participation. Criticism is fine as long as it doesn't involve personal attacks on other editors, or threats of legal action, or other such disruptiveness. *Dan T.* 22:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Dan is correct. You certainly do not have to agree not to criticize Wikipedia; rather, such criticism is welcome, and such an agreement would not persuade me to unblock. What I was hoping for was meaningful communication and understanding, not quelling dissent. I apologize that I was not clear; what I meant in my last message was that I was unblocking you then because I had given up on trying to connect with you. I removed my block of you prior to leaving that last message, but since your behavior and comments hadn't changed (they'd gotten worse if anything), you were quickly reblocked by another administrator. This is what I was hoping to avoid. I knew that if you continued in that manner you would be blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. I thought if I could talk to you first I could help you understand how to explain your thoughts and help to address your concerns, but I was unsuccessful and you chose not to acknowledge the points I and others made. I'm sorry I wasn't able to help you. I'll now withdraw from this matter. If you have further questions, you may contact me via e-mail or on this page, although I might miss it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• So what are the specific reasons that User:PeterZed is being blocked now? There have been no other edits to this encyclopedia except for communication here which is presumably the conditions for the original unblocking. Please explain to me what the new BLOCK is for? PeterZed 22:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

At what point will my IP be unblocked?

• My IP has been blocked for no other reason than I have offered criticism of this website. Please informe me when this IP will be unblocked so I may continue to have free and equal access to this website.

Answering the questions people have asked you on this page would be a good first step. *Dan T.* 06:27, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Unblock

• Again, please inform this user what specific reasons this IP has been blocked from this website and also where in Wikipedia Guidelines and Policies it is written that users must answer arbitrary questions from other users before access will be granted in the form of a user being unblocked? As you are no doubt aware, User:PeterZed was blocked for pointing out that unofficial Wikipedia policies were sought as a way to silence this user's complaints related to questions regarding the safe and legal operation of this website. The vote on User:PeterZed's security template was not given the fair and full due process that other templates on this website are given. Madam, would you please inform me what legal jurisdiction you are currently operating from in order that I may continue this conversation. Can you please provide me with your contact information? Also, are you a paid employee of The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.? PeterZed 08:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Repost of Medical Risk Question: Is Wikipedia Foundation Liable for Medical Risks Found on Wikipedia?

Attention User:Knowledge Seeker. What were the specific reasons User:PeterZed was blocked and when will the unblocking occur? The very specific answer that is being sought is whether or not the medical licensing board in your legal jurisdiction knows of the information you are currently posting on Wikipedia and whether that falls within the bounds of your current license, or if it has not yet been procured, whether it will affect your candidacy for the title of Physician ? You have identified yourself as a medical doctor here have you not? Please post your contact information here so that users can contact you personally regarding this and other health matters. Are you and other physicians currently providing medical information on this site able to accept personal financial liability in the event that information provided here is found to be harmful? PeterZed 09:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, giving an opinion about whether the foundation (or the individual editor) is liable for medical information on Wikipedia might constitute giving legal advice without a license, which is just as illegal as the similar offense for medical advice. *Dan T.* 20:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Condition

Really, for us to consider unblocking you, you need to be reasonable and answer this question: Why should Wikipedia be considered an international security risk for having the street address of an embassy, whose webpage prominently features that same address? Why is Wikipedia the higher risk than the embassy's own website? If you cannot answer this question within one attempt, then you clearly have no intent to be a proper editor here, and are simply a troll. So, please, try. --Golbez 01:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Who is us? I was blocked by User:Knowledge Seeker. Are you also User:Knowledge Seeker and if not, are you capable of unblocking User:PeterZed? Please direct me to the pages where I can find out more about UNBLOCKING. I would like to find more information on if this is a standard procedure for unblocking. This block was initiated by User:Knowledge Seeker, for reasons that have not been made clear or are nonstandard so why is User:PeterZed subject to questions from Golbez who may or may not have the ability to unblock this IP? Since the IP was originally blocked by User:Knowledge Seeker, is this realistically a fair policy? An interrogation by a user who may or may not have the power to UNBLOCK this IP? As for the answer to your question: Unless you have the ability to track and trace every specific editor of Wikipedia through the proper mechnanisms, the idea that you allow anonymous individuals to create and update vast sources of information on government locations that have been, in the past, targets of terrorist activities, is completely irresponsible. Since you claim to represent the whole of Wikipedia, can you not see the potential for abuse? Is it not the perogative of the British government itself to make public that informtion? Are you sir/madam, a representative of the British government? If you are, have you cleared the decision to post photographs and detailed information of your diplomatic missions on this website? Now that the question for the representative collective known as "us" has been answered, when will the unblocking occur? Do Wikipedian admins have access to the surveillance camers located outside every Internet cafe that provides access to this website? unless The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. has access to said material, your posting of this information is at best - irresponsible, and at worst, a danger to the citizenry. PeterZed 02:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Jeez, maybe if you spent fewer sentences on empty interrogation, you might actually have enough intellectual steam left over to answer, which you failed to do. The question was why Wikipedia's having that info is an "international security risk", but it is not a risk when it is plainly visible on the embassy's webpage. You can't seem to understand that, so, goodbye. --Golbez 02:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And actually, Knowledge Seeker's block of you was temporary; the permanent block was put in place by Ambi, who is a well-respected member of the community here as well as a former member of the Arbitration Committee. --Golbez 02:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Hi, Mr. Zed. "Us" refers to the Wikipedia community in general. Any administrator can block a user or remove a block, so any of the 700 or so administrators, including Golbez and me, could remove the block on your account. However, unblocking is usually left for the one who placed the block in the first place, and in your case, given the disruptive nature of your contributions, and the lack of productive edits, unblocking is quite unlikely at this point. Especially given that you still refuse to answer the simple question of how posting an embassy's address is a security risk (or if you have reconsidered that position). The reasons for your blocking were made very clear in my last statement to you and disruption is a standard reason for blocking in the blocking policy; if you choose to ignore or misunderstand, that is your prerogative. We are all "subject to questions"; anyone can ask me a question on my talk page at any time, as a community, this is how we interact with one another. I understand your concern about anonymous users posting information—what do you propose be done about it? Disallow anonymous user editing? Take Wikipedia off the Internet? Be on the lookout for sensitive material? Will you ever actually provide a specific example of material you find objectionable, or just continue to make vague predictions of doom? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he wants Big Brotherly surveillance cameras watching all users who access Wikipedia, in order to find personal information about everybody who looks up a sensitive fact such as the location of an embassy, so it can be relayed to the Department of Homeland Security for further action. *Dan T.* 05:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• User:PeterZed has answered the question repeatedly. Yet another explanation of the security risk: There is no mechanism in place to ensure that all edits are able to be tracked to a specific individual. Thus, when users begin posting sensitive information, the site becomes a platform for those individuals who may use or create information to cause harm, spread hate, or worse, cause a possible international security incident. Since the administrators here have repeatedly shown a lack of good judgement by continually altering and changing the "ruleset" that allows editors to create and post information, there is a clear lack of quality standards on behalf of those who have been given the status of administrator. By playing this game, you have demonstrated for this user and the others who are now watching the reactions here, how unprepared Wikipedia is to address actual criticism concerning their project. The idea that Wikipedia should be recognized as any sort of reputable source of information is clearly in jeopardy by the irresponsible actions of the administrators who have failed to address this issue properly. The behaviour and comments of users and admins here is proof why the project cannot ever be accepted by degree-granting institutions or for realistic collaborative projects in its current form. If the goal is to create a viable academic resource, then the actions of the administrators here have gone a long way to disrupt that. Additionally, by suggesting that User:PeterZed can continue editing Wikipedia upon discussion of the issue, and then revoking that status arbitrarily, the administrators here once again demonstrated an inability to apply standards uniformly. Perhaps the qualifications for offering a fair and balanced perspective are in need of review. Please explain what basis User:PeterZed was BLOCKED a second time after the original block. It was made clear that upon discussing the matter here on User:PeterZed's discussion page, that the block would be removed. A second administrator, having nothing to do with the issue, then decided to put a block on this IP? There were no edits made to the encyclopedia beyond which appeared here on this page, so please explain how does that justify a second block. 134.117.148.70 02:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
  • PeterZed has repeatedly failed to answer the specific question pertaining to the British embassy, and therefore seems to have absolutely no will to resolve that particular conflict. Since that is the case, there can be no resolve for the larger conflicts as well. --Golbez 05:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Golbez. Mr. Zed, you are explaining the security problems you see with Wikipedia, but you refuse to explain why posting an embassy address is a security risk. Occasionally you respond to questions with answers to different, unasked questions; most of the time you don't even respond. If you are unable to communicate with other users, then Wikipedia is probably not the place for you. We are not a collection of isolated editors, but a community. When you decide you're ready to talk with us, and not at us, you will be welcome back.
    • I see no benefit to further conversation here, and will protect this page for further editing. I thank Golbez, Dtobias, and the other editors who tried to connect with this user. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I see no harm from it, either. Let him speak here for now, it's amusing. --Golbez 05:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Certainly, as you wish. I'm removing this page from my watchlist, but feel free to carry on. Perhaps you will be able to make some progress. Let me know if you need any help. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Security Policies At Wikipedia

• How does one find out more information about the ongoing effort to ensure Wikipedia admins and editors refrain from posting information that may prevent a security risk? As an editor, I am interested in contributing to the creation of safe and uniform editor and admin practices here on Wikipedia. Thank-you PeterZed 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ongoing by whom other than you? The only page you can presently edit is this one. --Golbez 03:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

And I would venture the opinion, based on your contributions so far, that you have demonstrated no qualifications whatsoever to talk about security and security risks, nor on how to work collaboratively or within policy (WP:3RR, WP:Verifiability, WP:CITE, to name three policies you've violated) on Wikipedia. Your transparent attempts to obfuscate to avoid answering simple questions also tests the limits of assuming that your contributions are not only reasonable, factual, and productive, but even whether they're made in good faith. You've been told how you can persuade the admins -- any single admin, there being something like 700 of them -- to unblock you: if you're serious, start by answering the single direct question I (and others) have been asking you with a single direct answer, unmarred by obfuscation and rhetorical questions. If that answer satisfies an admin, you're golden; if you continue to obfuscate and make demands, nothing will change.

Your choice. --Calton | Talk 04:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Dm_g_earth_locator.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Dm_g_earth_locator.png. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 10:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Support_The_Troops.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Support_The_Troops.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 20:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Intelligence And Information Gathering

This is to inform you that the project page you created above is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to follow the links on the page to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Badbilltucker 00:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)