Wikipediocracy

General IP Information

IP: 156.33.241.5
Decimal: 2619470085
Hostname: 156.33.241.5
ISP: United States Senate
Organization: US Senate
Services: Confirmed proxy server
Type: Corporate
Assignment: Static IP

HRIP7 wrote:As A1candidate (T-C-L) points out on Jimbo's talk, an IP 156.33.241.5 (T-C-L) that is marked as belonging to the US Senate made this edit to Snowden's biography, changing the description from "dissident" to "traitor".

General IP Information

IP: 156.33.241.5
Decimal: 2619470085
Hostname: 156.33.241.5
ISP: United States Senate
Organization: US Senate
Services: Confirmed proxy server
Type: Corporate
Assignment: Static IP

TungstenCarbide wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:As A1candidate (T-C-L) points out on Jimbo's talk, an IP 156.33.241.5 (T-C-L) that is marked as belonging to the US Senate made this edit to Snowden's biography, changing the description from "dissident" to "traitor".

General IP Information

IP: 156.33.241.5
Decimal: 2619470085
Hostname: 156.33.241.5
ISP: United States Senate
Organization: US Senate
Services: Confirmed proxy server
Type: Corporate
Assignment: Static IP

Congressional employees runs into the tens of thousands. Just some hot head voicing his opinion.

I can only interpret your recent edit to Campaign for "santorum" neologism as an attempt to further the visibility of the neologism at Google. Don't do that. If you have arguments why you think the made-up definition should be at the very top of the article, feel free to lay them out at the talk page of the article.
Amalthea 19:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, just did that. I would add, please assume good faith. --DrFleischman (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

DanMurphy wrote:
What's really funny is there's no complaint about the use of "dissident," which is as thoroughly inappropriate as "traitor." Perhaps the IP was making the point that one man's dissident is another man's traitor? And why not?

Randy from Boise wrote:

DanMurphy wrote:
What's really funny is there's no complaint about the use of "dissident," which is as thoroughly inappropriate as "traitor." Perhaps the IP was making the point that one man's dissident is another man's traitor? And why not?

""One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." —Gerald Seymour (1975)

"Dissident" works for me.

RfB

Vigilant wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:

DanMurphy wrote:
What's really funny is there's no complaint about the use of "dissident," which is as thoroughly inappropriate as "traitor." Perhaps the IP was making the point that one man's dissident is another man's traitor? And why not?

""One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." —Gerald Seymour (1975)

"Dissident" works for me.

RfB

I'd prefer whistleblower.

Randy from Boise wrote:"Dissident" works for me.

Bugs wrote:Leaker, definitely. Whistleblower, no. If this activity was being done under the Patriot Act, then it was "legal", whether this character likes it or not ... Giving aid and comfort and secret information to the enemy is a potentially treasonous offense ... get rid of that biased, self-serving term "whistleblower" ... yadda yadda yadda ...

Midsize Jake wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:"Dissident" works for me.

"Political subversive" is probably more accurate, and probably more NPOV as well, though both terms are probably better than "traitor." And I agree, "whistle-blower" would be better as well.

For the moment, the word they're using is "fugitive," which in some ways is better, some ways worse. They could also try "self-imposed exile" or "asylum-seeker" just to be nice, but either way, I'm sure this will provide the WPers with plenty of entertainment for months to come!

Midsize Jake wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:"Dissident" works for me.

"Political subversive" is probably more accurate, and probably more NPOV as well, though both terms are probably better than "traitor." And I agree, "whistle-blower" would be better as well.

For the moment, the word they're using is "fugitive," which in some ways is better, some ways worse. They could also try "self-imposed exile" or "asylum-seeker" just to be nice, but either way, I'm sure this will provide the WPers with plenty of entertainment for months to come!

Mancunium wrote:

Midsize Jake wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:"Dissident" works for me.

"Political subversive" is probably more accurate, and probably more NPOV as well, though both terms are probably better than "traitor." And I agree, "whistle-blower" would be better as well.

For the moment, the word they're using is "fugitive," which in some ways is better, some ways worse. They could also try "self-imposed exile" or "asylum-seeker" just to be nice, but either way, I'm sure this will provide the WPers with plenty of entertainment for months to come!

In the good old days:
(caution - viewing may cause nausea and vomiting)

Vigilant wrote:

Mancunium wrote:

Midsize Jake wrote:

Randy from Boise wrote:"Dissident" works for me.

"Political subversive" is probably more accurate, and probably more NPOV as well, though both terms are probably better than "traitor." And I agree, "whistle-blower" would be better as well.

For the moment, the word they're using is "fugitive," which in some ways is better, some ways worse. They could also try "self-imposed exile" or "asylum-seeker" just to be nice, but either way, I'm sure this will provide the WPers with plenty of entertainment for months to come!

In the good old days:
(caution - viewing may cause nausea and vomiting)

W is going to go down as the very worst US president.
I hate that man with the fury of a thousand lambent suns.

Vigilant wrote:W is going to go down as the very worst US president.
I hate that man with the fury of a thousand lambent suns.

EricBarbour wrote:

Vigilant wrote:W is going to go down as the very worst US president.
I hate that man with the fury of a thousand lambent suns.

I had to live in his America, in 2002-03 when people were screaming for Saddam's head--because Bush and his sick friends ordered it.
Millions of ordinary citizens are every bit as guilty as he was. They just love those "War On" somethings. Doesn't matter who or what.

The Devil's Advocate wrote:People who say "George W. Bush is the worst president in American history" need to go read some American history. I get that Bush is recent, but you guys could at least pretend to acknowledge the existence of over two hundred previous years of American history.

Captain Occam wrote:George W. Bush is my least favorite president during my lifetime (and I'm about 30), but I agree with TDA that he isn't the worst ever. For example, I think James Buchanan was worse. The worst results of Bush's mistakes are the recession and an unnecessary war in Iraq, whereas the worst result was the Civil War in Buchanan's case.

greyed.out.fields wrote:The causes of the Civil War are many and complex. It may well have occurred were any number of similarly indecisive persons as Buchanan President at the time leading up to the commencement of the main hostilities. The Civil War was certainly not publicly justified by an untruth, one that was ignored when it was exposed as a lie and simply replaced by another justification.

It is obvious that there is an attempt here, based on the whole history of this operation since 1991, to protect whatever remains of his capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction, the missiles to deliver them, and the feed stocks necessary to produce them. The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.
[…]
Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too.
[…]
If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

DanMurphy wrote:

TungstenCarbide wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:As A1candidate (T-C-L) points out on Jimbo's talk, an IP 156.33.241.5 (T-C-L) that is marked as belonging to the US Senate made this edit to Snowden's biography, changing the description from "dissident" to "traitor".

General IP Information

IP: 156.33.241.5
Decimal: 2619470085
Hostname: 156.33.241.5
ISP: United States Senate
Organization: US Senate
Services: Confirmed proxy server
Type: Corporate
Assignment: Static IP

Congressional employees runs into the tens of thousands. Just some hot head voicing his opinion.

Yes, it aint "the gubment."

What's really funny is there's no complaint about the use of "dissident," which is as thoroughly inappropriate as "traitor." Perhaps the IP was making the point that one man's dissident is another man's traitor? And why not? His edit never went live (Snowden's bio is one of the fewer than 1% of Wikipedia biographies blessed with "pending changes") whereas Wikipedia had him down as a "dissident" for at least two hours at the time of the IP's edit, thanks to an account called DrFleischman (T-C-L) (formerly "Nstrauss"). I wonder what Dr. Fleischman's (or is it Mr. Strauss, or something else entirely?) political affiliations are and how they might be effecting his pursuit of blessed, blessed "NPOV" (A Wikipedia acronym for "Neutral Point of View")?

This exchange at the top of the good doctors talk page makes it clear what he's there for (political activism.) But assume good faith y'all!

I can only interpret your recent edit to Campaign for "santorum" neologism as an attempt to further the visibility of the neologism at Google. Don't do that. If you have arguments why you think the made-up definition should be at the very top of the article, feel free to lay them out at the talk page of the article.
Amalthea 19:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, just did that. I would add, please assume good faith. --DrFleischman (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I find this to be quite offensive. You can't engage in personal attacks here so you take it off-wiki, eh? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
: Well, I'm offended that you're offended. Who are you exactly? Btw, the fact that you describe that entirely innocuous observation about human bias as a "personal attack" is a sign that Wikipedia is rotting your brain.[[User:Dan Murphy|Dan Murphy]] ([[User talk:Dan Murphy#top|talk]]) 12:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently DrFleischman is upset about this comment:

Quote:
I find this to be quite offensive. You can't engage in personal attacks here so you take it off-wiki, eh? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
: Well, I'm offended that you're offended. Who are you exactly? Btw, the fact that you describe that entirely innocuous observation about human bias as a "personal attack" is a sign that Wikipedia is rotting your brain.[[User:Dan Murphy|Dan Murphy]] ([[User talk:Dan Murphy#top|talk]]) 12:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Who is DrFleischman? He's lawyer Nathaniel Strauss. Sounds like an interesting guy, but he probably should be more careful about editing from his workplace. Hi Nate!!

Vigilant wrote:Ahhhh, don't be too hard on the kid. I mean, look at that picture.

Worst thing he deserves if to use his office phone number in a fake backpage.com erotic massage ad.

Vigilant wrote:Provide a counter example.

The Devil's Advocate wrote:

Vigilant wrote:Provide a counter example.

Just look at any president from 1900 back.