Perhaps you were doing original research, seeing if you could abusively impose your novel interpretation of reverts upon someone, unsupported and not rigorously defensible by the policy documentation. You succeeded. I've got another 30 minutes or so to serve. I've noticed that you use terms like "rapid", "influential" and "massive" in your writing, it is difficult to tell whether these are POV or original research. It will be interesting to see. Perhaps you want to abuse your priviledge again.
-- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
The objection was that no work was cited which applied the concept of "altruistic genes" to communism and that therefore the claim was "original research". I believe you cited Wikipedia's altruism article when a citation was asked for but that article neither had a citation for the claim nor did it even make the claim itself and this was pointed out to you. The additions you made did not add a citation or, in any way, mitigate the "original research" complaint, it simply compounded the problem. Not only did you keep 90% of the paragraph that was originally removed, you added more questionable material and didn't even bother taking the matter to Talk for discussion.
I don't see how your edit can be seen as anything but a reversion just as the following would be a reversion: a) someone had written in an article "John Smith is a jerk" b) that statement was removed and c) you inserted "John Smith is a jerk, and he really smells"
You didn't do anything to address the complaint. You didn't discuss the matter in talk. You did not fulfill the request for citations, you simply reinserted almost all of the original paragraph and then made it longer. Frankly, that not only looks like a reversion, it's a reversion which adds insult to injury by making the disputed passage even longer and more questionable.
You then ignored a warning that you had reverted 3x and that a fourth occasion would result in a temp ban. You didn't then take the issue to talk, you just reverted an additional time. And then you come here to claim you've been hard done by!
AndyL
on 1/2/05 1:55 PM, actionforum@comcast.net at actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
The changes I made were to show the connective logic by which my statement was not original research, which was your extremely brief and unclear objection. Sometimes small changes can be significant, for instance if you ever read the added wikilink to "altruism" you would see there is a substantial evolution section. Changes do not have to be contiguous to be responsive to objections. My change elsewhere was related to my insert, and a further answer to the objection, making the connection clear. Although it would be flattering, I doubt that I am the first person to realize that "to each according to his ability" is "altruism", or that altruistic memes ride on phenotypes that evolved in smaller social groups where kinship was more likely.
My changes were not reverts, the substantive and responsive, to wholesale reversions to earlier versions with the rather cryptic "original research" complement as an explanation.
-- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
Comparing Silverback's edit at Jan 1, 20:30 to the one at Dec 31, 07:22 it seems to not have been a revert, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Communism&diff=9017540&old... 93 since he changed the disputed paragraph quite a bit.
He hasn't changed the paragraph as much as add to it. The problematic, undocumented original research is still there:
[Altruism]] [[evolution|evolves]] when those being helped have a strong likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]]. Altruistic, non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their persuasive, replicative power by riding on these genes, in much the same way that humans have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large nation states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes, which tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others may also be of assistance to the communism meme.
Is the Libertas version that caused the original problem of which Silverback reinstated the following (that is all but the first sentence from above):
Altruistic, non-individualistic, [[memes]] such as communism may gain their persuasive, replicative power by "riding" on these genes, in much the same way that humans have been convinced to sacrifice for nationalism even though large nation states did not exist during most of their evolution. More selfish genes, which tend to reinforce or reward altruistic or cooperative behavior in others may also be of assistance to the communism meme.
And added:
The explanation for the development of [[Altruism|altruistic genes]] by [[evolution|natural selection]] is that those being helped have must a strong likelyhood of sharing those same altruistic [[gene|genes]].
to the beginning and:
Without the presence of altrustic behavior in humans and the appeal of altruistic behavior in others to humans, communism and other altruistic or collectivist memes, such as nationalism, religion, charity, etc. would have no appeal to humans
To the end. Given what he reinstated, unaltered, from Libertas' version I don't see how the edit in question can be described as anything but a reversion. A reversion with other changes made but a reversion nevertheless.
AndyL
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l