[WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR
actionforum at comcast.net
actionforum at comcast.net
Sun Jan 2 22:46:08 UTC 2005
Well you still haven't removed the block even though it should have expired 20 minutes ago. Once again abusing your priviledge and shirking responsibility.
-- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
> Reverting and adding is still reverting. If it weren't then that would open
> a huge loophole in the 3R rule. You were warned, you ignored the warning
> just as you ignored requests to provide citations for the paragraph to show
> that it wasn't original research.
>
> I'm not sure what you are referring to below since you provide no context
> for the adjectives you cite but I'm certainly not immune to having my
> writing edited though I think if you go on a vindictive binge and won't
> exactly enhance your credibility.
>
> AndyL
>
>
> on 1/2/05 4:56 PM, actionforum at comcast.net at actionforum at comcast.net wrote:
>
> > 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 at comcast.net at actionforum at 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&oldid=897
> >>>>> 53
> >>>>> 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 at Wikipedia.org
> >>>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >>> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >>> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> WikiEN-l mailing list
> >> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> >> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
More information about the WikiEN-l
mailing list