[WikiEN-l] Re: Silverback and the 3RR

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 