X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Thu Jun 11 13:03:17 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <69277.81532.qm@web45108.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <69277.81532.qm@web45108.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:02:48 +0300
Message-ID: <6fb557d70906110402g5dc0bbfegfaeccc7062fbde20@mail.gmail.com>
From: Miacek and his crime-fighting dog <miacek08@googlemail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: -2.5
X-Spam_score_int: -24
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software,
	running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam. The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or
	label similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  Kinda good argument has been that I tended to vote
	exactly opoosite to Digwuren and martintg on occasions relating to all
	those funny Putinotrivia stuff. True, this was no tactical fake editing
	in itself, but still some may look upon it as such, heheh [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.5 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.7-deb (2006-10-05) on 
	pakkun.mirky.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 
	autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Fake arguments
X-BeenThere: folks@wikipedometer.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Id: Wikipedia statistics <folks.wikipedometer.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net>
List-Help: <mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks>,
	<mailto:folks-request@wikipedometer.net?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -2.5
X-Spam_score_int: -24
X-Spam_bar: --
X-Spam_report: Spam detection software, running on the system "pakkun.mirky.net", has
	identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
	has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
	similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
	the administrator of that system for details.
	Content preview:  Kinda good argument has been that I tended to vote
	exactly opoosite to Digwuren and martintg on occasions relating to all
	those funny Putinotrivia stuff. True, this was no tactical fake editing
	in itself, but still some may look upon it as such, heheh [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.5 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.1 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

Kinda good argument has been that I tended to vote exactly opoosite to
Digwuren and martintg on occasions relating to all those funny
Putinotrivia stuff. True, this was no tactical fake editing in itself,
but still some may look upon it as such, heheh

M.

On 11/06/2009, Jack <jacurek@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You are absolutely right Tymek.
> There is no rush but sooner or later fake arguments and even occasional
> reverts between the members should be conducted once in a while. The
> arguments must also look real to be effective, especially, if for example,
> Radeksz was arguing with Piotrus. I think such staged operation should be
> planned ahead of time by the people who decide to do it. If correctly
> executed they would be=A0a very good defense tools in case of accusations=
 of
> cabal, coordinated edits etc..but also would seriously confuse opponents =
who
> might be watching.
> Jacurek.
>
> --- On Wed, 6/10/09, piotr micula <basiaipiotr@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> From: piotr micula <basiaipiotr@yahoo.com>
> Subject: [WPM] Fake arguments
> To: folks@wikipedometer.net
> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 3:15 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I know it sounds childlish, but at the same time it can be helpful. Now a=
nd
> again, it is quite reasonable to make a fake argument with each other. Our
> edits are carefully watched by some people, also in possible situations,
> those arguments are a good evidence of us not cooperating with each other.
>
> Something like this
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:Piotrus&diff=3D2956=
74529&oldid=3D295614237
>
> Tymek
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
> folks@wikipedometer.net
> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>
>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks

