X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Fri Jun  5 22:30:32 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A298034.5010708@post.pl>
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 22:29:40 +0200
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081204 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.14
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
References: <4A2625B5.7010705@post.pl>	<25890ca0906030113r295a1e3as1452b924a5f7a55f@mail.gmail.com>	<25890ca0906031153u6f231517n51cd4e0f21aec4fb@mail.gmail.com>	<4A296177.9080504@post.pl>
	<25890ca0906051142l29a450f5m46b6f4d739884aff@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <25890ca0906051142l29a450f5m46b6f4d739884aff@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
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: radek szulga wrote: > Yeah I saw that - be sure to
	note
	"Be careful about citing this > principle too aggressively. An
	exhortation to "Assume Good Faith" can > itself be seen as a breach of
	this very tenet, since it fails to > assume the assumption of good faith
	if the perceived assumption of bad > faith is not clear-cut." from the
	guidelines. > > I'm holding off a little bit on Kurfurst - even though
	he's annoying > on Strategic Bombing I thought I'd give him more time
	since he seems > like one of those editors that sooner or later ends up
	putting their > foot in their mouth and then the case'd be stronger and
	more straight > forward. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-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=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Taking on Deacon
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="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -2.4
X-Spam_score_int: -23
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:  radek szulga wrote: > Yeah I saw that - be sure to note
	"Be careful about citing this > principle too aggressively. An
	exhortation to "Assume Good Faith" can > itself be seen as a breach of
	this very tenet, since it fails to > assume the assumption of good faith
	if the perceived assumption of bad > faith is not clear-cut." from the
	guidelines. > > I'm holding off a little bit on Kurfurst - even though
	he's annoying > on Strategic Bombing I thought I'd give him more time
	since he seems > like one of those editors that sooner or later ends up
	putting their > foot in their mouth and then the case'd be stronger and
	more straight > forward. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.1 FORGED_RCVD_HELO       Received: contains a forged HELO
	-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

radek szulga wrote:
> Yeah I saw that - be sure to note "Be careful about citing this
> principle too aggressively. An exhortation to "Assume Good Faith" can
> itself be seen as a breach of this very tenet, since it fails to
> assume the assumption of good faith if the perceived assumption of bad
> faith is not clear-cut." from the guidelines.
> 
> I'm holding off a little bit on Kurfurst - even though he's annoying
> on Strategic Bombing I thought I'd give him more time since he seems
> like one of those editors that sooner or later ends up putting their
> foot in their mouth and then the case'd be stronger and more straight
> forward.

He is also annoying some other editors there; there is little harm in 
wikiemailing them to sound them out and later innocently bringing 
WP:DIGWUREN to their attention :)


-- 
Prokonsul Piotrus aka Piotr Konieczny       |||____  __ __
                                       I=I====__|_|I__I=>
"Lennier, get us the hell out of here."     |||
"Initiating 'getting the hell out of here' maneuver."
  -- Ivanova and Lennier in Babylon 5:"The Hour of the Wolf"

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

