X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sat Jun 27 17:31:30 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A463BC2.9050200@post.pl>
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 11:33:22 -0400
From: Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
	rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090303 MultiZilla/1.8.3.4e SeaMonkey/1.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
References: <be8.54596369.3776b047@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <be8.54596369.3776b047@aol.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:  PetersJV@aol.com wrote: > More to Biophys (welcome
	back!) but to all, PLEASE let's not respond to > PU and others on admin
	pages and get into battles there, it only brings > us down to his/their
	level in the eyes of admins. Leave a note on the > appropriate article
	talk or on PU's or whoever's talk page respectfully > requesting the
	conversation continue in the proper place. LOW PROFILE/NO > PROFILE on
	admin pages. [...] 
	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] PU waging content disputes on Thatcher's et al.
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:  PetersJV@aol.com wrote: > More to Biophys (welcome
	back!) but to all, PLEASE let's not respond to > PU and others on admin
	pages and get into battles there, it only brings > us down to his/their
	level in the eyes of admins. Leave a note on the > appropriate article
	talk or on PU's or whoever's talk page respectfully > requesting the
	conversation continue in the proper place. LOW PROFILE/NO > PROFILE on
	admin pages. [...] 
	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

PetersJV@aol.com wrote:
> More to Biophys (welcome back!) but to all, PLEASE let's not respond to 
> PU and others on admin pages and get into battles there, it only brings 
> us down to his/their level in the eyes of admins. Leave a note on the 
> appropriate article talk or on PU's or whoever's talk page respectfully 
> requesting the conversation continue in the proper place. LOW PROFILE/NO 
> PROFILE on admin pages.

Agreed. State your case in one post at best, and recuse yourself citing 
another person's talk page as improper. Better, create a thread 
somewhere else on article's talk page and invite parties there, it will 
create a good impression that you are doing the right thing - discussing 
content.

On that note, I'd like to recommend a new informal rule: if you revert 
twice a day on an article, create a discussion post / join the 
discussion on talk.


-- 
Piotr Konieczny

"The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in 
theory."

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

