X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Thu Jun 11 01:59:33 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 273484.12335.bm@omp202.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
Message-ID: <69277.81532.qm@web45108.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
X-YMail-OSG: zfsir6YVM1nY3oLHvgm.TXwpyBaCXJkbHCL266R.9wLKtH7W6EmkXXx4auQhEjs4WIwaBOemMqHu5TUUKYLVfy0ttHQKJfAGlv9Hu8VCKpjeU5D3.q1eu699XqiAdxgA4TiXHizFVnGHrbt6_Mpfp9jcqAWIFyuSStVv_YH0dOVaciboHJ8fm0x19ePXthzs2.YEomCweIhwXVPg26Q7xl8ErYHJodIG_Z3uQUMB2UPrI_Gmoxzm5EEAPj_jk4xsvK2eCl._1d0zVyPLDJS9..t3xcuucsINBam7WtIqi8Nm30Lj
X-Mailer: YahooMailClassic/5.4.12 YahooMailWebService/0.7.289.15
Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:59:24 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jack <jacurek@yahoo.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
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: 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 a very good defense tools in case of accusations of cabal,
	coordinated edits etc..but also would seriously confuse opponents who
	might be watching. Jacurek. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.0 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ----------------------
	--------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	0.2 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE RBL: Envelope sender in abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.3 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=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE,DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE 
	autolearn=no 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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2629182101422232089=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
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:  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 a very good defense tools in case of accusations of cabal,
	coordinated edits etc..but also would seriously confuse opponents who
	might be watching. Jacurek. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-0.1 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.4 HTML_30_40             BODY: Message is 30% to 40% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	0.2 DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE     RBL: Envelope sender in abuse.rfc-ignorant.org
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.3 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list


--===============2629182101422232089==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-268206617-1244678364=:81532"


--0-268206617-1244678364=:81532
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

You are absolutely right Tymek.
There is no rush but sooner or later fake arguments and even occasional rev=
erts between the members should be conducted once in a while. The arguments=
 must also look real to be effective, especially, if for example, Radeksz w=
as arguing with Piotrus. I think such staged operation should be planned ah=
ead of time by the people who decide to do it. If correctly executed they w=
ould be=A0a very good defense tools in case of accusations of cabal, coordi=
nated edits etc..but also would seriously confuse opponents who might be wa=
tching.
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 and=
 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, t=
hose arguments are a good evidence of us not cooperating with each other.=
=20
=A0
Something like this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_talk:P=
iotrus&diff=3D295674529&oldid=3D295614237
=A0
Tymek

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----


_______________________________________________
Wikipedia statistics discussion list
folks@wikipedometer.net
http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
=0A=0A=0A      
--0-268206617-1244678364=:81532
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<table cellspacing=3D"0" cellpadding=3D"0" border=3D"0" ><tr><td valign=3D"=
top" style=3D"font: inherit;"><DIV>You are absolutely right Tymek.</DIV>
<DIV>There is no rush but sooner or later fake arguments and even occasiona=
l reverts between the members should be conducted once in a while. The argu=
ments must also look real to be effective, especially, if for example, Rade=
ksz was arguing with Piotrus. I think such staged operation should be plann=
ed ahead of time by the people who decide to do it. If correctly executed t=
hey would be&nbsp;a very good defense tools in case of accusations of cabal=
, coordinated edits etc..but also would seriously confuse opponents who mig=
ht be watching.</DIV>
<DIV>Jacurek.<BR><BR>--- On <B>Wed, 6/10/09, piotr micula <I>&lt;basiaipiot=
r@yahoo.com&gt;</I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(=
16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: piotr micula &lt;basiaipiotr@yahoo.com&gt;<=
BR>Subject: [WPM] Fake arguments<BR>To: folks@wikipedometer.net<BR>Date: We=
dnesday, June 10, 2009, 3:15 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=3Dyiv557180717>
<TABLE cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=3Dtop>
<DIV>I know it sounds childlish, but at the same time it can be helpful. No=
w and again, it is quite reasonable to make a fake argument with each other=
.. Our edits are carefully watched by some people, also in possible situatio=
ns, those arguments are a good evidence of us not cooperating with each oth=
er. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Something like this <A href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit=
le=3DUser_talk:Piotrus&amp;diff=3D295674529&amp;oldid=3D295614237" target=
=3D_blank rel=3Dnofollow>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3DUser_t=
alk:Piotrus&amp;diff=3D295674529&amp;oldid=3D295614237</A></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Tymek</DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR></DIV><BR>-----Inline Attachm=
ent Follows-----<BR><BR>
<DIV class=3DplainMail>_______________________________________________<BR>W=
ikipedia statistics discussion list<BR><A href=3D"http://us.mc451.mail.yaho=
o.com/mc/compose?to=3Dfolks@wikipedometer.net" ymailto=3D"mailto:folks@wiki=
pedometer.net">folks@wikipedometer.net</A><BR><A href=3D"http://wikipedomet=
er.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks" target=3D_blank>http://wikipedometer=
..net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></t=
able><br>=0A=0A=0A=0A      
--0-268206617-1244678364=:81532--



--===============2629182101422232089==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

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

--===============2629182101422232089==--



