X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sun Apr 26 22:18:22 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <49F4C1C9.7060304@post.pl>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 16:19:21 -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: <623986.62457.qm@web33303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<929ed1ec0904241316y2d5d13ffre68cc86bc629bb99@mail.gmail.com>	<c3b2b3db0904241418w42df54e2j71e867d659fabbc9@mail.gmail.com>	<49F4AA8E.4050208@post.pl>
	<c3b2b3db0904261238q3ba986b6l33a6331c9ee12f8f@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c3b2b3db0904261238q3ba986b6l33a6331c9ee12f8f@mail.gmail.com>
X-Spam_score: -2.3
X-Spam_score_int: -22
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: Andrei Dombay wrote: > I guess this is time for
	someone
	else to comment. The discussion follows > "me against Russavia"
	scenario, which is bad. Yes. I think any comments from Biophys should be
	nonconfrontational and very civil; you may want to write something about
	you respecting Russavia's edits, assuming good faith and just wanting to
	clarify a certain, non-personal issue. The bulk of the discussion should
	be handled by others. Feel free to requested specific comments to be
	made, I am not following that discussion very closely but I can
	certainly try to steer it to a certain degree. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.3 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]
	0.2 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=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	FORGED_RCVD_HELO autolearn=unavailable version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Evidence against Russavia
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: -2.3
X-Spam_score_int: -22
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:  Andrei Dombay wrote: > I guess this is time for someone
	else to comment. The discussion follows > "me against Russavia"
	scenario, which is bad. Yes. I think any comments from Biophys should be
	nonconfrontational and very civil; you may want to write something about
	you respecting Russavia's edits, assuming good faith and just wanting to
	clarify a certain, non-personal issue. The bulk of the discussion should
	be handled by others. Feel free to requested specific comments to be
	made, I am not following that discussion very closely but I can
	certainly try to steer it to a certain degree. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (-2.3 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]
	0.2 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

Andrei Dombay wrote:
> I guess this is time for someone else to comment. The discussion follows 
> "me against Russavia" scenario, which is bad.

Yes. I think any comments from Biophys should be nonconfrontational and 
very civil; you may want to write something about you respecting 
Russavia's edits, assuming good faith and just wanting to clarify a 
certain, non-personal issue. The bulk of the discussion should be 
handled by others. Feel free to requested specific comments to be made, 
I am not following that discussion very closely but I can certainly try 
to steer it to a certain degree.

If it hasn't been done yet, all editors who in the past expressed 
concern about this editing pattern of Russavia should be informed of 
this AN thread by email.

-- 
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

