X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Wed Jun 24 07:59:59 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A41C154.5080103@post.pl>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:01:56 -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: <be0.5d360a6b.3772dc2e@aol.com>	<4f045a880906232114w3ff23eecq4003babb5cfb380e@mail.gmail.com>
	<4A41BFE1.1040300@post.pl>
In-Reply-To: <4A41BFE1.1040300@post.pl>
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:  Piotr Konieczny wrote: > Radek should question this
	restriction on him, it is quite unfair. He is > not mentioned at all in
	Shelly's report (it may be a good idea to write > to her and ask for
	help against Tatcher going too far). Tatcher cites > "Nashi (youth
	movement)" where Radek has reverted 3 times over the > period of 2
	weeks, once with an edit summary, twice without. Hardly a > case of edit
	warring justifying half a year of 1RR restriction. I am in > email
	communication with Tatcher and can ask him to revise that, but it >
	would be even better if this comes from Shelly. There is no hurry - I >
	suggest Radek tries first himself (start with Shelly, ask her to >
	intervene, if she doesn't, try Tatcher and I'll try myself if Radek >
	fails). Do admit that yes, you should have added an edit summary, and >
	started a discussion on talk, but 3 reverts in 2 weeks are hardly edit >
	warring. [...] 
	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] Hello, Martin
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:  Piotr Konieczny wrote: > Radek should question this
	restriction on him, it is quite unfair. He is > not mentioned at all in
	Shelly's report (it may be a good idea to write > to her and ask for
	help against Tatcher going too far). Tatcher cites > "Nashi (youth
	movement)" where Radek has reverted 3 times over the > period of 2
	weeks, once with an edit summary, twice without. Hardly a > case of edit
	warring justifying half a year of 1RR restriction. I am in > email
	communication with Tatcher and can ask him to revise that, but it >
	would be even better if this comes from Shelly. There is no hurry - I >
	suggest Radek tries first himself (start with Shelly, ask her to >
	intervene, if she doesn't, try Tatcher and I'll try myself if Radek >
	fails). Do admit that yes, you should have added an edit summary, and >
	started a discussion on talk, but 3 reverts in 2 weeks are hardly edit >
	warring. [...] 
	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

Piotr Konieczny wrote:

> Radek should question this restriction on him, it is quite unfair. He is 
> not mentioned at all in Shelly's report (it may be a good idea to write 
> to her and ask for help against Tatcher going too far). Tatcher cites 
> "Nashi (youth movement)" where Radek has reverted 3 times over the 
> period of 2 weeks, once with an edit summary, twice without. Hardly a 
> case of edit warring justifying half a year of 1RR restriction. I am in 
> email communication with Tatcher and can ask him to revise that, but it 
> would be even better if this comes from Shelly. There is no hurry - I 
> suggest Radek tries first himself (start with Shelly, ask her to 
> intervene, if she doesn't, try Tatcher and I'll try myself if Radek 
> fails). Do admit that yes, you should have added an edit summary, and 
> started a discussion on talk, but 3 reverts in 2 weeks are hardly edit 
> warring.

Lastly, here is brownie points talk thread to show that you have learned 
  the right way of doing things - I was just about to add it myself but 
I don't need the brownie points at the moment :D

==Anti-facist==
Is this organization anti-facist? If so, this should be clearly 
mentioned in the article and reliably referenced. Otherwise, the 
category should go away. --~~~~

-- 
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

