X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Fri Apr  3 02:13:19 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <49D5510F.2040405@post.pl>
References: <929ed1ec0904021519y23c5e37bm2dd7bd3e71b2aea6@mail.gmail.com>
	<49D53E8B.6090902@post.pl>
	<4f045a880904021614y5e0f78bcn4ae396902de2e37d@mail.gmail.com>
	<49D5510F.2040405@post.pl>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2009 11:13:08 +1100
Message-ID: <4f045a880904021713v13da21e0h44055f5fb1b46f6d@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin <martint20@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
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:  On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Piotr Konieczny
	<piokon@post.pl> wrote: > Martin wrote: > >> Piotr is right. We should
	be careful not to get into edit wars, I know >> I have as my formerly
	clean block log testified. >> >> Martin >> Mental note: don't work so
	hard defending Piotr next time he gets >> hauled before Arbcom ; o) > >
	Why? :) I told you before you need to just IM me and ask for a
	revert... :) [...] 
	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]
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	1.0 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=1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] WMConnolly blocked 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-Archive: <http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/private/folks>
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: 1.4
X-Spam_score_int: 14
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:  On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Piotr Konieczny
	<piokon@post.pl> wrote: > Martin wrote: > >> Piotr is right. We should
	be careful not to get into edit wars, I know >> I have as my formerly
	clean block log testified. >> >> Martin >> Mental note: don't work so
	hard defending Piotr next time he gets >> hauled before Arbcom ;o) > >
	Why? :) I told you before you need to just IM me and ask for a revert...
	:) [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (1.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.0 BAYES_50               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 40 to 60%
	[score: 0.4818]
	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

On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>
>> Piotr is right. We should be careful not to get into edit wars, I know
>> I have as my formerly clean block log testified.
>>
>> Martin
>> Mental note: don't work so hard defending Piotr next time he gets
>> hauled before Arbcom ;o)
>
> Why? :) I told you before you need to just IM me and ask for a revert... :)

Just my weird sense of humour :)

You might want to lend an opinion on my talk page about my previously
clean block log and that I am usually careful and I obviously stopped
editing the article and reverted myself once I realised and that you
recommend shortening the block to "time served", as they should be
preventative rather than punitive.

Cheers,
Martin

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

