X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sun Apr 26 21:38:30 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <49F4AA8E.4050208@post.pl>
References: <623986.62457.qm@web33303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<929ed1ec0904241316y2d5d13ffre68cc86bc629bb99@mail.gmail.com>
	<c3b2b3db0904241418w42df54e2j71e867d659fabbc9@mail.gmail.com>
	<49F4AA8E.4050208@post.pl>
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:38:14 -0400
Message-ID: <c3b2b3db0904261238q3ba986b6l33a6331c9ee12f8f@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andrei Dombay <wikibiophys@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.2
X-Spam_score_int: 2
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: I guess this is time for someone else to comment. The
	discussion follows "me against Russavia" scenario, which is bad. Andrei
	On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:
	[...] Content analysis details:   (0.2 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
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.7 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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_30_40,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 
	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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6867725620662385667=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@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:  I guess this is time for someone else to comment. The
	discussion follows "me against Russavia" scenario, which is bad. Andrei
	On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:
	[...] 
	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
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.6 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============6867725620662385667==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5a3cbe5c1b104687a5e79

--001636c5a3cbe5c1b104687a5e79
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

Andrei

On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Piotr Konieczny <piokon@post.pl> wrote:

> Andrei Dombay wrote:
> > I checked some of time segments by Christian. Looks about right: there
> > are some interruptions for about an hour, no more.
> >
> > Unless he can sleep as a wolf... You know, they sleep many times
> > a day, but for a short period of time. A Canadian biologist who observed
> > wolfs in nature
> > tried to do exactly the same and claimed this way of sleep is actually
> > fine and very refreshing
> > (he tried 2-3 hour periods if I remember correctly). See [[Never Cry
> > Woolf (book)]]. Good  book!
>
> Well, there is
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep
> But since they haven't dragged that out they probably won't :)
>
> The discussion is not going very well, what is needed is a clear
> demonstration that Russavia has edited for 20+h period often with almost
> no breaks. This is not clear in the current discussion.
>
> Please note that at least one link to wikipediometer has been posted:
> http://wikipedometer.net/finds/streaks-270-Russavia.txt
> I hope we have already dealt with the "going public" concerns, if not, I
> suggest doing it quickly.
>
> The http://wikipedometer.net/finds/streaks-270-Russavia.txt interface is
> not very friendly, I looked at the data on that page, but without clear
> definitions of "max interval", this is not very helpful. I am trying to
> stay "neutral" there, so I've requested Russavia and his team to be more
> civil, and asked for more clear evidence against him :)
>
> One final thing to consider: why would Russian propaganda team use one
> account instead of several? I am sorry, but I can't think what would
> they gain by this (on the other hand, they are loosing for example
> opportunity to cast several votes).
>
> --
> 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
>

--001636c5a3cbe5c1b104687a5e79
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I guess this is time for someone else to comment. The discussion follows &q=
uot;me against Russavia&quot; scenario, which is bad.<br><br>Andrei<br><br>=
<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Piotr Konieczny=
 <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;piokon@post.pl&gt;</span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, =
204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class=3D"im"=
>Andrei Dombay wrote:<br>
&gt; I checked some of time segments by Christian. Looks about right: there=
<br>
&gt; are some interruptions for about an hour, no more.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Unless he can sleep as a wolf... You know, they sleep many times<br>
&gt; a day, but for a short period of time. A Canadian biologist who observ=
ed<br>
&gt; wolfs in nature<br>
&gt; tried to do exactly the same and claimed this way of sleep is actually=
<br>
&gt; fine and very refreshing<br>
&gt; (he tried 2-3 hour periods if I remember correctly). See [[Never Cry<b=
r>
&gt; Woolf (book)]]. Good =A0book!<br>
<br>
</div>Well, there is<br>
<a href=3D"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep" target=3D"_blank"=
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep</a><br>
But since they haven&#39;t dragged that out they probably won&#39;t :)<br>
<br>
The discussion is not going very well, what is needed is a clear<br>
demonstration that Russavia has edited for 20+h period often with almost<br=
>
no breaks. This is not clear in the current discussion.<br>
<br>
Please note that at least one link to wikipediometer has been posted:<br>
<a href=3D"http://wikipedometer.net/finds/streaks-270-Russavia.txt" target=
=3D"_blank">http://wikipedometer.net/finds/streaks-270-Russavia.txt</a><br>
I hope we have already dealt with the &quot;going public&quot; concerns, if=
 not, I<br>
suggest doing it quickly.<br>
<br>
The <a href=3D"http://wikipedometer.net/finds/streaks-270-Russavia.txt" tar=
get=3D"_blank">http://wikipedometer.net/finds/streaks-270-Russavia.txt</a> =
interface is<br>
not very friendly, I looked at the data on that page, but without clear<br>
definitions of &quot;max interval&quot;, this is not very helpful. I am try=
ing to<br>
stay &quot;neutral&quot; there, so I&#39;ve requested Russavia and his team=
 to be more<br>
civil, and asked for more clear evidence against him :)<br>
<br>
One final thing to consider: why would Russian propaganda team use one<br>
account instead of several? I am sorry, but I can&#39;t think what would<br=
>
they gain by this (on the other hand, they are loosing for example<br>
opportunity to cast several votes).<br>
<font color=3D"#888888"><br>
--<br>
Piotr Konieczny<br>
<br>
&quot;The problem about Wikipedia is, that it just works in reality, not in=
<br>
theory.&quot;<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class=3D"h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Wikipedia statistics discussion list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:folks@wikipedometer.net">folks@wikipedometer.net</a><br>
<a href=3D"http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks" target=
=3D"_blank">http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>

--001636c5a3cbe5c1b104687a5e79--


--===============6867725620662385667==
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

--===============6867725620662385667==--


