X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Mon Jun 15 06:07:41 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
Message-ID: <4A35C984.9020604@post.pl>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:09:40 -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: <c51.50215b5d.3766fb5f@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <c51.50215b5d.3766fb5f@aol.com>
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:  PetersJV@aol.com wrote: > I think what made the
	difference on Aaviksoo was (fortunately, not > taking credit) that I had
	already requested discussion of the perceived > WP:BLP violation and
	those requests for discussion were ignored. The > lesson here is to > >
	1. make the request to discuss and not revert back to their offending >
	content > 2. clearly state why the content was inappropriate > 3. then, 
	and only then, make the revert of their content > > ...and repeat the
	request each time. [...] 
	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] Always pause to request discussion on article talk page,
 only then revert
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:  PetersJV@aol.com wrote: > I think what made the
	difference on Aaviksoo was (fortunately, not > taking credit) that I had
	already requested discussion of the perceived > WP:BLP violation and
	those requests for discussion were ignored. The > lesson here is to > >
	1. make the request to discuss and not revert back to their offending >
	content > 2. clearly state why the content was inappropriate > 3. then,
	and only then, make the revert of their content > > ...and repeat the
	request each time. [...] 
	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

PetersJV@aol.com wrote:

> I think what made the difference on Aaviksoo was (fortunately, not 
> taking credit) that I had already requested discussion of the perceived 
> WP:BLP violation and those requests for discussion were ignored. The 
> lesson here is to
> 
>    1. make the request to discuss and not revert back to their offending
>       content
>    2. clearly state why the content was inappropriate
>    3. then, and only then, make the revert of their content
> 
> ...and repeat the request each time.

This is a good editing policy, but it is hardly a factor in getting 
blocked (or not). Sure, if sb doesn't do this, it's an argument against 
them, but I don't think it is a major one :(

That said, I'll repeat again that the above is a good editing policy and 
like all else (AGF, etc.) should be followed.

-- 
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

