X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Sat Jul 11 20:57:16 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <571846.28820.qm@web45111.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
References: <4f045a880907111112l6355ee91o364d7439865748a1@mail.gmail.com>
	<571846.28820.qm@web45111.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 2009 20:57:05 +0200
Message-ID: <6c9a05ec0907111157h77c6409bv1cf26b7fd0437e3b@mail.gmail.com>
From: Molobo Molobo <molobus@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.3
X-Spam_score_int: 3
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:  Sandstein reacted in cool way and warned Skapperod
	against using AE in content disputes. Unless some pro-German admin comes
	in this could be good result. 2009/7/11 Jack <jacurek@yahoo.com>: > Yea,
	you guys right, I tend to react too quickly. But Skapperod need to be >
	dealt with eventually. > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Martin
	<martint20@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Martin <martint20@gmail.com> >
	Subject: Re: [WPM] Sneaky blanking by Skapperod in Kołobrzeg article >
	(IMPORTANT) > To: "Wikipedia statistics" <folks@wikipedometer.net> >
	Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:12 AM > > I read the AE report and it
	looks like a content dispute, so I agree > with Andres that restraint is
	needed here. Radek has done a good job > in his reply. If everyone piles
	on it will only look like teaming, and > that will only give a bruised
	Thatcher reason to sanction everyone. > ---~~~~ > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009
	at 3:13 AM, radek szulga<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: >> Loosemark also
	supported me. >> >> Yeah I think it's obvious that Skapperod is hoping
	to exploit the recent >> appeal and hopes to just stir up controversy,
	roll the die and hope for >> the >> best. I said so much in my response
	but then took it out - probably better >> not to make the connection in
	admins minds. Though if someone else brings >> it >> up then I will note
	this. >> >> Radek >> >> >> 2009/7/11 Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com> >>>
	>>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 18:19, Jack <jacurek@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>
	>>>> This is TOTAL BS !!! >>> >>> Yes it is. >>>> >>>> Radek I will
	comment on it very soon. All our members should get >>>> involved >>>>
	here. >>> >>> Let's not be too hasty. The request is not put together
	too well; >>> there's >>> a good chance it'll be rejected by an
	administrator who thinks it's "just >>> another of those silly Eastern
	European disputes". >>> I recommend that the development be closely
	watched, and if need be, we >>> should get involved over time, not all
	at once. >>> However, right now, only Radek has made a statement in his
	support. >>> Somebody else should support him, too, to let the
	administrator who >>> shows >>> up know that it is not a "People v.
	Radek" case. >>> If there's too much dramu, [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.3 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	1.7 SUBJECT_ENCODED_TWICE  Subject: MIME encoded twice
	-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
	-0.5 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=0.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST, SUBJECT_ENCODED_TWICE autolearn=no version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM]
	=?iso-8859-2?q?Sneaky_blanking_by_Skapperod_in_Ko=B3obrzeg_?=
	=?iso-8859-2?q?article_=28IMPORTANT=29?=
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="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 0.3
X-Spam_score_int: 3
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:  Sandstein reacted in cool way and warned Skapperod
	against using AE in content disputes. Unless some pro-German admin comes
	in this could be good result. 2009/7/11 Jack <jacurek@yahoo.com>: > Yea,
	you guys right, I tend to react too quickly. But Skapperod need to be >
	dealt with eventually. > > --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Martin
	<martint20@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Martin <martint20@gmail.com> >
	Subject: Re: [WPM] Sneaky blanking by Skapperod in Kołobrzeg article >
	(IMPORTANT) > To: "Wikipedia statistics" <folks@wikipedometer.net> >
	Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:12 AM > > I read the AE report and it
	looks like a content dispute, so I agree > with Andres that restraint is
	needed here. Radek has done a good job > in his reply. If everyone piles
	on it will only look like teaming, and > that will only give a bruised
	Thatcher reason to sanction everyone. > ---~~~~ > > On Sun, Jul 12, 2009
	at 3:13 AM, radek szulga<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote: >> Loosemark also
	supported me. >> >> Yeah I think it's obvious that Skapperod is hoping
	to exploit the recent >> appeal and hopes to just stir up controversy,
	roll the die and hope for >> the >> best. I said so much in my response
	but then took it out - probably better >> not to make the connection in
	admins minds. Though if someone else brings >> it >> up then I will note
	this. >> >> Radek >> >> >> 2009/7/11 Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com> >>>
	>>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 18:19, Jack <jacurek@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>>
	>>>> This is TOTAL BS !!! >>> >>> Yes it is. >>>> >>>> Radek I will
	comment on it very soon. All our members should get >>>> involved >>>>
	here. >>> >>> Let's not be too hasty. The request is not put together
	too well; >>> there's >>> a good chance it'll be rejected by an
	administrator who thinks it's "just >>> another of those silly Eastern
	European disputes". >>> I recommend that the development be closely
	watched, and if need be, we >>> should get involved over time, not all
	at once. >>> However, right now, only Radek has made a statement in his
	support. >>> Somebody else should support him, too, to let the
	administrator who >>> shows >>> up know that it is not a "People v.
	Radek" case. >>> If there's too much dramu, [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.3 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	1.7 SUBJECT_ENCODED_TWICE  Subject: MIME encoded twice
	-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
	-0.5 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

Sandstein reacted in cool way and warned Skapperod against using AE in
content disputes. Unless some pro-German admin comes in this could be
good result.

2009/7/11 Jack <jacurek@yahoo.com>:
> Yea, you guys right, I tend to react too quickly. But Skapperod need to be
> dealt with eventually.
>
> --- On Sat, 7/11/09, Martin <martint20@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: Martin <martint20@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [WPM] Sneaky blanking by Skapperod in Ko=B3obrzeg article
> (IMPORTANT)
> To: "Wikipedia statistics" <folks@wikipedometer.net>
> Date: Saturday, July 11, 2009, 10:12 AM
>
> I read the AE report and it looks like a content dispute, so I agree
> with Andres that restraint is needed here. Radek has done a good job
> in his reply. If everyone piles on it will only look like teaming, and
> that will only give a bruised Thatcher reason to sanction everyone.
> ---~~~~
>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 3:13 AM, radek szulga<rsszulga@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Loosemark also supported me.
>>
>> Yeah I think it's obvious that Skapperod is hoping to exploit the recent
>> appeal and hopes to just stir up controversy, roll the die and hope for
>> the
>> best. I said so much in my response but then took it out - probably bett=
er
>> not to make the connection in admins minds. Though if someone else brings
>> it
>> up then I will note this.
>>
>> Radek
>>
>>
>> 2009/7/11 Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 18:19, Jack <jacurek@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This is TOTAL BS !!!
>>>
>>> Yes it is.
>>>>
>>>> Radek I will comment on it very soon. All our members should get
>>>> involved
>>>> here.
>>>
>>> Let's not be too hasty. =A0The request is not put together too well;
>>> there's
>>> a good chance it'll be rejected by an administrator who thinks it's "ju=
st
>>> another of those silly Eastern European disputes".
>>> I recommend that the development be closely watched, and if need be, we
>>> should get involved over time, not all at once.
>>> However, right now, only Radek has made a statement in his support.
>>> =A0Somebody else should support him, too, to let the administrator who
>>> shows
>>> up know that it is not a "People v. Radek" case.
>>> If there's too much dramu, somebody like Thatcher might eventually be t=
he
>>> only administrator willing to take the thread. =A0Somebody who thinks he
>>> should "do a lot of work" and then "sanction everybody who gave an evil
>>> eye
>>> to the canary". =A0Ideally, it should look like an easy case of an
>>> obviously
>>> frivolous complaint. =A0Ideally, a random passing-by administrator shou=
ld
>>> not
>>> be shied away from this thread, and should then hastily resolve it in
>>> favour
>>> of Radek. =A0Alas, achieving that is nontrivial :-(
>>> Of course, if Jehochman shows up, generating a lot of dramu might be the
>>> safe approach.
>>> --
>>> Andres Soolo
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
>>> folks@wikipedometer.net
>>> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
>> folks@wikipedometer.net
>> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Martin
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
> folks@wikipedometer.net
> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikipedia statistics discussion list
> folks@wikipedometer.net
> http://wikipedometer.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/folks
>
>

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

