X-From_: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net Wed Jun 17 11:35:37 2009
Return-Path: <folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <caf.47a6ab98.37698d21@aol.com>
References: <caf.47a6ab98.37698d21@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:35:22 +0300
Message-ID: <929ed1ec0906170235s57fa5e50j8b78352950a5b34b@mail.gmail.com>
From: Digwuren <digwuren@gmail.com>
To: Wikipedia statistics <folks@wikipedometer.net>
X-Spam_score: 0.4
X-Spam_score_int: 4
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 Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:04, <PetersJV@aol.com> wrote:
	> Since PU and chimers in are so intent on insisting we’re slinging
	mud, > deserving of perma-ban, etc. I would suggest not giving in to
	responding > with who should *really* be banned. If we can be the calm
	collected > rational ones, then we can point to the other side as being
	SPA’s engaged in > vilification of editors they consider to be their
	opposition. > Good idea. Ban recommendations have useful effect in very
	few places, most importantly the ban votes. Outside them, there's just
	no point in making them. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.4 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.5 HTML_40_50             BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.8 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=1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_20,
	DNS_FROM_RFC_POST,HTML_40_50,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no 
	version=3.1.7-deb
Subject: Re: [WPM] Quick thought on you should be perma-banned,
	no you should 	be...
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="===============7046179812079250842=="
Mime-version: 1.0
Sender: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
Errors-To: folks-bounces@wikipedometer.net
X-Spam_score: 0.8
X-Spam_score_int: 8
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 Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:04, <PetersJV@aol.com> wrote:
	> Since PU and chimers in are so intent on insisting we’re slinging
	mud, > deserving of perma-ban, etc. I would suggest not giving in to
	responding > with who should *really* be banned. If we can be the calm
	collected > rational ones, then we can point to the other side as being
	SPA’s engaged in > vilification of editors they consider to be their
	opposition. > Good idea. Ban recommendations have useful effect in very
	few places, most importantly the ban votes. Outside them, there's just
	no point in making them. [...] 
	Content analysis details:   (0.8 points, 5.0 required)
	pts rule name              description
	---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
	0.9 SUBJ_HAS_SPACES        Subject contains lots of white space
	-2.6 BAYES_00               BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1%
	[score: 0.0000]
	0.5 HTML_40_50             BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML
	0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
	1.7 DNS_FROM_RFC_POST      RBL: Envelope sender in
	postmaster.rfc-ignorant.org
	0.3 AWL                    AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list

--===============7046179812079250842==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5abdba03cc4046c880239

--001636c5abdba03cc4046c880239
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:04, <PetersJV@aol.com> wrote:

>  Since PU and chimers in are so intent on insisting we=E2=80=99re slingin=
g mud,
> deserving of perma-ban, etc. I would suggest not giving in to responding
> with who should *really* be banned. If we can be the calm collected
> rational ones, then we can point to the other side as being SPA=E2=80=99s=
 engaged in
> vilification of editors they consider to be their opposition.
>
Good idea.  Ban recommendations have useful effect in very few places, most
importantly the ban votes.  Outside them, there's just no point in making
them.

--=20
Andres Soolo

--001636c5abdba03cc4046c880239
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 03:04,  <span dir=3D"ltr=
">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:PetersJV@aol.com">PetersJV@aol.com</a>&gt;</span> w=
rote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;borde=
r-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">




<div style=3D"font-size:10pt;color:#000000;font-family:Arial"><font face=3D=
"Arial" color=3D"#000000" size=3D"2">
<div>
<p><font face=3D"Verdana" size=3D"2"><span style=3D"font-size:10pt;font-fam=
ily:Verdana">Since PU and chimers in are so=20
intent on insisting we=E2=80=99re slinging mud, deserving of perma-ban, etc=
. I would=20
suggest not giving in to responding with who should <em>really</em> be bann=
ed.=20
If we can be the calm collected rational ones, then we can point to the oth=
er=20
side as being SPA=E2=80=99s engaged in vilification of editors they conside=
r to be their=20
opposition.</span></font></p></div></font></div></blockquote><div>Good idea=
. =C2=A0Ban recommendations have useful effect in very few places, most imp=
ortantly the ban votes. =C2=A0Outside them, there&#39;s just no point in ma=
king them.</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br>Andres Soolo<br>

--001636c5abdba03cc4046c880239--


--===============7046179812079250842==
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

--===============7046179812079250842==--


