User talk:Plastic rat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plastic rat

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be bold!



Sam Spade 11:54, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Thanks Plastic rat 12:03, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:JFileSync-Logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:JFileSync-Logo.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sharon Beshenivsky article

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. -Andrew Duffell 08:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


Hi Andrew,
You reverted an edit I made over a POV issue, and commented it as 'revert vandalism', you also added the Blatantvandal template to my user page.
I notice from your editing history you have been involved in disputes with other editors where you have reverted their edits (clearly not vandalism) with the comment 'revert vandalism' or similar.
Whatever you think of my edits to the Sharon_Beshenivsky article, I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not
If you controversially revert a valid edit and describe this as 'revert vandalism', then in the short term others may be tricked into not reviewing it, but it can also give the impression you have no real justification for the reversion.
Of course, it also gets you off to a bad start with another editor, and makes the situation more likely to result in a revert war.
I may be new to wikipedia, but please take the advice, sincerely given, of someone with a long experience of usenet and other debating fora, that strawman arguments do *not* help you win disputes.
For the edit I have made to the article I have given a reason in the talk page for why this is a valid edit, and removes a POV. You have done no such thing for yours.
For this reason if no others, my version of the page is more valid than yours. If you disagree, please explain why before reverting my edits again. If you can give a convincing argument why your version is NPOV and relevant, I will willingly revert my own edits.
Plastic rat 18:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You have violated the three revert rule WP:3rr. Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.-Andrew Duffell 00:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


Hello again Andrew,

Do you not understand the hypocrisy in what you have just written, or is it a deliberate troll?

Once again, as I have now told you three times. I have provided justification for my edits on the talk page. You have not provided justification for your reverts on the talk page.

Please read and understand the above sentence, and then give me a response that shows you have done so, or I will conclude you are trolling.

To repeat for the 4th time: I have asked you to give the reasons for you reversions three times now. You have failed to every time.

Remember 'silence implies assent'. If you have no response to my arguments I (or anybody else) have no choice but to accept them.

Unless you can give a valid reason to remove my edits (or any reason, for that matter) your repeated reversions are vandalism.

For that reason I am adding the vandalism tag to your user page. Please read it more carefully than you have read the Sharon_Beshenivsky talk page.

PS it seems almost to easy to point out I didn't violate the three revert rule. Perhaps you should read the history page more carefully as well.

regards

Plastic rat

[edit] Do you know of any *folder* syncing programs?

I saw you wrote a review of folder syncing programs. What I need is a program that monitors two folders and all their subfolders and mirrors them, but does not mirror their files. Only the folders. Do you know of any such program(s)? Preferably FLOSS ones?--Logomachist 02:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)