[Declanomous]

I didn't find any evidence of Rsync in the Cloud Storage edit history, but there is evidence that Rsync was added to the Comparison of Online Backup Services article on November 11, 2015.

It was reverted less than an hour later with the comment "Thanks for the addition, but as wikipedia is not a directory, please limit the list to services with wikipedia articles." So it's at least plausible that he tried to create an article for Rsync.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_onl...

Edit: I initially thought you couldn't search for deletions older than a year. I was mistaken.

[tptacek]

"Deletion records go back only a year"? Could you explain what you mean by this? Here, for instance, is an AfD log I cited several years ago on HN; it works fine, as I presume do all the AfD logs for every page deleted through the normal deletion process on WP:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletio...

[Declanomous]

My mistake, I tried using just a year in the search results and got older results, so I don't really know what the restrictions on the search are.

I wasn't able to bring up any pages from earlier than 12 months ago without putting in a specific year. I tried using Wikipedia pages that I have bookmarked in the past but no longer exist. I understood this to mean that I couldn't access older deletions, because of the following line on the page:

> Below is a list of recent deletions and restorations.

edit: Either way, it appears Rsync.net would be notable, as it appears on the Warrant Canary page as having the first commercial use of a Warrant Canary. That's the only current use I can find of Rsync.net. Internet cache pages are blocked where I work, so I can't find any more information.

[tptacek]

Hold on. I'm not debating whether Rsync.net is notable. I'm saying that you confidently made a statement about Wikipedia that appears to be false --- and you did so while condemning other commenters here for holding an opinion contrary to your own.

[Declanomous]

I think you may be ascribing too much confidence and condemnation to my comment. I removed my inaccurate statement about the edit when I changed my comment, as I couldn't determine how to strikeout my text as I normally prefer, but my intention was not to make a definitive claim about the nature of Wikipedia, and I don't believe I worded my comment as such.

As far as I recall, my initial comment about how the deletion search worked was hedged by the phrase "it appears", (or something substantially similar). I provided evidence of what steps I had taken in my work. My joke about pitchforks was merely a joke, meant to point out how quickly users make up their mind one way or another.

I edited my initial comment to admit my error as soon as it was pointed out to me. Had I been acting maliciously, I would have just removed that section completely.

Regardless of what words I used to describe how Wikipedia works, the word I used in my assessment was "plausible", which I think is a very even-handed word. I specifically chose it because it doesn't make a strong claim either way.

You are reading a bit too far in to my comments if you think what I said was a definitive claim about how Wikipedia works, or an attack on other users.