User talk:Nonix

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Edits on Securely wipe disk

I noticed that you have made a lot of edits to the Securely wipe disk article. Make sure to take some time to read through Help:Style. I still need to read through the rest of the article. ~ Filam (talk) 03:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Why did you remove the "Example run times" section, which contained a table of examples? Also please note that this article is not specifically about encryption, even though that may be why you're interested in it. There was no reference to encryption before you started editing and now there are 20 uses of *encrypt*. And please do not duplicate content from other articles! ~ Filam (talk) 03:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your feedback. I moved "Example run times" to an own article (Benchmarking disk wipes) that is linked to in the Securely_wipe_disk#Performance section and also under Benchmarking with dd. I tought it just consumed too much space (maybe not the table itself but at least the instructions to calculate around output of different dd-spinnoffs) and there is other content alike (e.g. on the Frandom page) that maybe can also get moved there.
And, well, the other topic, why to write so much about encryption in this article?
You are true. I started editing the disk-wiping article for moving all related content from Dm-crypt_with_LUKS#Secure_Erasure_of_the_Hard_Disk_Drive as sbd. else proposed it there.
Also I thought all the duplicate content just saying "wipe with /dev/zero and run luksFormat afterwards" might be worse than having one article covering up all use-cases and making clear what has to be done for what kind of security. I did consider doing this as e.g. a user-page first but in fact I hoped to be able to do it all in much less time, but sadly my ISP cut me off for a few days until yesterday evening. So now I will move on and will try to improve things. If you have any idea on how to do it better please let me know.
By the way: Why didn't you want to discuss this on the Discussion page of Securely wipe disk?
And last but not least, sorry for my bad english, im not a native speaker. Nevertheless I will try to come closer to Help:Style of course. :) --Nonix (talk) 09:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I am watching your Talk page so I would have seen if you replied here. Responding on another user's Talk page is not inherently bad, unless they specify not to do so on their User page or Talk page.
You'll notice that I did respond to your Accuracy template on the article's discussion page. But the issues I brought up here are specific to your edits and adherence to style rules, not the content of the article.
I doesn't matter that you may not be a native speaker. Simply try your best and if you are nervous about your writing feel free to leave a note on my Talk page and I'll take a look. ~ Filam (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I have just had an initial read in your user page about "cryptsetup". In particular I like the table comparing defaults to the example used, which would be a good addition to the configuring LUKS section in my view when finalised. I'm not so sure about the paragraphs from the manpage - I think that might get too detailed for the Arch wiki in general. Maybe a good summary comment on the example settings in your table per line from the content below would complete the table nicely. Besides the cryptsetup FAQ is really good in my view to refer readers to. Things that are definetely worth adding to the Luks page apart from the table are in my view:

  • The note about 2TB restriction
  • The differences of RNG when using luksFormat (/dev/random vs default /dev/urandom could be commented in the table)

That's it for now. Thanks. I watch also. --Indigo (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats exactly what I had in mind. ;-) I agree regarding the

cryptsetup FAQ though I don't know how to link to a subsection in the Google Universe... --Nonix (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice completion of the table you have done. I have a couple of small points on it. You like me to do them in the table on your user page directly or state them here?
However, I have another point: I just see that you have been adding half a page about "Wipe LUKS header", incl. an remark like ".. leaving Terabytes of excellent Provcation"
I don't think that comment in particular fits the official Arch Wiki, both in content and phrasing! The "Wipe LUKS header" may be better suited on the "securely wipe disc" page. It could be mentioned there that wiping an encrypted disc may be just done by wiping the crypt-header, etc. Please consider both points, thank you. --Indigo (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
I will move the table to the LUKS page so everyone can edit.
In the second point I agree regarding content and phrasing. I don't think a lot about language in those boxes only dumped for myself or co-editors to stumble upon while work is still in progress. I always try keeping in mind to clarify, move to discussion page or to rewrite with better language in appropriate time. I think this should be no problem if really done so.
I disagree there. On the official wiki pages, things should not be "dumped to the official wiki" at anytime. The wiki is complete enough that things should just be added once they are ready and that includes choice of language. Better ask someone to look over it, if you are unsure in cases. Filam offered you above and while I am no native speaker I will be happy to do also and sure will others. Suggestion: if you have such cases, rather leave the comment in the box on the official page short (default) and neutral and state or "dump" your dicussion points quickly on the discussion page. That is what those are meant for. --Indigo (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding wether "Wiping LUKS header" should be placed on the LUKS or the disk wiping page I don't have a definite opinion yet. Maybe it's better to discuss on the favored discussion page.
For now I would prefer LUKS as it is described specific about LUKS and fits nicely to wiping keyslots and Co., though with linking anything might be supposable. --Nonix (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I will go over the text then there when I have time.Done :-). --Indigo (talk) 11:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)