Difference between revisions of "Talk:Securely wipe disk"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 27: Line 27:
 
::::::Thanks, reads well. Regarding quoting external references we now seem to have cycled through the alternate styles :) --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 09:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 
::::::Thanks, reads well. Regarding quoting external references we now seem to have cycled through the alternate styles :) --[[User:Indigo|Indigo]] ([[User talk:Indigo|talk]]) 09:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  
:::::::Hi Indigo, Kynikos. I apologize I did not see these and revise my edits, life always takes over so that I can't spend much time on Arch. I struggled with how to revise the section with my edit, but I should have spent more time on it. The page looks good now, and my apologies if I kinda fuzzed up the page. It looks great now. I'm glad we could keep in the part about residual magnetism. [[User:Swashy|Swashy]] ([[User talk:Swashy|talk]]) 16:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
+
:::::::Hi Indigo, Kynikos. I apologize I did not see these and revise my edits, life always takes over so that I can't spend much time on Arch. I struggled with how to revise the section with my edit, but I should have spent more time on it. The page looks good now, and my apologies if I kinda fuzzed up the page. I'm glad we could keep in the part about residual magnetism. [[User:Swashy|Swashy]] ([[User talk:Swashy|talk]]) 16:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:51, 15 February 2015

wipe script to test

My wipe disk scripts body is completely done, any one can add own wiping patterns there now or uncomment some of existing. - Andy Crowd 17:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have had no opportunity to test it yet, but maybe others do/did. I'm moving your comment linking to the script to a new talk item with this edit, so that we can remove the closed discussion (Talk:Securely wipe disk#Wrong Description.3F) which mainly focussed on the existing article content. --Indigo (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Restructured Data Remanenced and removed bullshit hype

Hey guys, its always bothered me that everyone freaks out about data recovery, so I did a little(a lot) research to see what exactly is and is not true. TL;DR: It's virtually impossible.
I cut down and re-factored the section so its more readable. I'm basically treating this section as an explanation behind securely wiping data, which it kinda already was, since the rest of the article goes over the how of doing it. Swashy (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the expansion, your additional sources should enable us to remove the expansion template in that section in my view. That's nice! However, I see a number of issues about your edit. Apart from some style issues, which can be quickly fixed: First of all I prefered the previous writing style used in that section. It was more neutral and basically said the same thing as your TL;DR. For example, you removed the first link we had [1] which pointed to a 2008 study and replace it with research from 1996 onwards. With a TL;DR: both your Gutmann links and the 2008 study say the same. It would have been better to add the Gutmann results to the existing content with a couple of additional paragraphs (edit: using the quotes you added is fine of course, they could be the start of the expansion. edit2: reading it again you could also rewrite the first para in a more neutral tone (let the quotes do the speaking) and then add the 2008 link as additional reference below with the additional references quoting Gutmann are). If you see what I mean, would you be willing to go back to the previous version and rewrite your addition as an addition in a more neutral tone, or how do you think we should handle this?
Then another thing I disagree with is the removal of the section [2], which is very important in the context. Why did you remove that? Likewise maybe [3] floppy drives are not in use in your household, but they do pose exceptions and I would like to know why you removed that content as well.
--Indigo (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I reversed your edit with [4]. See edit summary. You (or anyone interested) are welcome to work the new references into the existing content, please consider above points before. In case you are not aware: opening the former revision, you can use the top of the page "edit" button to copy relevant wikified content. So it's not much effort to re-apply in smaller steps. --Indigo (talk) 20:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I've tried to restore what I thought was relevant, please review if you have time. — Kynikos (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Kynikos, I did. I still regard the additions itself add more to "a hype" through the writing style than our previous version did with its briefness. Yet, we got sources we wanted to add. Closing this. --Indigo (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree the writing reminds of popular science or blogs, so I've shortened it, keeping all the links. [5] Of course if I made errors in the summary, please correct them. The second paragraph (left unchanged) also doesn't fit in with the rest of that section. -- Alad (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I've fixed the second paragraph. — Kynikos (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, reads well. Regarding quoting external references we now seem to have cycled through the alternate styles :) --Indigo (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Indigo, Kynikos. I apologize I did not see these and revise my edits, life always takes over so that I can't spend much time on Arch. I struggled with how to revise the section with my edit, but I should have spent more time on it. The page looks good now, and my apologies if I kinda fuzzed up the page. I'm glad we could keep in the part about residual magnetism. Swashy (talk) 16:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)