Talk:Backup

message: Now you've actually started talking to each other, can we remove the article from the 3O page? Or do you still need help? Satyris410 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: So, it seems there are several issues here. First, it may do well to lower the temperature a bit. I think both of you are acting in good faith, and just disagree. It's a lot easier to talk to one another, instead of past one another, if you start with that view, rather than the view that the person who disagrees is malicious. I don't believe either of you are acting maliciously. That aside, it is permitted to move, merge, or redirect an article, and it is just as permissible to reverse such an action if you disagree with it. If it comes to that point, discuss the issue, and if need be involve other editors; a request for comment can be placed to bring in some fresh eyes. The prior continuous data protection was rather thin on sourcing, so it may not hurt for that information to be here for a while. If more sources come about later, and the section grows too large and unwieldy to fit here, it can always be split again at that point. Also, there seems to be some substantial disagreement over whether certain sources are or are not reliable. The best thing to do with that is to ask at the reliable sources noticeboard; some of our best at analyzing sources watch and participate there, so you should get some good advice there on the reliability of the sources you're proposing to use. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

text: In regard to the next-to-last paragraph of my 06:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  3O 

message: Should  be permitted to, without prior or subsequent discussion, merge other articles into this one,  merge paragraphs from the rear "Enterprise client-server backup" section of this article into preceding sections—and then immediately delete most of the text from what has been merged-in?
What Pi314m initially did to this article—without discussion—from 21 May through 27 May is described at the beginning of  the preceding "Rewrite ..." section of the article's Talk page: merging another article, cutting much of what was merged in, and then immediately reverting my edits responding to that merging-in.  What he also did to the article's pre-existing text during that same time period is also described in that  the preceding "Rewrite ..."section of the article's Talk page: essentially destroying two paragraphs in the article's "Enterprise client-server backup" section by trying to merge them—grossly-simplified—into one of the article's preceding sections that deals with personal backup applications.  In this section of Pi314m's personal Talk page, I supplemented an invitation to him to discuss the change on the article's Talk page with an explanation of the two-audience-level structure of this article; Pi314m never gave any indication that he had read any of what I had written there.
In addition Pi314m merged-in a second article, except that after that merge-in he deleted all but the lead two sentences of the merged-in article.  That, as I pointed out to him—also in this section of Pi314m's personal Talk page—is something he is not entitled to do under rule 4 of the Wikipedia Deletion policy, because IMHO that article had "relevant or encyclopedic content" that had nothing to do with the "Backup" article.  I have preserved the deleted content of that article (preceded by the content of the two "Enterprise client-server backup" paragraphs before Pi314m grossly simplified them while "internally merging" them) in  the preceding "Rewrite ..."section of the article's Talk page.
Pi314m has a distinct fondness for "cut-and-paste moves" that he calls "mergers", which he does without community consensus—frequently starting in January.  He did one in January 2017,and was rebuked for it by .  He did another one in January 2018, and was warned about it by —who said "If you continue these kinds of edits, they will have to be regarded as vandalism which may led to a block."  On the Talk page for that second article, Matthiaspaul said "No, this is not how it works! It is good that you are trying to be constructive, but your edits are not. You are already edit-warring over it and if you continue to try to force your undiscussed changes into the articles, this may led [sic] to a block. [new paragraph] Such changes require prior discussion and won't be carried out unless the outcome of such a discussion (after a reasonable amount of time for other editors to see, think about it and react - typically months) would be consensus for a merge."  Pi314m quoted part of that on his personal Talk page, saying "I too can and hopefully will learn from what you said on the article talk page".  However starting in January 2019 he did another series of "cut-and-paste moves" without community consensus, which nobody caught him doing—so I have described them starting in the 9th paragraph of the preceding "3O" section of this article's Talk page.
The preceding "3O" section of this article's Talk page was named "3O" by  because it was supposed to be where some third editor — eventually—would provide his/her Third Opinion.  However Pi314m never responded on  the preceding "Rewrite ..."section of the article's Talk page, which was the section I had listed in my request for a Third Opinion, other than to graciously thank me for my apology for a later-removed bit of (as I later found out, unjustified) snark I had put into the first sentence of that section.
The title of this section is Request for comment on _un-discussed_ text-destroying "merging-in", both of other articles_and of paragraphs within this article, by Pi314m.  Sorry I didn't know I'd have to repeat it myself in this section.
DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The RfC process is not to be used for discussing the conduct of another user, see WP:RFC#About the conduct of another user. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that I should delete the fourth paragraph, the one beginning "Pi314m has a distinct fondness for "cut-and-paste moves" that he calls "mergers", ..." from the comment beginning this section?  My purpose in filing this RfC is to stop Pi314m's oversimplifications of the "Backup" article, since it is clear—despite my explanation on his personal Talk page—that he doesn't understand that the "Enterprise client-server backup" section is written for a different audience than the preceding sections of this article.  One solution (which reinstates something I thought of doing in September 2017) would be to create a separate "Enterprise client-server backup" article.  But the problem is that Pi314m, as shown in the fourth paragraph of this section, has an obsession with merging smaller articles into larger articles that have a related subject.  So if I created that separate article, it is highly likely that I'd be back in the same situation a week from now—after Pi314m merged the new separate article back into the "Backup" article and over-simplified its merged-in contents.  So this RfC inescapably deals with Pi314m's conduct, because what he's done to the "Backup" article is the continuation of a behavioral pattern that has lasted for at least two years with other articles.  What Wikipedia process other than an RfC would you suggest I use, and wouldn't that—at least until we've tried an RfC—be overkill?  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 10:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If you hold an RfC it should be purely about the content of the article, and the statement should be neutral and brief; but as it stands, it's neither brief nor neutral. In fact Pi314m is mentoned no fewer than twelve times before my post - and that's not counting your reply to me. RfC is not for discussing user conduct, for which other avenues are available. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In the cold light of mid-day, you're right about both the neutrality and the briefness; I thought only the initial pragraph had to be neutral and brief.  I'll prepare another RfC based on most of the content of this earlier section of the article Talk page, omitting anything having to do with the body of the "former "Information Repository" article that Pi314m deleted when he "merged" that article into this one.  As for that deletion, I'll make it plus at least a couple of the content-deleting "mergers" into Outsourcing—which I mentioned in a paragraph in the preceding "3O" setion of this Talk page—the subject of several Administrators' Noticeboard complaints.  These, especially the "Information Repository" deletion—of content unrelated to "Backup", IMHO really amount to vandalism a WP-fraught synonym for substantial deletion of useful text.  As I pointed out in the fourth paragraph of this section, Pi314m was previously warned about that in 2017 and 2018—so the consequences for him this time may be severe.  I was trying to avoid that, but—as I said in a non-neutral quote of myself I immediately deleted from this section (which I can put back in now that you've removed the template)—IMHO the underlying problem is that Pi314m believes that Wikipedia gives him the right to be the sole decider of the subject and contents of an article, even when it's partly about subject matter of which he knows nothing.  The fact that he essentially never responded on the preceding "Rewrite ..."section of the article's Talk page, which was the section I had listed in my request for a Third Opinion, reinforces my reluctant acceptance that the severe consequences may be necessary.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  _un-discussed_ text-destroying "merging-in", both of other articles and of paragraphs within this article, by Pi314m 

message: *No split necessary for any section per WP:CONSPLIT and could be considered a redundant WP:CFORK. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it unnecessary to take away such a section from backup. The article is pretty well-built with it. I have no doubt that it COULD make a stand-alone article but IMHO I see no significant reason to make this split especially if it were to be merged again. I would revise my !vote if Pi314m were to make a statement denying that he would re-merge the article in the future without reaching consensus in this talk page. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 16:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

text: *Split Since User:Pi314m is clearly not trying to split in bad faith and believes that a working 'History' of the topic is achievable I do think we should go through with a split. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 23:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey 

message: I put in a request for advice from , who put in the  tag.  She replied on her Talk page "my opinion would be that it currently comes across as more of a "how to" rather than an encyclopedia article", and was kind enough to go so far as to make a first-pass revision to the article.  I like what she's done, although  may not.  My only revisions so far are—in the article lead—to add back the Note and Kissell ref on "archive file"—because that term needs definition for its use in the rest of the article, to add back the specification that backed-up data must already be in secondary storage—to prevent a repeat of the Rmokadem maneuver, and to add back a link to the "Enterprise client-server backup" article—per the outcome of the RfC.  I won't go into the reasons for these add-backs, because they were discussed ad nauseam—as linked to—on this Talk page when I originally added them to the article months ago.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a shot at remedying the exceptions.  I added maybe 10 screen lines, without disturbing the beauty of Melcous's editing.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

text: A couple of comments , I don't pretend to have expert knowledge on this subject, but in terms of making it readable and accessible, I don't think the use of italics for emphasis is often helpful ((see MOS:ITALICS) and so would suggest rewriting sentences where this has been done to avoid this. I also think the repeated links to the same page (Enterprise client server backup) add to the clutter and confusion and think in many cases this content could be left out rather than needing to be mentioned here. Melcous (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If  is concerned about the use of italics in my 09:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I belatedly realized that what  is concerned about is my use of True as the first word in the "Near-CDP" sub-subsection of the article.  If she reads the "Continuous vs near_continuous" section of the "Continuous Data Protection" article, she will realize that what the original author and I have had to deal with is the perversion of a term for an IT feature to refer to a different feature.  The only way I can think of to specify that "CDP" is being used in its original meaning is to prefix its use with true.  I could instead use underlining, but I know that's not allowed in articles.  If she can think of another easy-to-understand way to specify that "CDP" is being used in its original meaning, I'd love to hear it.  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

text: I think  has been led astray by her web browser as to "the repeated links to the same page (Enterprise client server backup)".  Those links are mostly links to sections within that article, which—because I hadn't converted paragraphs within those section into sub-sections—I had to supplement with names of paragraphs to clue the reader as to which specific paragraph to read.  I have now converted those paragraphs to sub-sections, and revised the links within the "Backup" article to point directly to those sub-sections.  (Note that I haven't used any italics within this comment, even though IMHO some emphases would have made it easier to read.)  DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplifying lead's readability for average encyclopedia reader, taking out value judgments and advice