Talk:Write once read many

message: I'm a stub.  Mark me as such. 130.207.237.238 (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

message: On Indefatigable's decision to lowercase three letters in the name of the article
Unneeded capitals?  Yes--except that it is an acronym! Spike-from-NH (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Acronyms are capitalized, but the spelled-out phrases do not necessarily get capitals. This is covered in WP:CAPSACRS ("do not apply initial capitals in a full term that is a common noun just because capitals are used in the abbreviation"). Also note for example that read-only memory (ROM) and random-access memory (RAM) do not have capitals.  Indefatigable (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unneeded capitals 

message: The blockchain (the technology behind cryptocurrencies) is now used, in cryptocurrencies of the new generation as NXT, to store any kid of information. Once written, it can't be modified. I believe it fits as WORM data storage system...
Roberto CX  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.173.88 (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it can be modified!  It simply ceases to be a valid blockchain if modified.  Similarly, in ledgers, log files, and talk pages on some wikis, previous entries are not supposed to be edited.  That doesn't make the medium a WORM drive.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the BlockChain be included as a WORM data storage? 

message: Please cosider to remove the paragraph about Sandisk Memory Vault because it is not a WORM device. This became readonly after many write/erase cycles, but if for some period you can erase it, this means that it is not WORM.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobia~itwiki (talk • contribs) 07:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I have removed it. In the future you're welcome to make such changes yourself, see WP:BOLD. -- intgr [talk] 09:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted the reference to Memory Vault.  Clearly it is not a WORM medium, but its controller performs the same function of providing a storage device to which changes cannot be undone.  This is also true about the version of the SD card that was described just before the deleted sentence.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandisk Memory Vault is not WORM 

message: today added, "Apart from the above mentioned WORM devices, WORM protection is also enabled by storage and archiving solutions that are software-defined or hardware-independent."  I reverted this.  Yes, of course one could write a device driver that rejected commands to rewrite information, but a software analog of some thing is not that thing.  Separately, the sentence seems to be describing specific products.  If re-added, it ought to have a citation, and more neutral than one manufacturer's website or press release announcing a product.  It could be useful to cite a textbook or a paper describing how an application was implemented more elegantly using a layer that rejected rewrite commands.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software analogs 

message: Reference #9: 'Organic-inorganic heterojunction WORM memory' has a broken link: http://www.princeton.edu/~ocmweb/projects/Organic/WORM/worm.htm
I could not find an alternative, but hesitate to just remove the link.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.4.5 (talk) 07:55, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; I have now removed the link.  That recent section was a catalog of research efforts and the footnote has no text accompanying it that needs a citation.  Spike-from-NH (talk) 11:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: I have removed the following text as I am uncertain of the site as a reliable source, the text can do with improvement and no wikilinks in the section header.
== WORM RFID tags ==
WORM tags have an identification possibility in their identifiers. With that, the memory lets you know, but they can be written only once and read as many times as the person wants.
Even with one information and the possibility of several readings, it is not possible to delete any one. But new information can be strange, which makes it impossible to tamper with it.
— billinghurst sDrewth 22:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section