Talk:Hard disk drive

Removal of a {{fact}} tag

This edit is inappropriate. Any statement which isn't trivially obvious should be referenced by a reliable source. Our readers are not to be expected to dig up their own references on Google. The {{fact}} tag should go back in. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who has flown on a commercial airplane and observed the many users of PCs with HDDs would agree that it is trivially obvious that ordinary hard drives can safely be used in flight. If however, the disputed fact is the altitude of the airplane cabin is limited then the tag is misplaced. Either way it should not be where it is and we all have better things to do than sprinkle fact tags about. Tom94022 (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Cunningham that Tom94022's edit is inappropriate. It looks like Tom94022 is bullying the other editor with 3RR when edit warring himself to make an edit that does not improve the article. Tom94022 you need to remember to cooperate with other editors and not bully or harass them with wikilawyering.Glider87 (talk) 07:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The first edit that did not improve the article was attaching a fact tag to a trivially obvious statement. Furthermore it is a statement that can be readily verified by a simple google search as stated in my comment. The second edit that did not improve the article was the unsigned-in editors reverting without comment. If any of u really cared about the quality of the article you would check out the fact and, as I did, take off the fact tag as trivial or add in a reference. Maybe even put a dispute tag on the sentence and discuss it here, wherein it would become obvious that the statement is trivially obvious; but instead who is wikilawyering? Tom94022 (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The placement of the fact tag is correct and your edits did not improve the article. If it is so "trivially obvious" then you should have put a reference instead of removing the tag. If you cared about the quality of the article you would not try to bully other editors while revert warring. Stop trying to wikilawyer and bully other editors by threatening them with 3RR when your edits are correctly reverted. Glider87 (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate any factual basis for your apparent contention that the statement in dispute is not trivially obvious. I have stated one basis and pointed to another. You seem instead to be wikilawyering rather than dealing with the issue. May I remind you, as stated at the start of this section, that we should:

   * Be polite
   * Assume good faith
   * Avoid personal attacks

* Be welcoming

FWIW, my reminder about 3RR was my attempt to help an anonymous user avoid an easy trap. Your calling it bullying seems to me to be both a lack of good faith and a personal attack. Tom94022 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not up to me to provide a "factual basis for your apparent contention that the statement in dispute is not trivially obvious" because you are making a claim that it is "trivially obvious" and that someone should "try a google". You made the claim you have to support it. Since you have still not replaced the tag with a valid reference, despite being challenged to provide a reference and having several days to do so and given your continued comments here you cannot claim to be offline, then your lack of valid reference demonstrates that it is not as trivially obvious as you claim. Your own inaction refutes your claim. Regarding your block quote. First we have your completely inappropriate revert [1]. Secondly there is your threatening and bullying comment [2] when you are actually edit warring. That is also demonstrating you are failing to assume good faith and how you are not being welcoming. Thirdly we have your comment "If any of u really cared about the quality of the article" which is a personal attack by you towards three editors, is a failure of assuming good faith, also you're not being welcoming and not being polite. You are not following any of the points you have included in your block quote which demonstrates how you are wikilawyering by trying to cite behaviour guidelines when not following them yourself. You are completely at fault here Tom94022. You have two editors telling you so much and still you continue to make inappropriate edits here. Glider87 (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Chris Cunningham (not at work) and Glider87. Tom you really need to calm down and correct your behaviour to something more expected by Wikipedia. This is not some internet forum where someone can score points by playing up to the crowd and being disruptive. Fnagaton 13:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No one yet has presented any facts to rebut my statement above that:

Anyone who has flown on a commercial airplane and observed the many users of PCs with HDDs would agree that it is trivially obvious that ordinary hard drives can safely be used in flight.

No one (except me) has done any research to validate that the statement is trivially obvious. Instead what is presented are ad hominem arguments of little use to anyone. Tom94022 (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Again. Your lack of valid reference demonstrates that it is not as trivially obvious as you claim. Your own inaction refutes your claim. You have still not provided any valid reference so you are still wrong. Glider87 (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, Gilder87s fails to present any facts that justify the need for a reference but instead appears to just prefer wikilawyering of little use to anyone. I contend that the universal usage of laptops containing HDDS in pressurized commercial aircraft without warning by either the aircraft operator or the laptop manufacturer is sufficient to make the statement "trivially obvious." Glider87 has provided no evidence to rebut this fact observed by anyone using a commercial aircraft. It really is simple to find support, as for example in Failure Mechanisms In Electronic Products At High Altitude and elsewhere. But it really shouldn't be necessary to justify the obvious to a wikilawyer. Now that I have given a reference will Gilder87 remove the fact tag? I wonder. Tom94022 (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Tom, the bar for inclusion of information on Wikipedia is not what you contend but rather what you can demonstrate by including relevant references. Glider87 is correct to point out above that you have not provided any valid information so what you contend be on its own cannot be used in the article. Also you cannot say "Google for it" and expect that to be good enough to except something to be in the article. Read WP:RS because it explains why your actions are completely wrong here. The fact that it has taken you so long to provide any reference goes to show how what you think is trivially obvious is actually not that trivially obvious. By the way, I could for example provide a reference like Warp drives in use today and claim it supports something I said. Obviously just providing a reference on its own is not good enough because you have to show what part of the reference is relevant to the specific text in the article. For your actions to be correct you should have removed the tag in the article and placed the reference you now claims to support what the article text says. What you did instead was to disrupt the article and edit war and wikilawyer. You need to learn to behave properly on Wikipedia because this is not the first time your bad behaviour has caused problems here. Fnagaton 04:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

An ad hominem attack by Fnag, a probable Sock Puppeteer, adds nothing. There has yet to be posted anything as to why the sentence in question is not trivially obvious and therefore requiring neither a reference nor a fact tag. It does Wikipedia no good to clutter articles with trivial references. Tom94022 (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You are making ad hominem attacks because you incorrectly used harassment and bullying tactics against an editor who correctly placed a fact tag then when you were told to stop being disruptive you then resorted to writing lies about editors. The sentence in question is not trivially obvious and the placement of the fact tag is correct. You have not posted anything to support what you have been claiming and the burdon of proof is against you to support what you claim. What you are doing is known as an Argument from ignorance where you claim your premise is true only because it has not been proven false when actually you have not proven your premise to be true in the first place. With regards to the sock pupper accusation you have just made I saw this on Thunderbird2's user page and I have to say your posts are very similar to Thunderbird2. Given your very similar posting style to Thunderbird2 I think it is very likely you have been using more than one account to bully and harass others so you cannot speak with any authority on this subject. The tactic you have employed on the report page above is to waffle until it becomes too large to read and with that tactic you escaped being blocked. That is the tactic you appear to be employing now because you you have been shown to be wrong so you now waffle on irrelevant subjects to divert attention away from your mistakes. However what you are now doing is being disruptive because you know you are wrong yet you refuse to admit it. Glider87 (talk) 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

An ad hominem attack by Glider87 adds nothing while actually making an argument from ignorance. There has yet to be posted anything as to why the sentence in question is not trivially obvious and therefore requiring neither a reference nor a fact tag. It does Wikipedia no good to clutter articles with trivial references or discussions with ad hominem attacks. Tom94022 (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tom by repeatedly misrepresenting other editors you are being disruptive and harassing them. The fact is there are three editors who are telling you why what you did is against Wikipedia policies and there is nobody supporting what you did. You have not posted anything to support your unfounded claims either. I also note that now you have contradicted yourself because you have been using ad hominem and now you admit that Wikipedia does not need you cluttering up this discussion. Also Glider87 is correct because you are trying to use the logical fallacy linked above. Since your position is just a logical fallacy then it is weak and can be disregarded. So the tag in the article stays until someone can provide something like a valid link and argument for why it should be used. Fnagaton 19:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't believe I have misrepresented anyone. Fnag; however, clearly misrepresents me when applies my statement about "articles" to this "discussion" and when he states I have "not posted anything to support your unfounded claims." Finally, Fnag is just incorrect when he alludes to "a logical fallacy" which I think he means to be an Argument from ignorance; in this case I have both made an argument as to why the statement is trivially obvious and pointed to a reference that confirms the truth of the statement. Fnag et al's failure to respond in any way other than with ad hominem attacks suggests they are either ignorant or wikilawyering. Either way, not helpful. Tom94022 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see at least two misrepresentations posted by Tom94022 "No one (except me) has done any research" and "If any of u really cared about the quality of the article". Not to mention the bullying and harassment by threatening 3RR when Tom94022 was edit warring. Fnagaton is correct because you have not posted anything to support your unfounded claims. Fnagaton did not allude to a logical fallacy because I posted the link to the Argument from ignorance logical fallacy. If Tom94022 reads and understands the Argument from ignorance link then Tom94022 will see exactly how his point of view is making a claim and then failing to support it while also claiming because nobody has "refuted" what he stated then it must be true. Tom94022 made a claim but did not support it with anything like a valid argument and that means other people do not have to refute what he stated because he has not provided anything worth refuting. Tom94022 has still not posted anything worth refuting and is now being disruptive by harassing and misrepresenting other editors. Glider87 (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree it should stay. If "it is a statement that can be readily verified by a simple google search" then there shouldn't be any problem finding a reliable source for it. I don't buy the "obvious" argument either. In any case we mustn't fall into the trap of assuming modern Western (or at least developed world) standards are universal. For instance, there are still a few DC-3 Dakotas in scheduled airline service in Africa. Not pressurised. Such an aircraft can and probably will exceed the maximum operating altitude of many hard drives. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing to some evidence, but I hope you noticed that the sentence in question presumes pressurized aircraft so the DC3 example is not particularly relevant nor is it biased. BTW, DC 3 Operating altitude: 10,000 ft (3,048 m) is more or less the HDD specification. There is no problem finding a reliable source, I have pointed to one. I just think the sentence in question is trivially obvious and therefore does not require a reference much less a fact tag. So I won't put a reference tag on the line. I will however respond to misinformation and/or misrepresentations in this discussion as they occur. Tom94022 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

That makes four editors who are telling Tom94022 his claim is wrong. Tom94022 has still not posted anything like a valid argument. The conclusion is that the statement is not trivially obvious, so Tom stop being pointy and admit you are wrong so you can move on from your disruptive tactics. Glider87 (talk) 18:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another ad hominem attack by Glider87 adds nothing while actually making an argument from ignorance. Other than ChrispMuncher's rebutted statement, nothing posted to date provides evidence as to why the sentence in question is not trivially obvious and therefore requiring neither a reference nor a fact tag. It does Wikipedia no good to clutter articles with trivial references or discussions with ad hominem attacks. BTW, since when is discussion disruptive? I have to point out that four lawyers thought waterboarding wasn't torture, so I'm not sure what credence to place upon attacks by two ignorant wikilawyers. Tom94022 (talk) 19:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Stop harassing and personally attacking me. Stop being disruptive. You have not rebutted anything ChrispMuncher has written and you have not provided any valid argument. You are not "dicsussing" you are using personal attacks and disruptive tactics. A case is point is how you keep on copying the fallacious ad hominem and argument from ignorance when actually you are the person who is using ad hominem and argument from ignorance tactics. Glider87 (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet another ad hominem attack by Glider87 adds nothing while actually making an argument from ignorance. Tom94022 (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The above comment demonstrates Tom94022 will not stop harassing me and being disruptive. Tom94022 has still not posted anything like a valid argument. Four editors are now telling Tom94022 that the tag is correct but Tom94022 is still being pointy and disruptive. Glider87 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To state that the above is yet another ad hominem attack by Glider87 adds nothing while actually making an argument from ignorance is neither disruptive nor harassment but merely stating facts. Furthermore, it is pointy of you to continuously state that I have not presented anything like a valid argument when in fact I have and you have failed to present any evidence that my arguments are not valid - you just don't agree with them. Tom94022 (talk) 21:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Tom94022, stop causing disruptive edits and personal attacks. This is quite enough. Ginbot86 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree this is getting quite out of hand. Hopefully Tom94022 will listen and stop causing disruptive edits and personal attacks. I'm amazed he would try that instead of providing a valid argument. Glider87 (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is neither harassment nor disruptive editing nor a personal attack to point out that no editor, Glider87 in particular, has yet to respond to my valid argument as to why the tag is unnecessary nor has any editor commented on the valid reference I have provided. Instead what we get are ad hominem attacks, particularly by Glider87, that add nothing to the discussion. Tom94022 (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You have not made any valid argument. You have made a claim and not suppported it. On the other hand we have the evidence that you have repeatedly failed to support your claim, thus demonstrating how the tag should remain since it is not trivial. You are using ad hominem, harassment and personal attacks because you know what you have posted here is wrong. As several posters have now said you must stop being disruptive. Glider87 (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

What Tom94022 is doing is known as an Argument from ignorance where he claims his premise is true only because it has not been proven false when actually he has not proven the premise to be true in the first place. Tom94022's refusal to provide any valid argument and use of harassment is not constructive and is disruptive, back away Tom94022 before you get blocked. Glider87 (talk) 09:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to what Glider87 asserts:

1. I have made an argument; Glider87 not responded other than to say it is not valid.
2. I have supported my claim (or argument) with a link; Glider87 apparently has ignored it.
3. The history above is that Glider87 has not introduced any evidence other than ad hominiem attacks.

What Glider87 is doing is an argument from ignorance where he claims a premise is false only because it has not been proven to his satisfaction to be true. He disregards evidence that the premise is true. Glider87's refusal to provide any valid argument and his use of ad hominem attacks is not constructive. His threat to have me blocked is silly, but typical of his ad hominem tactics (bully, harrassing, wikilawyer, revert warring, disruptive, etc.) rather than honest discussion. Tom94022 (talk) 16:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tom, stop being disruptive. You have not many any valid argument because you have not supported any claims you made, actually you were challenged several times and failed to produce any valid evidence. The link you posted does not support your claim that the fact is "trivially obvious", actually the link you posted shows this is not a trivially obvious fact. An example of a trivially obvious fact is something like "clouds produce rain" or "the grass is green". Since you claimed only you had done any research on this topic but you repeatedly failed to produce any valid link over a reasonably long period of time of being called upon to do so then the conclusion is that your failure demonstrates the topic is actually not "trivially obvious". Glider87 has not been making ad hominem attacks, you have been using ad hominem and making personal attacks and harassing other editors. Also your claim "he claims a premise is false only because it has not been proven to his satisfaction to be true" just goes to show how ridiculous your point of view is. Firstly, Glider87 has not claimed what you just misrepresented. Secondly, it is perfectly reasonable to expect someone making a claim to have to support it because this is how a valid argument is made. You made the claim this fact is "trivially obvious" and since nobody here accepted your claim it is "trivially obvious" then you have to prove it is "trivially obvious" by providing valid evidence, proof and a strong argument. Since then you have not provided any strong argument and have not provided any valid evidence. Since you have failed to persuade anyone that your claim of being "trivially obvious" has any validity then you have only yourself to blame for providing no valid argument. You have also been told to stop being disruptive by several other editors and yet you have refused to do so. So again, stop being disruptive otherwise you will face sanctions from the administrators. Fnagaton 23:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Stepping in to draw a line under this and prevent it from descending further...

Some thoughts on all of this...

• The fact appears to be far from trivially obvious as evidenced by consensus, and as such it is fair to expect that it be backed by a citation.
• The fact is not contentious or damaging to readers so there is no reason to remove the information in the short term, it can easily remain flagged as cite needed.
• Consensus here is that the fact is not obvious and so the tag should stay. It is inappropriate to remove it against consensus.
• Burden of proof is on the person supporting the fact to prove it, not on other editors or readers to be expected to know something.
• Arguing against consensus and policy is disruptive, continuing an argument to such a degree over something so minor as a fact tact is unhelpful in the extreme.
• I would say that the tag should stay until a cite can be found and if adequate efforts have been made and no cite can be found to back the claim then the claim should go until such time as a reliable source is added.

Mfield (Oi!) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope Tom94022 will listen to this unbiased summary and concede that consensus is against his point of view and that the burdon of proof is on him to make a valid argument. Glider87 (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Mfield apparently has not read my argument or examined my evidence but instead relies upon a purported consensus. Consensus requires discussion and so far there has been little discussion of my argument or evidence. Thanks to Fnag we know that

An example of a trivially obvious fact is something like "clouds produce rain" or "the grass is green".

Fnag doesn't say why these are trivially obvious facts but I assume it is because so many observers can validity these facts that it is not necessary to cite a reference to such facts. Similarly I claim this sentence is trivially obvious.

Note that modern commercial aircraft have a pressurized cabin, whose pressure altitude does not normally exceed 2,600 m(8,500 feet) - thus, ordinary hard drives can safely be used in flight.

because tens of millions (perhaps hundreds of millions) of commercial aircraft passengers in pressurized cabins have used or observed the use of laptops containing HDDs in flight without damage, warning from the flight operator of potential for damage or prohibition of such usage by laptop manufacturer or HDD manufacturers. I have suggested that the fact tag could be moved to the altitude limitation of the sentence which to me is far less obvious than HDD safety in pressurized flight. So far only one person has responded to this, citing the unpressurized DC3 which is not applicable. I also have provided a citation to an article that states in part that "Some typical hard drive specifications are: Max operating altitude 10000 ft ..." and "The unpressurized airborne environment will exceed the disk drive specification"[emphasis added] both of which agree with my contention that the sentence is trivially obvious. Fnag claims to have read this article but some how he finds, without citation, that the article "shows this is not a trivially obvious fact." It is not disruptive to ask for discussion, unfortunately I have to repeat this because most of what is above is assertions without evidence and/or ad hominem attacks rather than discussion. Tom94022 (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I have withdrawn my suggestion about Cabin pressurization fact because I just realized the sentence in question is already linked to a supporting article. Tom94022 (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Consensus arrives from discussion, there has been little dicsussion because you have not presented a valid argument to discuss. The consensus is that you have not presented a valid argument and the consensus is that what you have written has failed to persuade anyone here of your point of view. It is not disruptive to ask for discussion, but it is disruptive when as demonstrated above you revert war, use personal attacks, use ad hominem, harass other editors and keep on copying what other editors have written and use that to attack them. It is the first time you have posted anything like the explanation you have above, but the explanation still does not support what you have been claiming about the fact being trivially obvious. This is because it is trivially obvious that clouds produce rain and the grass is green because people in general can directly observe these things and it is widely known that clouds are made from wet stuff (or cotton wool or candy floss), but in general people know rain falls from the sky and that clouds carry rain. It is not trivially obvious to people that pressure has anything to do with harddrive operation because people in general do not know about the inner workings of harddrives, so do not know how pressure can affect drives and may also be unaware that modern aircraft operate on a pressurised system. It is because of this complex (to the general public) series of logical steps that the fact is by consensus deemed to be non-trivial. Speaking personally it is trivial knowledge for me, but articles are not written for me, they are written for the general public. So once again, post a valid argument to show why you think it is a trivially obvious fact for the general public. Fnagaton 02:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Tom94022 it is not a good idea to accuse an uninvolved administrator of not reading your argument or evidence when it is obvious that you have not presented any valid argument or evidence that supports your claim. The conclusion is "the fact appears to be far from trivially obvious as evidenced by consensus" AND the "Burden of proof is on the person (you Tom94022) supporting the fact to prove it".Glider87 (talk) 04:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

How external interference could effect HDDs

I was reading through this article tonight, and realized that there was no real mention to how external forces (aside from air pressure, physical shock) can effect HDDs. Specifically: What would happen if someone put a strong magnet (ie like a 1 inch long magnet you put on a refrigerator) on the outside of the disk? Or for example if a strong EMP hit, say from a solar flare or coronal mass ejection? Or maybe a weapon is developed that can generate strong electromagnetic fields? Has anyone done any research on this?

It may seem a little "doomsday-ish", but one can't help but think that HDD's are really the only permanent large-capacity drives able to store data (Aside from certain optical discs in the works that aren't out yet), but they're magnetic -- but are they really safe from some of these external forces? I mean, so much of human kind's data is being stored on magnetic hard drives (Take Wikipedia as a prime example!) You hear of solar flares shorting out electronics in power grids, so why not hard drives? Imagine the panic if most of the HDDs (and therefore most other electronics) were wiped due to some disaster?

I'll do some web searching on the subject, but it might be interesting to include a few lines about in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody-7 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

HDDs are pretty tough, particularly with shock sensors to move the heads to a safe location. Regarding some other potential issues:

• "Hard disk drive platters are mounted within a housing that in itself provide some amount of shielding to prevent a degaussing process from being effective. In our shop [now Seagate Recovery Services], we have exposed fully intact hard disk drives to very high levels of magnetic fields and have seen much or most of the data still intact on the device. The strength of any degaussing unit required to penetrate the Head Disk Assembly (H.D.A.) housing would probably cause considerable damage to any other diskette or magnetic media within several yards, perhaps even in the next room."[3]
• Altitude is discussed in the section above, you can save your self a lot of reading by jumping to the end.
• Since HDDs for the most part get their power from the systems power supply and are generally within metal enclosures they are fairly well shielded from solar flares. Put it another way, if a flare is big enuf to get an HDD then we have a whole bunch of other stuff to worry about like avionics, automobile electronics, TVs etc.

Tom94022 (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Add link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_buffer

Suggest adding this link, perhaps in the Capacity and Access Time section. I was puzzled when I found no mention of this topic.Therealdp (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

On second reading, this cross-ref might fit better in the Data transfer rate section. But I see no response, so I'm wondering: Has this suggestion been overlooked, or deemed unnecessary?)Therealdp (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Been thinking about it (my buffer got full). How about just a linked new subsection under Other Characteristics, doesn't have to say much if anything, just link to the Disk Buffer article. About the only thing missing in the article is a comment about transfers from the buffer are at the I/O data rate and not the lower sustained data rate. Tom94022 (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggest putting it first in the section, i.e., before Data transfer rate, because that subsection mentions "disk-to-buffer" transfer rate. I agree it would be best to keep it brief, to reduce the chances it will say something that (sooner or later) contradicts the link. Indeed, it would be a good idea for you to read that link first, if you haven't already.Therealdp (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

HDDs in avionics; loss of cabin pressure

I'm surprised that, apparently, ordinary HDDs are used in the avionics of pressurized aircraft if loss of cabin pressure can crash them. I'd think it would be mandatory to use drives that are immune to that eventuality. Am I reading something into the text that isn't intended?Therealdp (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don's see that the article says, "ordinary HDDs are used in the avionics of pressurized aircraft?" What it does say is, "Specially manufactured sealed and pressurized disks are needed for reliable high-altitude operation, above about 3,000 m (10,000 feet)." FWIW, the loss of cabin pressure will not immediately cause destruction so the HDD can be turned off and probably survive - the passengers will go long before the drive does. Tom94022 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Please excuse me for overlooking this as I reflected on what I'd read later (which is when I posed the question). I think what threw me is the sentence that follows the one you quoted: "Note that modern commercial aircraft have a pressurized cabin, whose pressure altitude does not normally exceed 2,600 m(8,500 feet) - thus, ordinary hard drives can safely be used in flight." I believe it could be improved a bit, and the issue I raised clarified, by changing the last part to "can be used safely by passengers in flight." Not an error or anything significant -- just a small suggested clarification.Therealdp (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem, i liked yr suggestion so I made the change. At the risk of opening an old wound, do you think a citation is necessary at the end of the changed sentence or is it fairly obvious if the cabin is pressurized the drives can be used? :-) Tom94022 (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is a reminder to Tom that he must not violate WP:POINT and remove the fact tag because as the administrator says the burdon of proof is on Tom to prove it.Glider87 (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It is "trivially obvious" to me that ordinary drives can be used safely at altitudes that exceed the manufacturers' specs by passengers in the cabins of pressurized aircraft. I think that debate was silly.Therealdp (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I should have said "trivially obvious given the preceding text." The deduction could, however, be made even more obvious by noting additionally in the text that HDD manufacturers must assume a minimum ambient air pressure when designing their products and, understandably, use a value that supports human life and normal physiological function. It follows logically then that any artificial environment -- be it airplane, spacecraft, submarine, etc. -- that prevents asphyxia will provide the ambient air pressure needed to maintain a proper gap between the head and platter.Therealdp (talk) 12:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The administrator already said it was not trivially obvious and so did everyone else. Just because a new user suddenly appears who just happens supports Tom doesn't mean the consensus has changed. The same argument applies, you have to WP:PROVEIT if you think it is trivially obvious by providng reliable sources. Tom failed to do that and that is why the consensus is against his point of view and that is why he has been warned about WP:POINT. Glider87 (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is trivially obvious given the previous text. I think this suggests a text change that can eliminate the fact citation. Glider87 likes to say there is consensus and that the arguments have been rebutted; so far he has not provided any evidence to rebut any argument, just conclusions and threats. Tom94022 (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

"Just because a new user suddenly appears who just happens supports Tom" You seem to be overlooking the fact that I've done more than express an opinion. I've demonstrated that the tagged sentence follows logically from other, unchallenged information in the preceding text. I've also shown how the logic can be clarified by providing additional information. (An added sentence should suffice.) If the conclusion is clear, no citation should be necessary and the tag should be removed. Therefore, if we wish to be fair and our primary interest is in improving the article, we should encourage Tom to propose an edit and seek consensus re. whether the new text eliminates the need for a citation.Therealdp (talk) 19:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom the consensus from the administrator above is "the tag should stay until a cite can be found and if adequate efforts have been made and no cite can be found to back the claim then the claim should go until such time as a reliable source is added." - You have not provided any cite so the section is going to be removed until a reliable source is added. The same applies to you Therealdp, you have not provided any cite and it also doesn't matter if you think you have argued it logically or not, the fact is the burden of proof is against you and you have to WP:PROVEIT. It is simple, you have to provide reliable sources for claims. You have not done either of those things here. There has been more than enough time for Tom to to propose an edit but all Tom does is theaten and attack people instead. Glider87 (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll put the case more explicitly: We know that A (adequate ambient air pressure) is necessary and sufficient to ensure B (proper head/platter air gap) is true. We also know that A is necessary (although not sufficient) to ensure C (neighboring humans breathing and healthy) is true. I've suggested adding a sentence explaining further that HDDs are designed so that "adequate" is the same for them and humans. Thus, if we know that C is true, A must hold and, therefore, B is also true. Do you not understand this reasoning, or is it that you understand but believe other readers won't? In either case, where do you believe the logic fails? Perhaps it can be clarified further.Therealdp (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I underdstand because I have more technical knowledge than Tom but other editors won't understand because it is not trivially obvious and the adminstrator's comments also say it is not trivially obvious. Produce reliable sources to support your claims. The claims have been there with the fact tag for long enough and Tom has not produced any valid reliable source. So the claims get removed. I must now warn Tom that he must not edit against consensus. Glider87 (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my request to specify where the logic fails in the case I presented. That case requires no technical expertise WRT HDDs to understand, so even if your assertion that yours is superior to Tom's is correct, it's beside the point. As for the admin's comments, they and the consensus you speak of pertain to the passage you removed and are irrelevant to the present discussion, which concerns the development of a revision that will justify removal of the tag. If you are unwilling or unable to contribute usefully toward this development, you should withdraw from the discussion until a proposed revision is ready for evaluation. At that time, a new consensus can be sought.

Meanwhile, given that the passage was permitted to stand originally and was not edited at all, let alone in a way contrary to the admin's comments, you should restore it. The timing of your removal action smacks of petty vengeance and intellectual cowardice. That is, your behavior can be interpreted as an effort to thwart an improvement to the article that, for some reason you haven't specified, doesn't suit your tastes but you can't/won't argue convincingly against. Furthermore, you appear to be trying to put yourself in a position to accuse Tom of edit warring if he posts a revision. This conduct is unseemly and you should correct yourself.Therealdp (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"You haven't responded to my request to specify where the logic fails in the case I presented." - That is not relevant because you have not demonstrated your claim by provding reliable sources. The threshold for inclusion of claims in articles is what you can show with reliable sources, not what you think or claim on the talk page. Don't you dare to even try starting with the personal attacks, Tom is wrong to try that and you are also wrong to try that. Since you resort to personal attacks instead of proving your claims with reliable sources that demonstrates that you are not willing to constructivly edit this article. I gave you several chances to provide reliable sources, you did not. I gave Tom even more chances to provide realiable sources he did not. You both use personal attacks and both just state what you believe without providing proof. You both act like you are the same person with the same agenda. Prove you want to improve the article by providing valid reliable sources. Until you and Tom apologise for your personal attacks you should be removed from this discussion and leave Wikipedia to those like me who work towards improving articles. Glider87 (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't intend a personal attack and regret that you took my remarks this way. I meant to alert you to the unbecoming ways in which your removal action can be interpreted. I apologize for offending you and encourage you again to reconsider what you've done.

Your statements about having to provide reliable sources for claims, etc., suggest you've missed the point of what I (and Tom, I believe) are trying to accomplish: Development of a revised passage for which readers will agree the previously tagged claim follows logically from undisputed facts. A revision that meets this criterion is not apt to be challenged and, therefore, will not need the tag or a citation. It is illogical to request a source when we're trying to eliminate the need for one.

I welcome any assistance you can provide in composing a revision that satisfies the objective I've described. A good way to start would be to either confirm the validity of the case I made or show how it can be clarified. That case can then be used as an outline and expanded into an improved passage. If you don't want to assist, though, I propose that we table this discussion and wait for Tom.Therealdp (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• My actions are to stop Tom from being disruptive. I have seen no apology from Tom, but I do see he is continuing to edit against consensus which demonstrates he is being disruptive. He has edit warred on this same topic before and he is doing so again. You have not provided any reliable sources to support your claims. The consensus is that reliable sources must be provided for the fact tags. The consensus is documented above. I have eliminated the need for sources by removing the offending claims until you can find some reliable sources for those claims. It is logical that you provide reliable sources for your claims. Your claimed validity is not relevant because you want to include claims that do not have reliable sources and that is contrary to WP:RS and contrary to consensus. It doesn't matter how longed winded you want to make the argument here because unless you can provide reliable sources it won't appear on the article page. Glider87 (talk) 22:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Therealdp, sorry my question got u into this. As you can see, Glider87 is not interested in discussion; he is ignoring your analysis just as he ignored my argument and the citation i provided. There really has been little discussion, Glider just likes to fight. I find it particularly appalling his deletion of an entire paragraph which has pretty much been unchanged since 2006. So even thought it is against my principles to add a citation, I will add the one I provide - wonder what will happen Tom94022 (talk) 21:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I am not ignoring any "analysis". I know how these drives work. I am saying that neither of you have produced reliable sources to support the claims you make. The PDf you link does not support your claim either Tom, that was the consensus from the last time you tried to be disruptive. Glider87 (talk) 23:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It would have helped if you'd called attention promptly to WP:SYNTHESIS, which I discovered today at WP:VPP (and you referred to today in the other thread). That policy rules out the solution I advocated.Therealdp (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Tom does know about that policy though. Which is what makes his actions on this topic disruptive. Glider87 (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom being disruptive again

I urge an adminstrator to read the summary by the uninvolved adminstrator and read how Tom was being disruptive in the section before the administrator stepped in. Then read how Tom is being disruptive again on exactly the same fact tag issue. Glider87 (talk) 02:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I urge any admin who responds to focus on the more recent discussion, which has become an effort to develop a revision that justifies removal of the tag. If anyone is being disruptive here, it's Glider, who keeps posting without contributing anything constructive and has interfered by removing the passage under discussion without justification.Therealdp (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As any admin who looks at your edit history will find it is you who is being disruptive because you just used several personal attacks. Also as I posted above there is justification for removing the offending content because the fact tag has been there fore quite some time and Tom has repeatedly failed to provide reliable sources related to the fact tag. As any admin will be able to see your account is new and has focussed on attacking me after it was me who showed Tom to be wrong in the first place. In Wikipedia terms that is known as a single purpose account attack account. Glider87 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I've been consulting Wikipedia for awhile, mainly to bring my computer-related knowledge up to date, it was only recently that I had a question (concerning the SMTP article) and created an account so I could post. Later, when I read this article, I had a suggestion and a question, so I posted those. Tom asked my opinion about the earlier debate and I shared it, then thought of a solution and shared that, too. You made a remark about my post that I thought missed its point, so I replied. Since then, we've debated, but it's only my last post that you deemed a personal attack (and I've apologized about that in the other thread). So, although our exchange has (unavoidably) skewed a near-virgin account, it wasn't created for the purpose of antagonizing you or altering an article I hadn't even thought to read yet and hasn't focused on attacking you. I've no history with you and there's been no collusion or connection between Tom and I (other than what you see on this page), if that's what you mean to imply. I'm merely a newbie who's become interested in improving this (and another) aspect of the article and judged it appropriate to respond to you.Therealdp (talk) 22:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

With two editors, myself and Therealdp agreeing the paragraph should not be removed I have undone Glider87s deletion. Tom94022 (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have undone your change because you are editing against consensus as demonstrated by the administrator's comments. Glider87 (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be unnecessary edit warring going on here and it must stop. I found a ref that seems to cover the fact tag. Am I missing something? What other statements are in dispute here?--agr (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom is edit warring again because he refuses to provide any valid argument supported by cites to support his claims. I've removed the last attempt he made because the last time he tried to use that PDF it was consensus that the PDF does not support his claims. Glider87 (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war and in my opinion both of you need to back off. The ref you removed does support statements that sealed drives are used above 10,000 ft. Again let me ask what statements or claims are you disputing in your fact tag? --agr (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom thinks "it is trivially obvious that ordinary hard drives can safely be used in flight" but the PDF he included does not support that claim because nowhere in the PDF does it state that ordinary hard drives can be safely used in flight. Tom has failed to take into account the changes in pressure, even in a pressurised cabin there is variation, humidity, temperature and vibration. Tom's claim is orginal research because it makes an non-trivial assumption about a technical subject, see the section titles "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". The PDF link he provided doesn't go into enough detail about sealed disks to be useful for the purposes of being a reference. However I did find a cite that goes into much better detail to replace his poorly sources cite. Tom has a long history of being disruptive on this topic, just look at the consensus that was reached a month of two ago on this talk page. So in reality I am not edit warring, instead I'm removing the obvious attempts by Tom to be disruptive and removing his vandalism of this topic. Glider87 (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Having just been pinged by Tom for some reason, I have to back Glider87 up here. This insistence that non-trivial technical detail is obvious enough to repeat without reference has been a point of contention for years on this topic now, with strong consensus against Tom's position. I would remind all editors not to get into edit wars, but would also strongly recommend that the content in question is left off the article until reliable secondary sources are found for it, if ever. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 01:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom pinged you? Oh, he left a message on your talk page. Oh I see! :) I agree, I would support an RfC against Tom's behaviour. Anyway that is off topic. Back on topic, it is precisely the addition of unreferenced technical details to this article that I have issue with. You and I know the consensus is against Tom's point of view so that is why I also think the claim from the article should be removed, which is what I did. For example, once a reliable source was found by ArnoldReinhold (the breather holes technical detail) I am happy to see the removed text put back again. Glider87 (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that it's flat out wrong to claim that because hard drives operate to 10,000 ft and commercial aircraft cabins are generally pressurized to a lower altitude it is safe to operate laptops in aircraft. Hard drive altitude rating is not the only issue involved. A laptop's air cooling system, for example, becomes less effective as air density drops. It might, however, be reasonable to say that since commercial aircraft cabins are generally pressurized to a lower altitude, hard drives with a 10,000 ft pressure rating do not preclude safe operation on such aircraft. Or if that is too much of a WP:SYN, simply state that commercial aircraft cabins are generally pressurized to a lower altitude and let readers draw their own conclusion. Incidentally, in looking for refs, I noticed that some hard drive vendors are now offering "automotive" hard drives that, among other things, operate at higher altitudes, e.g. [4] which is rated to 5500 m (18000 ft). I think that might deserve a mention. --agr (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your example is not a particularly good one since the altitude of some cities is higher than the cabin altitude of commercial aircraft, implying there are cities where such laptops cannot safely be used. It is difficult to prove a negative, but do you really believe such a prohibition would seriously be allowed by any laptop manufacturer. My point has always been that safe useage is "trivially obvious" to anyone who has traveled in a commercial aircraft and observed the many users of laptops and the specific enabling of their usage in flight other than during landing and takeoff. I have yet to hear any argument against this. Tom94022 (talk)

For whatever my opinion's worth, the first suggestion is excellent and the second is acceptable, too.Therealdp (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to my adding the first version to the article?--agr (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is too WP:SYN. It's probably best to leave out the "oh by the way it is safe to use drives on flights" stuff until we can find a concrete cite. Glider87 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you should add the first suggestion. That makes 3 for and 1 against, consensus? Tom94022 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Writing as an uninvolved (except for one recent minor merge) established editor, I am surprised to see this level of drama over what is probably seen by many as a relatively minor disk drive environmental issue. This is not a Palestine vs. Israel, Abortion, Sara Palin, Gun Control, Cold Fusion, or other controversial or battleground article. It's just an article on computer technology, a rather uncontroversial subject area. Unless one is arguing platform, operating system, or programing language religions, of course ☺. — Becksguy (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It is more than what seems to be a small issue about a small bit of text. This is because Tom is claiming he doesn't need to produce a cite for a claim when he thinks his synthesis to advance a position "is trivially obvious", it is that issue that has generated so much debate. Of course the Wikipedia wide consensus is that Tom's point of view is wrong. Did anyone else notice Tom making this edit against consensus to restore the same claim about drives in flight with the comment "cite is not needed"? He then must have read all of the comments demonstrating how his point of view is completely wrong and then reverted himself six minutes later.Glider87 (talk) 02:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Glider is partially correct, I thought he had made a contentious edit to the article and corrected it. I then read the discussion page and found some real discussion, specifically, agr's suggested alternatives and decided to think about them before fixing Glider contentious edit. Tom94022 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll pit the great debate on binary prefixes at WP:MOSNUM against Palestine vs. Israel, Abortion, etc. any day. But seriously, I've been trying to find a consensus here. I think my second suggestion, just mentioning aircraft cabin altitude pressure without drawing any conclusion would not violate WP:SYN. At for tom, I've warned him to stop making contentious edits without consensus. I hope we can find some consensus here and end this dispute amicably.--agr (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I love all these warnings, as I said on my talk page, I have made no contentious edits to the article since my second removal of the fact tag on or about 14 April and I will be happy to defend what I have done. I do appreciate your starting some discussion. Tom94022 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we now have consensus to add:

Commercial aircraft cabins are generally pressurized to a lower altitude so that hard drives generally with a 10,000 ft pressure rating are not precluded from safe operation on such aircraft.

with no fact tag?Tom94022 (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

First, my apologies. I saw a recent edit from you and didn't notice that you had self-reverted. As long as everything stays on the talk page and we avoid name calling we're cool. As for your proposed language, I see two problems. First, Wikipedia should not say anything is "safe" without an attribution or, better, a direct quote. See WP:NOTMANUAL. Second is the "so" language that draws a conclusion. I've been looking at manufacturers' pages and they vary a lot. Apple rates its laptops to 10,000 feet. Dell says nothing. Both sell airplane power adaptors. I'd prefer to just say that hard drives are generally rated to 10,000 feet and commercial aircraft cabins are normally pressurized to a lower equivalent altitude, except when servicing an airport at higher altitude. Then readers can form their own conclusion, as WP:SYN recommends. --agr (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• I understand and accept yr concern about "safe" - see my proposal below. Tom94022 (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Found this via a Google Scholar search. From the Journal of Military Electronics and Computing (cached version since I can't find direct link): [5]

Harsh: C4ISR Aircraft In-Cabin

Many C4ISR aircraft are wide-body platforms designed to carry large numbers of crew and large amounts of sophisticated equipment on missions. Examples of aircraft in this class are the E-3 AWACS, Airborne Stand-off Radar (ASTOR), or C-130, which functions in the C4ISR role in several variants. These aircraft present moderate levels of shock and vibration such as that from air turbulence, jet or turboprop engines and their spinning blades or propellers, and landing gear contact with a runway. Cabins in these aircraft are pressurized, typically to an altitude of 8,000 to 10,000 feet above sea level, and temperature controlled to enable the human crew to work comfortably. In-cabin use is a good example of an application where hard disk drives can be used. As long as the equipment is mounted inside the cabin, hard disk drives are able to operate because the required pressurization needed to float the drive head exists, and the ambient temperature is above freezing. With steps to isolate the hard disk drives from the moderate amounts of shock and vibration encountered during flight, they can function very reliably.

I think that is probably sufficient to include the statement in the article about using laptops with hard disk drives in normal pressurized aircraft cabins (in-cabin environment). Note: C4ISR = Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance. See: C4ISTAR — Becksguy (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

• Can you find a link to something that doesn't include Google cache? That cite is probably going to disappear soon and isn't very good for verifiability. The cite also mentions vibration/shock and isolation from the drives to enable them to operate reliably which refutes Tom's claims on the subject. Glider87 (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So with or without a fact tag, how about:

Ordinary HDDs do not have flying problems in commercial aircraft because the cabin is pressurized to an altitude that is less than the HDD's specified maximum altitude.

This combines the two sentences that Glider has unilaterally obliterated. Note that the article I cited states "typical hard drive specifications are ... Max operating altitude 10,000 ft". Tom94022 (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That still violates WP:SYN. I did not unilaterally obliterate anything either, I removed your attempts to be disruptive and removed text that doesn't have valid supporting cites. The Blattau cite is useless because it does not support the claim you are making because as ArnoldReinhold says above it is "flat out wrong...". So Tom a challenge for you, prove me wrong by showing the exact place in the Blattau cite where it says clearly that "Ordinary HDDs do not have flying problems in commercial aircraft" like you claim. The cite of course does not therefore what you write violates WP:SYN. End of story. Now then the cite from Becksguy is good to know but it is a link to the Google cached version which will probably disappear quite soon so a more permanent link would be useful. Glider87 (talk) 23:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Found the direct link:

Boham, Tom (July 2007). "Storage for Harsh, Harsher and Harshest Mil Environments". Journal of Military Electronics and Computing (COTS Journal). Retrieved 2009-06-25.

— Becksguy (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Good! All this time Tom has been claiming "typical hard drive specifications are ... Max operating altitude 10,000 ft" or "Ordinary HDDs do not have flying problems in commercial aircraft because the cabin is pressurized to an altitude that is less than the HDD's specified maximum altitude" i.e. Tom has completely failed to represent the effects of vibration in any of his claims. However the cite from Becksguy proves that Tom's point of view is wrong because the cite clearly states "with steps to isolate the hard disk drives from the moderate amounts of shock and vibration encountered during flight, they can function very reliably." i.e. Pressure, temperature and vibration are important factors. This is a good example of why we cannot rely of what Tom thinks is "trivally obvious" because Tom's synthesis of material has completely forgotten the effects of vibration and as the cite seems to show the effects are important things to consider for drives to function reliably. If we had just believed Tom and let him keep claims in the article that did not have a valid cite then the information in the article would be incomplete and unverifiable. Tom has still yet to prove exactly where in the Blattau cite it says says clearly that "Ordinary HDDs do not have flying problems in commercial aircraft" like Tom claims. There is just one point of order I feel I must point out: The article cited is written by "Tom Boham, vice president for business development, VMETRO" and the article does make advertisement like claims for VMETRO SANcab and other VMETRO products. It is a bit like a paid for advertisement like appears like a news story. So I think the cite is a bit like a primary reliable source rather than a reliable secondary source, can we try to find a reliable secondary source that says something similar to this seemingly primary source? Glider87 (talk) 01:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

It is hard to see the relevance of an article in the Journal of Military Electronics and Computing discussing C4ISR about JBOD storage in military aircraft has much to do with use of HDDs in laptops in a commercial aircraft. The current proposed sentence is not WP:SYN since it combines three reliably documented facts with mathematics:

• HDDs rely on air pressure inside the the enclosure to support the heads at their proper flying height.
• HDDs are typically specified to operate at up to 10,000 ft.
• Commercial aircraft cabins are pressurized so that the altitude typically does not exceed 8,000 ft.
• 8000 < 10000

HDDs have many physical specs, dry and wet bulb temperature, temperature gradient, humidity, shock, vibration, altitude, RFI/EMI, amongst others any one or all of which may be exceeded in any operating environment, including aircraft. The current proposed sentence only deals with altitude and raising any or all of these is just a strawman's argument. Glider never has proposed anything constructive and I suppose we will have to see if we can come to a consensus not withstanding his obstructionism. Any one have any comment on this:

Ordinary HDDs do not have head flying problems in commercial aircraft because the cabin is pressurized to an altitude that is less than the HDD's specified maximum altitude.

with or without fact tags? Tom94022 (talk) 22:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It violates WP:SYN because you combine those three facts you just mentioned and your cite does not combine and explicitly state those three facts can be combined in such a way. WP:SYN is all about not combining facts on your own because you are not an expert on the subject and you need to provide cites in the form of reliable secondary sources that demonstrate that combination of facts. Just because you think it is trivially obvious does not mean you can include it in the article because that does violate WP:SYN and also WP:RS. Read WP:SYN again to see exactly why your point of view is against consensus. Everyone else is telling you that it is against WP:SYN so just drop it, if you do not drop it then that will be in violation of WP:POINT. You are the person who is being disruptive because you repeatedly misrepresent the truth and now you are personally attacking me again just because I make stronger arguments. Given the recent comments by others [6] [7] [8] you have two choices here, provide cites for the claims you want to include in articles or stop edting before you get blocked for disruption. This has gone way beyond adding something to the article, this is about your repeated attempts to violate policy. Glider87 (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts

After reading the whole article i think someone with a technical knowledge in the subject should go thoroughly over the language to make sure it is more exact. As it stands now it seems to me its a bit superficial and in many cases the language used makes the point unclear. I.e the use of plate instead of platter, "laptop HDDs" insted of 2,5" HDD etc. It could also be a bit more organized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.236.242.126 (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Capacity and access speed

Under the "Capacity and access speed" section, the article reads,

"A typical "desktop HDD" might store between 120 GB and 2 TB although rarely above 500GB of data (based on US market data[17]) rotate at 5,400 to 10,000 rpm and have a media transfer rate of 1 Gbit/s or higher. Some newer have 3Gbit/s.[citation needed] (1 GB = 10⁹ B; 1 Gbit/s = 10⁹ bit/s)."

It then talks about enterprise hard drives:

"The fastest “enterprise” HDDs spin at 10,000 or 15,000 rpm, and can achieve sequential media transfer speeds above 1.6 Gbit/s.[18] and a sustained transfer rate up to 125 MBytes/second."

I would argue that the article incorrectly sites the media transfer rate for the desktop HDD and should instead refer to it as the drive interface rate (3Gbit/s is the maximum interface transfer rate of SerialATA 2nd generation. I know of no HDDs that can actually read/write that fast). If you agree with that statement then I would continue and argue that providing only the interface rates for desktop HDDs and only the media transfer speeds for enterprise hdds is confusing to the reader.

I can provide some links to average transfer speeds for both types of hdds if someone wishes to continue this discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axonjacksn (talk • contribs) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

First image

It might be helpful to change the image to show an assembled 3.5" drive with a cover in place. Almost every picture on the page shows drives in various states of disassembly. A person might be misled into believing a drive naturally has the platters exposed. Alexdi (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree. The infobox used apparently does not support more than one image and caption. Otherwise I would have added the image from later down the page that is an enclosed HDD, which is named, appropriately, File:hdd.jpg. — Becksguy (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Data as singlar or plural

Yes, to be precise, "data" is plural, and "datum" is singular. But it makes no sense to edit war (as in: [9], [10], [11]) over the grammatical number of "data", when usage differs—or is ignored by—readers, writers, publications, dictionaries, and style guides. See Data in Wikipedia, data in Wiktionary, and data in Merriam-Webster for discussions of linguistic, grammatical, scientific, and daily usage. — Becksguy (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is more than precise, "are" is grammatically correct. Let's give 86.136.211.188 the benefit of doubt, perhaps he is not a native English speaker. But what excuse does Glider87 have, particularly since I explained the revision and he reverted without comment. Why don't u revert Glider87's revision and see who is edit warring? Tom94022 (talk) 21:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Tom94022, don't try to insinuate others are edit warring when they are not. The change by 86.136.211.188 reads better than your revert, so you were reverted. I suggest you disengage to cool off. Glider87 (talk) 07:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly my point, the platters are spinning way to fast and needs to be slowed down. South Bay (talk) 07:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)