Talk:IT disaster recovery

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2022 and 1 April 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Masghar7 (article contribs).

Cleanup

Disaster recovery can be generalized. A corporation could have a disaster recovery plan for what to do if there is a fire at the main office, etc. RJFJR 17:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleaned-up. Computerjoe 18:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Business continuity planning vs. Emergency management

The term 'Disaster recovery' is used in both these sectors, but with different meaning. Currently the article mix the two domains together, with emphasis on BCP. It would be preferable to make it explicit. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 09:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The relationship between business continuity, disaster recovery and emergency management is often misunderstood. Clarification here would be beneficial. I will apply some thought.

We somehow need to distinguish between Business Continuity Planning (the overall 'pre-incident' planning exercise), Disaster Recovery (the aspect more related to planning for and recovering from the incident itself), and Emergency Management (the managing of the incident whilst it is in progress). Where these definitions are placed, and how they are worked out, is the moot point. Binarygal 30 August 2006

External Link Query

I recently added a link to a site that gives in-depth information on Disaster Recovery for IT systems (which is the topic of the "Disaster recovery" page). As the creator of the site that was linked, I realise now that I should have first suggested the link on this page rather than adding it myself. Note however that I made sure that I was signed in when I added the link and so was not attempting to hide my connection to the site.

Shortly after adding the link, an anonymous user with IP address 81.159.231.84 removed the link as self promotion, which I understand. However I strongly believe that the site does provide relevant and useful information to somebody researching Disaster Recovery. The site does not sell any products or promote any companies or individuals, although it does have Google and Amazon links (although the site is clearly not just an advertising portal and it does not contain an objectionable amount of advertising).

I would like to ask that user IP 81.159.231.84 and the community looks at the site (www.disaster-recovery-guidance.com) and if in agreement that it adds value to someone searching for more in-depth disaster recovery information and that it meets the quality guidelines for an external wikipedia link, that the link be added back.

As a general note, I have edited and made contributions to the Disaster recovery wikipedia entry over the last year and believe I have added value to the article. I am not attempting self promotion - I really am trying to add value to this Wikipedia article by providing a link that gives in-depth information on this topic.

Please post your comments (for or against the link) on this talk page once you have reviewed the link.

Eagarg (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I deleted it because you added a link to your own website, and indeed, at the top of the links section with what read like sales blurb. This is not acceptable as you now appear to understand. If the site is suitable, it will be added sooner or later by the community. Your best policy is surely to keep your own self-interests away from your edit activity completely. Even if you have the best of intentions it is bound to be interpreted otherwise. In your position I would step back and maintain my reputation as an editor first and foremost. 81.159.231.84 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

External links review

I have reviewed the external links section using WP:EL as a guide, results below and removed the sites that fail. Please discuss here to reach an agreement on their value before adding these links back.

• Disaster Recovery World

N This is a privately registered website with few recent updates and no official affiliations. Fails WP:DIRECTORY.

• Continuity Central - IT Disaster Recovery related articles

Y Run by Portal Publishing as an apparent demonstration of their website services. News is up to date. The site has many sponsor links but seems relevant.

• The Disaster Recovery Guide

N Forum is a very poorly subscribed yahoo group. Some relevant links, no apparent official organizational affiliations. Not that notable, so fails WP:DIRECTORY.

The above two are surely the wrong way round. Continuity Central a commercial site with limited direct focus on DR. DRG provides basic but useful core information. A bit of a gloss versus substance situation as far as this specific article is concerned. I will pend reverse them until debate. 86.149.115.231 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The DRG appears to be an unofficial forum based on a Yahoo group. The website is registered to an individual (Mike Robinson) with no explanation of any links to a recognized association. It fails WP:EL#10 (which specifically covers Yahoo groups). It should not be added back into the External links section.—Ash (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• Disaster Recovery Institute International

Y Site for The Institute for Continuity Management. Owned by DRI International, Inc. Up to date with information on exams and clear about who they are and what they stand for.

• Federal Emergency Management Agency

Y FEMA's official emergency site. There is an area for the private sector that seems relevant.

• BAM Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery Advisory

N This is a company website. Nothing notable on their website as it is principally a brochure for their services. Fails WP:SPAM.

—Teahot (talk) 06:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you discuss an edit BEFORE making it rather than AFTER? 81.132.136.71 (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

No, for a simple trimming of links in accordance with WP:EL, it falls under Wikipedia:Be bold; after all, most editors feel free to add external links without asking for a consensus first. If anyone were really unhappy with a removal they could re-instate it and debate the particular link here, that's why I'm courteous enough to put the details of the change in this talk page.—Teahot (talk) 08:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This one opinion surely doesn't constitute a mandate. Some of these comments are as hoc, and strangely relate to ownership rather than open content of the sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.139.69 (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The opinion in the previous discussion regarding disaster-recovery-guide.com talked about it being a Yahoo forum, but that is just a link on the site. The Disaster Recovery Guide site does actually have some basic DR information, although to me it seems the sites main objective is to show how much work there is in creating a DR / BCP plan and then trying to sell the BCP generator (my opinion, anyone else agree?). The Continuity Central site has a wealth of useful DR articles so definitely relevant. The DR Institute site is an industry certification organisation and so obviously relevant. Looking at the DRJ site, I'm on the fence - it has some articles, but for most of it you need to subscribe, so I'd give a vote to removing it. Higher up on this page there was a discussion regarding disaster-recovery-guidance.com which has a good amount of practical information / tutorials / articles so I'm adding a link to it.

I suggest that before any more changes are made to the core external links section (except for obvious cases of spam / vendor / irrelevant sites) that we discuss it here. I vote for removal of the DRJ site and disaster-recovery-guide site, but won't change unless there is more agreement on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.54.91 (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. Two adverts hardly make that the site's main objective, yet as a DR professional I see the information is clean, valuable, relevant and useful to most page users. One could also argue that the site just sneaked in there with a similar name (disaster-recovery-guidance.com) has a main objective of promoting Google adword clicks, and certainly is a lot more commercial than the DRG site. Continuity Central is actually spammed around all DR related Wikipedia pages and is in-your-face selling and commercial, and in my opinion should go from all Wikipedia pages they have placed it on.

And yes, consesus before edit please, and that includes the addition you made, 63.88.54.91. 86.169.140.238 (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus before removing a relevant link is what I was asking for - we don't need consensus before a link is added. If it's clearly a spam/vendor/irrelevant link there will be no shortage of people to delete it. If it is a relevant link with further useful Disaster Recovery information then discuss before deleting. Why do you think that disaster-recovery-guidance.com is not a relevant link? Give some substantial reasons for suggesting removal of a link, not just that it was not discussed before added.

I am the second person to suggest deletion of disaster-recovery-guide.com. I'm not bothered about the site advertising the BCP generator on the side, it's the pushing for the product in the 'content' of some articles that bothers me. The content on the site consists of short articles (average length 202 words) that are basically a to-do list of what needs to be done, with no help on how to do it (besides suggesting purchase of the BCP generator or other templates in some articles). I do not understand how as a DR Professional you find value in the site - it would be great if you could explain the value you find there. The Continuity Central link currently has 23 comprehensive articles that are relevant to disaster recovery planning, and any advertising for a product or vendor is clearly an advertisement and not a not-so-subtle push for a product in the content. You say they are spammed around Wikipedia, but if the majority agreed with that they would have been deleted ... maybe they're all around because a lot of people find the site useful and relevant like I do (also a DR professional). The disaster-recovery-guidance.com site is detailed and relevant ... it has practical guides for someone wanting to develop a DR plan and not just listings of what needs to be done so I am adding the link back (please don't turn this into an edit war by deleting it again). I also asked for opinion on the DRJ.com site but you didn't comment on that. Do you think the DRJ site should stay? Please community - get involved and give your opinion on all the links (and while we're at it, let's also work on improving the article content ... something I plan to contribute to soon). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.128.151 (talk) 13:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that disaster-recovery-guidance and continuitycentral may be connected in some way, but regardless, Wikipedia is NOT a directory. And whilst it is easy to list reasons why ANY site should not be present, as 166.216.128.151 does with less than convincing words, new additions should provide something compelling which is not already provided by existing links, and disaster-recovery-guidance clearly doesn't do that at all.

The addition pattern throughout Wikipedia of the continuitycentral link, which does not add much in terms of content, has concerned me for some time, as it definitely appears to have proactively added/spammed at various points. I would suggest a full examiniation of its history, perhaps by an administrator, including examination of talk pages and the usual signs. 86.169.140.238 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Summary of my opinions on the external links I strongly encourage you to use the various forums and processes that Wikipedia has in place to ask for an examination of the Continuity Central links. However what I would like to see is a specific argument for why you think Continuity Central and Disaster Recovery Guidance do not have valid content, and also reasons why you believe that the content is so compelling on disaster-recovery-guide.com. And as I've asked before, I would also like your opinion on the DRJ site and whether you feel that that is a good link. It seems that you are only interested in attacking Continuity Central and DR Guidance and defending DR Guide without backing up your opinion with facts about content or offering an opinion on DRJ which I've asked for multiple times.

So here is my summary of why I am motivating for specific links. If you insist again on deleting the link I add then please post a proper summary of your reasons on why you find the content on these sites relevant or irrelevant and we can then follow the Wikipedia Third Opinion dispute resolution process to resolve this finally. Since no-one else seems to be available to give an opinion on these talk pages, if we don't follow the resolution process I guess we will just continue to add and delete links each day for the foreseeable future.

• Continuity Central

Y A site specifically aimed at the Disaster Recovery / Business Continuity industry with many relevant articles relating to Disaster Recovery. After visiting the DR entry on Wikipedia I believe that someone could get good further information on DR from this site through the articles written by various people (for example, one article is a glossary of DR terms). Majority of articles are substantial and relatively in-depth (looking at the first few articles I found they had an average of about 1200 words each)

Disaster Recovery Institute International

Y I believe there is agreement on this link. It's an official Disaster Recovery education and certification body and obviously relevant.

Disaster Recovery Guide

N This is the only site that now has two opinions supporting it's removal (mine and a previous editor who listed his reasons higher up on this talk page). This site does provide some basic information (very high level) but is mainly centered around Business Continuity and not Disaster Recovery. The short articles (average length around 200 words) also at times push one or other toolkit/templates for purchase (at least 3 of the articles do this). I feel that the articles are so high-level and Business Continuity focussed that it makes the site an irrelevant link for the Disaster Recovery page. The Disaster Recovery Guidance site has far more practical, detailed tutorials and they are all Disaster Recovery focused.

Disaster Recovery Journal

N I am on the fence about this one. In some ways it's very similar to Continuity Central in that it provides some general DR articles, but some of these require registering on the site and they are generally more Business Continuity focussed. However it does have some good blogs, sample plans, and other information which may make it a worthwhile link still. Would like to hear other opinions about this link.

Disaster Recovery Guidance

Y A site with free articles and tutorials on putting together a Disaster Recovery strategy and plan. Again I believe that someone visiting the DR entry on Wikipedia and then following through to this site would find useful and relevant information. The articles are comprehensive (average around 1100 words) and give practical advice on the steps to take to prepare a disaster recovery strategy and plan from scratch as well as general articles. None of the other existing links provide this kind of content which makes this a worthwhile addition.

Please add your comments on the content of these sites and why they're a good link or not. We can then get an independent third opinion on the links.

The External Links

I am very suspicious about some of the potential motives here. My overview though is as follows:

• Continuity Central

N The content is found commonly all over the internet. It is an ultra-commercial website, which has been heavily spammed on Wikipedia for a long time. I have urged a full investigation into this aspect, and into the IPs promoting it.

Disaster Recovery Institute International

Y I don't buy into 'official' justifying entry on its own, as in the disaster recovery arena there is no one official owner or body. Anyone can refer to their website as official. However, it does offer a sensible credible scheme.

Disaster Recovery Guide

Y I found the lists there to be extremely valuable, and certainly unique. Also, directly relevant to disater recovery, and no, not selling a product other than a couple of external adverts. I thus find it to be extremely interesting that someone pushing the similarly named 'disaster-recovery-guidance' website is so motivated to seek to remove the link to what is a far more useful website. Indeed, this strange pursuit is what attracted me to this page in the first place.

Disaster Recovery Journal

N This is similar to continuitycentral in that it is general and very commercial.

Disaster Recovery Guidance

N This is clearly a 'Made For Adsense' website, of little value. It could also be related to continuitycentral, which needs to be investigated. Again, there is nothing unique about the site, or compelling. It offers what are basically opinionated blog posts to fill it out and create its appearence. This is fairly obvious and blatant of an impartial experienced eye.

I suspect vested interest, and as such I am not optimistic of a stable consensus on the links. I would urge a full investigation into the continuitycentral/disaster-recovery-guidance promotion on Wikipedia.

As none of the links at all are remarkable, perhaps they all should be deleted. But if that does not occur, then the historical balance should be maintained, without the addition of sites without consensus and which raise genuine suspicions. 86.169.140.238 (talk) 08:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I also suspect vested interest, but I suspect it for the disaster-recovery-guide.com site. Anyway, it is clear that the two of us will never reach agreement on these links, and it doesn't make sense to argue about external links when there are far more important issues with the content, format, references, etc of this entry. I'm going to focus on working on the content of this entry first, and we can try and get consensus on the external links section at a later stage, even if it means going through the dispute resolution process.

As you will see, I have also registered a Wikipedia username so that things don't get confusing because of the multiple IP addresses that I work with. I will be using this username in future edits (I understand some people have reasons for wanting there entries to come from different IP addresses, but if practical for you I would encourage registering with this site as it helps to track who said what in discussions if there is an associated username). I hope that you will also join in improving the content of this entry and that we may be able to find some common ground in the content as we are both DR professionals. Dr-pro (talk) 05:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was obvious those different IPs were yours. And for clarity, mine all begin with 86.169, and for the record I have no affiliation with any website at all. I do, however, contribute to numerous Wikipedia pages in the continuity area, but never before with respect to external links.

This time though there was a clear problem: a perfectly good link, disaster-recovery-guide.com, was being replaced by a 'Made For Adsense' site of a strangely similar name, which reminded me of the multi-page link spamming of continuitycentral, which, lo and behold, was on this page too! Further, it appears to be connected to the 'Made For Adsense' site.

I agree that the content needs attention, but as you know, that isn't a purchase ticket to link addition of inappropriate sites. 86.129.118.37 (talk) 06:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We're clearly never going to agree on the definition of a 'perfectly good link' since I think the content on the site you recommend is very basic and short and you think the site I'm recommending is made for ad-sense (although it's only got minimal ad-sense content but loads of in-depth DR information). But let's not go there again for now! As you state, obviously any amount of editing is not a free ticket for linking to sites, but as part of the overall page edit I do plan to look later at the external links again but hopefully by then we'll have more people involved in editing the content and we'll be able to break the deadlock between you and I. Since you're not going to have to be arguing about external links for a while, are you going to get involved in helping out with improving the content - would be great if you can. This page needs a lot of help! Dr-pro (talk) 14:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am all for creating the best possible content, but your repeated sell of the blatant Adsense site even there suggests that our perspectives are somewhat opposite, to say the least. My senses on these sorts of matters have never been wrong before. 86.129.118.37 (talk) 06:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's improve this entry

The current state of this entry is pretty sad. Looking through the history, it has had some major changes over time but I don't feel that any have really done justice to an encyclopedic entry for disaster recovery.

The first problem that I see is getting agreement on the term 'disaster recovery'. It seems that in North America the terms Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery are used interchangeably with both terms referring to planning for all aspects of the business (IT, staff, supply chain, premises, etc). In a large part of the rest of the world (notably Europe) there is more of a distinction. Business Continuity covers all aspects of protecting the business, while Disaster Recovery is understood to be a subset of BC, covering the technology aspects only.

So I see one of two ways of fixing this. I would suggest that the disaster recovery article refers to the technology aspects only, but in the introduction it makes clear that it is a sub-set of business continuity (and I have already made this distinction in the introduction). The alternative is to get rid of the disaster recovery page as it is now (since if BC and DR are the same thing, there should only be one entry for them) and instead we use the IT Service Continuity page to discuss the technology aspects. If we're going to use the IT Service Continuity page to discuss the technology aspects then the DR page should just provide a brief explanation and links to the business continuity and IT Service Continuity pages.

To get this to be a really good entry is going to be tough and I'm quite certain there will be many disagreements along the way. But I hope that we can all agree that at the moment this page needs a lot of work (too much of a how-to than it should be, lack of references/citations, etc). Anybody up for the challenge?

Dr-pro (talk) 05:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the distinction is important and yes, DR is a part of BCP I believe. I also think that the Disaster Recovery is such a ubiquitous term (especially here in Europe) that it merits its own page. Kmcnamee (talk) 10:19, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion re "General steps to follow while creating BCP/DRP"

In the current version of the article (September 2010), there is a section titled "General steps to follow while creating BCP/DRP". While this section provides good advice, it is not really fitting with the objective of Wikipedia.

The following is from the Wikipedia article: "What Wikipedia is not" Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes.[5] If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow, How to Wiki or our sister project, Wikibooks.

Unfortunately this section does read as a "how-to" and so I feel it is not appropriate.

Dr-pro (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Classifications of disasters

This appears to be a somewhat subjective and idiosyncratic approach to the subject. As far as I am aware there is no generally accepted need or process for this. Risk management proposes a hazard/threat approach for the potential sources of disruptions (hazards being natural and threats being man-made) but also takes into account the likelihood and impact of such potential risks. Disruptions can therefore have a myriad of causes (sometimes very complex in nature) therefore to classify "disasters" in this way is artificial and nonsensical. Isoron27000 (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Importance of disaster recovery planning

The author cites "research" on the return on investment following investment in DR with no reference other than to a publication from a US educational institution which itself merely states such a claim with no references. This should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoron27000 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The author cites a statistic on business failure and references it to a page that tries - and fails - to locate the source of the statistic. The page referenced concludes "Is the 80% Myth busted? I’m less confident than I was, but still not sure. Even secondary evidence has some value. Certainly a new, objective and disciplined survey would help." It certainly should not be used as a source for the satistic. Dcrobertson01 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Generally a poor quality article

There are major problems with this article (see earlier Talk comments) and no attempt has been made to remedy the problems for some considerable time.Isoron27000 (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Title

In order to clarify the subject matter the title of the article should reflect the fact that this is about IT disaster recovery - or more specifically Information and Communications Technology Disaster Recovery (as telephony and communications technologies are inherent in much of what is undertaken with information technology).

Title should therefore be changed to ICT Disaster Recovery and should be a sub-article of IT Service Continuity, which itself is a sub-set of Business Continuity.Isoron27000 (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Insertion of spam links

See edits by IP 103.11.143.102:

• First
• Two
• Three

The removal the IP appears to have issues with are the 4 at the bottom in the external links section. Given the history of users attempting to use the article to promote their related business websites and the commercial nature of the website, I hesitate to include those links. Indeed, the 4 links in question do not provide any additional information not found in the article and are excessively promotional in nature and should not be included per WP:ELNO. A number of the links have also been discussed on this talk page a few years ago (see above sections) and a few editors have stated a few of the links are "very commercial" and should be removed as they don't provide any valuable information and are merely included for promotional purposes. In short, removal has actually been done multiple times and a number of other editors have given good reasons based on policy and common sense for their removal, but a few IPs constantly add them back.

The nature of the links currently in contention are no different from those previously discussed/removed due to spam issues. I have actually added one governmental resource which provides more information than those commercial links attempting to sell related software. More eyes would be appreciated. Elaenia (talk) 18:17, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Let's consider reality here. You come along and delete all the links from literally HUNDREDS of pages. Hundreds, day after day. These are topic that you haven't a clue about. No idea at all, and certainly no deptth of knowledge with wich to make a value call. So it is deleting links for the sake of it.

Why? What is the mission here? External links exist on articles because they add value. Yet we have this person, simply deleting everything en masse.

That's called mindless vandalism.

My first inclination was to undo ALL the deletes on ALL the pages. Basically, undo the damage this self-proclaimed expert of everything has caused. Maybe someone else can do that.

Regarding this article, like many others, links have evolved over years through discussion and mutual agreement. That is how it works, not some crackpot playing God and deleting everything in sight. To come her, and every other pages, and delete without any idea of the history or the topic content is defacing the value others have taken the effort t develop.

Someone needs to block this guy and undo all the damage he has done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.11.143.102 (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Read over Wikipedia:External links, specifically the links normally to be avoided section. The discussion on this page actually agreed to remove the inappropriate links you've linked. I'm not really sure what else to say. Elaenia (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This page actually agreed no such thing. The page evolved as it did, until YOU came along, believing you knew it all, even though you have no knowledge of this topic whatsoever. Exactly like you have done on hundreds of other pages. Someone ought to block you from editing altogether, as your actions and mentality are clear enough. I wonder how many articles in total you have devalued. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.11.143.102 (talk) 09:25, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with Anon. This page has been vandalised througha deletion by a party with no subject expertise, knee-jerk supported by a hierarchy which tends to close ranks blindly and stupidly. I've seen it all too often before. Yawn. Elaenia and Lemonthingy ought to get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.46.12.202 (talk) 10:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

The comment above is merely an ad-hominem statement and says nothing about the merits of the links, and therefore should be ignored. Please comment on the content, not the contributor. I agree with Elaenia that links should be scrutinized as to their encyclopedic content. - Brianhe.public (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

The comment above is merely the bleating of a sycophant, supporting a self-grandiosed vandal, who has no knowledge of this topic at all, and should therefore be ignored. The status quo was settled, until the vandal emerged and changed it. THEN a discussion was invited. Not going to happen that way around. Leanr some manner and etiquette You had better put this on LONG term pending. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.46.12.202 (talk) 09:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You are clearly WP:NOTGETTINGIT. Multiple editors feel that the content you are adding is a violation of Wikipedia policies. I suggest you to introspect. Thanks to your actions, the article has been semi-protected and can now only be edited by autoconfirmed users. If you want to contribute, I recommend you to create an account. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No, LemonThingy, you are WP:NOTGETTINGIT. You are too far up the thingy of the self serving hierarchy, and lack a basic understanding of how this place works, once a gang member edits something, however stupid the edit. You have grabbed on to the coat tails, my little sycophant. I recommend that you get a life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.46.12.202 (talk) 08:57, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Elaenia and Brianhe: I am done with this. No point engaging with someone who is clearly WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I suggest we ignore any further responses which are not constructive. The page remains semi-protected so we don't have to worry. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 09:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Censors, Vandals, and Sycophants: I am done with this. No point engaging with those who are clearly WP:NOTGETTINGIT. I will ignore any further responses which are not constructive. The page will one day be un-protected so it can be restored to its former quality.

(UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Disaster recovery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130111203921/http://www-304.ibm.com:80/partnerworld/gsd/solutiondetails.do?solution=44832&expand=true&lc=en to http://www-304.ibm.com/partnerworld/gsd/solutiondetails.do?solution=44832&expand=true&lc=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116112225/http://content.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/d/large-business/mistakes-that-kill-disaster.aspx to http://content.dell.com/us/en/enterprise/d/large-business/mistakes-that-kill-disaster.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove/replace vendors section

What is the purpose of listing vendors? Disaster recovery is not something that can be bought off the shelf. It would be more useful for readers to know what vendors can help with in the area of DR. 16:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)