Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:58, 3 July 2015

Sitush is suffering from physical health issues. This may affect their ability to work on Misplaced Pages. Consequently, they may not be able to respond to talk-page messages or e-mails in a timely manner. Your patience is greatly appreciated.

An editor thinks something might be wrong with this page. They can't be arsed to fix it, but can rest assured that they've done their encyclopedic duty by sticking on a tag. Please allow this tag to languish indefinitely at the top of the page, since nobody knows exactly what the tagging editor was worked up about.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Balija page edited with proper sources but had reverted back again

Hi Sitush,

U had reverted our page again, But we had given proper sources only but u had mentioned that as Unreliable one, whats wrong with my below proof.

By Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar. It mentions an inscription edited by Dr. Fleet, Vol XIII, p.185, in which Turagavedanga (Thiruvenkata ?) is mentioned as the "scion of Bali race" as Kishkinda-puravar-sevara and Bali-vamsa-odbhava. The publication "Genealogies of the Hindus, extracted from their sacred writings, pg. 48-49" mentions.The Epigraphia Indica, by Bhandarakar, Volume 42, p. 37. Yashoda Devi mentions in her book The History of Andhra Country, 1000 A.D.-1500 A.D.: Administration, literature and society.

The above one is a strong proof and how everytime u r reverting back and we are highly disappointed due to this ,see we are describing our Heritage and its true and not a fake one right.

Not necessary for us to do this and to to edit wrong information in wiki.

Kindly check once again and revert back

Karthick

Talk

I know Shakya has problems, I'm going to bed and I've had a ton of insomnia so I'm kind of trying to not do stressful things and that conversation is interesting to me as a wikignome and a linguist without being stressful. I'm sort of chatting, which I guess isn't really appropriate. Sorry if I was weirdly focused. As someone who wikignomes a lot, knowing the correct format is sort of important for when I bring the hammer down on a really messed-up article. Anyway... Ogress _smash! 06:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ogress, it's no big deal - chat away. As for insomnia, I sympathise - it is a common problem for me and I often go 50-70 hours without sleep due to tinnitus ("often" being pretty much every week). It's so bad that the docs reckon it will shorten my life, but hey-ho. Get your head down and turn off the alarm clock, if you use one; wake up when your body tells you to do. - Sitush (talk) 06:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, I'm so sorry you are feeling so poorly right now. Feel better. I was 55 hours out when I finally managed to get some sleep, I hope you get some (it's also chronic issue for me, but not weekly... comes and goes). Feel better. Ogress _smash! 17:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in India

Yes, I got a warning but the issue was that the reverting editor was not addressing the concerns or was trying to build a consensus. Would it be fair to address the concern and then revert the edit? I have not removed the claim, totally, as it still exists in body of the article. But I still think, as long the concerns raised in the talk page of the article, as well as in User VictoriyaGrayson's talk page are unresolved, lead section should not have the statement pending a consensus. -- AB 15:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I just saw that mess in passing. The article is on my watchlist but I'm not very well at the moment and am making a conscious effort not to get involved, and indeed trying not to edit anything. You can't remove reliably sourced material without consensus and, as I recall, you do not have it. The statement has been in the article, in one form or another, for a long time now. Per WP:LEAD, the introductory section of an article should summarise the body and, obviously, a claim of that nature is pretty significant.

I'm not sure that it is a particularly well formed statement, even if it does reflect the cited source and people of the postcolonial school like Nicholas Dirks, but that is an issue for the talk page. I might be back editing properly next week, depending on how quick the docs can do their thing, but you really do need to discuss in the interval. And if you all come to agreement before I get back then that's fine. - Sitush (talk) 15:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Happy to hear that. :) -- AB 16:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@ABEditWiki:, your edit in the morning was already premature but, once I reverted it, you should have waited for the consensus on the talk page before redoing your deletion. You have done it four times too many. It is aggressive and pushy. There is no excuse for that. - Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@ABEditWiki: I came here for an unrelated reason - Sitush, we discussed health the other day and I'm so sorry you are feeling so poorly right now - but I am going to note that really, the scholarly consensus on this is really there. There are Indian authors and Western authors and they are plentiful and easy to find. Edward Said even reviewed Dirks' 2001 work and wrote, "Massively documented and brilliantly argued, Castes of Mind is a study in true contrapuntal interpretation. Nicholas Dirks is a subtle unraveler of the dense, many-layered fabric of India's colonial and modern history as they converge in the idea and practice of caste. Even for the nonspecialist, the results of this gripping book are remarkable to behold." So I think you're not going to be able to remove that statement, no matter how much it chaps your britches, if you know what I mean. I added the first random cites I hit in google books as I mentioned on talk to biblio and the sentences in question. Ogress _smash! 17:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

We will spare the rhetoric, and try for a consensus. shall we?-- AB 17:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Except that "consensus" doesn't mean what you think it means. I don't agree with the statement in the article, but I am part of the consensus, i.e., I agree that the statement is well-sourced and is an accurate representation of the part of the literature that it represents. It is not my view that counts, but the scholars' views. The problem is not with the statement, but rather with the other possible statements that aren't there. Once you fix that problem, i.e., write enough about caste that existed before the arrival of the British, the importance of the British will automatically reduce. - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

That does not mean categorical claims would find entry into lead, based on some passing reference? Does it?? AB 21:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming that when Kautilya3 says that they do not agree with the statement in the article they mean that they would prefer something a little more nuanced. I certainly would go along with that: it isn't a question of whether the academic viewpoint is right or wrong because we should just reflect it; however, it is but one viewpoint and I vaguely recall thinking some months ago, after reading the sources, that perhaps we were overegging that particular pudding. But, as I said above, this is really a matter for the article talk page. I don't think anything will get resolved here because it is not the primary venue for discussion of the article. Not that I object to anyone continuing this thread - feel free. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

All I want is for you to get better; please take it easy and don't let the wiki-drama affect you. Scr★pIron 00:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You must be knowing it is not gonna be resolved any time soon.. But if you could give a hand, I would find sources and will quote it on talk page. And I see everyone crying HIndutva hinduva hoax here.. Is it such a monster...? Get well soon. AB 13:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Need help again please

In the article Kadava dynasty the vanniyar caste editors are trying to create false history. They are misquoting authors. We have even earlier discussed this issue. Thanks for the help. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Please give this editor time to deal with real world issues. Misplaced Pages can wair. Scr★pIron 03:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. Please take your time and get well soon. warm regards Sangitha rani111 (talk) 05:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Get Well Soon

• Sometimes all CAPS mean different.

Edit request for Bhumihar Brahmin

sir please edit in bhumihar brahmin page that they called as babhan in magadh region of Bihar and also called bhuinhar brahmin in eastern uttarpradesh.

pls also remove bhumihar community origin from rajput men and brahmin women.

i also wish that get well soon and recover your health fast.

guidance required

Hi . Need some guidance. I would like to contribute, in future, with a different user name (my real pen name). Will it be OK to just contribute in new user name, and discontinue using the present user name (Rayabhari). Or is it necessary to inform about changing the user name officially to the admin? Can you kindly guide me? Thanks . -Rayabhari (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rayabhari, it's good to see you back. If you want my opinion I would avoid using your real-life name. It can cause a lot of problems for you. The process for changing a username is found at WP:CHUS but please think hard about this first. I'm going to ping Abecedare and SpacemanSpiff for their opinions - they are both admins here and both do a lot in the Indic topic area. - Sitush (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If you just want to change name, then the link above is fine. If you want to change accounts, you'll need to read and follow WP:Clean start. —SpacemanSpiff 17:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Rayabhari: Summarizing/adding to what was said above:

1. If you want a new username and want formal credit for all your prior edits to be transferred to that username use change username
2. If you want a new username and don't want it associated with your current account use the process under WP:Clean start (aside: don't see why you would ant this though!)
3. If you want a new username, and don't care much for formal credit, just
   • open an account with the new username and start using it (and discontinue using the current account),
   • for full disclosure, drop a note at the new account's userpage along the lines of "I used to previously edit as User:Rayabhari" and a corresponding note at the Rayabhari userpage.

Since you plan to use only one account at a time, and are not changing usernames "under a cloud", there is really no issue with your plan and no real bureaucratic requirements. Just be sure to recognize the risks associated with editing wikipedia under your real name (or, pen name that you use off-wiki) that Sitush alluded to. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Get well Soon

Get well soon. My sincere wishes for a speedy recovery. I generally use lavender oil rubbed in feet which is good for sleeping. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

I may well try that, Sangitha rani111. Thanks for the tip. Sleep is a perennial issue rather than the current problem but anything natural that might assist me is worth a go. For all sorts of reasons, I refuse to take stuff like zopiclone, amitryptiline, temazepam and the like - I've been prescribed them all for sleep deprivation at some time or another and, well, never again! - Sitush (talk) 17:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Glad to see you active. Sitush before going to bed please have warm organic milk with a table spoon of honey added to it. Also the lavendar rubbed in feet is very effective for sleep. once again sincerely wishing for your full recovery. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Sitush how is your health. Did the lavendar oil work. It usually gives good sleep which is essential for health recovery. once again my wishes to you for a good health.. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

To get sleep, in our place, they take green gram boiled juice mixed with grounded "gasagase" seeds. If mixed with sugar, very tasty and one glass of intake assures good sleep!! :) - Rayabhari (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

sitush Edit request bhumihar brahmin

in Bhumihar article pls remove the term bhumihar brahmin origin from rajput men and brahmin women

and add proper information they called bhuinhar to bhuinhar brahmin in Eastern uttarpradesh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adding founding (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No content without "GLAM professionals" - really?

Just popped in and saw this removal on my watchlist. Really? We'd have no content to work with without GLAM professionals? I've not checked the cause of the kerfuffle but as a standalone comment it sounds like delusions of grandeur. Or "bollocks", as we say in these parts. - Sitush (talk) 11:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Since "GLAM professionals" is just a pompous term for librarians and archivists, it's partly true. Libraries and archives are very useful for building content, but, hey, so are booksellers. And... the vast majority of online archives and rare books made available from national libraries and archives, e.g. Gallica, Archive.org, etc. had nothing to do with Misplaced Pages's "GLAM initiative" or its participants. So, a teeny weeny overstatement there. Voceditenore (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Food is quite handy also, so let's all praise the farmers. And our parents for our very existence, even when sometimes that existence was by accident rather than design ... and so on. I'm afraid that this was just another attempt to coat-rack the civility issue that has become a moral crusade for some people. I've met plenty of crap librarians etc in my time, and plenty of good ones who swear like troopers, are dismissive of others etc: they are humans, not superhumans, and we find the ways of the world are reflected in them as much as in any other occupational group. - Sitush (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

And let's not forget the artists who paint, the engineers who design, the mathemeticians who theorize, the authors who write, the journalists who report, the politicians who lie... all of whom, we would have nothing to research, archive, compile into an encyclopedia. I will now cease to write, or someone will choose to find my comments uncivil. I really do hope you are feeling better, Sitush. You do good work here, but that is secondary to your health. Scr★pIron 16:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed: "GLAM professionals" are as parasitic and dependent as anyone else, and probably more so than some. We are all standing on the shoulders of giants, and if Newton could be humble enough to recognise that then I think we should be, also.

I am just back from another trip to the hospital. Things will pan out - it is just a medication issue that, at times, is making me even more grumpy and unpredictable than is normal. That said, I might go hunting for some lavender oil as per a tip given above: the worst it can do is lead to some wrinkled noses and odd looks being cast in my direction should I visit the rugby club, and that's just from the ladies' team ... They do call themselves "ladies", btw, although I'm never sure what term is appropriate here, so mired has the issue of gender PC become. I've not got the physique or brain to negotiate eggshells. - Sitush (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Get Well Soon

Wishing you a speedy recovery and looking forward to having you back soon. Regards. Ekdalian (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Sitush, you ok?
Still catching up on my talkpage/notifications from last week, but let me know if I can be of help on/off-wiki. Easy problems preferred. :-) Abecedare (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Need a favor

Would you be able to translate and tell me if the sources listed are reliable? Here is the list. Thanks. --Kansas Bear (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on that talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit War

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Ok i understood that, but i can`t understand why you are reverting my edit, i gave reference too, i have quoted my many writings from book The People of India' , by Sir H.H.Risley, 1915 2nd ed., ed. by Sir W. Crooke 1969 which was provided as reference for other texts in that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiteame (talk • contribs) 15:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Dirks 2006

The Dirks 2006 reference mistakenly says 2009. Please correct. In other words, the book "Scandal of Empire" is actually 2006.VictoriaGrayson 15:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm going to take a break soon and do some more cleaning later. I'll remove the u/c tag. - Sitush (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Caste system in India now protected

Sitush, you've been alerted already, but remember the article is under WP:ARBIPA. If more than one person has broken WP:3RR usually all parties get blocked. Holding the British responsible in some degree for the ravages of the caste system probably deserves an RfC if it hasn't happened yet. You can bring to the RfC whatever sources you think should decide the matter. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston I think this is quite unfair. Sitush was doing a lot of productive work today in cleaning up the references in the page. The user that was reported at AN3 was clearly POV-pushing and modifying impeccably sourced content. If Sitush reverted him, it was only because the user was interfering with his work. The user that edit warred should get a block. It is a repeat of what happened with ABEditWiki a couple of days ago. Your initial leniency to him proved counter-productive. I am pretty sure it will be the same again. People that violate policies should not be excused. They will only get worse if we do. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I give up. I haven't broken 3RR etc and, as Kautilya says, I was basically cleaning up and finding my efforts overwritten by someone who presumably doesn't understand edit conflicts. Practically everyone on the talk page agrees that the Raj issue is odd but as yet we are not finding reliable sources with which to balance it out. Anyway, WP can go stuff itself if this is how I am going to be treated. You're usually good at spotting the real problem but you've missed it by a mile here, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that WP has basically become an impossible environment to work productively within, so I guess at the end of the day that means the admins have won. Now they can just sit back and guard their holy grail without the irritation of editors such as you and I adding stuff they don't understand. Eric Corbett 18:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Practically everyone on the talk page agrees that the Raj issue is odd but as yet we are not finding reliable sources with which to balance it out" - that's a very good summary. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't find it odd. I am looking at it with an open mind, and realize that I didn't know enough about how the Indian society was before the arrival of the British. I also believe that the scholars who studied the issue in depth had solid grounds to come to their conclusions. I am not confident that we will be able to find sources to "balance it out" any more than the scholars were. We are just being arrogant to claim that we know better than the scholars. I am thinking of taking this to WP:ARE because nothing less will work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, we're mostly all going by the modern sources, whether you find it odd or not. FWIW, I've always held the view that the Raj was in large part responsible for the rigidity that became implicit in the caste system of late-19th century/early-20th century India and that, unlike their efforts with the railways, the present-day impact of the Raj in that context is a massive negative. I thought this long before I came to Misplaced Pages and nothing I've read since has changed my mind but that doesn't mean I would edit war to keep out any reliable sources that said otherwise, nor have I done so to my knowledge. That the thing existed before is not in dispute, it is merely that it was much more fluuid, hence the so-called shudra kings of the Kakatiya era etc. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• A drive by comment: Sitush et al, a week's protection isn't the end of the world. I'd wager that over 50% of the content on en.wiki is pure, unadulterated junk, but reading through the talk page it appears this isn't the case with this article while there appears to be some discussions on how to improve it. Take some time off from this, perhaps just spend a few minutes now and then documenting stuff and in the meantime, Mulk Raj Anand might do well with some love and care, sort of how he developed Coolie and Two Leaves and a Bud. They are enjoyable books and will also provide some basic insight into the difference between {{British English}} and {{Indian English}}. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 19:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who thinks this is going to get sorted in a week needs their head seeing to - be better protecting it for three months or more if that is the intention. It is a big, big job and, as I and others have tried to explain to the newbies, it is no good messing around with the lead section (which is what they're basically doing). - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The creation of Region based caste pages like Bihari Rajputs

The article Bihari Rajputs is also to be treated in the similar manner as is the case Rajputs of Gujarat. The article stands taking support of your name See1, 2 where the eminent editor gives reference of your concurrence which in fact is not here. Factually, a great number of kings once collectively declared themselves as a great caste so called Rajputs, but they are certainly not the descendants of Son, moon, fire or any other Indian God. How can we still believe in glorifying them at the cost of degrading the other fighters like Jat, Gurjar, Ahirs and many others, who too fought and ruled the country, but could not form a large alliance for themselves like Rajputs. Please help building neutrality. Being Rajput is certainly a subject of notability but being a Rajput from Bihar state or eastern region is simply over glorification. Otherwise, rest all major castes too are found in every state of India, like we see a lot of articles from the Potter turned mason (or other profession) caste of Gujarat like Kadia Kumbhar, Mistri (caste),Mistry (surname),Mistris of Kutch Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya, Gurjar Kshatriya Kadia, Vatalia, Shorgir etc... all groups representing the same caste and they are not names of the clans or gotra. So far I have been against all such caste glorification but now I am bound to think that if one can exist then why shall we stop the others. Rajput article is still able to delete at once all such facts which go against glorification. Are we still living in the old tradition of suppressing others and glorifying Rajputs that if a Rajput says he is son of fire god then it is history but if a Jat, Ahir or any other known ruler says he was a Kshatriya then it is Sanskritisation. A Rajput article can title a well known Maratha king Shivaji as Maratha Rajput but if a Maratha article says that they are Rajputs then it is "Sanskritisation". in which direction, actually the most popular modern source of information (wikipedia) is being led. I think this is not the place for me and I must quit, hence, I told you what I observed --MahenSingha (Talk) 20:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of cleaning up to do, Mahensingha. I've been doing it for years and often find myself going in circles because we're repeatedly working against clueless people and because it is impossible to keep a watch on so many thousands of caste-related articles (I've got maybe 1800-2000 watched at the moment). Quitting isn't going to fix anything though, and I'm concerned about I think this is not the place for me and I must quit. Maybe take a break? I'll look at the Shivaji thing - anything on Misplaced Pages relating to him and to Aurangzeb is always fraught with difficulties. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, be it a single word but I really mean it. Quitting is not the solution, I do agree but What else can I do? I am ready to discuss, I answered all the queries in the light of various available sources. I gave them references of previous discussions and consensus, but they are not agreed. They dont believe in healthy discussions, they dont agree to what the various sources say but the only one thing they do perfectly is to consistently edit the contents and make the article in the form they desire. I am still doing my duty. Anyway, tried to be little creative, I desired to wish you early recovery of your health on your page. Hope you are better. Again, thanks.--MahenSingha (Talk) 18:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Mahensingha, your argument is quite confusing. You believe that making a page about Bihari Rajputs belittles Ahirs and Jats? How does it do so? Historically Rajputs and Ahirs were both recruited together during Sher Shah Suris reign so there is nothing to do with belittling one caste just by simply creating a page. Where does the page ever mention as fact that Bihari Rajputs are descended from Gods? The Rajput term has been proved to be merely a title and nothing more.Suijai (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Suijai, just do not restrict the issues limited to Ahir/Jats/Rajputs. I have given my view about a wide range of caste articles Rajput,Jat, Gurjar, Ahir,Kadia Kumbhar, Mistri (caste),Mistry (surname),Mistris of Kutch Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya, Gurjar Kshatriya Kadia, Vatalia, Shorgir,Maratha and many more (See above). Everywhere the problem is common. Restricting it to one or two is not my point, it is just your own view. Just go through my contributions as I am active on approx.15000 such articles. Historically and culturally, all such castes may have something praiseworthy as well as negativity. What I say is that we shall neutrally edit the pages with a view to make the articles informative and certainly not promotional. If we are accepting articles like Bihari Rajputs, Mistris of Kutch, Kutch Gurjar Kashtriya then we shall happily be ready to accommodate all such regional caste articles.--MahenSingha (Talk) 16:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The troll post you mentioned

Hi Sitush -

Gorilla took action against the arbcom post at my explicit suggestion. The IP user had two edits. One was the arb post, the other was a sexist slur at SlimVirgin. What's the problem with not letting the troll post stand? It had been posted less than two days ago unless my timestamps have gone nuts. Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe she has removed the wrong thing? I make it 21 June. I've no idea where you explicitly suggested it but this looks like a mistake. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I just misread a date stamp. The user's first contribution before I killed it was to complain that SlimVirgin's username was inaccurate as she was neither slim nor a virgin. Why should we let that level of troll participate in such a forum? Let alone one where the contributions of so many long-term good faith users are still being hatted? Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps because, like it or not, the other arbs didn't object? Using some sort of private backchannel with your politically-aligned mate GW doesn't look good. If nothing else, you should have raised it openly on the talk page, and I think you will find that LB did that herself and the arbs took no action. GW is throwing her weight around at the moment and it is not good to see. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Want to take a wager that she'll propose sanctions against me in that case? She seemed to be suitably vindictive last time round, and left it until late on for maximum impact. - Sitush (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• There are some things where private discussion is more appropriate than public discussion, even on Misplaced Pages. My comment that led to GW deciding to remove the troll's post (and you still haven't put up a decent argument as to why it should've remained in a discussion where so many other comments were aggressively hatted) occurred during the middle of a discussion related to an incident that's currently being discussed on at least two of the functionaries lists. Eric was pretty obviously pen-testing his sanctions, and desired either a bunch of drama or an enforced wikibreak. If he wants to take a month off, cheers to him - I've certainly done so myself at times - but he made the decision himself... Kevin Gorman (talk) 10:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• I am not getting involved in the Eric saga here - while I do not always agree with him, you consistently disagree with him and you are nasty piece of work in the manner that you handle the WMF mailing list, where you consistently allow trolling and PAs from one "side" but not from the other.

  I believe that other PD talk page stuff was hatted (aggressively is your POV) because they were deemed to be off-topic. They were also hatted fairly soon after the event, not five days later. The IP's comments on that page were deemed not to be. The IP may well have trolled elsewhere and it may or may not have been the same person, who knows? I'd generally be in favour of preventing IPs from editing anywhere on Misplaced Pages, and certainly on the drama boards, but that is not going to happen and while it doesn't happen, on-topic messages from IPs are valid.

  There was absolutely no need for that particular request to be made to GW via some backchannel: some things are sensitive, yes, but that wasn't given your rationale here. Frankly, I'm appalled at your behaviour and that of GW, although perhaps I should not be because it seems to be par for the course. I'm also concerned for GW, for reasons similar to those I've outlined at EvergreenFir's talk page: she is very exposed here and while the decision is hers, given what has happened to me and to LB recently I really would urge caution. Discretion is the better part of valour. - Sitush (talk) 10:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Actually, my apologies in part. I know that you suffer from poor health and I guess all the examples of bad stuff at the list might occur during your periods of illness. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• It was an IPV6 user in close time; I would bet my big toe it was the same person. I may have contacted her today asking about the rationale behind not hatting it anyway - she's a friend, and despite what some Wikipedian think, friends talking is not inherently evil - but to be clear I've also been in contact with two other arbitrators, arbcom as a whole, an individual oversighter, and the oversight team as a whole today, as well as several people off-wiki about various events, including editathons, grantmaking, large content donations from GLAMS, and a few other things. I've probably spoken literally with several dozen editors today, and I'd argue they were pretty much all appropriate contacts. Do you expect all matters that don't fall under strictly necessarily private business (of which surely you agree some exists - or you would argue +OS and revdel would not exist among other things)? If so, would you mind increasing my free time significantly so that I can ensure the separation is perfect? Although you are correct that I missed several months of gendergap moderation, I have confidence in Emily. If you think we consistently allow personal attacks from any side I'm worried about your thought process.

Ugh,I've had quite a lot of respect for a lot of your work in the past. Unwatchlisting this page now. Kevin Gorman (talk) 11:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Unwatching is always the best policy when you have lost the argument. You'll never get support for the claim that the comment in question was trolling. - Sitush (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, I'd give up trying to argue the case for common sense on AN, you'll just go mad. Say, have you had problems getting on the British Newspaper Archives site today? I wanted to pull some stuff out for the 1926(?) renovation of Lees Cliff Hall but things kept timing out. Ritchie333 14:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I've not used BNA today. I can have a dig round it as a test if you would like that? - Sitush (talk) 14:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Would be great if you could, cheers. Ritchie333 14:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: seems to be ok here. I can search, add/remove filters, navigate results link, zoom in/out and pan. No sign of timeouts anywhere. Tried various random searches and random newspapers, although there doesn't seem to be anything of note for Lees Cliff Hall in the 1920s (one article might refer to the refurbishment but it is a report of a council meeting that discusses it in passing and doesn't seem likely to add much, if anything, of note). - Sitush (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, cheers for having a look. Sometimes the BNA can be a bit hit and miss on stuff and you end up with lots of Crinkley Bottom Advertiser and not much Daily Telegraph. Still, it's free, so I can't complain too much. Ritchie333 14:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it can be a bit hit-and-miss, and for some reason their collections of any one newspaper seem to stop/start almost randomly. I'd be surprised if the British Library didn't have access to more complete sets - my local library does for, say the Bury Times. Coverage at BNA after about 1914 drops off alarmingly but they acknowledge this to be the case - makes hunting for 1920s stuff even more of a lottery. - Sitush (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Light relief (maybe)

This talk page of yours is a bit heavy, no? Brighten your day with my latest (re?) discovery, Talk:K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies. (I wonder: Could there be some tenuous connexion with Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vivek Kumar Pandey (2nd nomination)?) -- Hoary (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

How on earth did you find this? My eyes are hurting now! —SpacemanSpiff 15:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, Spiffy, I think I may have just trodden on your toes there. I'll back away. - Sitush (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

After removing 10K I stepped away, was too much for me, I'll get back on in a bit. —SpacemanSpiff 16:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Well done, chaps. Both the article and its talk page are much better now. (Even if they are less amusing.) -- Hoary (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary: more to do there, although I really don't see why it needs a separate article if the claims that are made are correct. It has been going for 14-15 years, has five teaching members and has produced seven DPhils. That is pretty trivial stuff and a merge into University of Allahabad seems sensible. It could probably be reduced to a couple of sentences. - Sitush (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree, but you must understand that this is the workplace of Vivek Kumar Pandey (see this old version, passim); and over the years the achievements of V K Pandey have been of great interest to a number of different WP contributors (who all write in a distinctive and very similar style). Oh, hello -- what's this: WP:Articles for deletion/K. Banerjee Center of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies. -- Hoary (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah. In that case, and bearing in mind my earlier rationale, I think I will boldly merge and redirect. What say you, SpacemanSpiff ? - Sitush (talk) 09:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a redirect should be fine. I'd initially confused this centre to be like the CSIR centres, but that isn't the case. —SpacemanSpiff 09:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Though I'm not asked, I'll say that I think that's a good idea. ¶ Coincidentally, the article was created and in its earlier days was vigorously edited by User:Vivek Kumar Pandey. -- Hoary (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

He's also uploaded a picture of himself at Commons. That picture also appears to be that of the "1st professor and senior most" namesake at the centre. —SpacemanSpiff 10:02, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Putting up this photo and the others for deletion seems a good idea. However, since I wrote the message above about your (Spiff's) improvement of the talk page, I've felt increasingly queasy about the matter. That the messages are long is in itself no reason to remove them. They're not inherently monologues. A contributor to the article (actual or potential, or indeed a non-contributor) is welcome to post constructive/explanatory comments on the article; if nobody responds, this can't be assumed to be the fault of the same author. (These comments were prolix and hard to understand, but those are separate problems.) If a comment is particularly obscure or prolix, it's OK to hat it; but deletion should be performed sparingly. -- Hoary (talk) 10:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary: The content I removed from the tp (not the stuff hatted today) was all about some Right to Information Act cases and disclosures (though I might have accidentally included another post or so) and it was by another user who I think is in a dispute with this one at the university, see this link for the addition of "1st professor" for someone else, I haven't a clue what this "1st" issue is, but given that the sources are some RTIs, I think it's a dispute between them on seniority which has spilled over to en.wiki. That's why I'd actually left a note asking not to use Misplaced Pages as a soapbox to the other user . They have both been using the article to enhance something in the outside world. As for the term monologues, point taken, I'll just remove that. —SpacemanSpiff 10:53, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I admire your effort to make sense of that stuff. For each long stream of it, I did no more than attempt the first sentence, attempt the last, and glance here and there between the two. The final sentence of the one you link to is a delight: In As 1st and senior most words, word "as" makes the section(Faculty members of first ever recruitment on permanent faculty positions in the centre)as an Universal truth which can not be changed and challenged in the future by any mean. I've now read it three times and still don't know what it means; but I shall be sure to sprinkle future talk page messages with the word "as", if doing so promises to convert what I say into unchangeable, unchallengeable, universal truths. -- Hoary (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I did get a bit curious about this mess and went fishing. Apparently I wasn't far off the mark, this is about some seniority issues that plague Indian governmental positions. See the second listing on this page. They are trying to figure out who is senior by a few minutes (it has an impact on promotions as these positions are not based on performance but tenure). As. —SpacemanSpiff 14:14, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? Wow. I knew that the cadre had some sort of significance because I've seen it mentioned so often. Is that just an academic thing or does it apply to all of the ICS also? What about the army? The notion that age = wisdom has a history that stretches back for millennia but I don't see how it can do anything but hold back development in present times. - Sitush (talk) 08:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a little more complex, sort of matrixed. In the Institutes of National Importance, CSIR Institutes, etc each of them have their own criteria for titular promotions like from Assistant to Associate Prof etc but within each title they have different grades (sometimes a grade may overlap across titles) and this grade promotion is based on seniority. So, it's possible that an asst prof who joined the service 10 years earlier may be ranked higher than someone who joined the service five years earlier but got promoted to associate prof owing to a stellar record etc. In such situations seniority comes in play as certain roles and responsibilities are based on this seniority rank -- both are in the same grade, but A joined five years before B and is therefore more senior. But soon B will move to a grade beyond the grasp of A, so it's only temporary. However for two people who join within a week of each other, it's dastardly as the first person will be higher up based on the date of joining. —SpacemanSpiff 09:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps other factors could help too? -- Hoary (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I was careful with my choice of examples; the INIs, CSIR institutes and a few universities like JNU etc have less of these "other factor" issues as they have good systems in place. Affiliating universities such as Delhi University etc are less likely to have problems within the uni departments and more likely to have them at constituent colleges. Looks like we've become Flickr now. —SpacemanSpiff 04:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, LB

@Lightbreather: I can't post on your talk page since you banned me from it. Maybe self-revert this? I think you might technically be in breach of an IBAN, although I've rather lost track of who is banned from what. If I'm wrong then apologies for mithering you. - Sitush (talk) 18:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Vanniyar copy right issue

Please resolve the copy issue. Myself and user Merkcid seem to be going back and forth. Please resolve once for all. My point is "lowly agricultural labouring caste" should be included in Historical status.

India's Silent Revolution: The Rise of the Lower Castes in North India

By Christophe Jaffrelot

https://books.google.com/books?id=qJZp5tDuY-gC&pg=PA184&dq=vanniyar+low+caste&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VzKLVa-tO8njoATs8pCQAg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=pallis&f=false

Society In India

By David G Mandelbaum / University of california Berkeley.

Page 509 https://books.google.com/books?id=igfd9YYCqf8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Society+In+India&hl=en&sa=X&ei=3BmQVdywKYvloATZkbzABQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=vanniyar&f=false

The Pariah Problem: Caste, Religion, and the Social in Modern India

By Rupa Viswanath / Columbia university

https://books.google.com/books?id=QnbeAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA273&dq=vanniyar+laborers&hl=en&sa=X&ei=FxeQVa30DIXyoASiyICoBQ&ved=0CFwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=vanniyar%20laborers&f=false Notes 273

Sangitha rani111 (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Sitush hope i am not disturbing or wasting your time. When ever you have time please look at the discussion and make changes.

Sangitha rani111 (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

Sangitha, the issue isn't forgotten. It is 0240 here and from that you might gather that, alas, the lavender oil is not making much difference. I'm going to persevere with it, obviously, but I find myself dotting around talking what is probably mostly irrelevant nonsense at the moment. In fact, I need to walk away before I get into trouble for doing so.

I notice that you and Merkcid were both blocked for a short time regarding the Vanniyar issue. It isn't worth it, trust me. Sometimes you have to let things go for a while and see what else happens. As things stand, I do not disagree with your opinion and I am continuing to read about the issue generally but you can do much good here without sacrificing your ability to edit, and indeed you have done. There is a saying here in the UK that goes "choose your battles wisely", which basically means don't put yourself in danger for little gain. The phrasing that you and Merkcid are arguing about is, in the scale of things, fairly minor. Yes, I believe you are right but it isn't something earth-shattering and, if needs must, we can live with it until more people or sources turn up. I mean no offence by this: your passion is obvious but sometimes passion can actually be the downfall of people here. And now, yet again, I think I will try to get in my bed and actually sleep! Please do feel free to continue leaving messages here: we agree more than you might realise and you are welcome. - Sitush (talk) 01:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush. I will follow your recommendations. Glad to hear that you are using the lavendar oil. My sincere wishes for your speedy recovery of health. Sangitha rani111 (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Sangitha rani111

This place is going mad

• GorillaWarfare blocked when involved and evidently biased
• Black Kite closes an AE discussion way too early
• Resolute makes up sensationalist aggravations/attacks
• Floquenbeam gets blocked by DrKiernan for repeatedly removing same *even* though Resolute had sort-of apologised in a completely unrelated thread and DrK was a party to that thread
• ArbCom keeps putting back the LB proposed decision and now seemingly can't even be bothered giving a revised date, despite requests made twice in the last 24-36 hours
• Kevin Gorman starts wikilawyering like hell to protect Gorilla and to pursue his long-term vindictive efforts against Corbett
• ReaperEternal does the common sense thing and gets lambasted for it, notably by said Gorman
• Some anonymous admin apparently spoke on IRC of wanting to see Corbett in a bath of acid - we don't know who but obviously they're not fit to make an admin action in relation to Corbett in future and probably not fit to be an admin, period

The list of dubious admin behaviours that have gone on this last couple of days includes the above but is not limited to it. This place has gone fucking mad. Someone email me when/if sense returns. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

(just passing by) I'd actually say the place is showing its true colors and not going mad. This sort of thing has always been bubbling just below the surface, and from time to time it splatters up and burns the unappreciated cooks. Intothatdarkness 15:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrator EvergreenFir, reporting for duty

But seriously, you were right to tell me to back down. The reason I commented is that there's be a couple dozen people that might be unfit to take admin actions against Corbett (some already voluntarily refrain). I understand your concern about the IRC comment though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you but no, I wasn't right. You are entitled to point out the potential ramifications. - Sitush (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

EvergreenFir, on my talk I made a remark (a while ago) about edits wasted on arbitration. I don't want to add to the "evidence". Did you see my initial statement, and did you read the book and took the stroll which I recommended to Kevin Gorman after I had asked him to apologize to Eric (which he did, to my surprise)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: No, I did not. I'll go read your initial statement. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Dear bot, why bother changing? Why bother notifying? How many ArbCom cases meet their deadlines? The current Lightbreather one is horrendously overdue and has had numerous changes to dates etc throughout, and that seems to be fairly common. Go do something useful, bot, like address the real issues. - Sitush (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Toolserver

Why the heck can't we go back to Toolserver? Labs is bloody useless and has been from Day One. Repeatedly timing out, a lot of tools gone AWOL due to porting/personal issues. I can't do sod all and am increasingly pissed off, especially when sock-tracking. - Sitush (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

An excellent question, and one that has probably been asked on WP:VPT more times than I'd care to remember. If I didn't know any better, I'd swear the whole labs thing was running on a knackered old Pentium III box with 256MB RAM and an old 3Com ISA 10baseT card (remember them?), spending about 90% of its time in swap. Ritchie333 14:32, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Yup --NeilN 14:51, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Probably running through a 300 baud acoustic coupler also, and perhaps the only mouse is the one running round in the wheel to power the thing. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

That explains why when I tried to look at the copyvios tool it reported "R Tape loading error, 0:1" Actually, while we're here moaning about things that used to work but now don't, have you noticed British History Online's "Citation" drop-down box doesn't have a "Misplaced Pages" option anymore, so instead of just copy/pasting the citation straight in, you've got to reformat it to our templates by hand. Grrr. Ritchie333 15:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not that bright I never knew BHO had one, I used it a lot. I wish it had one of those templaty things like NHLE or ODNB, so much easier for editors who write. J3Mrs (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Appearances suggest that people actually writing worthwhile content on WP are now an endangered species as the project moves by decree towards a new, morally ambitious purpose. Perhaps BHO have been tipped off about this and decided to declutter the drop-down. It would also explain why no-one can be arsed fixing Tool Labs. - Sitush (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I maintained a tool on toolserver and labs. In my former life, I was a linux/Unix sys admin for 20 years. Now and in my former life, nobody remembers the bad times, only that it has to be worse now. I remember when toolserver was down for a month because of database issues. I remember when toolserver was down for weeks at a time. I remember the slow, ancient computers toolserver ran on. Things are better at labs. They have redundant database and queue (where things run) machines and alot more of them. The main problem has been the file servers. They ran out of space and had performance issues. Disk space being used is alot more than was being used on toolserver. They did upgrade things a few months back. Latest 2-day long outage (longest outage I can recall) was due to the file system becoming corrupted. That is rare and you can't prepare for it. They did have tape backups, but due to the size of the filesystem, it took awhile to restore.

"Tools gone AWOL" isn't just "porting/personal issues". If a person isn't around to port/maintain a tool, the tool isn't going to be around when something breaks on toolserver. The main issue was due to copyrights. On toolserver, you didn't need to have a copyright for the code. You didn't need an open source copyright. If a person isn't around to port and there was no open source copyright, the code couldn't be moved. On Labs, the code has to be open source. So now, if a person goes AWOL, another can step up to maintain the code.

There were issues when toolserver started up. They did invest in more hardware and did hire another person. I'm much happier now on Labs than toolserver... more space, better computers, up to date OS/software and less down times. Bgwhite (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

And bloody slow for the end user. I'm not joking, everything I try to use seems to time out. I'm sure there is some dinky little tool somewhere there that works ok but either the coding has gone awry or the resources that you see are not the ones that I experience. Toolserver wasn't perfect by any means; Labs is crap, which is particularly surprising because it was supposedly designed and specified for exactly the purpose at which it is failing.

I'm also getting constant "loss of session data" messages, although I'm not sure what is at fault there: it could be anything between me and the server, so I'll go hunting some time. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't say for other tools, but I use my tool (WP:CheckWiki) 50+ times everyday and I rarely have a problem. But, I don't use the replica database (replica of Misplaced Pages's database). That was the major source of problems at toolserver and I wanted to avoid it on Labs. If a person is logged in and depending on what gadget is installed, every article will contain something from labs. When labs goes down, articles don't fully load. I've never gotten a "loss of session data" message. Every tool runs it's own web server. This is good because one tool can't take everyone down. However, knowing what option to turn on or off causes problems. The learning curve on Labs is much higher because you control more of your stuff. What tool is your main source of problems? Bgwhite (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

At the moment, the Interaction Analyzer is my major problem re: timeouts. I think you are probably aware of the amount of socking that goes on in my particular sphere of interest. BTW, I understand the open source vs copyright argument, given the fundamental principles of WP.

I've programmed some big stuff myself in the past but I just can't get my brain in gear nowadays for that sort of thing. The last big project was maybe 100-120k lines of VisBas using OOP/custom libraries + a couple of bought-in OCX DLLs etc for a company that manufactures polythene sheet and bags, and which had an extraordinary desire to make the UI look nice even though it was an entirely internal project. A solo job, and it drove me nuts for the usual reason, ie: the customer kept changing the requirements. I kept it running until about four years ago, at which point I handed the code over and said that enough fooling around had gone on. They also insisted that it was VB, which itself involved a bit of a learning exercise because my background was in C etc, although I'd used VB for fun/quick-n-dirty for years (as you will see if you trawl the old mailing list archives). Don't ask me about Python, Lua and the like - the entire programming thing is in my past, although maybe one day I'll dabble again.

The loss of session data is almost certainly unrelated to Labs. I just need to track down why it happens pretty much every edit. It has been going on since the switch to https but correlation is not causation and I'm normallly (but not exclusively - five PCs and a fileserver-cum-MythTV setup here) using FF 38 on Ubuntu 14.04 LTS Desktop, which has been getting a shedload of updates of late. - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The session data issue is not limited to you. Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(technical)#Session_data_loss_message. Zero response from WMF there. --NeilN 23:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, NeilN. That saves me some effort that probably would have revealed nothing of note. FWIW, I had already checked my router logs on several occasions and, according to those, my connection has been consistent for about 8 months. That blip coincides with me shutting down everything including the fridge/freezer etc when I did some rewiring. That said, I get the message on practically every edit, not just the long ones. I make enough errors of the typo variety without having to jump through that hoop also. - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Bgw, Every tool runs it's own web server - so, effectively, every tool has its own virtual machine? I'm curious re: what the machine implementation might be. VMware etc. - Sitush (talk) 23:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

They use QEMU with KVM and Xen for virtual hosts. There are over 500 virtual hosts running. A tool editor can request their own virtual host. Majority of virtual hosts are for internal Misplaced Pages operations. The web server is nginx and it uses nginx' "server block" (virtual host) mechanism. Bgwhite (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And, heh, for anyone who has followed this thread since Ritchie333's remarks, my first direct experience of computing came indirectly (!) While at school I was involved with a model railway club and one of the idiot tasks assigned to newcomers was to help in the scaled replication of a bloody huge railway bridge somewhere in north England. The "bricks" were the card punch-outs ("chads"?) which we got from the National Computing Centre in Manchester. It just so happened that the "chad" was more or less scale size of a standard British brick of that period. Every ... single ... damn ... one ... stuck onto a plastic former using a toothpick/cocktail stick and a dab of diluted glue ("Resin W") Then they had me create some scale dry-stone walls using crushed shale from Saddleworth Moor, again individually dabbed. But it kept me away from my (at the time) somewhat irritating younger brothers and it came with a fantastic meal from the local chip shop. Happy days? Or the first signs of madness? - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sock

One can't be "involved" with a sock (of this user who was blocked for the same). Recently another editor's sandbox was deleted on his block which had exact same stuff. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You were effectively involved in the thread, which was making certain allegations about you. Deleting complaints about yourself anywhere other than on your own talk page smacks of censorship. You know what I did after reverting you, and I've also left you a note of explanation on your talk page. I didn't link to WP:INVOLVED, which is a very specific usage of the common word. - Sitush (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I obviously reverted a sock which is ok as even in the literary sense of "involved". I know you used the "good faith" revert on my blanking and hatted it. I'm not off to censor anything.. I'm out to get the socks. Still if you need to be assured, there's consensus to delete this content at this venue. And this is gaming the system to recreate that deleted content / accusations. I hope you'll do what's best in line with that. I'll leave it at that. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Sitush: Err, no. I don't think you are familiar with this MfD on a sandbox (of now-indeffed user, Cosmic Emperor), deleted for WP:POLEMIC, WP:ATTACK and a myriad of other reasons. That thread is a verbatim copy-paste of whatever filth was in that (deleted) sandbox. Besides, it is not the correct venue for making a report. I really think this is pointless - if it should not be there in the first place, it may as well be removed. Mar4d (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want the pair of you arguing on my page. Whether that was the work of a sock or not, there is probably little doubt in the minds of many people that you two work together. That's up to you and them but please do not start another interminable argument here. You won't win it because you ain't going to change my mind regarding the hatting. There are admins who frequent WT:INB and they will remove the thread entirely if they think that is a better option. You both know where SPI and ANI can be found. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 3 July 2015 (UTC)