Agastya
Uncharacteristic behavior
You're not behaving characteristically this morning. If this is because you are under stress, perhaps you should back away for a bit. (The remote possibility exists, of course, that this account has been compromised.) Under normal circumstances, I would not have thought any well-established Wikinewsie would engage in a tirade on a talk page in concert with edit warring on an article over the application of a long-established and frankly pretty gentle disclosure practice. I would prefer not to apply a block to an alternate account of a reviewer (which is rather more weighty an action that applying a very brief block to a highly disruptive IP). --Pi zero (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: and Agastya, please stay cool and calm. You're both two valued colleagues. Ymnes (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- It was easy to laugh when Amgine said if you want to do something, why are you still talking? Sooner or later you will come to know if you are allowed to do it or not. It is totally fair to have an External link with missing details such as date and publication, which are two important things we should tell the readers, date because when was that last curated, and publisher, so they know we aren't sending them to a phishing site. If that is ethically correct, so is this. That is my article, and I get to choose. And complying with the pillars of neutrality, the article has to be neutral to publish it. So why bother mentioning. But every page mentions WMF, and despite that, you want it. Did you read that article? Just because it was announced during Wikimania, and that person edited Wikipedia, you want that template. Not all articles in the category must have that template: te CAT page says it. And if it is a custom, show me the archived conversation. Wasn't it so easy to laugh that day at IRC, or speak about personal choice?
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 14:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
- It was easy to laugh when Amgine said if you want to do something, why are you still talking? Sooner or later you will come to know if you are allowed to do it or not. It is totally fair to have an External link with missing details such as date and publication, which are two important things we should tell the readers, date because when was that last curated, and publisher, so they know we aren't sending them to a phishing site. If that is ethically correct, so is this. That is my article, and I get to choose. And complying with the pillars of neutrality, the article has to be neutral to publish it. So why bother mentioning. But every page mentions WMF, and despite that, you want it. Did you read that article? Just because it was announced during Wikimania, and that person edited Wikipedia, you want that template. Not all articles in the category must have that template: te CAT page says it. And if it is a custom, show me the archived conversation. Wasn't it so easy to laugh that day at IRC, or speak about personal choice?
Sorry for not answering before. But thank you for your support. PontoComPontoBR (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)