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)
Unblock
- This account is a known alternate account of acagastya and was used to place evil links on acagastya's user page. (Because I have, historically, highly trusted acagastya, I didn't even notice the nature of the links until word of it filtered through to me a few hours ago from a member of the Countervandalism Network. Which is also why I've been relaxed, in the past, about declaration of these alternate accounts of acagastya's.) --Pi zero (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Clearly highlights that you are granting some users more freedom than others -- and that is not a good sign, Pi zero.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 07:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)- We're not talking about things that matter much; just little things that aren't a big deal when dealing with someone who's earned a great deal of trust — earned trust being core to the Wikinews community. What's bad here is that you've lost yourself a lot of the trust you had earned. --Pi zero (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Did I lose trust? I waited for ArbCom for old folks to decide if I could be granted accreditation or not. It was pretty clear nobody trusts me -- else I would have received some votes.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 08:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Did I lose trust? I waited for ArbCom for old folks to decide if I could be granted accreditation or not. It was pretty clear nobody trusts me -- else I would have received some votes.
- We're not talking about things that matter much; just little things that aren't a big deal when dealing with someone who's earned a great deal of trust — earned trust being core to the Wikinews community. What's bad here is that you've lost yourself a lot of the trust you had earned. --Pi zero (talk) 08:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Clearly highlights that you are granting some users more freedom than others -- and that is not a good sign, Pi zero.
┌─────────────────────────────────┘
and I really don't care about it because I really don't see myself continuing as a Wikinewsie. Or should I even call myself a wikinewsie. I have thought about leaving Wikinews many times. Each time I would come back thinking the project needs me. Tell me one time my contribution was valued -- that is not the community's fault, it is mine, because I did nothing to be a valuable editor. The only thing that I know is, most of my articles are bread and circuses, which most people do not value. There is no point in continuing.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 08:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
alternative account
There really should be an acknowledgement of the alternative account; probably, a {{doppelganger}} template placed on the user page by the Acagastya account. --Pi zero (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)