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)

RE: Artist who changed Hollywood sign to 'Hollyweed' surrenders to authorities

Sorry for not answering before. But thank you for your support. PontoComPontoBR (talk) 00:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|The substitute account was not used to edit for almost a month. Blocking an account which was not used for disruption is totally not fair, and doing so, this adds fuel to the debate}}

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)

You likely would have received my vote, when I got to it, which I kept trying to do (and then, as usual, being absorbed by the review queue). And I think you might have drawn attention from others once I'd stirred things up by responding there. Of course, we all have our stories; Bddpaux, for instance, who has said he's under a lot of stress and won't be around for the next three months or so. --Pi zero (talk) 08:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
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)

You've written a lot — and I don't dismiss sports articles—, you've been helpful in ways large and small, you've understood the core principles of Wikinews well enough that I (who am known to be quite demanding) was comfortable supporting your request for the review bit, you've helped explain those principles to others, you've helped out with review, heck, you even helped out earlier tonight (well, it's tonight where I am) with a removal-of-interwikis edit — it was only quite reluctantly that I blocked that account, as it really would have been hypocritical not to when it was actively participating in the discussion of the block. That doesn't mean you can do no wrong, as the current incident demonstrates, but you're one of the few folks here who's reached the deep level of understanding where you can disagree with me about, say, the business about image captions, and I'll take you seriously (I won't automatically agree with you, but if you've gotten the impression I was dismissing your position on the image captions thing, then I've come across differently that I would want to). --Pi zero (talk) 08:56, 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)

Pending work from night

{{{lede_when}}}, {{{fc_city}}}-based football club {{{club_name}}} sacked {{{manager_name}}} as manager. {{{manager_name}}} was appointed at the {{{club_country}}} club {{{manager_appointed_when}}}.

{{{club_name}}} is currently {{{league_pos}}} in the {{{league_name}}} table. {{{manager_name}}} had signed a {{{contract_year}}}-year contract with {{{club_name}}} on {{{contract_sign_date}}}, but his team lost {{{win_loss_record}}} so far. {{{manager_name}}} succeeded {{{prev_manager}}} at {{{club_name}}}, who helped the club {{{avoid_relegation_TF}}} and finishing {{{last_year_league_pos}}} last year.

In the official statement on the club's website, {{{club_name}}} said, "{{{club_statement}}}"

{{{manager_name}}}'s last match for {{{club_name}}} ended in a {{{last_score}}} defeat against {{{last_against_name}}}.

---

{{{lede_when}}}, {{{club_country}}} football club {{{club_name}}} announced their {{{desig}}} {{{director_name}}} vacated his position. {{{new_club}}}, who announced parting ways with their sporting director {{{new_club_old_director_name}}} on {{{director_parting date}}}, recruited {{{director_name}}} as their new sporting director.

{{{director_age}}}-year-old {{{director_name}}} served as the {{{desig}}} at the Bavarian club for the past three years, holding the position from {{{join_date}}}. In an official statement issued by {{{new_club}}} on {{{new_club_announcement_date}}} via their official website read, "{{{new_club_statement}}}"

"{{{club_name_statement}}}"

On {{{contract_termination_request_date}}}, {{{director_name}}} requested termination of his contract with the {{{club_countery}}} club, which was valid until {{{original_contract_end_date}}}.