User talk:acagastya

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search


OR preparation[edit]

It would be nice to move the questions to a non-talk page, so that the questions page has a talk page where they may be discussed without incorporating these questions into the interview. --Gryllida (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Moved to User:Acagastya/sandbox as suggested off-wiki. --Gryllida (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, hmmmm[edit]

It seems like the first thing was something I wrote (some time ago) and the 2nd thing sounds great!! But:I don't think I wrote that! --Bddpaux (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


Hi! The Canada infobox was so low in the article because I had intended to move some photos up, to be larger. I was hoping to minimize the presence of the box in part because it shows how infrequently there's new Canadian content on Wikinews. I'm fine with whatever formatting, but that was the intent. -- Zanimum (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Zanimum: you can control the size of images. "left|thumb|500px" would set width of the image as 500px. We don't have recent articles about Canada, but if we are going to have an infobox, it would be at the top. Do we have a category for comicon or fan expo? We could use that, or perhaps culture and entertainment. (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
On average, the culture ones are more recent, so it would be better to use that, probably. Are infoboxes optional? -- Zanimum (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Zanimum: Very old archives do not have infoboxes. But all of the recent ones have. I collaborated for an article (dated August 14) and we did not use infobox. Mozilla, Creative Commons, Wikimedia Foundation announce Bassel Khartabil Free Culture fellowship following execution of open culture activist. (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Pi zero (Wikinewsie)[edit]

Creating a user category for someone without getting their permission first seems... weirdly creepy, sort of like cyber-stalking with a twist.

As a somewhat separate issue, you may have realized by now it should have been given a different name, since a normal Wikinewsie category Category:Pi zero (Wikinewsie) would be for articles written by me (there are, btw, a few of those; just not many).

Please don't create (let alone populate) any categories in my name without my permission. (I probably wouldn't agree to it without first taking some time to think it through first, which I clearly haven't got spare time for this morning. --Pi zero (talk) 11:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

We got to start from somewhere -- remember we talked about having a CAT for me weeks ago, and we did not have it yet. We will keep on adding things in out to-do list if we don't act now, so shall we?
acagastya PING ME! 11:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Several points.
  • A word of warning, up front. I'm feeling grouchy about this. I really wanted to apply my first-thing-in-the-morning momentum today to review, and instead I've lost it to this. I'll get less review done today because of that missed opportunity, even though I'm not willing to spend the whole morning on this in order to put it to bed. Yes, I realize something else might have killed my momentum if this hadn't; but nothing else got the chance to do so because this got to it first — so I am, in fact, grouchy about this instead of grouchy about something else.
  • Like I said, don't create these categories in my name, at this time, without my permission. I have not given such permission.
  • A Wikinewsie category for articles written by acagastya is a separate issue, and as far as I remember the key thing it was waiting on was you providing to me a list of the articles to go into it. Naturally, having no great surplus of time, I wasn't agitating to get the list to me faster; but it's my recollection that list was the next step.
  • I have repeatedly said (though perhaps not very forcefully) I disagreed with your claim that there was any need to act quickly on the reviewer-category thing. Indeed, now that I'm spending a bunch of (unintended) time on it this morning, I can see that the sort of manually populated reviewer categories you're setting up are the wrong way to do it — "doing it the hard way". If you manually set up those things now it'll probably just mean a lot of manual work later to undo what you're doing now.
--Pi zero (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Since I've got an odd block of time here in the late morning, not big enough for a review, I'm thinking maybe I'll try my hand at the who-reviewed-it category problem after all. --Pi zero (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've wired it up. Category:Peer reviewed/Passed/Pi zero, Category:Peer reviewed/Not ready/Pi zero. (It should take a while for the software to catch up with populating those.) At least, it seems like a start on the problem. If we really feel the need for something that categorizes the articles themselves, we might consider piggy-backing it off of {{haveyoursay}}.

(Sorry I was so grouchy this morning. Hopefully I'll be in better form this afternoon.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Temporary edits[edit]

What are these temporary removals of infoboxen for? --Pi zero (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: the first photo available in the article is chosen by Telegram, and also other websites like Facebook when we share the link. Since infobox is mentioned above any article, it's image appears. That's why. I do it for Wikinews channel on Telegram.
acagastya PING ME! 23:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


Should this user be unblocked?

This user, Acagastya has requested to be unblocked per the Wikinews Blocking Policy. (block log | autoblocks | unblock (remove global block) | contribs)

Request reason: "As the admin who blocked me says: I was disrupting Wikinews to prove a point, let me tell you, I didn't edit anything on the main space. I just reverted vandalism on my user page. There is no policy on what we can not have on our user page, and "Wikinews is not responsible for the content of external sites." So, that is not incorrect. And as WN:Point says: discuss on the talk page first, I wanted to start the discussion about what is permitted on the user page. But despite following the policy, I am blocked!"

Note to admins: If this request is declined, it should be replaced with: {{unblock-no}}
Note to admins: If this request is approved, it should be replaced with: {{unblock-ok}}
to point out, before blocking for "disruptive editing", one is supposed to leave a talk page message. One is also supposed to put a blocked template, and explain the reason properly. As far as disruptive editing is concerned, the admin who blocked acagastya did not establish how the edits were disruptive. (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I've given you a 24 hour cool-down period. Common sense applies; you clearly knew what you were doing was wrong before you did it, that being the point of the action. Hence the cool-down period. --Pi zero (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Explain how it is disruptive. Is there a policy which I broke by editing my user page? Is there a policy which prevents me from adding links to my user page? Did you explain properly? Point out which edit is "disruptive"? (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I accepted the fact that those links were malware. I did not accept that what I did was wrong. And I don't know what is wrong. So, explain, what is wrong.
acagastya PING ME! 05:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately the purpose of blocks is preventative; the end goal is to prevent damage to the project. Links to malware, deliberately made to look as if they were not, and you pretend to not know that that is wrong? I find that hard to credit. --Pi zero (talk) 06:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Making it look something else? So that is "disruptive editing"? It was to submit for phishing database. I have used my user page to save book marks before, you never blocked me for that.
acagastya PING ME! 06:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

In the end, which policy says I can not have external links on my user page? Either link that policy, or make the policy.
acagastya PING ME! 06:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Need for ArbCom[edit]

There are multiple things we need ArbCom:

  1. framing better policies about user page content.
  2. framing policies about external link, malware and use of source template.
  3. Improper block rationale for acagastya and Agastya.
  4. Image attribution
    acagastya PING ME! 05:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment Red tape is one of the disastrous mistakes made by en.wp. If you can't see that those links were a wrong thing to do, then you are a danger to the project; if you can see that they were wrong and did it anyway, then again you are a danger to the project; either way, the block is entirely justified. My only doubt is whether a mere 24-hour block was inadequate; I'm hoping a cool-down period will let you get your bearings. --Pi zero (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I have mentioned those links were to submit for the database -- the reason why it was still on the project is because there is no policy against content of external link. Am I dangerous to the project -- immaterial. Because if not me, someone else will raise the concern that there is no policy about external links/malware on the userpage, and Wikinews states that it is not responsible for it.
Axagastya (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
If you really cared for this project -- you would have framed/or planned to frame a policy for it by now. So don't tell me I am dangerous for this project.
Axagastya (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You almost provoked me into citing the policy, but then you added the line about if-I-really-cared. You know better; so, you're trolling. --Pi zero (talk) 06:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The cool down period? You know what will happen after the end of the block? I would request ArbCom to hear the case -- frame rules against personal information/and external links on the user page, and how to check if something is malware or not, and the proper attribution for photos, and why external links are banned when Wikinews is not responsible for its content. You "care" for the project by doing nothing (yes, blocking is not an effective way for sustaining) and I am "dangerous" for the project by raising concerns where there are loopholes. I know you it would not bother you if I am on this project or not, so for me. You say the block is justified, yet you fail to establish which policy I broke which called for WN:POINT. This is just like accusing a pineapple pizza lover because he can be "dangerous" for the country, provided country has no rules against pineapple pizza.
Axagastya (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm sometimes guilty of optimism; perhaps, when I suggested you knew me better than that, it was one of those times. Perhaps you don't know me after all. --Pi zero (talk) 08:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Ping @Pi zero:[edit]

Tell me, didn't did block evading? Why didn't you block that IP two years ago? Don't say this is trolling, you can not use that excuse to shield from the things you did not do per the policies of Wikinews.
acagastya PING ME! 05:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with whether or nor you're serious. Blocking an IP for evading a voluntary block? --Pi zero (talk) 06:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
yes. Block evading is a block. The sole reason I requested that block: to focus on my studies and not spent time on Wikinews. I knew I could not control it, and requested a block. You know that very well.
acagastya PING ME! 06:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
You asked to have the account blocked, and you stated up front it was so you'd focus on your studies. I had doubts about it, especially doubts about the effectiveness of the measure, but, it was your account, so I honored your request to block it. Of course if you'd asked me at any time during that block (from the account) to lift the block I obviously would have done so immediately. I'd have no grounds for not lifting it. It would not usually be appropriate to block an IP, with potential for collateral damage, for a voluntary request. Though I don't recall you making any concerted effort to convince me to do so (granted, I do recall a conversation about this at some point during the period in question). --Pi zero (talk) 06:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I didn't? I told you on IRC, while the time of the OR about earthquake in Afghanistan that I wanted to study, and I am still editing Wikinews, using this IP and it is doing no good for the block.
Axagastya (talk) 06:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom case[edit]

Following yesterday's events, I really think there should be an ArbCom hearing about the many things we do not agree upon.

Things to discuss:

  1. How much personal information is permissible on the user page?
  2. How should be attribute the photos?
  3. Improper rationale for my block.


I use my userpage as sandbox, and I save links which I might use later, on the userpage. I have done it many times, and it was never questioned. One day, after I had redesigned my userpage, and was working on main page redesign, I wanted to save some phishing links so that I can add it to, since I could not remember my login credential. The display text mentioned which kind of page those URLs replicated. I didn't get time to submit then, and it remained on my userpage since then. I had never saved a suspicious URL before -- but after a discussion on Darkfrog24's talk, Pi zero mentioned sources in the External link section need not have sources template. Meaning, the readers who clicked the URL did not know where they might land, and it could be a spam link too. I checked the policies and it did not say anything about links on userpage. Moreover, the last line of the page says "Wikinews is not responsible for the content of external sites." Since I had not submitted those links yet, it remained on my userpage. I had mentioned important links so that I handle it with care. When it was removed by Pi zero yesterday -- that was sort of vandalism to prevent vandalism -- I agree. But since I did not violate any policy, or did something that could trigger WN:POINT, I find the block rationale invalid. I agree those were phishing websites which I saved because I wanted to report to phishing database.

Things to discuss[edit]

Considering this, and the various telephone spams we receive almost each day, we must have a limit on what we can have on the user page. For example, links to third-party website, social media services, contact information like email, phone number, address, personal websites, blogs... Also, what if someone's personal website is a phishing website? Or how do we set rules for a malicious website? Or how how to be prevent user page from being used as a promotion/advertising place for sharing links to blogs/ YouTube video, wishlist... How do we draw the fine line for which URLs are allowed and which are not? (also see User:C.H.I news)

There has been a debate on attribution/image courtesy between me and Pi zero (as well as Blood Red Sandman). Creative Commons' website says the best practice (and as mentioned in a CC license), attribution is must, which explicitly mentions Name of the author, link to the license, link to the original file (and also original title). They abbreviate it as TASL. (link). But, on English Wikinews, the attribution mentions the author name only, which, per the CC license, is incorrect. So, how should we attribute?

Lastly, was my block's rationale valid? Is there a policy about malicious links? If yes, the footer says we are not responsible for the content of the external link, so how do we address that?


ArbCom: @Pi zero, RockerballAustralia, Brian, ShakataGaNai, William S. Saturn, Mikemoral:

Non-ArbCom members (for framing the policies) @Gryllida, Bddpaux, Blood Red Sandman, Tom Morris, Brian McNeil:
acagastya PING ME! 15:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Creative Commons licensing, the licenses themselves and the linked page both say to be reasonable. Quoting from the linked page/one of the licenses,
"You may satisfy the conditions... in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means and context in which the Licensed Material is used. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy some or all of the conditions by retaining a copyright notice, or by providing a URI or hyperlink associated with the Licensed Material, if the copyright notice or webpage includes some or all of the required information."
It would seem that the fact we link already to the image information page upon clicking that would satisfy CC's requirements. The courtesy credit is all that, a courtesy. We provide the required attribution either via the file page from Commons or on WN when it's a local file. It could entirely be the case that specific CC licenses require other forms of attribution as suggested on another page from CC. The general requirement is that "attribution may be reasonable to the medium or means" (with exceptions of some sort for versions before 4.0). —mikemoral (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
that reasonable attribution should mention links explicitly. The information should not be made available after a few clicks. I had even emailed CC about it. They asked to follow the best practices. If you see the example, they have also mentioned the poor examples. If the attribution can not be given next to the media, it should be somewhere in the page, but should be mentioned explicitly.
acagastya PING ME! 07:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Clicking the image or file will either open the link to the File: page or open the media viewer both of which present copyright information. That would be us providing the link, so I wouldn't think it would be necessary to provide information on the articles themselves if it's easily accessible by following the image link. —mikemoral (talk) 07:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
As I said earlier, the link to the license and the photo has to be mentioned explicitly. Besides, the template {{image}} has a link to the license (actually the File: page) with text display "Reuse terms". For example:

Image: Mdd4696. (Reuse terms.)
Here, the original source of the image is Commons, but for photos imported from Flickr, we are supposed to link to the Flickr page. (See this and this).
acagastya PING ME! 13:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Team player cats[edit]

How would you envision this sort of thing being used, in a DPL? I'm not really sure whether or not there's a way to satisfy both of us (or, partly satisfy both of us), until I understand what it is you're hoping for. --Pi zero (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

First Star Trek series in twelve years debuts on television[edit]

Can you take a look at this for me, please? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)TCM 08:40, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: Yes, sure. By the way, I have notices you use [[:w:Lorem|Ipsum]] to link to Wikipedia. Please consider using {{w}} template instead.
acagastya PING ME! 13:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you think it can be published? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: I can source check the facts, and copyedit. But I have no idea about Star Trek and I don’t want to make a royal mess as a newbie reviewer. I am leaving it for pizero, but at the moment, there are four articles they need to review. It is going to be tough. I would try my best.
acagastya PING ME! 04:20, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Really, not knowing about the show helps because it should be written for a general audience. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
but that is the place where we could miss out crucial facts.
acagastya PING ME! 04:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Working it out[edit]

It seems to me that part of the problem with my edit on this article might be that you just don't like it when people correct your English or change your text. I didn't know that you wrote the article. I don't click the page history and check who the principal author is because it shouldn't matter. On Wikipedia, it's expected that any text submitted by anyone can be edited by anyone else, but things are a little different here.

Do you wish to say, for any reason, "Darkfrog24, please don't remove any mistakes or alter any not-exactly-wrong-but-could-be-better text in my articles. I'd rather let it stand/let someone else change it/come back and do it myself/other"? Wikinews is big enough that I can volunteer my time elsewhere, but checking who wrote the article before proofreading it is a pain in the neck and I don't want to waste my energy doing it if it won't make a difference. But I could do it as a favor.

So I'm asking you whether it makes a difference. Is this what's going on or part of what's going on?

Sometimes people feel that the other person has to be doing something objectively wrong for them to say "stop," but they don't. People can say "this bothers me" or "I don't like it." People's feelings matter, especially on such a small team. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Article about Pakistan's prime minister indicating policy change towards USA[edit]

Greetings. Recently, Pakistani prime minister Shahid Khaqan Abbasi said in his statement that Pakistan won't need US aid in the future, clearly indicating the policy swift by Pakistan after Trump's policy statement regarding South Asia. Would it be relevant to write article on this matter?--Asadwarraich (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Asadwarraich: It is an interesting story. And I didn't know until you informed me. Thank you. So, would you want to try writing the article, or do you want me to write about it?
acagastya PING ME! 17:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
It would be better if your write.--Asadwarraich (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
@Asadwarraich: I can try, but I would really want you to write the article. Don't worry if it is not good, or short, just write it. Trust me, this is how you will get to learn.
acagastya PING ME! 17:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Link to the article. It would be better if you complete the article.--Asadwarraich (talk) 18:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Asadwarraich: I understand it is getting late night (for us both). It is okay if you leave it for me, but if you can try, please do it. (You want to see the size of my first article, it was very small: F.C. Barcelona wins La Liga 2014-2015) It sure is difficult, but you need to try.
acagastya PING ME! 18:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)