No self-publishing

My user page

Sorry, no self-publishing. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware


It is nearly impossible to transmit HIV orally, let alone via a horn. If you cannot find specific, reliable, expert witness stating this as a proven vector it must not be reported as it will simply be be fear mongering and urban myths. - Amgine | t 18:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I didn't make article


I never made any significant changes to the horn article, I was trying to add a picture to the article. Just because it appears I made the most edits doesn't mean I made the most changes. Plus, I didn't even create the article; I just tried to add a picture to the article. I did not find any good pictures. --Shankarnikhil88



Welcome to Wikinews. Wikifying means to add appropriate wiki links to an article. This would be links to Wikipedia for concepts the reader may not be familiar with or otherwise want more details and also links to portal pages related to the topic on Wikinews. I wikified your article some, you can see my changes here. To create a link to Wikipedia, the syntax is [[w:Article title|link text]]. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Cspurrier (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC) P.S. please sign messages on talk pages by ending it with --~~~~ or by clicking the signature icon on the bar above the edit box. --Cspurrier (talk) 02:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Article failed review


I'm sorry, but your article Chicago mayor proposes new strict gun regulation has once again failed review. I've added a detailed explanation as to why it failed on the article talk page. Please don't be discouraged by this setback. Everyone has articles that occasionally fail review, or even get deleted. Gopher65talk 01:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Close paraphrase


For your information: I have tagged an article that you contributed to, as apparent copyright infringement:

In my opinion, it should not have been published in that form (though another reviewer disagrees with me.) Unfortunately, an unregistered user removed the copyright warning banner I posted, and put it up for review again.

If you would like to discuss it with the community, please do so at : Talk:Bronislaw Komorowski wins Polish presidency in run-off#Copyright

--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Edit summaries


Hi. Just as a reminder. Maybe you have noticed the one-line box below the edit box, right? Well, please try to explain your modifications/changes to what are you editing on that box, in a short way. Common summaries are "expanding", "removing", "adding more ...", etc, whatever you want. For any suggestion or help, feel free to leave me a message. Cheers! Diego Grez return fire 01:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Daley's gun ordinance


I deleted the article about Mayor Daley at your request.

I thought you may be interested in referring to the talk page comments, (in the light of our current disagreement) so I moved it to User:Shankarnikhil88/Talk:Chicago mayor proposes new strict gun regulation. Feel free to tag that page with the {{delete}} template when you are done with it.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

alt account


Hi. Do you mind naming your alt account something less generic. user:Shankarnikhil88 (alternate account) would be ideal. Just because with really generic account names, people get confused. I have the ability to rename users if you want to change it to something else. Bawolff 23:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I screwed up when blocking the account. I set autoblock which block your IP. My apologies. —Mikemoral♪♫ 23:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

US prisoner in North Korea 'attempts suicide'


This article was clearly not ready for publication. Why did you put it up for review? - Amgine | t 13:40, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply



Greetings, Shankarnikhil88, I am a contributor; I do not have administrative or reviewer rights. No offense taken. Tyrol5 (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply



Hi, please do not change the interwikis as you did in this edit. There are bots that perform these tasks to change them (well, pt:Wikinotícias:Pedidos a burocratates doesn't exist). Please try to be careful in the future :-) Thanks! Diego Grez return fire 22:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you again :-) Diego Grez return fire 23:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Reply



Hi; I actually forgot to paste the source when I was writing the article. I've done that now if you see the article. Cheers Rana (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Good job


I just reviewed US unemployment rate remains unchanged at 9.5% in July, and while I had to make a few minor changes (including a slight rename), I think this is your best article yet. I carefully read all of the sources and I didn't see any noticeable copyright violations, and most of the key information from each source was included in your article. You still have room for improvement, but nonetheless, good work:). Gopher65talk 03:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

A Tip


Hello, noce to meet you. If you are intereasted you may consider adding edit summaries to your edits. --Nascar1996 03:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply



I wrote the other article in the Indian flash floods article conflict. Thankyou for sorting it all out I was really not looking forward to it. It was really nice to see that it had all been done and the article is much more full and useful now. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Style guide


Please remember to format dates like "August 8, 2010", not "August 8 2010". Thanks! fetch·comms 16:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Your request for review


Hi. I just left a bit of a rambling comment at Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions#Comments. It looks like the request isn't going to be successful, but I hope what I said will help for any future request. Please don't be dissuaded, just keep doing what you're doing and I'm sure it won't be too long. Waiting more than 48 hours between requests might be a good idea too! :p Oh, and to echo what Nascar1996 said, please try to use edit summaries so that other users who monitor Special:RecentChanges and page histories know what you're doing. Even things like "r" for reply, "cmt" for comment on talk pages, and stuff like "moving", "reword", "punct", "adding bit about John Doe", "+img", and "+cat" for article pages is helpful. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk) 01:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

your IP


You seem to have accidentally exposed your IP address a few times, such as here. Do you want me to hide your IP from the records? It is thought of as private information, which means you have a right to have it removed if you revealed it by accident. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

OK, I'm going to complete the article I'm working on, then I'll get it done. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

RE: Hello


I am sorry. I couldn't follow what you said on my talk page. What is the normal source template? I didn't understand it. --Srinivas 09:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Basically, both are the same template, formatted in a different way (as said by Blood Red Sandman on my talk). Whichever way you write it, either one or two, it shows the same like this:
Indrani Bagchi. "Manmohan Singh becomes third longest serving PM" — Times of India, August 12, 2010
The template is the same, {{Source}}. So that is not a big issue. --Srinivas 09:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

user cats


You should add (Wikinewsie) to the end of your user cat (category:Shankarnikhil88 (Wikinewsie) not category:Shankarnikhil88) That way we keep the user cats and normal cats seperate. Cheers. Bawolff 16:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you don't mind, I'll go ahead and run MikemoralBot (talk · contribs) to fix the categories. —Mikemoral♪♫ 17:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
I moved all the articles listed in the Shankarnikhil88 category to a new Shankarnikhil88 (Wikinewsie) category that Diego Grez made. Thanks. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Don't forger to remove Cat:Shankarnikhil88. —Mikemoral♪♫ 18:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Bawolff 08:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Just so you know, quotes in headlines should be single quotation marks ('Blah') rather than the normal double ("Blah"). I saw you renamed the article, but never fixed the quotes. —Mikemoral♪♫ 16:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that- I'll make a note of that in the future. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Show preview"


I hope you don't mind using the "show preview" button more often; it clogs up recent changes many times. Imo, it's easier to use that, but that's only my opinion, but of course there's nothing wrong with letting the typo though. I'd know, I'm prone to typos. :p —Mikemoral♪♫ 01:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply



Hi, it has impressed me how many times you have been asking for reviewer. What is the big deal with it? It does not do much, seriously, just let's you sight some edits and publish articles. Publishing articles is a big deal though, and needs to be done with care. Honestly, I haven't seen much changing of your editing manner from your first request for reviewer, until now. Also, to gain edits you don't necessarily need to save the pages everytime you type a letter :) I suggest you taking it easy, and request reviewer flag in a few months, or show a decent change in your editing and I myself will nominate you. Just impress me ;) Diego Grez return fire 23:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Also, please use the small box just below the large, editing box to summarize what did you do on the edition. Example, if you correct some typos on a random article, the most appropriate summary would be "correcting typos", or "typo fix", etc. It's up to you. Diego Grez return fire 00:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Request for Review


Hello, I am sorry to inform you that your request for reviewer status has failed. Please familiarize yourself with the concerns brought up by the editors involved in the discussion, and return once you believe you have addressed them. red-thunder. 15:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Moves: All over again


You really should stop moving every single page you look at. If you're doing that to increase your edit count, believe me, a good quality edit is worth 1000 redirects. Secondly, your negation to respond any message I left anyone except Mikemoral left to you is worrisome... Diego Grez return fire 23:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Who ever said I was trying to boost my edit count? I have no such plan, and I personally think I moved the page for a good reason. Plus, sorry, I have not checked my talk page lately. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
It certainly looks that way, Shankarnikhil88. You seem to make a heck of a lot of page moves, when in fact some of those moves are very trivial and not necessary. If the title of the article is wrong, or there is a misspelling in it, fine, we don't mind. But when the title of the article is perfectly valid, a page move leaves behind a redirect and only serves to increase your edit count. If a move isn't necessary, i.e there is a major glaring error or the title is wrong, just let them be. Writing articles is far more productive. BarkingFish (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Additionally, you're not even a reviewer. You shouldn't be caring much about someone else's articles in my opinion. --Diego Grez return fire 23:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Does that mean that regular contributors have a limit on contributing? I want to improve Wikinews, both by editing others articles and making my own. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Plus, I am not hacking into reviewer rights either, or infringing on the rights of a reviewer in any way. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Well, copyedits are okay, but as Barking said, if the title is wrong (misspelling, etc.) change it, but if the article is already okay, do not change it, or Wikinews will become the free redirects source instead of news. Thank you. Diego Grez return fire 23:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
There's a very big difference between editing articles, and moving them for the sake of it. Contributing is not limited, but we prefer you to do constructive editing, spelling, grammar and so on, rather than just doing something because it's there. BarkingFish (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Currently, I am in the process of writing a new article. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
(Outdented) Good, we don't mind you contributing, don't get me wrong. All we ask is that you go about it the right way, and only make page moves when they're absolutely necessary. Other than that, knock yourself out :) BarkingFish (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

"Test lead" templates


Hello, a number of templates that you seem to have created have been nominated for deletion. You can read the discussion here. red-thunder. 14:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

I've fixed the problems. Thanks for notifying me. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
As far as I can tell, you have not fixed the issues. The 'template's must be moved to the User: namespace. They are currently in the Template: namespace. Furthermore, you need to remove the Category:Published. - Amgine | t 20:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
They are clearly listed as primarily for a user. They are user templates; and because of an issue that I had when moving it entirely to the user space, I had to stick template back on them. What's wrong?- They are clearly marked. I'll remove the published category right now. Can you help put them in the User: namespace but keep them acting as Templates? They ned to act as templates. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I can't find the Category:Published. --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Okey-doke. I tested it out, and the page is loading fine. I'll remove the Template: from the pages. Cheers, --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
The Template namespace has specific additional costs on the server (these are small but not insignificant), and it is reserved for project-focused rather than personal pages. I may be wrong about the Published category; I think it's the template namespace which is requiring the re-review every time you edit any one of your templates. - Amgine | t 20:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK. Thanks, --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply