User talk:Nicky mathew

Speedy deletion nomination of Clipboard App

Hi Nicky ...This page should not be speedily deleted Because 'Karan Singh Chhabra is the correct page while karan singh chabra (with a single 'b' was made by mistake and I did not how to edit the spellings. Please delete 'Karan singh chabra' to remove duplicacy but not on karan singh chhabra as I have worked hard on it

Hey, I'm trying to create a page for my App. SO people can read about it and when we launch and how we built the service. Please don't delete it.

Hii Manojadithya17,please use "contest this speedy deletion" button in the article and state the reason why your article should not be deleted . admin will take the final decision.your article lacked citations and all indications of a promotional article. Nicky mathew (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Stub tags and BLP refimprove

Hallo, in this edit you added {{stub}} to an article which already included {{Brazil-footy-bio-stub}}: please take care not to waste other editors' time in this way (editors who stub-sort will find it in Category:Stubs, which should only contain stubs waiting to be sorted, and waste time looking at it). Thanks.

You also added {{refimprove}}: there is a more precise template{{BLP sources}} to use when an article about a living person needs better references.

There's a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia but it's an interesting journey - Happy Editing! PamD 10:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

COI?

I see no reason to add a COI tag to Natain. You could usefully have added {{dead end}}, though I've improved the article so it's no longer true. Yes, the editor probably lives there, but we're not going to exclude all editors from writing about their home town. (And this one was written in quite neutral language, unlike some of the publicity-brochure-type stuff in some village articles, telling us about the beautiful scenery and enterprising nature of the inhabitants!) PamD 11:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: hello pamD,as you may already know yesterday only started patrolling new pages so i am a newbie when it comes to patrolling . i am really sorry about the sub and col tag. i did spend some time reading patrolling page starter guide and i am trying my best to help wikipedia and the community.thank you so much for your help and if you find any more mistakes please let me know ..thank you :) Nicky mathew (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(please proceed!)Speedy deletion nomination of Government ministers of Greece in ministries now abolished

thanks for deleting it! (please see edit summary of that page for details)SoSivr (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Blocked user"

This only applies when an article is created while an editor is blocked. That means that the account used MUST be a sockpuppet (and probably not blocked...), as the blocked account cannot create an article. It's a bit misleading in wording is this, and you aren't the first to misread it. In this case, the article was created, the user blocked, and the speedy tag applied - in that order. I don't know why MER-C didn't tag it when he blocked the account. If you are sure it's a sock, do say whose. Some, like Ryan kirkpatrick, are fairly easy to spot. Ones like Morning277 rather less so. (Others, like Unorginal, usually just tell us by their choice of name...) (All spellings there are correct.) Anyway, it WAS spam so I deleted it as that. Peridon (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments don't apply to accounts violating a topic ban - that's a different kettle of fish and quite tricky at times. And probably best to pass on to one of the regular admins at WP:AN or WP:ANI. A topic banned editor isn't blocked, just barred from certain (usually controversial) areas. Usually, someone will be watching them anyway. Topic bans are one of the less friendly parts of Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universe Sandbox ²

Thanks for adding the template, but the two references in the article cover everything. There is no need for it :) Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 22:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tetra quark: thank you for your tip. i I'll keep that in mind :) Nicky mathew (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tetra quark: The banner was justified; the issue isn't whether or not all the content is sourced, but that the article should source multiple sources, ideally independent (gaming news sites, etc.) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperHamster: The sources are from the official website of the space simulator, which I'm helping to develop, btw. There's no other relevant source. Also, note that the simulator is still under development. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 23:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tetra quark: then conflict of interest is also another problem Nicky mathew (talk) 23:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tetra quark: That's awesome - I've played the first and really enjoyed it. Depending on how involved you are, however, Nicky is right about the conflict of interest.

Back to the article: if there are no secondary sources, then the simulator isn't notable enough to have an article. The reason the "one source" tag exists is that articles must cite multiple sources, of which the majority should be secondary coverage (i.e. not from the developer's official website). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 23:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tetra quark: when you find two or more secondary sources we can consider removing the tag .Nicky mathew (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]