User talk:NicDumZ

Welcome

Hello, NicDumZ, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. If you are looking for help, please do any of the following:

visit the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have
type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will answer your questions shortly
visit the directory of help pages

There are a lot of standards and policies here, but as long as you are editing in good faith, you are encouraged to be bold in updating pages. Here are a few links you might find useful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. Also, it would be a huge help if you could explain each of your edits with an edit summary. Again, welcome!--NAHID 17:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:NicDumZ/Bir Hakeim

User:NicDumZ/Bir Hakeim moved. Anthony Appleyard 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Connell66 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Proof. Request

You just sent me a message. Yes, I will proofread it. I can't translate, though. Laleena^{talk to me contributions to Wikipedia} 12:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"French apartheid" article

Hi NicDumZ. I have encountered similar problems, and I don't have a simple answer. Disruptive editors will often tie up talk-page debates with red herrings, strawman arguments and question-begging, so it's best to address your arguments to an ideal intelligent editor, rather than a specific disruptive one. Also consider filing an RfC. In the meantime I will take a look at the specific issue you're referring to.--G-Dett 16:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Besides what G-Dett says, a way is writing a good article on the subject; I linked some material here--Victor falk 19:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Thanks for your note. Discussion is good, and I think we've managed to have a reasonable one, even though disagreeing on many points. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Ah, I didn't even see you'd changed it. I just tested it and assumed I'd mixed them up. Thanks for letting me know. Mackan79 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I thread

I didn't mean to imply, in my comments on WP:AN/I, that you were in any way "the bad guy". I'm sorry if it came across that way. MastCell ^Talk 20:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really apologize. I was not referring to you as an WP:SPA. I was referring to Jeemde (talk · contribs), whose comment apparently sparked Greg Park Avenue's response. Jeemde seems to be a single-purpose account created solely to participate in the French apartheid AfD and talk page - which is what I was addressing. I don't think you were being especially provocative (though Jeemde was). I don't consider you a single-purpose account, and I wasn't referring to you, but to Jeemde. I apologize for not making myself clearer, and for unintentionally causing offense. MastCell ^Talk 15:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

Excuse me, I read your message on my discussion page and I wanted to know about something. What kind of articles can I create? I really want to create an article, but I can't think of one. Can you help me, please? KiaraFan13 18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles Situation

Yes, you can look at my contributions, but I'll try to wait for a few months until I can create an article. I was going to create an article about a fictional character in my series of plays called The 23 Kids, but the idea was off because she is modeled after Hannah Montana and she wouldn't want to be featured on television. KiaraFan13 19:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bir Hakeim

Hi NicDumZ,
Good work on translating the Battle of Bir Hakeim article, and don't worry about the mistakes, translation is always a bit tricky.

If you want to improve it further, I have only one thing to say to you: inline citations! Your article won't get past start class if all the important facts aren't appropriately cited. To know which points need a cite, and how to do it see WP:MILHIST#CITE. In short:

Use footnotes (<ref> </ref>)
Give a ref. for precise figures(troop strengths, casualties etc), quotations, and anything that looks vaguely controversial or open to debate.
If your source is a book don't forget to give the page number for each point you're citing.

Ideally, as this is English wikipedia, you should use sources in English, but if none are available, you'll have to use some in French.

Voila, j'espère que ça t'a aidé, et si t'as besoin d'autres conseils, tu peux aussi me demander en Français.
A +
Raoulduke47 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 18:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid

The Arbitration Committee has adopted a motion in the above arbitration case, providing: "As the Committee has been unable to determine which actions in this matter, if any, were undertaken in bad faith, and as the community appears to be satisfactorily dealing with the underlying content dispute, the case is dismissed with no further action being taken." This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 19:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BJBot & Afds

Sure, I'm almost done with the new version that handles prods, after that I'll post it. BJ^Talk 14:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot (probably ;))

Just to be sure there is no foul play, can you please edit the user page of your bot's account with your "real" account? Thanks a lot! -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 16:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EditorBot

While I appreciate your suggestion, it really doesn't make any sense to me. Why should there be inclusion guidelines for French communes? Shouldn't we have articles on all towns? The Rambot created all the articles on US towns back in 2001, and the Eubot created articles on all Italian communes in 2006. I also just noticed that all Swiss and almost all German and Austrian municipalities have articles. So do other English-speaking countries like UK and Australia. To be frank, Nick, I think your idea is rubbish. Why should we deny "any country town" in France an article when on our homefront we have one for every? Editorofthewiki (talk) 19:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mainly edit on fr:, and was just stating that I merely consider that having an article per every small French town is not necessary, since not every town is notable to me. It was not really about French town articles on en.wiki, but about French town articles on fr.wiki. :) NicDumZ ~ 01:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, something has to be done about the serious lack of French towns on Wikipedia.Editorofthewiki (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot request

Hi NicDumZ I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DumZiBoT has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 03:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is most excellent

Very nice edit at acupuncture. A much-needed service. rock on, Jim Butler (t) 10:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ! Thanks a lot xD NicDumZ ~ 10:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed — good work! (And after reading the approval process page, I really do mean work!) Thanks! — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear! I agree. :) Jmlk 1 7 11:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Glad to see a bot doing this.

Does it also convert inline exlinks to refs?

I made such a change here. (It's the first change, the second just needed a different name.) --Jtir (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks !

No, it does not convert inline links ! I'm afraid this would cause too much trouble : How a bot could be sure that an inline link should be converted into a reference ? NicDumZ ~ 14:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I just noticed the helpful link in the bot's edit summary. --Jtir (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please feel free to edit that page if you think that it needs some improvements. Some things are obvious for me, but might not be this obvious for others... Also, my english is not this good :) NicDumZ ~ 14:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"He runs every time that a new XML dump is available."

Would it be better to say "He usually runs every time ..."?

I'm not so happy with the phrase "... please check that you can access the pages", but that's the best I could come up with. --Jtir (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do appreciate your help ! The best that you could come up with is way better than my not-so-good academic English... Thanks a lot !

I've added usually: You are right, the run frequency depends on my availability :)

NicDumZ ~ 15:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help out. --Jtir (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is awesome

Your bot edited two pages and cleaned up the reference sections a job that I really don't like doing. Thank you, your bot is very useful. EconomistBR (talk) 15:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just add to that "Yippee!!!"? This is wonderful to see! Thank you! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possibly missed exlinks

This edit possibly missed the exlinks in a named ref (<ref name="RFC3092">). The named ref had the bare exlink repeated in three places. I made the corrections in these two edits [1] [2] (it took two edits because I didn't realize the exlink had been repeated in three places). And, yes, the page can be accessed. :-) --Jtir (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice catch !

I've just corrected this :)

NicDumZ ~ 16:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's the fastest bug fix I have ever seen when I wasn't also the programmer. :-) (I guess this is your test suite.) --Jtir (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is ! Feel free to add links overthere !! NicDumZ ~ 17:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jolly clever bot.--Wetman (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this behavior was intentional. Which is why I never brought it up in BRfA. — Dispenser 19:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
mmh... At some point of the dev, I remembered that I had to add this, and eventually forgot. Anyway, that's not a big problem :) NicDumZ ~ 19:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is not helpful

You need to turn off this bot, especially on science articles. You are making it difficult if not impossible to watch science articles for trolls, vandals and POV-warriors, because all I see on my watchlist is your useless bot. You are making Wikipedia worse off, not better, because once the POV warriors know how your bot works, they'll just put in links without titles, and your bot will format it, making yours the last change in history. This will take more work using Twinkle or other vandal fighting tools. Either turn the thing off, or I will ask for administrative assistance. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you ask nicely, mmh ?

NicDumZ ~ 17:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"especially on science articles": Could you cite a specific example? --Jtir (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bot is great, but Orangemarlin has a point -- shouldn't there be an option to ignore bot edits on watchlists? Just like you can ignore edits marked "minor"? csloat (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an option to ignore bots. However, my bot has not been flagged yet, hence is not considered by Mediawiki as a bot. Just wait a few hours :) NicDumZ ~ 19:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will resume my edits once DumZiBoT gets flagged. But seriously Orangemarlin, adopting such a condescending tone is not the way around. I expect some excuses. NicDumZ ~ 18:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I've changed my mind : per [3], as your bot is listed as approved by WP:BAG, you may operate it, just keep it under 3-4 edits per min until you are flagged. DumZiBoT has been approved (hence is considered as useful), I reduced a bit the edit rate : I see no reason to stop. NicDumZ ~ 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orangemarlin : Next time, please feed me with some diffs... NicDumZ ~ 18:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feed diffs, because frankly I'd rather edit articles than try to prove anything, since I specifically stated, your bot makes my life difficult on Wikipedia. But so do incompetent admins, anti-science editors, and trolls. You got my opinion, you ignored my opinion, I'm fine with that decision. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In da middle

It looks good to me, so long as the tiles are accurate. On the other hand, I can see concerns about bots such as those raised above. In any case, so long as you're amenable to receiving feedback whem and if problems arise, I think both you and the bot will be happy together. Clever, by the way. :) As a used to be programmer I wouldn't mind seeing the code. Cheers. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! The code, (slightly out to date) is available for now here. I believe that the above problems will be fixed once my bot gets flagged, though... :) NicDumZ ~ 21:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very, very nice. Logical and well-referenced. Congrats, well done! Jim62sch^dissera! 21:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is wonderful!

What a great idea for a bot. This is something that I manually do all of the time. Your bot is very helpful, and I cannot believe that no one had thought of it sooner. Kudos! нмŵוτн τ 18:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't know what to answer. It makes me xD ! Thanks :) NicDumZ ~ 19:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. I think DumZiBoT is doing fine. Decriptive text as a link label sure beats just a number ([2]) in the references section. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is a pain...

...but I hope that, when it has caught up with all the untitled references, I might find some reason to look at my watchlist again! TINY MARK 23:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]