My lists[edit]

My ToDo list[edit]

Look at answer at User_talk:Winhunter#How_to_look_at_deletion_discussion.

Solve the situation on Warcraft.

Look at answers at Talk:Dark_side_of_the_force.

Continue the discussion about Goedels theorems. Add a link to page http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/GodelsIncompletenessTheorems.html

My shortcuts[edit]

This section serves to me as shortucts (bookmarks). These are pages that I find difficult to click my way to them from the main page, so I see no convenient way to reach them - so I will paste them here for my convenience (is there a better way?)

Doolittle raid

Village pump

Wikipedia:Categorical_index

User_talk:Hkmaly

--Pavel Jelinek 20:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roads and Boats (board game) - deleted because someone felt it was non-notable

Suggested addition to Warcraft[edit]

Various units serve different purposes in combat. Footmen (or faster and stronger knights) are the basic fighting units; they attack from proximity and are used to protect weaker units from being reached by enemies. Archers or Orc spearmen can attack any unit in their range and are therefore effective in finishing damaged units. Catapults throw missiles that deal heavy damage to nine squares at the same time; as they cannot aim at an empty square, it is difficult for them to hit a moving unit.

Cleriks and conjugers are vulnerable spellcasters that can heal damaged units, explore any segment of map, make a unit invisible, cast a rain of fire or summon scorpions (weak units useful for exploring) or a mighty water elemental. Their Orc counterparts, necrolytes and warlocks, have partly different spells, they can turn destoyed units into skeletons, make a unit invulnerable and summon a daemon, the most powerful unit in the game.

The working units are peasants and peons; they harvest lumber, mine gold and build and repair buildings, which enable creating more advanced units or researching better weapons, thus improving parameters of units.

HELPME section[edit]

These are questions which I asked using the {{helpme}} template.

Strange behaviour of Merged edits[edit]

I really like Wikipedia, its idea, atmosfere, pages and user interface. But I think that Wikipedia behaves strange in some aspects about editing history. Should I suggest this to Bugzilla, or Village pump? Village pump section technical or proposals? Or am I wrong in some aspect? Or is the benefit in convenience (of these proposals) so small that it is not worth it

When I make several edits, other people see only the description of the last edit in MyWatchlist (fortunately they can conveniently see in in "hist")
If I make five gigant edits and one last minor edit, they see only one edit (which is nice; I call it "Merged edit"), but they see this Merged edit marked as minor - that is not logical.
And when they look at "diff", they see only differences by this last edit - it would be (I think) more convenient and logical if clicking Diff would show the differences of all those consecutive edits by one user.
When I set in my preferences that I want to be warned if I ommit the description of a change, then there could be an improvement in comfort:
- when I see "press save again to save anyway", it would be very convenient if an additional "save" button appeared right at the top
- it is strange that it does this even if the edit is minor - if I am right, there is not much point in describing minor edits - or is there?

Thanks

--Pavel Jelinek 20:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the above questions, for what it's worth -- I'm not much of a Wikipedian, either -- I do see much of the same behavior on my watchlist; I'm still getting used to looking through page histories, and haven't decided if there's a good way to improve it yet...

I do find descriptions of minor edits to be fairly useful, actually; it's kind of reassuring when you can see what the edit is about right away -- it could maybe help to reassure watchers that you're a human editor, thinking about what you're doing [as opposed to a troll, I guess!] It can seem pretty silly when the edit summary is longer than the change you made to the article -- but it doesn't hurt (I don't think) so I've been superstitiously doing it anyway. -- Dave Greene 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Browsing a deleted article[edit]

If someone deletes an article that I have written, can I see the article and its talk page to see the reason of deletion? The article WP:DELETE suggests that it is not possible; would not it be fair to enable all users to have a tool for browsing any deleted article including its "deletion discussion"?

If not, then perhaps the only way is to bother an admin. Then I would like to get the page Roads and Boats (board game) and especially its talk - either by email or by other means.

I tried Wikipedia:Archived_delete_debates, but I would need to know the exact day of deletion, which I do not.

Thanks

Hi, as can be seen from the deletion log of that page, the article was proposed for deletion and after 5 days, when there were no further edits to that page, an admin reviewed it and found that it can be deleted. Of course only an admin can view the deleted page and tell what exact reason the WP:PROD gave. - TwoOars 13:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Am leaving the helpme template so that someone else (an admin perhaps) can give a more comprehensive answer.

Hi - the articles was prodded on April 18th with the concern that it was "[an] NN(Non Notable)board game". The proposed deletion process can be turned over at any time, even after deletion, if there is reason to do so, so please get in contact if you would like to contest the deletion. Please note that, even after the prod is overturned, the article is subject to deletion through all the usual routes. Thanks, Martinp23 13:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting a non-appearing text[edit]

How does one insert a text which is visible only to the one who edits the page, but not to the one who browses it? I did not find it in editing help, so I prefer if you tell me the help page where I can find it. (...)

Question to templates[edit]

Thank you, Fuhghettaboutit. I have just managed to resolve the most important question by experiments. I will soon copy the following to the Village pump (after I accumulate more questions.)

How do I write a template which returns a substring (for example characters 6 to 8) of its parameter?
If I write a template with body {{{1|{{{2|{{{3}}}}}}}}} and I call {{mytemplate|||X}}, it does not expand into "X". Is there any better solution than {{#if:{{{1|}}}|{{{1}}}|{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{2}}}|{{{3}}}}}}} ?
If I want {{mytemplate|X|}} to produce a different output than {{mytemplate|X}}, is there any better way than {{#ifeq:{{{2|NOBODY_WILL_ENTER_EXACTLY_THIS}}}|NOBODY_WILL_ENTER_EXACTLY_THIS|... ?
Are there help pages which I should read before posting these questions? I did not find the answer when I read Help:Magic_words#Conditional_expressions, Wikipedia:Conditional tables,m:Help:Advanced templates, m:Help:Parameter_default (many things are not clear to me in this one) and a majority of m:Help:Templates.

Thanks a lot. --Pavel Jelinek (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox[edit]

First line	Corner

Last line

Other users' comments[edit]

Conway's Life[edit]

-- I just put a note about your two-player Life variation at the bottom of the Conway's Life talk page. Attempted a few clarifications while I was at it -- hope I haven't damaged your original meaning.

Unfortunately I'm not sure that the new two-player section really belongs there -- unless you know that a significant number of people have actually played the two-player game with those rules. (?) David Eppstein spent a good bit of time several months back, mercilessly taking out sections and links involving lots of Conway's-Life variants that didn't seem quite "encyclopedic" enough... Wikipedia buzzword, sorry! I guess the best link I can find for it is the discussion of [notability]. And maybe -- depending on where you got those rules from -- "no original research" ...?

The problem with Conway's Life is that a horde of people have played with it off and on for over a third of a century now. So there are an enormous number of things that _could_ be said, but it seems like a good idea to keep the article down to a reasonable size, and to avoid mentioning -- at least in the summary article -- ideas that haven't really seen much interest or investigation over the years. As far as I know, two-player cellular automata using any rules seem to have commanded only a vanishingly small percentage of Life enthusiasts' collective attention span, and there doesn't seem to be a clear winner for which set of rules gets to be "two-player Life". -- Dave Greene 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preparing the tab question[edit]

Imagine that I want to produce a table like this. (I use {{!}} because I intend to add #switch in the future. The following code works perfectly:

First line	Corner

Last line

If I add the #switch magic word, the code stops working.

First line

Corner

I believe the reason is that the = symbol in colspan="2" collides with the #switch word. I would expect that replacing = with {{=}} should help, but it does not:

First line	Corner

Last line

Following up a page move[edit]

As you were the editor who moved Šárka to a new title and then created a different page at that title, you are responsible for tidying up the incoming links. You do not seem to have done so as yet. I was asked, as someone who deals with a lot of disambiguation pages, to have a look at Šárka and Šárka (disambiguation): I believe they need to be split differently, with a page at Šárka (name) and a disambiguation page at Šárka, so I have made a "Request Move" to move the disambiguation page. PamD 23:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I am sorry, I did not notice that Šárka (disambiguation) exists. I will probably move it soon. I will answer to the talk page of those articles. When the discussion will seem settled, is there any reason to wait those 7 days? --Pavel Jelínek (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iDoc Notability[edit]

I thought you would want to know there is a discussion about the notability of this article on it's talk page. Since you were a contributor I thought you would have input. Padillah (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]