User talk:Miraceti

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

PPS Thank you for the detailed image summary!

Please don't change "Czech Republic" to "Czechia". The latter is not used in English. Gzornenplatz 19:57, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Vyborg pictures
Hi!

I'm happy to see your (I guess!) pictures from Vyborg. My grandparents (well, at least three out of four) originate from the Vyborg–Priozersk area. Vyborg being the greater city, I've always heard a lot about its beauty. To me, recent photographs are a lot more telling than pre-war black-and-white pictures. Regards! /Tuomas 19:18, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Finland reaction on Prague Spring
This information would be perhaps better for an article about Finish history.

For that matter, reaction of Finnish government to supression of Solidarnosc was not exactly principal, I know about one Finnish historian who studies this period and was quite suprised his govenment still tries to classify documents from this period. I can find his email, perhaps he may wrote about this topic too and Prague Spring could be kept more on topic. Pavel Vozenilek 22:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It touches Prague Spring, so it should be a part of the Prague Spring article. I feel it is quite important to mention something about reactions in the world. Finland is quite a good example. Moreover, the text was kept as short as possible. Miraceti 12:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

see
here

Pix
OK, I'll see if I can do it with AWB. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, apparently I can't. But I did it manually. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Bedřich_Hrozný.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bedřich_Hrozný.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 06:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

mikontalo pictures
Hi, I commented you in Finnish wikipedia about Mikontalo-pictures. - Mcpolo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.156.139.249 (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Lithuanian flag
Hi Miraceti, Regarding similarities between the Lithuanian flag and african ones. I'm not a fanatic about removing this statement, but it did seem out of place for me. My thoughts were along the lines of: "African flags? huh? bizarre! how could they have anything at all to do with each other if Lithuania became independent after WWI, while the african countries only became independent in the 50s to 70s. And most African flags don't look like that anyway, theyve usually got all sorts of little designs and diagonal lines (have a look at Flags of Africa). Why not Caribbean or Polynesian flags, while we're at it. It looks like a piece of random trivia, so to avoid giving undue prominence, I'll delete it."

Then again, it is possible these things are not as obvious as I thought. Have you had people note a resemblance between the Lithuanian and African flags?

Anyway, the undue prominence issue is to me the only problem (Check out WP:Undue weight). If we could phrase it in some way that doesn't make it stand out like a weird piece of trivia, I'd see no problem. Deuar 13:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I get you. How about a little section at the end entitled "trivia", where one could say something like:
 * The choice of colours in the Lithuanian flag is unusual for a European country, but locals have been heard to say that the colours on some african flags are coincidentally similar.
 * and see if it survives the other editors —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deuar (talk • contribs) 11:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC).

Replaceable fair use Image:Bedřich_Hrozný.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bedřich_Hrozný.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 08:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events
The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, as will become clear, there were some questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and your Historic tsunami work suggested a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus.

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

I think you will be pleased with the first sentence of a proposal which has been posted for WikiProject Japan to consider: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooperhoofd (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSED MODIFICATION It seems to me that User:Miraceti (see cs:Wikipedista:Miraceti) got it just about right when Historic tsunami was initially crafted in August 2007. In that context, I would propose adopting something like this: EXAMPLES OF PROPOSED CHANGE Sanriku region Nankai region Kantō region
 * 1. MOS:JA should be modified to incorporate the guidelines suggested by WikiProject Disaster management, but with a modest exception-to-the-general-rule variation -- that disasters in Japan during the years 645 through 1945 are more fully described in this format: < ><>< >< >.
 * 2. MOS:JA suggests that an explanation and internal link to Japanese era name should be incorporated into any article with a nengō in its title.
 * Seismology of the Sanriku coast
 * 1896 Meiji-Sanriku earthquake ---> REDIRECT> Seismology of the Sanriku coast
 * 1933 Showa-Sanriku earthquake ---> REDIRECT> Seismology of the Sanriku coast
 * 2005 Sanriku earthquake ---> REDIRECT> Seismology of the Sanriku coast
 * Seismology of the Nankai region
 * 887 Ninna-Nakai earthquake ---> REDIRECT> Seismology of the Nankai region
 * 1361 Shōhei-Nankai earthquake ---> REDIRECT> Seismology of the Nankai region
 * 1498 Meiō-Nankai earthquake ---> REDIRECT> Seismology of the Nankai region
 * 1605 Keichō-Nankai earthquake ---> REDIRECT> Seismology of the Nankai region
 * 1854 Ansei-Nankai earthquake ---> REDIRECT> Seismology of the Nankai region
 * 1946 Showa -Nankai earthquake ---> REDIRECT> Seismology of the Nankai region
 * Seismology of the Kantō region
 * 1703 Genroku-Edo earthquake
 * 1855 Ansei-Edo earthquake
 * Great Kantō earthquake ---> REDIRECT> 1923 Taisho-Kantō earthquake

If this proposed modification gains general consensus, I will volunteer in mid-January to begin addressing the task of moving current articles to conform with this reasonable guideline. As you may not know, WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the < >< < > format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me.

I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it. Your good work produced good consequences. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 16:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fort Boyard
About two years ago you said that Fort Boyard (TV series) aired in The Czech Republic. Was it a remake of the show, or just the orginal french version dubbed into Czech? Please respond on my talk page--Fantastic fred (talk) 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The_Good_Old_Naughty_Days.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:The_Good_Old_Naughty_Days.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pejorative pseudoscience
I'm responding to your question on Talk: Pseudoscience here because I'm not sure that the question relates directly enough to improvements of the article.

Certainly those terms can be used pejoratively, mostly when someone uses one of them to refer to something that doesn't fit the actual definition (Conservatives who call moderate liberals "communists" are clearly using the word pejoratively, but if you call Lenin a communist, you're just stating a fact). The main issue in these discussions is nailing down the exact definition of pseudoscience, so people can be sure what use of the word is insulting and what use of the word is just fact. A. Parrot (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But practically everything can be used pejoratively in this way. Also the word "science". Miraceti (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Article wizard 2.0/Userfeedback
Re your comment at Article wizard 2.0/Userfeedback: Perhaps you could expand on what you mean, and especially on what might be done to improve it. You might also take into account Category:Unreviewed new articles from October 2009. Most pages in that category were created by newbies with little or no experience. See WP:VPR for stats on usage, and how many uses turn into articles. The stats don't look that terrible to me. PS You don't seem to be a newbie; you're not the target audience. Rd232 talk 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no time for commenting in details a project which is a crap. There is no way how to improve it. Complete redesign needed. Miraceti (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't ask for details, but some clue as to what you think the problem is would be nice. And what on earth do you have in mind with a "complete redesign"? I mean I'm sure much better Wizards could be done if we weren't limited by wikitext/markup, and that may happen, but without going in the direction of the original Article Wizard, it's hard to see what a complete redesign might involve within those limitations. Rd232 talk 17:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * PS, since you declare the project "crap", I have to point that your claim " They will get stuck unable to finish the first step. " is "crap", as illustrated by the number of articles created through it by newbies, and the relatively decent proportion of hits turning into articles. Rd232 talk 17:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is unclear with word "redesign"? Its current design does not follow basic rules of usability. It is a mess of advices, links and bubbles. It does not fit to the general look&feel of Wikipedia. Therefore it is crap. Sorry, there is really no reason to spend more time with this project. Miraceti (talk) 17:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Look, you seem not to think that the idea of a Wizard is crap. So how about spending a couple of minutes giving some more concrete idea of what you would do differently. You could even consider outlining what a different Wizard would look like, if you know a lot about usability; the Wizard is new, but it's based on the WP:AFC wizard which has been around a while, so new ideas would be good. If you didn't care at all, you wouldn't have said anything, would you? Rd232 talk 18:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Logo Zetor.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Logo Zetor.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have uploaded a new version of this logotype with hopefully comprehensive fair use rationale. Feel free to delete File:Logo Zetor.jpg with no further notice. Thank you. Miraceti (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Luboš Motl
As a contributor to Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl back in 2005, you may be interested to know it has been re-nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Articles for deletion/Luboš Motl (3rd nomination). Robofish (talk) 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6
Hi. When you recently edited 1961 ČSA Il-18 crash, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gräfenberg and ČSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Zdeněk Souček, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Expedition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Květoslav Palov
Hello, Miraceti. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Květoslav Palov, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Květoslav Palov to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Sulaimandaud (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The pronunciation of Czech ⟨ř⟩
Hello. I've written something in the talk page of the article Czech phonology. I'd be really delighted if you would be so kind as to answer me. Thank you very much indeed, and greetings from Italy. Pio d&#39;Ausonia (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's at the end of the section Pronunciation of ř. Pio d&#39;Ausonia (talk) 10:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your reply, Miraceti. Does that mean that in the articulation of [r̝] there is not also an apico-alveolar gesture? Pio d&#39;Ausonia (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I cannot tell you, this not my field. Miraceti (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Přísečnice
Hi, I'm Dan Koehl. Miraceti, thanks for creating Přísečnice!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Since this town was actually named Preßnitz, when it existed, the English artce should not have the present title, but should be redirected to Preßnitz, where the content from this page could be merged with the present?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Dan Koehl (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Dolphinarium
Dolphinarium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)