User talk:George Chernilevsky/Archive/Archive 2010 1

Cymatium lotorium

• Je te remercie de ton message. Ta photo de Cymatium lotorium est splendide. Mais je n’ai pas eu le temps de voter pour toi pour QI car elle était déjà promue. J’ai voulu la mettre dans wikipedia France mais tu y avais déjà pensé. Mais il reste l’image de valeur : j’ai voté. Pour le carcharodontosaurus je discute avec Eusebius pour lui expliquer le motif.

• Thank you for your message. Your photo Cymatium is beautiful. But I have not had time to vote for you for QI because she was already promoted. I wanted to put in wikipedia-France but there you had ever thought. But he remains the image of value: I voted.

For Carcharodontosaurus I discuss with Eusebius to explain the reason. One more time thank you. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:-)

Hi George, sorry I was away when you left your greeting. Happy new year (a bit late :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

All is okay :) --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Emys orbicularis 2009 G1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good --Archaeodontosaurus 17:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fiolent Sevastopol 2009 G1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Perfect --Archaeodontosaurus 17:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fiolent Sevastopol 2009 G5.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fiolent Sevastopol 2009 G6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok. --Berthold Werner 12:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Messer

Hallo George,

sorry, ich bin kein Pilzesammler und habe nicht erkannt, dass das ein Messer ist. Ich vermute aber, dass es anderen Usern ähnlich wie mir gehen könnte. Kannst du einen Hinweis auf das Messer in die Bildinfo aufnehmen? Wie kann ich mein Oppose zurücknehmen?

(Vielen Dank auch für deine gute Arbeit als Commons Administrator. Ich bin erst seit kurzem dabei und finde es sehr spannend.)

Viele Grüße

--Pjt56 (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cymatium lotorium 2010 G1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Wow-i-very-good --Korall 02:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fiolent Sevastopol 2009 G2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice. Meets the QI-criteria. --High Contrast 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fiolent Sevastopol 2009 G4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 13:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fiolent Sevastopol 2009 G7.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 13:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Black sea water near Fiolent 2009 G1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --High Contrast 22:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

150

La dent.

Merci Georges pour ton soutiens, Merci à Eusebius de m’avoir écouté. Je vais retirer cette photo. Elle a eu le mérite d’attirer l’attention sur les problèmes que nous pouvons avoir pour juger des sujets présentés. Beaucoup d’entre nous ne font pas la différence en paléontologie entre: un dessin d’artiste, un moulage(le crâne du scope est un moulage), une reconstitution, et un fossile véritable. J’ai refais une photo de meilleures qualité pour QI.

George thank you for your support, Eusebius Thanks for listening. I'll remove this picture. It had the merit of drawing attention to the problems that we have to judge the topics presented. Many of us do not differentiate between paleontology: a drawing artist, a cast (the scope of the skull is a cast), a reconstruction and a real fossil. I remake a better picture quality for QI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Cette bonne décision --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cymatium lottorium (Black-spotted Triton).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in Scope but above all: the best on the web. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Emys orbicularis (European pond terrapin).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support not composition-wise, but technically by far the best one available --Pjt56 (talk) 14:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: FPC vote

Hi George, I thank you so much for your advice. Jacopo Werther (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Праздники

Спасибо. А Вас — со Старым Новым годом! --AVRS (talk) 13:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

И я Вас поздравляю --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Picked mushrooms.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

* Oppose Why didn't you remove the camera (or whatever it is) from the basket?? --Pjt56 (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• • It is pocket knife, typical equipment for a mushroom hunt. It is good visible at full resolution. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
    • •  Support I still have to look twice to recognize the item as a knife, even at full res, but sure I withdraw my Oppose. And I'm well aware of the differences between QI, VI, and FP ... --Pjt56 (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
    • To Pjt56: be aware that Valued Images are not the same thing as Quality Images. In particular, technical quality isn't of such importance. VI rules say: For photographs, the quality achievable using the built-in camera in a modern mobile phone should normally be good enough. The image must look good on-screen at the review size. VI must meet these 6 criteria. A VI is the most valuable illustration of all images on Commons which fall within the scope of the nomination. Note that most valuable does not necessarily imply the best technical quality. Valued images are less about perfect technical quality and more about your ingenuity in finding good and valuable subjects which matter, and about the useability of the information on the image page, see Valued image value for further details. --Myrabella (talk) 10:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I am ready to support, but I'd like to make a suggestion: could you add the name of some of the picked species we can see in the basket? Something like "Edible fungi in basket (xxx, yyy, etc)". That will make this image even more valuable. --Myrabella (talk) 17:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
  •  Done Some info added --George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Thanks for these complements. OK to me, all criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Limnodromus scolopaceus (Long-billed Dowitcher).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

all criteria met, best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tutufa rubeta

• Congratulation for "Tutufa rubeta 2010 g1.jpg" can it would be better to turn 180 degrees so that the apex is at the top.

Good idea, thank you

• test "Veined rapa" on black background

I will try it, but only with empty seashell, not alive animal

• Thank you for changing the Freibergite is one of my first picture in march 2009.

Amicalement --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you --George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Emys orbicularis 2009 G2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --99of9 12:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Emys orbicularis 2009 G3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --99of9 12:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fiolent Sevastopol 2009 G3.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Both a dramatic and a peaceful mood. Good job. --99of9 12:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tutufa rubeta 2010 G1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Great image --Herbythyme 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tutufa bufo 2010 G1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good image --Herbythyme 14:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fomitopsis pinicola 2009 G1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Perfect -- Archaeodontosaurus 16:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Gluck

Merci pour ton Vote sur le buste de Gluck. Attention il existe sur la photo pour laquelle tu as voté un cadre fantôme. Je l’ai corrigé et je change Gluck1.jpg pour Glcuk2.jpg Merci Pour tes photographies de coquillage dont tu es maintenant le spécialiste, pour que tout soit parfait je suggère que tu mettes la taille du spécimen. Bien amicalement

Спасибо за ваш голос на бюст Глюка. Внимание Есть на фотографию, для которого вы голосовали одной стороны призрака. Я поправил и изменить Gluck1.jpg Спасибо за Glcuk2.jpg За фотографиями вашей оболочки теперь, что ты специалист, так что все идеально я предлагаю вам поставить размеру образца. С уважением --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci pour les commentaires, j'ajouterai le montant.

Bien amicalement --George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Cymatium lotorium 2010 G1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cymatium lotorium 2010 G1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dewberry fruits 2009 G1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good enough for me. ZooFari 15:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

QI

«Уже было отклонено». А как искать в архиве этих обсуждений? Спасибо.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Архив здесь: Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 2010

Основная претензия по качеству "completely oversaturated", то есть сильно перенасыщенные цвета.

То же самое видно по данным EXIF Вашей фотокамеры:

Модель камеры Canon EOS 350D DIGITAL

Контрастность Сильное повышение

Насыщенность Большая насыщенность

Резкость Сильное повышение

В результате таких настроек и получился перенасыщенный (пережжённый) кадр. Учтите эту ошибку, и в следующий раз у Вас получится гораздо лучше.

С уважением и пожеланием творческих успехов, Георгий --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Спасибо. Значит, надо просто перебирать архивы; я было думал, что есть поиск по архиву. Что до EXIF, то эти значения не имеют смысла. Съёмка была в RAW и потом обширная обработка. А в EXIF записаны настройки камеры, которые никак не влияют на готовую фотографию. — Что до "лучше", то я понял, что критика упирается в слишком красные, густые, непрозрачные, однотонные ягоды?--PereslavlFoto (talk) 11:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Можно использовать вкладку "Где используется" на страничке файла. А потом искать с внутри страницы средствами поиска броузера (для Mozilla Firefox это "Правка"/"Найти") по предполагаемой фразе.

Вопрос по качеству относится ко всем цветам, а не только к красному. Зеленый тоже светится очень ярко, полутона почти отсутствуют. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orthodox church Vinnitsa S Bug 2010 G1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Clean clear image --Herbythyme 12:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)  Comment slightly tilted to the right, should be easy to correct --Pjt56 20:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tutufa bufo (Red-ringed Frog Shell).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support good for illustrative purposes. IMO the light is very harsh (direct flash?) --Pjt56 (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pachygrapsus marmoratus 2009 G4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Perfect and useful -- Archaeodontosaurus 18:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Blood parrot cichlid 2010 G1.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good image --Herbythyme 12:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Astronotus ocellatus 2010 G1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Lovely image - the detail is great --Herbythyme 12:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The hidden fires of the Flame Nebula

Dear George Chernilevsky, Thank you for promoting the above image to FP recently. You recommended that it be placed in the fpc category: Places/Satellite images. However this image was taken from a ground based telescope and therefore I would recommend placing it in Commons:Featured pictures/Astronomy. What do you think? Originalwana (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Astronomy is better, i agree. With best regards, --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks

For fixing my "copy and paste" error :) Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Always please , it is minor correction and anything especial. Other users correct my errors too. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your relentless work doing a lot of tedious closures in several projects, for your ever kind comments, helpful nature and many valuable contributions. You are a great asset to Commons! --Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And I certainly agree with Slaunger --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, many thanks! It is pleasant and unexpected. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Brachypelma klaasi (Mexican Pink tarantula).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

VI for me, this picture is used in many projects. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

•  Question - Is it a studio shot? If not, It lacks Geotag. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This tarantula leased from a private zoo collection. It is a studio shot --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    •  Support - OK --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 14:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Slaunger (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Old tower 2010 G2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Tolerable converging verticals (others might disagree), good composition, colors, lighting. The subject is as attractive in daylight as at night. --Iotatau 11:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Fiolent Sevastopol 2009 G5.jpg

Hi George - thought you might be interested to know, this shows Juniperus excelsa - MPF (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I have added more information. With best regards --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I had used 'Krym' as the Latin alphabet transliteration of Крим. But you're right, it is usually Crimea in English ;-) MPF (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Old tower 2010 G1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 21:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rapana Black Sea 2009 G6.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI for me - Darius Baužys 07:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fomitopsis pinicola 2009 G2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 15:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again

I usually "preview" my saves but I guess I only saw the signature on my comment not on the QICtotal, thanks. That page is odd sometimes it is fine and sometimes not. And my thanks for your support elsewhere :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Наклон

Значит, напишите «против», что делать. Этот наклон нельзя устранить — трудно попасть туда, где сделан снимок. Кроме того, я его не замечаю, потому что сужу по вертикальной трубе. Вы судите по зданиям и горизонтальным трубам? Они все сняты под углом. А что до поворотов в редакторе, это добавляет слишком много искажений.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Вертикальная труба как раз более заметно наклонена. А в фотошопе поворот делается достаточно аккуратно, причём с сотыми долями градуса. Может, попробуете исправить? Ещё замечание по снимку - он словно с большим приближением сделан. Некоторые участки словно залиты однородным цветом.

С уважением --George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

А куда она наклонена? Направо или налево? Заливки это от моей любви к насыщенности, и если вы расскажете, где они, тогда я посмотрю внимательнее. Что до аккуратности, то поворот по определению аппроксимация, а значит, ухудшение картинки. Как бы хорошо ни делать пересчёт, он останется пересчётом. Увы мне :).--PereslavlFoto (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Наклон вправо (против часовой стрелки). Я его исправил так:

Adobe Photoshop CS

Image\Rotate canvas > Arbitrary... Angle 0.75 CW

Качество визуально не ухудшилось. А заливки - на фронтальных стенах, белых и розовых. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Там и должны быть заливки. На таком расстоянии нельзя получить детали стены, а можно только шум матрицы. Шумодавка почистила его и оставила заливку, особенно если стена белая каменная и хорошо отражает свет. То есть падает влево, против часовой. Мне кажется, это такой горизонтальный tilt, потому что нельзя было держать объектив параллельно композиции, пришлось снимать под углом. Вот оно налево и сходится.--PereslavlFoto (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Шумодавка аппаратная (камера) или софт? Если софт, то можете пересоздать, только менее агрессивно давить шумы. Наклон я как раз по вертикальным трубам и проверял. Заодно и крыши выровнялись. --George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)