User talk:Beria/Archive/2011-2

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Comboio trem.png
  • Today is Friday, 29 August 2014. It's 08:03 in Porto.
    Icona parla di Wikipedia.svg

User page | Talk page Archive | New message

Obs.: o trecho seguinte está "compactado" de modo a despoluir
visualmente o contexto da página toda.


Category:The Matthew to Category:Matthew (ship, 1996) - why?[edit]

See also User_talk:Foroa#SS_Great_Britain Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Restore[edit]

File:Penally Abbey5.jpg See http://www.flickr.com/photos/simonstanford/4417335110/in/set-72157623579161014. Blofeld Dr. (talk) 16:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to say please to somebody who deleted an image in which I said I would ask the creator on flickr to change to like the others if only you'd waited a few hours. Blofeld Dr. (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't mean to take it out on you but the hounding on my talk page today has been unnecessary. What upset me was the "pay attention to copyright" warning when I spent time asking the flickr user to change the license ot them all and believed he had done it to them all. Now I have images of a lake to upload which I went out of my way to request. I hope I will not see any further difficulties and nonsense from the admins on here. Now please stop being silly and restore the deleted image. Thankyou. Blofeld Dr. (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Fine then. I will no longer upload to the commons and be a contributor here. You people also must learn to respect uploaders and stop people from issuing patronising PAY ATTENTION TO COPYRIGHT warnings and civil messages. From now on I will only upload to wikipedia and commons will suffer as a result, especially in regards to the thousands of images I could potentially get uploaded and the geobot currently running which I was personally responsble for requesting..Blofeld Dr. (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I create good articles everyday on wikipedia and never get please or thanks. Very disappointed in you.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I might have been a bit to harsh on you with this message. It's just that I don't like games and that this user was already over the edge and ready to explode. I would hate to see that happen. Of course this user was out of line, but I don't think forcing him to say "please" would solve it. Sorry for being a bit to direct, I still think you're a good admin. Multichill (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't call you an asshole (unless those other editors were you). I muttered it at the people who gave me unnecessary warnings adding fuel to the fire. Unacceptable maybe but I do not like receiving warnings as if I am not conscious of image copyrights. I bend over backwards to find useable images to upload to wikipedia. That's what got to me. I apologise but I sent the restore message quickly and didn't take the time to construct a full message given that I was in the middle of uploading lake images. Normally I would say. "Hi. I see you deleted this image, Its now fine. Can you please restore, Cheers." You caught me at a bad moment, made worse by the fact you picked up on the lack of formal message.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about the patronising PAY ATTENTION warnings to prolific image uploaders who are fully aware about it but occasionally things crop up. You don't get a word of thanks for your uploads and as soon as one is not right they scold you.. If I had not received that message I'd not have lost my temper.Blofeld Dr. (talk)

Oporto[edit]

Ah you are from Porto? Coincidentally I created this and stubbed some landmarks yesterday!! Thanks for your images of the cathedral and bridge! Very beautiful city! Now to find some Portuguese=English translators. Its been my intention to transwiki tons of Portuguese buildings onto wikipedia but sadly google translate is not very good and we lack Portuguese contributors!!. Blofeld Dr. (talk) 17:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be awesome. Thankyou. Off hand I recall some of the casas are without images, I'll have a look. We have images for the fountains I think which are beautiful. Sorry to show you lack of respect, I'm lovely 99% of the time but I occasionally snap and am pig headed. I am a Taurus in star sign which explains it the bull is peaceful most of the time but when it sees red..... Hehe. I think I'll resume with Porto on wikipedia now... Take care.Blofeld Dr. (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Casa Artistides Ribeiro is without an image. Afraid my stubs are very short but wanting to improve the scope of coverage. I created the Municipal library a while back which also needs an image. Blofeld Dr. (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you take a photo of the library next time you are near it?Blofeld Dr. (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

UNIARAXÁ[edit]

Sou representante do UNIARAXÁ e estou tentando criar o artigo da Instituição, mas vocês não param de estragar o meu trabalho. o artigo Uniaraxá não foi criado por nós e contém inúmeros erros. Esse deve ser redirecionado para UNIARAXÁ, que além de possuir o nome correto, também possui as informações corretas.

Pedido de eliminação de categoria[edit]

Beria, eu vim te pedir o pedido de eliminação da Category:Jardim Laranjeiras. é porque, tem a Praça Jardim Laranjeiras (para eu futuramente tirar fotos). Então, iria ficar com nomes bem parecidos, dificultando o entendimento das categorias. Eu, gostaria de ver a Category:Laranjeiras (Rio de Janeiro) cheia de imagens. Quem sabe, 200, 400, 1000, 2000, 3000 imagens do bairro do Rio de Janeiro. A Category:Laranjeiras (Rio de Janeiro), fica melhor assim, com mais ficheiros. Eduardo P (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Beria, poderias apagar a Category:Quiosques da cidade do Rio de Janeiro? é uma categoria duplicada. Eduardo P (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Essa é uma categoria duplicada. Poderias apagá-la? Eduardo P (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


File:Kaiserstandarte Version2.svg[edit]

Dear Beria,

I was surprised to see your posting at my discussion. I checked the case and obviously a non registered user (IP 188.192.98.119), who obviously has no knowledge about the depicted Kaiserstandarte, took it out without me noticing it before. I reverted that. See the version history for his comment:

"9. Mär. 2011 188.192.98.119 (Diskussion) (629 Bytes) (permission is absurde. the source of the picture is http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Kaiserstandarte.svg it should also be checked, which picture is closer to the original.)"

Actually, it isn't the source, because these are two different imperial flags, one for the emperor until 1888, one after 1888; of course they have soms things in common, since they are both from one and the same author, me. But that doesn't make on the source for the other. --David Liuzzo (talk) 03:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Eliminação de categorias de versão reduzida[edit]

Eu reuni os bares e botecos na Category:Bares, botecos, botequins e tavernas da cidade do Rio de Janeiro. Com mais os botequins e tavernas. Eduardo P (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi you both! A opinion on this: First: the cat name is not in English although there is no reason for this (and cat names should generally be in English). Second: it is too long now. Third: as botecos are apparently just small bars the do fit under "bars". So: rename to English, shorten it, use "bars" if possible. Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 21:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Bot validity checks on POTY[edit]

on this page your bot suggests that this user is ineligible. According to this there are 2k+ edits on Commons - maybe you need to check it? --Herby talk thyme 16:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Voting[edit]

Sorry for any trouble, it was a genuine mistake. I thought I had more edits! It's a shame though, but I have removed my vote from the image page. Harrison49 19:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Lucia Bot[edit]

It has bot status now, but please keep an eye on bot's activities. --EugeneZelenko 14:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Eligibility[edit]

Example.jpgPlease read Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/Eligibility carefully it says:

1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before 1 January 2011(2011-01-01) [UTC].

2. This user account must have at least 200 edits on any single Wikimedia project before 1 January 2011(2011-01-01) (that is before 2010-12-31 24:00 [UTC]). Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2010 Contest Eligibility tool.

Regards, Ancient Apparition (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Galeria[edit]

Paz e bem!

Grato! Com tua informação consegui iniciar uma galeria de minhas contribuições, não sei se obtive um bom resultado, assim se puderes dar uma olhada e criticar, agradeço: [1]

Eugenio Hansen, OFS (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Eliminação de categoria (s)[edit]

Beria, vc poderia apagar a Category:Patroni Pizza? Eh porque a Category:Pizzerias in Rio de Janeiro city está pequena. Quando a Category:Pizzerias in Rio de Janeiro city, ficar maior, posso pensar o que fazer. Criar mais sub-categorias, se a Category:Pizzerias in Rio de Janeiro city ficar maior. Mesmo pedindo eliminação, estou contribuindo, carregando muitos arquivos no Commons. Boa estadia. Eduardo P (talk) 00:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Zaian eligible?[edit]

Hi, you failed my 5 votes for POTY 2010, but I think I am eligible? http://toolserver.org/~pathoschild/accounteligibility/?user=Zaian&wiki=enwiki_p&event=16 Thanks Zaian (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. I've added a link from my en.wikipedia user to commons. I had a link the other way round and thought that was sufficient. Zaian (talk) 20:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Will you change my votes from failed to pass now, or is it too late? Zaian (talk) 19:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

New.[edit]

Sorry, I know very badly the system on Commons. I come of Wikipedized and want that you guide me.--Morphypnos (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hello Beria

thank you for reverting the censorship of NeilK. Greetings --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't agree with Wladyslaw. Commons is not a gallery for amateur art; that image is neither notable, nor educational, nor particularly good by any real-world standards. What's it doing on the main page? --JN466 13:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
As I said before: Anime is a real existing type of culture that has a right to be described and shown. The picture is either pornography nor s.th. else illegal. Apple and other big firms are making censorship and cultural fasism - Wikipedia does not have to follow them. --Wladyslaw (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Manga and anime are real-world art forms; but this isn't a notable example of either. If the artist who donated the image were notable in his own right, outside Commons, it might be different, but this is no different than any other non-notable amateur drawing in any other genre. Commons is not an art club where you get to show your paintings to the world for free. We don't feature amateur cubist paintings, or original music by otherwise unknown garage bands either. --JN466 13:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Your wrong in all points. As you see paintings, arts, illustrations and even animation of issues will be featured and so this one was. The picture does not engage to be art, in fact it shows the style of anime and thatfore it was featured. It is significant a part of users here in commons that the feelings run so high at a illustration showing a topless girl but not as seven days ago a illustration/ animation was showing the pricipal of a naval gun File:Animated gun turret.gif. --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Commons is not a repository for self-created artwork without obvious educational value. The animation you refer to illustrates the operating principle of a gun turret. That is educational. It teaches something. The image on the main page doesn't illustrate anything. It is just a piece of original art in a certain style. It's irrelevant whether it is a naked girl in manga/Thomas Kinkade style, or a black & white drawing of a rose. If you are saying it's educational because "it's done in manga style", that would also apply to any black & white drawing of a rose or any other object, or indeed any other drawing or painting at all. Commons is not an art gallery. (Beria, as you haven't responded, please let me know if you'd rather we carry on this conversation elsewhere.) --JN466 17:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The image is of the Category:Allegories of liberty thus appropriate as that issue, as our email discussion shows, is on the front burner and being actively discussed by the community. Fred Bauder (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
That may be, though I'll admit I don't quite follow you, but is the main page there to educate the public about what the Wikimedia community discusses internally? That seems somewhat self-referential and navel-gazing to me. A bit like a shop advertising its staff's pay dispute in the window, rather than the products it sells. --JN466 17:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Just misplaced concreteness, I suppose. Oh, but we are a community that engages in self-governance and debate which they can join in to; that too is our product. Fred Bauder (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to add my voice here to those objecting to this image being shown on the front page. The Foundation would like to attract more women editors, and this is somewhat off-putting. Beria, would you consider reverting yourself, please, given the discomfort this is causing? SlimVirgin (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Why would she revert a legitimate action?
Well, she reverted a illegitimate action with that revert. — Tanvir | Talk ] 18:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
SlimVirgin, my answer to you is: I'm a woman, a editor and a sysop. And i still don't see what is the problem with that image. The image show the breast of a anime girl? Yes. But why that is sexual? Why that is so offensive to some people? Maybe i grow up in a very liberal culture, but i can't see the problem in that image at all. In fact, going a bit futher, why that specify image is offensive and this one is art? Why that is sexual and that is not. Why parents would not like this image, but do nothing against that (Who show a naked woman kissing a little boy - her son - in the mouth, while both are naked). Is because the manga one is in a forest? That one also show a girl half naked in a forest and no one come here to complain about.
What define a sexual image? this is sexual? Or maybe this one is. Why is this particular one so problematic? Because show nudity in the main page? Well, that was not a problem when that image (who show her breasts) got to MP, or that (with a naked man), this one show 2 naked mans, and this show a naked girl. Again, what is the real problem here? Béria Lima msg 18:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Commons is not a gallery for amateur art; that image is neither notable, nor educational, nor particularly good by any real-world standards (unlike the examples you give above). If it were an erotic masterpiece, or did a brilliant job at capturing manga/anime style, there would be no problem as far as I am concerned. This image by the same artist, for example, is erotic, but while it is conceptually less ambitious, it actually does a brilliant job at capturing the essence of a style, and does not overextend itself artistically. Do you see the difference? --JN466 21:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
That image is notable because according with our rules any image in use is notable. Is good becase is a Quality image and a Featured image, and is perfect to illustrate any article of manga or anime to show what are the techniques used to create an image. The nudity is not a problem to you, so again, i don't see what is the problem with the image. Béria Lima msg 21:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
The textures and perspective are poor (as was pointed out at FPC), the composition is messy, and the image content is too specific to be useful as a generic illustration of Manga style. If it's not illustrative, then it isn't educational, but a work of art in its own right. But as a work of art (that is completely unknown outside Commons) it is too weak. --JN466 22:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
After you has lost your dinky crusade against this picture here is the wrong platform to debate on the quality of this lately elected featured picture. --Wladyslaw (talk) 06:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Sorry, Beria, I only just saw your reply. The image looks as though it was posted gratuitously, because it's not a great work of art, or something of historical importance, and because there was discussion of breasts and "I like big tits" during the nomination discussion. Most of those commenting were almost certainly young men, and it would be good if we could move slightly away from the dominance of that culture. It's not a question of liberalism or nudity, but of sexism. I realize some women will disagree with that, but it would be good if we could respect that a significant number of women (and indeed some men) would find this sexist, immature, and off-putting. SlimVirgin (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

And why we should respect those people and not the people who - like me - don't see any problem in that image? Why one opinion is better than other? Béria Lima msg 08:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
And I wonder from where the valuation because it's not a great work of art comes. Times where art, culture, literature was classified into "good" and "bad" (see: Degenerate art) should be over - once and for all. --Wladyslaw (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

POTY 2010 round 2 not opened?[edit]

Explaination: Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Preparation#Dates + Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/en. Sincerely -- RE rillke questions? 02:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

POTY 2010 round 2 is now on (it ends on 29th of may). You protected this page. Please release the page so as we can improve the french version of the template. Thanks.--Warp3 (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2011 (UTC).

File deletion[edit]

Hi, can you tell me why File:IMG 7875b.jpg was deleted? Thanks. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply :-). Ok, I can see why it was deleted. I'm not sure it should have been - yes it was a meaningless name, but the file had been here for a year under that name, so of course any references to that file have had no choice but to use that meaningless name. Eg references to it in logs, and any external use of the file including links back to commons for attribution purposes. Normally redirects are retained unless there is a good reason to delete them. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Collecting[edit]

Just noticed this, which you may want to deal with on a speedy basis. Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee talk 13:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion regarding your use of rev-delete[edit]

Hi Beria, this is a note to let you know that I have opened up a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Commons edit suppression policy? with regards to your recent use of the rev-delete tool. Your comments would be helpful in that discussion. Thanks, Woody (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Star picture[edit]

Hello!

How to present an image to be an image in star ? I have an image of a coyote which I shall like putting in star. How can it be done ? Thank you !

--Morphypnos (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

=D Excuse-me, I want to tell " Featured picture ".--Morphypnos (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted image[edit]

Hello Beria

I will appreciate if you notify me about File:JonasBrothers2009WATP_2.jpg which is deleted by you. Moreover, you should show me the link to image in http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/. Do you think that website took the image from US Army website because the image had EXIF metadata and was in high resolution? That't my idea but I am looking forward to hear from you. And if that's true, please restore it

Best regards--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 23:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I have found that many images which is from US Army have links which is also redirected to http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net. See the category 2010 Academy Awards. For example

and more pictures

I wonder why http://www.army.mil is real US Army website but it redirects to http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net. Moreover, when I go to that website it's a blank page--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 23:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The images about Demi isn't my upload. I only take it for an example for moving files--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, when you gave me a link to http://search.ahp.us.army.mil/search/images/ and I clicked in High resolution and the images is http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e1/-images/2011/05/24/109720/army.mil-109720-2011-05-24-010511.jpg. I believe that the image about Jonas Brother isn't a copyvio.--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 09:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Sobre minha inscrição no POTY[edit]

Já adicionei o link à minha conta no Wikipedia através de um template na minha Babel. Eduemoni (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Kenzoreal (talk · contribs)[edit]

Can you please explain to this user in Portuguese, that they need to send an email to OTRS to identify themselves as a Representative of Reserva. Thank you in advance, MorganKevinJ(talk) 21:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Florent Pécassou (de-adminship)[edit]

Just confirming that you were supporting the removal of their admin rights, not supporting that they remain an admin.--Chaser (talk) 01:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for consideration[edit]

I understand you are reviewing situations where people have voted more than once for the 2010 POTY. I ask that you consider the following mitigating circumstances, and reinstate the vote I intended to stand upon. When I first realized I was only supposed to append 1 vote, I posted this help request. After receiving no assistance, I took it upon myself to indent the votes I wished to withdraw: here here, and here. I left my vote in place here as it was the image I decided to support. Furthermore, I added the file to my user page to further disambiguate my choice with this edit. I hope you can see it proper to restore my vote as I truly involved myself in this campaign and would like to know my voice was properly heard. Thank you for your time vested in considering this request. Cheers - My76Strat (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Tem algo errado[edit]

Dona Beria, xerifa do Commons, não é porque eu sou um grande entusiasta do fair use e do URC, sem o qual não há como fazer uma verdadeira enciclopedia, que eu seja um adepto da bagunça e creio que vc já percebeu isso. Esta imagem [2] é uma das mais icônicas do seculo passado e uma das mais famosas do mundo, vencedora inclusive do Premio Pullitzer. Inclusive, em varias listas pela Internet é considerada uma das 10 fotos mais famosas do mundo [3].

Ela foi feita pelo fotógrafo Malcolm Browne, em Saigon, em 1963, então trabalhando para Associated Press, a maior agencia de noticias do mundo, que creio, tem os direitos de copia e distribuição dela. Entretanto, para minha surpresa, vi essa foto como em "dominio publico" no Commons, (e desde maio de 2010, há um ano) usada assim na Wiki-pt, [4][5] carregada por um tal de 'Alldav', que se intitula autor dela (mesmo marcando o credito de Browne como autor na licença.) Como assim? A Associated Press anda 'dando' suas imagens por ai e eu não sabia? Interessante é que no artigo da Wiki-en, a imagem também consta, só que carregada no fair use, como me pareceria obvio.[6]. Ja a mesma foto, no artigo do Thích Quảng Đức na Wiki-pt, é carregada pelo Commons.

Alguém me explica isso? Creio que vcs estão precisando da ajuda por ai de quem REALMENTE conhece o assunto 'direitos autorais' e 'direitos de imagens', e não se baseia em manual de Commons (um grande ladrão de direitos de imagens alheias, como sempre disse). No caso, o seu criado MC. :-) MachoCarioca (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

PS Caso o carregamento no Commons (que também é meio avacalhado) seja eliminado (e logo), me avise porque a foto vai sumir no artigo da pt e eu a carrego novamente, mas pelo URC, é historica.

Your recent edit[edit]

I believe you have made a mistake here - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blank_map_europe.svg, there was a file version that stood for months, and then someone came in and without seeking any consensus made a controversial edit to the image that I reverted. I see you have reverted it back to that recent version without initiating any discussion or explaining your edit. Would you please take another look. As for the issues, it's about showing Kosovo or not as independent. As you might know there is a great international disagreement on Kosovo status, however the fact is that the majority of the countries in the world do not recognize it as independent and that no multilateral organization such as the UN or the Council of Europe accept it as such. I am not sure whose POV would we be following if we would insist that Kosovo is included as independent in the basic blank file and not in a file of a prospective title Blank_map_europe_with_Kosovo.svg but I know for certain that it wouldn't be an NPOV and that it would be hard to draw the line for all the other similar cases across the world. So please take a look into this. Thank you.--Avala (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Portugues OTRS queues[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar Hires.png

I, odder (talk), hereby award to you, Beria, The Working Woman's Barnstar for your excellent work on answering tonnes of OTRS e-mails — especially for your recent work on reducing the backlog and emptying the Portuguese OTRS queues. Again, thanks, and keep up! odder (talk) 17:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

POTY 2010 voter eligibility[edit]

Beria, I see you're also checking the final vote tallies, etc. There is some discussion here about whether to count certain voters without SUL accounts. In some cases, these voters did not have links from their Wikipedia user pages to their Commons user page (for example, Icosahedron). I checked some of those by contacting them at their Wikipedia user talk pages (example). But I only checked this for one or two images. Avenue suggested that we simply count those voters. This issue affects the vote totals, but it causes no change for the rankings in the top ten (or any of the rankings, I think). Any thoughts on this?--Chaser (talk) 23:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Video upload[edit]

Hello,

How did you upload a file that is larger than 100MB? I did a search and came across File:AW PT 2010 - Lars Wessman - How Wikipedia builds its authority.ogv. I've been working on transcribing films at wikisource (like this this one) and I started working on The Lost World (1925 film), which is at Archive.org - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

J-A-Baczewski 001.JPG[edit]

Hey Beria, I reversed a speedy deletion of yours per request and sent it to DR instead: Commons:Deletion requests/File:J-A-Baczewski 001.JPG. Hope that's okay! Feel free to comment in the DR. Cheers, Jafeluv (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

re: images[edit]

Why are the images I've uploadet unacceptable? They were made by me. How can I proove it? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ekrylova&redirect=no

Thank you.

exactly. that was me who sent them to Paradiserow galley.
Please, help - explain how should I proove this?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ekrylova&redirect=no
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ekrylova (talk • contribs)

poty[edit]

Hi, Beria. Thank you for POTY checking. Can we close the competition? Please see here. Thanks.--miya (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Pedido[edit]

Beria, vc poderia apagar a Category:Jardim Laranjeiras? É porque esse sub-bairro não existe. Ninguém conhece esse sub-bairro. Foi engano meu, ter criado essa categoria. Eduardo P (talk) 21:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)