You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
Wow! impressive!! Thank you! :) But, I think that I didn't understand you very well, what do you did? Did you copy&paste another sky? Cheers, --Elisardojm (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I'm very novice with gimp, what could do with the xcf file?
And thank you for your comment about the uploads (but some of them comes from free web sites :)
And a question, could you do some "magic" with that image? I think that it's a good photo but it was rejected from QI because: "oversharpened and jpeg compression artefacts. can be salvaged by reprocessing from raw". But I don't have a raw file, my camera only saves jpg files... O:) (And if I bother you, you can tell to me, my feelings will not be too hurt :) Cheers, --Elisardojm (talk) 00:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User Poco a poco tolds me the problem with that photo, the problem is the high ISO, 250. That makes that the photo losses detail and that the camera generates jpg artifacts, you can see the grains of the photo on the fiber of the hands and other places..., I'm not sure that the photo is QI..., if I could fix it with something, perhaps. Anyway, I could nominate it on Commons:Photography critiques to get feedback about it and proposals...
Thank you for your contributions. Your image or other content, Gustav Karl Wilhelm Hermann Karsten, was recently deleted, or will soon be deleted, in accordance with our process and policies, because it was not, or is not, within our scope. Please review our project scope, but in short, Commons is targeted at educational media files including photographs, diagrams, animations, music, spoken text and video clips. The expression “educational” is to be understood according to its broad meaning of “providing knowledge; instructional or informative”. Wikimedia Commons does not contain text articles like encyclopedia articles, textbooks, news, word definitions and such. Each of these other kinds of content have their own projects: Wikipedia, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wiktionary and Wikiquote.
If the content seems to fit the scope of one of those other projects, please consider contributing it there. Otherwise, consider an alternative outlet. If you think that the deletion was in error because the contribution really was in scope, you can appeal it at Commons:Undeletion requests, giving a reason why it fits our scope to help others evaluate the matter. Thank you for your understanding.
Hi, my uploads from the Biodiversity Heritage Library are well underway. This means that plant book plates are directly uploaded from BHL archives. New collections can be added that were not on their Flickrstream, such as Category:Flora Javae et insularum adjacentium. However there are going to be duplicates for pages uploaded from Flickr and I have created a script to mark the lower resolution files as duplicates. This may mean some re-working, but I'm sure you will appreciate the higher resolution files being available. --Fæ (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Fæ! Did they start as jpeg? If you are converting them, jpeg is the third least desireable format for this kind of image. See Help:JPEG#JPEG_versus_other_formats. If the jp2 is 85% compressed and then you save it at 85% compression and then someone wants to edit it and saves it again at 85% compression, it just gets crappier and crappier and crappier (loss and loss and loss). -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The BHL is not normally the scanning institution, these are digitizations in partnerships. There is no evidence that the JPEG is created from the JPEG2000. It is more likely that both formats are transcoded at the same time from whatever the original image is (more likely to be RAW or TIFF which are not saved in the archives). When I get a chance to discuss the project with a BHL representative, I will try to get an answer and then make a decision on whether further changes would benefit Commons' image quality. I'm not against doing this, it just is only worth doing once we are certain that the BHL workflow happens to make it worth the complexity of re-transcoding JPEG2000 files, or whatever the most original format happens to be. --Fæ (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
....I hope, that the duplicates and duplicates and duplicates do not destroy all handmade changes, checking of categories, edits and galleries which are made with plenty of time. Orchi (talk) 09:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, the deleting admin should make a call about merging details. If you feel they are losing any valuable information, then highlight it to the admin and ask for undeletion. "Merging" could be to overwrite the Flickr version and add the alternate source, or indeed to leave the duplicate and volunteers can choose to manually merge when they have time to examine the detail.
If at some point it is proven that we can improve the BHL uploads with re-transcoded or an alternate format file, then this would not change the BHL image pages as they exist now. --Fæ (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you are just using previously converted JPEG?
It should be an interesting task for the bot authors, I think, to write a bot that can make intelligent merges and deletions. I am very sorry that my script-writing skills have yet to become sophomoric. It should be a point of pride to write this. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The files from BHL are not transcoded or compressed by me, they are a direct upload from BHL. There are plenty of scripts that make intelligent decisions about categories and deletions. My blank scanned page detection script is pretty good at 'looking' at an image to reduce the reliance on volunteer time to fish out scans that need speedy deletion or to avoid uploading them in the first place. --Fæ (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fæ for what it is worth, I was impressed that you were so quickly finding blank pages. those 3 to 8 pages out of 300+ are definitely a start towards assisting volunteers and they certainly must be appreciating that.
I just went to BHL to find some jpegs to download. I was given the option of pdf, jp2, ocr or "all". The "All" option sent me to IA. Can you share with me an example of the link you are using that gets those jpegs from BHL?
Please forgive me for suggesting that the bot authors should be proud to make the software that would clean the place up. I was confused because it hasn't been done. The {{Duplicate}} template has been here since 2005 as has the file types page!
Keep in mind that I'm not an employee. If you think I'm doing a bad job, or am wasting my time, try asking one of the other handful of active bot writers that work on GLAM uploads; most of us have over a year's backlog of interesting stuff to spend our volunteer time on, and the most active tend to avoid debating their work on-wiki.
I appreciate that you take your time to respond to my questions and even provide some answers. That I cannot find jpegs available via BHL is certainly my own problem. Truly, with my sophomoric scripting skills, I would be tending to strip the Flickr id number from my usual upload and use the software that had been written already and continue uploading the poor quality jpegs from Flickr. But those qualities of mine also prevent me from running around being treated like some untouchable software guru. But seriously, enough about me and my limitations!
Perhaps you would consider to leave the task of uploading biology books alone until the format problem can be solved. Concentrate on getting rid of duplicates and the merging of the works of the other volunteers -- especially as this (as you pointed out) requires no great skill. One of the things that I personally love about the biology volunteers here is their tidiness, their sense of order, and a quality over quantity tendencies. They have beautiful methods for internationalization and have even found ways to work a plethora of non-useful photographs into their scheme here. Those books have been around, some of them since the 1700s -- they are not going anywhere anytime soon, please consider that quality uploads, thoughtfully installed will achieve the greatest quantity of happiness from the most volunteers.
I too would prefer to work on what I have been working on. I got a Flora here that is more than 1000 pages, written in formal German and needs to be thoughtfully split into 3 or 4 chunks. And, my ocr output is horrible! Simply horrific! I am also looking at the task of adding proofed ocr to my djvu. So, time spent getting half answers here and having my plea (complete with the commons formats link) for pngs is kind of a drudgery for me as well. And a half written upload script, just sitting there, waiting for me to finish.
I'll not be entering into further discussion for a time. It is increasingly hard to presume good faith, rather than reading your comments as personal attacks covered by sarcasm. I am certain that any native English speaker reviewing this thread would agree with me. If you have a problem with my projects in the near future and I am not replying, please approach an administrator to act as an interlocutor. Thanks for your interest and work on this topic. --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fæ This is the reason that I was very careful to only discuss my skills. If I found a painful thread, I apologize, I did not mean to upset you. Perhaps you are being upset about how lame my skills are, as described. Sorry for whatever the problem is. I am really only adding to this thread for one reason. When Orchi talks about BHL, he is talking about this site: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org It has slowly been occurring to me that you are talking about some BHL presence on Flickr. Also the word "link" is typically a request for a URL and not for the API. I have no problem with Flickr. It is about PNG instead of JPG. No reason to be so secretive, if that is indeed what is going on. If my suspicions are wrong, please let me know. I have searched fruitlessly for jpeg to download from http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org Your assumption of good faith seriously could have included one single URL so that I might download a jpeg from eh, BHL. Things often go better when the need for guessing is not part of an exchange. Sorry for the tussle. -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello RaboKarbakian,
First: According to "Botanical illustrations" in galleries:
Can you agree, to insert images in chronological order beginning with the oldest book??
Second: Masdevallia caudata - one of my favorites (here my photo over forty years ago:File:Masdevallia caudata Orchi 01.jpg
You're doing marvelous brilliant images. Could you make a better full version with more brilliance of this image please File:Florae Columbiae (Plate CLIII) (8205977116).jpg? I could not do it. Gretings. Orchi (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, chronological order makes sense! Sorry I did not think of it. The one thing I would like to do is to put images by Elly Waterman first though. (Commoner! Yay! User:Ellywa)
Hai RaboKarbakian, On different places I see you made some paper-masked images of some old plant images. I can not find a tool for paper-masking anywhere. I need some of those images with transparant background for wikisource. Not only for images, but special for page decorations as well. Can you give me a link so I can do that 'paper-marking' myself?
WeeJeeVee (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, RaboKarbakian, I installed the Gimp and have been trying a bit. This is the first image that's fine. It is a black and white file. The coloured files are the next challenge. WeeJeeVee (talk) 19:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking at machines here and have not yet found the clock-maker nor a son who has not married someone who could have made or even used this machine ever. So, I am able to translate your answer as I have photographs of useful machines here. Later. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have uploaded this book. That is good, thank you. However, you put {{PD-US-1923}} on the images. As clearly shown on the cover, the book was published in 1934, so that tag is incorrect and is likely to lead to a Deletion Request. While such a request would not succeed, it would lead to extra work by others.
I hereby award you the OrchiBarnstar for your excellent work in the field of Orchidaceae.
Hello RaboKarbakian,
thanks for your perfect and better uploading of the "Orchid Album" - pictures. It is a big advantage here!
Is it ok for you, to create seperate categories like "Retouched pictures - The Orchid Album (1883)" for your pictures?
Best greetings. Orchi (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Normally, we want categories to sort alphabetically by title of the files or categories. Sorting by date is used only for photographs in a large category of a few other items. Breaking the standard categorization is not generally a good idea. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:17, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is that for here or for there? Here there are films, plays, books, magazines, sculptures, buildings named after, etc. I am putting anything that reproduces 'the words' at the beginning of the category, by date. So, Stage presentation is different than Statue which alphabetically is only a little true.
Hi RaboKarbakian. You have uploaded File:WWB-0045-017.png (and other cleaned up versions) with this description : "English: Plate 17, Crataegus oxycantha (Crataegus azarolus)", and categorised them into "Crataegus azarolus - botanical illustrations". The original book refers only to "May or Hawthorn, Crataegus oxyacantha". As the taxa is a tricky situation, what made you choose C. azarolus ? --Salix (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Taxa, in 2015. Some birds and fiction authors between me and the plants.... It is almost always the first synonym I find that points to an existing category here. I start here whenever possible, the commons is what I am familiar with. I also search English wikipedia for common names. I might have gotten messed up with the auth, however. I make no claim that my choice was correct.
Taxonomy uses the word "authority" for auth, but it is almost always also an author with a written description somewhere. The type species is either the first written description or image (drawing or engraving if the drawing no longer exists). So goes my quick brush up on taxonomy. There are many trees of life, such fodder for the what goes where and who put it there people....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. After investigation, with French wikipedian botanists, it is more likely a drawing of Crataegus laevigata (Poir.) DC. (TPL). If you do not mind, I am going to rename and categorise those files. --Salix (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me a little later that the "in house" research wasn't such a good thing. Also, that I was sorry that the vernacular names are in a template and hidden from search.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedias used to be a snake-oil. There are so many articles in old journals, poems in old text books, adorable pictures in old childrens books, all with a link to what should be more photographs, drawings, location (can see this plant here in the wild or does this bird go to my feeder or even is there an old advertisement for grandad's oil can???). Is the species Viola blanda a name planted by ancient publishers to warn of an avid gardener in the room? Authors, artists, genera. Snake-oil is in many ways, far more interesting than a bunch of other things.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is not so good. There is art with species in it. The European Goldfinch, for instance, has some well known paintings. Flowers were used in paintings, symbolically or because they were available or whatever. Sculptures, needlepoint charts these are art. Stand alones that are also other things. Illustrations were used to illustrate. Art is not "not a photograph". --RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, RaboKarbakian. When you request a file renaming, please use criterion "1" if your are the original uploader. It makes things faster for filemovers. Strakhov (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.
Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.
If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hi, I have been trying to read about how to create a template (working for color blind) but I can't find out where the template itself is located. I thought it was in template name space but I can't find them. I would like to find this Template:Colour_blind but the actual code so I can reuse that. It's really irritating that I can't find it, so I hope you can help me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, are you happy with your request at Commons GraphicLab linked in the title? If so, please close your request with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} to trigger automatic archiving. Else, please give a short message to clarify which tasks aren't finished yet. Please use {{Ping|UserName}} to inform involved users. Thx and greets --Mrmw (talk) 20:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like it if the section devoted to it could be made smaller. Also, there were comments in the history, credited to me that I did not make, which are wrong as well as wrongly credited.
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have grantedautopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you.
ShakespeareFan00 I am not sure how to proceed. The bots will need to work with the book templates that have a wikidata id differently? There is/was a licence bot at wd -- don't know what it does when it finds a copyvio. Is there something to look for if/when I use the book template and wikidata again?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In this instance what was confusing the script was the absence of a publciation-date locally. As you are presumably reviewing these for licence compatibility with Commons when you create the Wikidata entry, I would suggest adding the reviewed category I've done on other files with this issue, the Bot concerned should then ignore them entirely as they have already been checked.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ShakespeareFan00 A question and a musing about the first part of this message.
The question: for United Kingdom publications and unknown illustrators. 80 years since publication date?
The musing (not an actual recommendation): a non-wikidata solution to the stripped local metadata problem would be to check IA since faebot just slurped that up. And, it is nice to clean the often duped IA metadata up at an accessible location, once and for all.
An observation and compliment to fae, IA and oclc for the "right now" in time. The new oclc are good. It will be nice if they can stay that way. I found only one bad number (linked to multiple versions).--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. The categories for these seem to over refined, eg Category:Green Fairy Book contains category The Green Fairy Book (1902) and three little pigs disambiguated as 'Lang'. This makes it difficult browse the collections, requiring the user to keep drilling down past labeling that remerges separate categories. cygnis insignis06:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cygnis insignis: Yes! You are completely correct about that. I started to move things around at Category:Blue Fairy Book. Between moving the categories here, finding and making the wikidata entry and "tidying up" others of the same title and locating the "original" publishing of the tale or "Marchen", each section was taking 3 to 5 days and I took a break from it.
In my defense, those categories were reflective of how I was told to manage the information at wikidata. If there were other publications and other artists, the categorization (as it is) would make more sense.
As far as the individual tales go, I made a category for it whether it had images or not, sometimes putting the first page into the cat (if that was available) and that gets used at wikidata. Then all of the other tellings of the tale that have artwork go below that, or are categorized into the original. Category:L'anneau de Bronze (1889, Carnoy), using the original name helped to extract the publications from, eh, Disney and Rogers & Hammerstein.
Also, there seems to be a battle for the namespace between the character and the popular title, Category:Cinderella (which I tackled and tamed) and Category:Aladdin (which has not yet been managed, I was waiting for individual TOC for a multi-volume publication at fr.wikisource) being examples of this. Managing publications with other publications leaves that battle for that namespace to those who care about that battle, which would not be us because we care about publications and perhaps old films.
That was a long answer. It is full of my problems and solutions. If you find yourself doing something differently and it is better, please let me know!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. I tend to ignore what I'm told to do, instead I endeavor to glean a discernible rationale from thoughtful users for my own contributions. All the Lang cats are a start of something, but I hope that becomes redundant to the transcripts [context] of the 'publications' you mention we care about. I'm working on the red book of non-true animal stories, some of the stories are digestable moments with some better than usual illuminations. Yours, in mutual colored books interest, cygnis insignis14:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a situation like this, do you think others would prefer a) I upload the images even they need to be fixed b) not upload the images and let someone upload better images?
It's just, I don't know how to eliminate the background on some of these images but I can easily uploaded all the images, add them to the book on Wikisource and then someone can follow it up with a better image by simply overriding my images.
The Eloquent Peasant Heh, the "animation project". I stopped making animations for this project when I got to some stitching images. I wanted to use inkscape to make the stitching and sewing machine animations. I think that they don't hurt the books and for the stitches and sewing machine images, they would actually help, I think, not just amuse. (My ereader has ((available for purchase)) animated books, and I like them a lot!) I really really thought that I would be on a not hacked computer and would have inkscape installed by now. I have been so very wrong about so very many things....
I have encountered wikisourcers who don't like their images to be replaced and others who don't mind it. So, I guess, the best way to tell anyone that it is okay to upload over your images or to replace them with others in the text would be in the notes (if you are using {{Book}} or as part of the description if you are using {{Information}}.
I use GIMP. I have had good luck removing backgrounds on these line drawings. First step for any GIMP is to hit it with the Levels dialog, "Auto Levels" button. Or, in the menus: Colors-->Auto (I think it is that)-->Stretch something. Then from gimp-2.8 Colors-->Components-->Decompose-->RGB and one of those layers will be pretty good and just a little selection of the grays can clean up pretty easily. gimp-2.10 is the champ though. Add a black layer over the auto-leveled layer, then get to the Layers dock and change the layer mode of the black layer to "Color erase". You will instantly see the auto-leveled layer that is below that black layer, with all of the black portions appearing transparent. Image-->Copy Visible of that layer mode set up. Edit-->Undo (to change the layer back to black) and Edit-->Paste for a layer of what you just copied. At the bottom of the Layers Dock is a button for a new layer, push that. At the top of the Layers Dock, is a toggle to make that layer retain its transparency, it is a little dk gray and lt gray square. Toggle that, fill the new layer with black. Edit-->Copy that (not Copy Visible like before), add a mask to the black layer (in the Layers Dialog, right click on the black layer for that menu) and paste onto that new mask. Make the layer right below the black layer (this is your original auto leveled layer) by Edit-->Fill with Background Color. And this new mask is very easy to work with to make truly wonderful cleaned up line drawings and engravings.
Well, I have been doing this for years now and it seems very easy to me, so I apologize if the above is just gobblygook. If you are unfamiliar with layers and layer masks, a run through JTL's Floating Logo tutorial at gimp.org should be very very helpful as an introduction to all of these concepts/operations. Jens (a very funny German from internet 1.0) also made the javascript navigation thingie on the first web site and thought that monstrosity was "really cool"--but that tutorial, even if the product is out-dated, is still such a good way to learn about layers and the things they can do. The gimp-2.10 layer modes in combination with gimp-.98 layers dialog is just the thing for cleaning up background from these images.
GIMP's animation plug-ins use layers also and well, after that tutorial, you might be able to imagine easier how they can be accomplished. Me writing how-to for those would be really really extraordinarily terrible! But inkscape would be the way to make animations of the more mechanical things like needle making stitches and sewing machines. I think those books could be awesome! They are great without the anims, actually.
Thanks! I'll add a note to the images using the book template and I'll also make a comment in the edit summary of the book pages that I don't mind anyone improving the images. I'd rather place 'an' image in the document, like a placeholder, and someone else can 'fix' it. Sometimes I have thought that I ought to learn how to work with layers and masks etc. in Photoshop, but so far I have been unmotivated. I hope you're well. Things are good, I suppose, not bad, could always be better, could always be worse. Nice gif. You sound good. Take care! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 21:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
as well. Can you give me a link so I can do that 'paper-marking' myself?
WeeJeeVee (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
_(8205977116).jpg){kind=link}
--Classiccardinal (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
. --Salix (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
→ Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 19:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
