User talk:Shyamal/archive3

archive 1 archive 2

Jungle Crow split

Hi Shyamal - Jungle Crow has been split into 3 species by IOC:

• Large-billed Crow Corvus macrorhynchos E Asia also C, S Malay Peninsula, Sundas, Philippines
• Eastern Jungle Crow Corvus levaillantii N India to N Malay Peninsula
• Indian Jungle Crow Corvus culminatus Peninsular India, Sri Lanka

To which species is your pic File:Jcrow.jpg best ascribed?

Thanks! MPF (talk) 14:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be culminatus. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! MPF (talk) 18:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Your uploads on September 22, 2010, referring to Kolkata : Categorisation

Hi Shyamal, please use useful categories and don't over-categorize (you didn't, but please avoid to categorize as general as you did ;-)) your images, i.e. please do not categorize your uploads (an example of your recent activity):

Category:Kolkata

You'll help to save time and capacity on commons by categorizing:

Category:Indian Museum, Kolkata + Category:Historical images of Kolkata (and for example Category:1906 in India)

Please use as far as possible the 'most fitting"' category(ies).

For further information on categories please read Commons:Categories referring to an accurate categorisation, simplifying your further uploads and categorisation in general. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the commons:help desk.

Thank you for your assistance, Roland 20:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I could if I knew what categories existed (apart from their hierarchy ) and if I knew more about the subject of the image ! Shyamal (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Kookherd birds

Hi Shyamal - all these that you've started adding categories to, I suspect that many / most (maybe all?) are copyvios; I've raised the problem at COM:AN. Just thought you'd better know! - MPF (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

A pity. Thats too bad. Shyamal (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Greetings

Good morning Shyamal I see you are uploading this morning. That's a lovely illustration of Parus cypriotes I couldn't rsist uploading these fish from the warm Pacific Seas [1] Very warm regards Robert Notafly (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Good morning Robert ! Interesting stuff, I guess it must keep someone very busy finding their current names ! Have a nice weekend. Shyamal (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And here are a few birds

[2] Notafly (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Good trip?

I see you have been to Bhutan. I am going to Hamburg to see what I can find on Museum Godeffroy [3]. Warm regards Robert Notafly (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was quite amazing despite being brief. Nearly 97 bird species that I was seeing for the first time ! Good luck with your research. Shyamal (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"clean" versions

I think it would be better if you used the {{original}} template and uploaded the amended versions with a new file name. I think that it would be useful to maintain the originals of these documents, and I think that the modification leads to some loss of detail of the lightly shaded parts particularly in the shrubbery. The original template is not used for small modifications of photographs, but it I think it would be useful for modifications of images of these sort of old books. You can see an example of this template on File:Psitteuteles versicolor by Edward Lear (whole page).jpg and a link in other versions back to the original on the modified version. Snowmanradio (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

You might like to check Commons:Avoid_overwriting_existing_files - minor levels corrections and crops of pages, removal of stray text etc are best done on the same image as they do not represent derivatives. Uploading raw pages from www.archive.org should IMO ideally be avoided but I am not sure if commons has a policy on that. Shyamal (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I have checked that page and found that it says; "If digital restoration work is being done on a historical document or artwork, the restoration (no matter how minor) should always be uploaded under a new filename, providing a link back to the source on which it was based in the new file's "other versions" field." I think that this confirms that you should not be uploading modified pages over these sort of original documents. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Rotation, cropping out of text and changes in levels or curves would not change the pixel values, only changes the palette and ICC data - so they cannot be treated as restoration. Shyamal (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

To me the spirit of the guidelines say that all modification including very small changes to artwork should be uploaded to a new file name and not over the original artwork. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I have started a discussion on an administrators talk page; see User_talk:MGA73#Art_originals. Snowmanradio (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate if you desisted from modifying what the original uploader intended. If your interpretation were actually true, even removal of watermarks should be made into derivatives. Shyamal (talk) 10:37, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know why you have not participated in the discussion on the administrators talk page, but I note that you have immediately reverted my attempts to show the originals again. Uploading even a minor modification of an original artwork is clearly not in line with the guidelines. Snowmanradio (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Generally it is a good idea to upload the originals with one file name and the modifications with another name - especially if it is not just some "hollyday photo". On "hollyday photos" more changes are accepted than on a historical document or artwork. There is no space issue with having the files as 2 seperate files but it makes it much easer for others to use the original file if they want. So in the future perhaps you could upload originals and derivate files in seperate file names? --MGA73 (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I usually clean up the images before uploading them, but in this case I was working across computers and so was forced to upload the rather raw (already cropped and incidentally none of the other images are "original" either, most are pre-cropped with some colour manipulations done prior to uploading) image and then clean it up from another system. I would certainly follow the rule if I was working on someone else's file or if it was a singularly original artwork but there is little reason to consider every modification as a derivative. Also in one case (here) I am forced to revert work that has been done at the request of another user (who asked me to clean up his crop of an existing original!). Actually the rule about artwork makes sense when we are talking about rare copies where the original is hard to come by. In this case, the originals are all very readily available on the Internet Archive and I think users uploading full pages as is should actually be advised to upload it to wikisource where that might be admissible or useful. Uploading full pages without cropping (example File:NovitatesZoologicae18_064.png) does not normally amount to images of encyclopaedic value. In any case, I think reverting the work of the original uploader is a bit insensitive. Shyamal (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The user who asked you to upload a modified original artwork may need reminding of the guidelines. The {{original}} template explains that a modified version is available with a different name. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Shyamal, please stop edit warring. Snowmanradio is correctly applying the proposed guideline. If you disagree with it, you can discuss changes there or at the discussion he opened. Further edit warring (reverts of this nature without consensus) will constitute grounds for a block. --99of9 (talk) 04:11, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I have explained my logic above. The interpretation by snowmanradio of historical artwork is incorrect - as you would notice my changes are level fixes and crops and they are meant to enhance the value of the images. Note also that I am the original uploader and there is already a special allowance under the existing guidance. Shyamal (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not the original uploader of File:Seitz9FaunaIndoAustralicaPlate39 gyas.jpg which is where I noticed the edit war. I have not looked into any other edit wars you are involved in, but they should also cease for discussion. --99of9 (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you will notice that it is a crop of a pre-existing image and in this case the original uploader requested me off-wiki to do the cleanup - you might notice that we both work on the en.wiki Lepidoptera Wikiproject and you can if need be check with that uploader. So the original (at least the one on Commons) is in no way damaged or threatened. Shyamal (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the original source is on Commons and it would not take much to reproduce the crop, I will unprotect that image so that User:Ashlin can revert to your version if they want to. --99of9 (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being reasonable. Shyamal (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I requested Shyamal to do the needful for this image as he mentioned above. Imho the small cleanup in no way is what is meant by art restoration which is a serious venture to be done by experts and not trivial tweaks like this with simple software tools. Anyway Seitz original is still available where I cropped this image from. I also feel that Shyamal is arguing from a sound position and while you may not agree to his point of view, threatening to block him is unwarranted. However to avoid any edit warring or placing Shyamal in more awkward position due to my offline request, I shall let this matter be and request Shyamal to kindly upload his cleaned-up image under another name as desired by User:Snowmanradio. AshLin (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is very clear that the spirit of the guidelines is to keep original artwork copies and upload all modifications (even minor modifications) to a new file name. Re: File:ChlorophoniaSmit clean.jpg; the artwork here has been modified and uploaded appropriately to a new file name with the original clearly signposted. I think that it is an example of good wiki editing that we can look forward to seeing more of, and it follows the guidelines. Snowmanradio (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

"Original artwork" would be the artists actual plate - the prints made using lithography are not original - the scan made by the Biodiversity Heritage Library is not original and nor are any of my uploads, so you would need to interpret with care. The guideline that you mention is not even fully accepted so please note that you are misinterpreting the words and failing to get the spirit and it is not much of a service if you are harassing users on commons. The guideline that Kilom691 is following for the clean version is that one does not alter the files if one is not the original uploader (in this case it is me). It would be best if you desist from modifying other peoples uploads. You are of course free to upload your own versions of plates that you believe are historical and original and want to use for your specific purposes. Shyamal (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The electronic scan of a printed historic document is a very important documentary stage for restoration. It should certainly be retained and not overwritten. Please point to the supposed guideline that states that we should not edit one another's work? --99of9 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I note this edit where the original copy of File:ChrysotisKeulemans.jpg was hidden by uploads of modified versions including one upload on 9 December 2010, which appears to me to be after and to be contrary to two administrator's requests (see above) not to do this. I think that the guidelines should be upheld, which includes that guideline that original copies of artwork are not overwritten. Snowmanradio (talk) 12:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Archival of media of questionable integrity versus educational/encyclopaedic value

Starting a response under a new section as I seem to have stirred the hornets. "The electronic scan of a printed historic document is a very important documentary stage for restoration. It should certainly be retained and not overwritten. Please point to the supposed guideline that states that we should not edit one another's work?" --99of9 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As a mere user of the Commons, I am forced to look upon it as a repository of media files that are mainly of use on multiple language wikipedias (and of course wikibooks etc. to a lesser extent). The primary qualification for files to be uploaded is that they have an intrinsic educational or encyclopaedic value and are covered by a free license. Wikimedia does not afaik purport to be a site for the archival of historical documents. If I were an art restoration professional, there is no way for me to ensure that the material uploaded by a stray user has the integrity of the purported originals unless it came from a particularly trusted source such as an Archive. In fact if it were for use as an archival the system would need to include CRCs/hashes and have a way of verifying source and ensure that users are legally sound entities traceable to physical persons and probably also backed up by traditional forms of authentication and licensing documents such as handwritten signatures. So a professional art restorer or historian would go back to the sources and carefully examine the material and evidence. They would figure out what "restoration" means - should it be brought into the form in which it would have appeared 100 years ago or would it need to be restored to a form that is best suited for a need - say conversion to a PDF document with colour calibrations etc. These are naturally personal decisions and the same debates exist in ecosystem restoration - for instance it is hard to tell what the original human-altered ecosystem looked like and multiple people can have their own opinion of what restoration objectives could be. Now if one looks at the background of mediawiki (the software), it uses a subversion backend which allows any and all versions to be obtained. If I really wanted a different crop, I could examine the file history and go back to the original version and make a new crop and save it as a derivative. Changing the version of a file already in use - in situ - is a matter of judgement. Does it for instance enhance the encyclopaedic value and is there a value for the older version or can all usages be improved by the new version? In the case of crops that remove bad bits of black arising from scans, improving contrasts or making an old image brighter add value, one can be reasonably sure that it helps all pages that link to it. Because this is a personal choice, there is an unwritten social norm that one does not step on other people's toes and so if someone made the choice to do a crop in a particular way with a particular aspect ratio etc. one does not overwrite it with ones own personal preference, and since all images are licensed with the allowance to create derivatives, we create modifications under a different file name and typically the new derivative has a use in a different article. The old "upload new version" link in fact had these simple suggestions next to it. Now I cannot find them, so lack of traceability seems to be a problem intrinsic even to the UI of the software. And sorry, I dont deal with providing links to guidelines or rules and slapping templates on users. To come back to the original question of historical importance and originality or integrity - there is no way to tell if a person's upload is an original. Indeed I would downright say that any JPG format image is unfit to be treated as a starting point for professional restoration work (even with the lossless compression setting) and would rather rely on a TIFF format from a reputable source with a suitable level of data integrity. Consider this image of a pigeon that I uploaded - File:CrocopusViridifronsBonaparte.jpg - it is from an 1875 illustration - and is it an original ? (I will merely state here that it is heavily manipulated from its origins ("original" ?) - and while it has educational value, any serious art historian or restorer will immediately see from the clean white background and resolution that it is unfit as a starting point for restoration work). Users can upload versions with a variable amount of manipulation - this historic file File:HolkarElephant.jpg already had some contrast fixes made to it before uploading. So the fact is that what is being made out as a pristine image is not in fact pristine in the first place. I am afraid I have better things to do with my time and I am sure that any user who really badly wants a bad/old version of the file can obtain it from the file history and upload it afresh as one user(or admin) has suggested. I fail to see any particular use for such a file but will prefer that it be the course of action for anyone who thinks they really badly need it for their historical research purpose. After all there are hundreds of eminent admininstrators out here who can discuss the best guidelines and rules and come to consensus on dealing with such issues. Tossing about the wordings of rules and guidelines and threatening editors is not a particularly useful approach and more often than not leads to disasters, often entirely the result of a few individuals. Shyamal (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think my original request on this talk page made on 1 December 2010 was polite and informative, and that all of my comments have been accurate, polite, and informative. I thought that I needed to say that at this juncture, but where possible here, I hope that interested administrators will respond to issues brought up during discussions on this talk page. Snowmanradio (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

No problem. Does the word form "I Robert Nash owned the copyright of this photograph and reliquished it when the photograph was uploaded to commons by Shyamal at my request by e-mail" suffice and is it needed for each photo? If so where on the description page does the statement go? Warmer here now which is a relief since so many birds rely on our mild Irish winters.Warm regards RobertNotafly (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

File:Sibia_capistrata_Gronvold.jpg

File:Sibia_capistrata_Gronvold.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

—innotata 19:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

File:HansChristianAndersenStork.jpg

File:HansChristianAndersenStork.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

—innotata 00:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Megalaima viridis

File:MegalaimaViridis.svg is a piece of art. Only thing I feel unusual is that they never keep their leg long as stretched. Usually foot appears close to body. Regards--Praveen:talk 15:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Artistic license :) Shyamal (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Your SVGs were never bad to start with, but by now they're about the best I have seen. You should really consider making a book for bird ID, perhaps something that can be downloaded to mobile phone so people can use it in the field. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

These days it seems like just upgrading the relevant wiki pages is the best option for mobile access. And may the best images win. Shyamal (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

For uploads

Keep em coming! It's probably better though to upload the original file from the Internet Archive/Biodiversity Heritage Library as PNG (when you convert from .jp2, convert to .png not .jpg). Because PNG is a lossless compression - PNG files are larger than JPG, but JPG decreases in quality every time it's saved. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Ipomoea hederifolia

Can you contact me about permissions to use this image Ringpicker (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Which one? This ? You should be able to use all images on Commons under the given licenses anyway. Shyamal (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Aristeus parmetus

Hello Shyamal Nice work and many thanks.The speckles are out of focus insect pin holes in the lining paper of an insect drawer.Warm regards Robert Notafly (talk) 13:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome. Let me know if have need any image fixes of that kind. Have now figured out many of the basic image editing tricks with GIMP Shyamal (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Cycas circinalis

Please contact me via the e-mail link at Ringpicker (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

regarding your image of Cycas circinalis as I wish to use it in a publication

rgds Ringpicker (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

File:CarpodectesAntoniaeRidgwaySmit.jpg

---

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.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it please read the text above again and follow the links in it, if you still need help ask at the → Commons:Help desk in any language you like to use. --Nikbot 15:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Shyamal!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

• Image:AsiaMinTemperature.png was uncategorized on 10 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
• Image:AsiaAltitude.png was uncategorized on 10 September 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

File:VigelandObelisk.jpg

File:VigelandObelisk.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

178.232.124.8 11:48, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:BeaverOslo.jpg

File:BeaverOslo.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has 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 it, 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!

46.15.5.52 14:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

File:MicoSericeusWolf.jpg

Hi Shyamal,

you listed M. sericeus as synonym of Callithrix (Mico) humeralifera. Do you have some newer source for this? MSW3 lists sericeus as synonym for Callithrix (Mico) chrysoleuca.

Greetings, Rbrausse (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rbrausse, I could well be mistaken and probably went by this. Maybe you can get a good opinion from en:User:Ucucha. Shyamal (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks, I will ask him! Rbrausse (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

according to Ucucha C. chrysoleuca (or M. chrysoleucus) is more likely. Would it be okay to change the description? Rbrausse (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do go ahead and make the correction. Thanks. Shyamal (talk) 14:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)