Open main menu
Babel user information
en-N This user has a native understanding of English.
Users by language
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, RaboKarbakian!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

RE:File:Malladora conectada tractor-Festa Malla Doade 2015.JPGEdit

Really? I would appreciate it very much! Cheers, --Elisardojm (talk) 22:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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)
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)
Well, thank you anyway :)! Cheers, --Elisardojm (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

RE:File:Cesteiro colmo cosido con silva-Festa Malla Doade 2015 11.JPGEdit

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...

And thank you very much for your interest! Cheers, --Elisardojm (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons has a specific scopeEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | فارسی | suomi | français | Frysk | עברית | magyar | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | македонски | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | polski | português | русский | sicilianu | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | +/−

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.

--Motopark (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

BHL direct uploads (Discussion of page Orchi)Edit

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. -- (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi ! 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)
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. -- (talk) 06:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
....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)
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. -- (talk) 10:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
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)
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. -- (talk) 23:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
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!
Thanks again for being so helpful with my questions and such! -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
BHL pages are found with links to the PageID like The BHL API or the on-line BHL search engine navigates a tree of <TitleID> - <ItemID> - <PageID>. -- (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
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.
It is GOOD to think about not wasting the time of volunteers. Thank you for reminding me of this! :) -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
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. -- (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

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: 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 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)

Question and RequestEdit

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)

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)
Thankfully, I have png from Florae Columbiae :) -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Blush thank you! Elly (talk) 07:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Paper masked imageEdit

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)

Thanks for your reply. I am gonna give it a try! WeeJeeVee (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
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)


Salut RaboKarbakian. Eurêka, j'ai trouvé: le tracteur avec les roues carrées, ça s'appelle un rotapède, et ce n'est pas limité à Renault. Voir:

 --Classiccardinal (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I think that the clock-makers son must have married the farmers daughter! :) -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
En tout cas, je te remercie, c'est grâce à toi que j'ai crééède. Bonne journée.--Classiccardinal (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
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)

A Manual of Bird StudyEdit

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.

It appears that the book has no copyright notice, so that the tag {{PD-US-no notice}} is correct. Please go through all of your uploads of the book and change the tag on every one. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


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)

again .....I'm really excited about your wonderful retouched pictures. Cheers. Orchi (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

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 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!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


And also:

Yours sincerely, De728631 (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

sorting categoriesEdit

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)

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.
It makes sense to me that the scheme for here and for there would be different.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Crataegus oxycanthaEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)
Vernacular names are rarely reliable. Better to forget them when it comes to species identification  . --Salix (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
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)
There is a Category:Plants in art for artistical files, eg. Category:Paintings of plants. You can use this kind of category when it is impossible to identify a specific taxon  . By the way I linked "Plants in art" with Category:Rosaceae in art, through Category:Rosales in art).--Salix (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
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)

Renaming requestsEdit

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)

Sorry! --RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:20, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Image without licenseEdit

File:April 01-40N-2100-Fieldbook of Stars-025.jpgEdit

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | hrvatski | magyar | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | македонски | മലയാളം | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | русский | sicilianu | slovenščina | svenska | українська | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

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 MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner), 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. --MifterBot (TalkContribsOwner) 19:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "RaboKarbakian".