User talk:Aavindraa

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Copyright status: File:Degas - Morbilli NGA.jpg[edit]

Copyright status: File:Degas - Morbilli NGA.jpg

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | suomi | français | magyar | italiano | македонски | മലയാളം | Bahasa Melayu | 日本語 | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | slovenščina | svenska | українська | ಕನ್ನಡ | ತುಳು | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Degas - Morbilli NGA.jpg. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Added the PD-Art-100 tag to the image. This should apply for most of the images from the National Gallery of Art, which btw also has an open access policy. Aavindraa (talk) 14:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Changing pictures: from good to worse[edit]

Please stop changing pictures: nobody cares about the resolution (it is often enough, no need to make it even greater), but the colors are often not good: was vs is. After the User_talk:Aavindraa/Archive_1#Art edits warning you not replace files in Commons, but replace entries in Wikipedias with some script. Multichill, is it not w:Wikipedia:Gaming the system? Russian translator (talk) 07:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a difference of opinion. A higher resolution file typically replicates colors more accurately, especially if it's an official museum scan, which all of my uploads are. Furthermore a high res scan can be used as a basis for higher quality remastered images (for instance, in cases where paintings get "yellowed"). Its very trivial to do, and MANY wikipedians have done this in the past and still so. Having multiple images causes the data about them to become fragmented and makes categorization difficult. Hence why I think there should only be one "master" copy that should be used as the main reference point. I am just interested in improving the problem of fragmentation in the art available on Commons, I can assure you im not trying to "game the system." Please refrain from making such accusations. Aavindraa (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
One more thought: 4k displays are becoming more commonplace, with 8k and above on the way. Higher bandwidth internet access is becoming more available and cheaper. So while you might think a 1200x650 image has "enough" detail now, it will look outdated sooner than you think. High DPI displays will enable people who otherwise have no means of doing so, a way of viewing these artworks as if they were right in front of it in the museum. Aavindraa (talk) 12:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Images on Commons are here to illustrate lemma's. In most cases they are not used to illustrate a piece of art but to illustrate historical events. That is why this can be better than this. Please, stop pushing your own opinion. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

What are museums but the institutions that preserve arts and culture for generations to come and enjoy, learn and be inspired? We entrust them with that responsibility above all others. At least I and a non-negligible number of Wikipedians do. It's pretty disheartening to receive this kind of feedback for making a genuine effort to improve the state of things. I think I'll take a break from Commons. Maybe some machine learning algorithms can fix all these data issues. In any case, I'll see you guys in a few months or, more likely, a few years. Aavindraa (talk) 04:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I guess you're missing a bit of background info Aavindraa. Commons doesn't editorialize, Commons provides content for downstream projects (like Wikipedia) to use. The choice what to use is up to the projects, not up to the Commons editors. This has been like this from the start of Commons. We had some editors here who tried to decide what was best for Wikipedia and that didn't go well on the Wikipedia side so that's why some things are not allowed here:
  1. Overwriting files: This makes the previous version unaccessible for use. The re-uploader forces the downstream user to use a certain image
  2. Mass changing images on projects: It's fine to replace an image with a better image on projects where you are a regular editor, but mass changing is generally frowned upon
I hope this puts it more in context and helps prevent you from running into future negative interactions.
So please do upload more wonderful art images and use {{Superseded}} here so our downstream users can see that we think a better version is available.
If you find large collections of good quality paintings you can also leave me a note so I can queue them for my bots (BotMultichill & BotMultichillT).
I already have an import bot for the NGA. Did you happen to have figured out the direct download url for the high resolution images? If so, I could rescan that collection and queue these images for upload here. Multichill (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
no, he is merely overwriting over smaller thumbnails and getting images with better metadata deleted. i.e. File:Gian Federico Madruzzo.jpg; File:John Neagle Julia Dodd.jpg - Commons:Deletion requests/File:Julia dodd.png. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Dezoomify Method[edit]

Hello, you did great uploads of art from NGA Washington could you please also upload Piero di Cosimo Tondo, thank you —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Pay attention, please: portrait of Marie Antoinette[edit]

Hi Aavindraa. The official really HD file from the NGA of Marie-Antoinette's portrait in muslin dress you uploaded is very good, but pay attention where you upload file, if you overwrite an older file. In fact you uploaded the NGA painting, that it's not the original 1783 autograph painting by Vigée Le Brun but just a later atelier replica, on the page about the original painting (kept in Germany). And later you changed infos about it too, totally transforming the page about the German version in a new page about the NGA replica. I reestablished the correct file [1] and uploaded again your HD file on the correct page [2] (because we already had a file-page about the NGA version). Maybe, your intention was that the HD file results used automatically in most part of Wikipedia projects (in fact the file you overwrote, File:MA-Lebrun.jpg, was the only one used in several pages), but this change is not possible in that way. Probably most part of these pages - I just checked about and, for example - used intentionally the German original version, because they talk about the original painting, his exhibition in the 1783 Salon and the scandal caused by the painting (of course by the original, not the NGA replica). Another thing that is not possible is to put the template {{superseded}} to suggest to use a version of a painting instead of another one if the two files depict different paintings (two copies of the same paintings, even when both autograph, are still different paintings, as the famous two versions of Leonardo's Virgin of the Rocks, one in Paris, one in London: if for example, we had only a HD file of the London one and a SD file of the Paris one, we couldn't suggest on the page about the Paris SD file to use the London HD file). So this edit wasn't correct [3] (now of course it results again correct because I reestablished the original German version). Many thanks for your attention and your contributions to the Commons project. Good work! --Kaho Mitsuki (Dis-moi) 09:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the well reasoned response. I started noticing these discrepancies in more recent years. I came to learn about the many versions of paintings that can be produced over time by scraping these images. I've been focused in other areas of my life lately, but if I resume these activities later I'll take things things into account. Aavindraa (talk) 18:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


File:BritneyGMA.png 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 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 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | 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)‎ | +/−

Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 15:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

National Gallery of Art[edit]

Hi, How did you get such a high resolution for File:House of Père Lacroix E11039.jpg, File:Flowers in a Rococo Vase A24470.jpg, and File:Le Garçon au gilet rouge, par Paul Cézanne, National Gallery of Art.jpg? The ones available for me are much lower, around 2500 x 4000 pixels. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2019 (UTC)