- 1 TUSC token 2959acf1e30ae7e498c987c2ee32dccf
- 2 File:Sur2-KDS444.gif
- 3 Columbia River Bar detail.jpg
- 4 Thick lens
- 5 File source is not properly indicated: File:Scallop Diagram.jpg
- 6 Optimizing Adobe Illustrator files
- 7 About the scallop anatomy diagram
- 8 SVG candidate guidelines reform
- 9 FP Promotion
- 10 FP Promotion
- 11 Wikimedia blog interview
- 12 Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Sockpuppet.3F
- 13 Thank you
- 14 Re: Peacock spider
TUSC token 2959acf1e30ae7e498c987c2ee32dccf
very nice your work on Sur2.gif. But overwrite old versions only if you fixed errors or slighty improved the work. If you do a enterely new map, as in this case, be so kind to store your valuable work under other name in order to conserve the previous work.
I did it for you for this time. Now your work and my work are available for every user. --Createaccount 20:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
- My apologies. I did not figure that my work actually represented a new image, but I will be more careful in the future. Thank you. KDS444 (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Columbia River Bar detail.jpg
Thanks for creating File:Columbia River Bar detail.jpg and adding it to en:Columbia Bar. I am wondering about the significance of the colors. It appears that white is shallow and blues intensify according to water depth. Is that correct? Does the same hue of blue correspond to the same depth everywhere here, or is there some other effect. For that matter, how was the image generated? EncMstr (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am flattered that anyone noticed, and am glad to have your question. You are correct in your assumption regarding the intensity of the color blue and its correspondence to depth. I generated the image by first viewing an image of the area produced by the National Ocean Service (NOAA). The map I had showed soundings in feet for the entire river mouth. I went over this map and marked these depths in 10-foot intervals (by layers) using Photoshop CS5— I used more intense/ darker blues for the deeper depths. Once I had done this for the entire map, I blurred these spots (in order to make them more or less contiguous), laid all of the shallower layers over the deeper ones, merged them, and then used the "smudge" tool to make this final merged version look something like like an actual river bottom. If you are at all interested in seeing this image in its component parts in PSD format, I would be more than happy to send it to you. Just let me know! KDS444 (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I have since generated a very detailed topographical map of the area using NOAA data, and used it instead of the previously mentioned image in the Wikipedia article-— the new map is more sincere/ accurate, and contains less artistic license. If you have any thoughts, they would be most welcome. KDS444 (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
File source is not properly indicated: File:Scallop Diagram.jpg
|This media may be deleted.|
|A file that you have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, File:Scallop Diagram.jpg, is missing information about where it comes from or who created it, which is needed to verify its copyright status. Please edit the file description and add the missing information, or the file may be deleted.
If you created the content yourself, enter
If someone else created the content, or if it is based on someone else's work, the source should be the address to the web page where you found it, the name and ISBN of the book you scanned it from, or similar. You should also name the author, provide verifiable information to show that the content is in the public domain or has been published under a free license by its author, and add an appropriate template identifying the public domain or licensing status, if you have not already done so.
Moros y Cristianos 17:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- As noted, this file was actually properly sourced, and the tag you placed on it was removed by another editor, but thank you for being so thorough.KDS444 (talk) 05:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Optimizing Adobe Illustrator files
Sorry I didn't see your question before. I don't use Illustrator myself, but one thing right off, do not choose UTF-16 format, as this creates larger files and causes compatibility problems for no advantage on Wikimedia Commons. Sometimes Illustrator overwhelms a small amount of vector data with a huge amount of binary data which is of no use other than to Illustrator itself (compare the filesizes on File:Extasy_logo.svg). Not sure what save options control this, but I probably wouldn't select "Preserve Illustrator editing capability" or "Include XMP". User:Fred_the_Oyster claims to know how to keep Illustrator-generated SVG filesizes down, you could ask him... AnonMoos (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your comments! I have been learning the hard way how to reduce my Illustrator-generated SVG files, and you have mentioned only a few of the tricks I have learned (making sure that my fonts are recorded as anything other than "All glyphs" made a HUGE difference, it turned out, as did keeping my number of "Decimal places" down to around 3). At this point, I am having much less difficulty reducing my files in overall size. Quick question for you, though: what size do you feel is getting to be "too large" for convenient use? 10MB? 15? 25? We can upload just about any size we wish, of course, and the general policy is the bigger (i.e., more detailed) the better, but if you were to draw a line, where do you think you might draw it? I am curious. Thanks! KDS444 (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
About the scallop anatomy diagram
Hello KDS444, thanks for all your hard work. About that diagram, two things:
1. The mantle is the dark yellowish area a bit back from the edge of the shell. It is not the black area, which is simply the inside surface of the shell. (By the way, the inside of the shell of scallops is never black; I suppose that color was chosen simply in order to make the eyes and tentacles show up better?)
- You are correct: the color of the shell, like the colors of some of the internal bits, was chosen more for visual distinction rather than any attempt at accuracy. Do you think I should change it? (Do you think anyone seeing it will really come away with the misunderstanding that the inside shell of a scallop is black? If so, then I must change it.)KDS444 (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- Let me think about that question; to be honest it is hard to know what a a person may think who is naive about bivalve anatomy. Note that the arrow for "mantle" has to reach further in. It has to reach to the yellowish area (the mantle), whereas currently it points to the black area (the inside of the shell). Invertzoo (talk) 00:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
2. At the top of the shell there is too much of a "bump" in the middle and that whole area is too curvy. In the case of most scallop shells, the dorsal margin of the shell is more or less a straight line, as you will see if you google around about scallop shells.
- I selected the shell from a silhouette I came across on the Internet, and did not modify it much before using it in this composition. This is another way in which the shell is only being treated as a picture frame rather than a part of the composition. Straightening it out along the top would also be straightforward. KDS444 (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you goggle scallop shell and look at images you will see that in many of them that part is flattish, at any rate it is flat on either side of the bump when there is one. Those sticking-out parts are the "ears" or "auricles" of the shell, and they are a diagnostic feature of scallops so it is important to make them look right.
I will let you know if I notice any other things I should mention.
Thanks KDS444 for straightening the top edge of the shell; it looks a lot better to me. One other thing is: you currently have the edge of the mantle shaded, which makes it look very thick. In reality the mantle is very thin and flat. Mantle literally means cloak, and like a piece of fabric it is a thin flat layer of tissue. THanks for all your work. Invertzoo (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've taken another go at the mantle to see if I could make it look flatter. I used a picture of a glazed dinner plate as a model— I think that at least I have achieved the effect of making it not look "puffy" anymore! Somehow it is easier to make some things look more 3D than 2D... This was one of them. I also made the labial palp much neater (re-did it entirely) and changed the color of the intestine (from blue to more pale tan with a maroon outline). Probably one or two other things I have forgotten to mention. But anyhow, there you go! Let me know if there are any other changes you might like to see. KDS444 (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
SVG candidate guidelines reform
Hi KDS, I've started a discussion at Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#SVG candidate guidelines reform which you might be interested in. —Love, Kelvinsong talk 00:19, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it looks like you got the seven votes for your nomination; congrats! Please see and comment on the draft at Commons talk:SVG guidelines—Love, Kelvinsong talk 23:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
The image File:Caenorhabditis elegans hermaphrodite adult-en.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Caenorhabditis elegans hermaphrodite adult-en.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.
The image File:C elegans male.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:C elegans male.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.
Wikimedia blog interview
My name is Donna Peterson, and I'm a communications volunteer with the Wikimedia Foundation in San Francisco. We have a feature on the Wikimedia blog  to profile the photographers behind the beautiful photos that become Picture of the Day (POTD) on Wikimedia Commons. You can see some of our past POTD posts here: https://blog.wikimedia.org/c/communications/picture-of-the-day/
Given that one of your photos, Caenorhabditis elegans hermaphrodite adult-en, was selected as a POTD this month, we'd love to do a short interview with you by email to discuss your photography and your POTD. Please let me know if you would be interested! You can email me dpetersonwikimedia.org or respond on my talk page.
Thanks so much for getting back to me regarding the Picture of the Day interview. I'm sorry for any mixup and I've re-sent the questions to your email. Please advise if they so not arrive this time.
- Hmmmm... No message in email inbox. Can you post questions here on my talk page? I will be glad to answer them and notify you once I am done, if you like. KDS444 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
I guess because I never thought this would be a problem. But I understand that my recent comments from two different accounts on the copyright status of a particular image file could be technically construed as sockpuppetry, and that is a label I do not wish to acquire (though you'd think that if I were actually working a sockpuppet I would have given it a more creative name! But whatever). I will see what I can do about submitting a rename request. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. KDS444 (talk) 03:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
For the wonderful diagrams. I think we need those type of images the most out of all that Wikimedia Commons hosts for Wikipedia. Once again, thank you! I would love to see a diagram win POTY, finally. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:47, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, Prokonsul Piotrus, shucks, ain't nothin' I draw what's goin' ter win Pitcher er de Year no-how, 'cuz I seen what's done win afore now and theyz some good pitchers! But seriously, thank you for the thank you! I have worked very hard on these diagrams/ illustrations to try to make them aesthetic as well as encyclopedic (as well as efficient-- not easy!) and it feels really good to have someone acknowledge that directly. An' I ain' dun yet! I'm working on what I hope will be a bee-YOO-tiful revision of my illustration of a peacock spider, and though it may have a few more days or a week yet to go, I think it's gonna be worth the effort. Look for it soon! KDS444 (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Re: Peacock spider
Wonderfull! As I have seen your gallery, I`m really looking forward to see another great picture. As Napoleon Hill said, patience is bitter, but its fruit sweet.--Archangel (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)