- 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
- 15 A barnstar for you!
- 16 Please don't give up
- 17 A gift for you !
- 18 Out of project scope images
- 19 FP Promotion
- 20 Commons:Deletion requests/File:Physalia physalis1.jpg
- 21 File:Annelid redone w white background.svg
- 22 File:Dessicated tapeworm proglottids.jpg
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)
A barnstar for you!
|The Graphic Designer's Barnstar|
|Why aren't there more of these on this page? You have contributed some extremely detailed and well executed diagrams. Thank you for uploading such wonderful work to the commons! StereoTypo (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)|
- Thank you! I do work really, really hard on these, sometimes for months, and it feels great to have someone acknowledge the effort! That makes a huge difference to me. Thank you. KDS4444 (talk) 02:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Please don't give up
Sorry KDS444, my apologies, I tried not to be rude on the page when commenting on what it needed, but I don't blame you for feeling ticked off and wanting to abandon the scallop nerve diagram as is. However, it is basically very beautiful and most of the fixes it needs are not really very major ones, right? Maybe you will want to come back to it after a while... Please let me know if and when you do. Best wishes, Invertzoo (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I just read the nomination page (sorry I didn't see it when it was active!!) & I think you were being a bit unfair asking KDS to blend in the nerve junctions. Diffuse-shading a shape like that in SVG is like really extremely difficult. && to do it over & over for every junction would make the drawing unacceptably heavy & difficult to render. —Love, Kelvinsong talk 16:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- I know nothing about how hard it is to do things in the application he is using -- I had no idea that making the nerve junctions curved rather than straight was a very difficult matter. Anything that is so difficult as to be nearly impossible or unworkable I would of course have accepted "as is", assuming that had been explained to me. However, there were quite a number of other things that needed fixing, some of which were presumably rather straightforward, like changing the labels on some nerves that were incorrectly labelled. I could not have said "go ahead and pass it" when there were some labels that were incorrect. I did ask KDS444 last year to check with other members of the relevant project before submitting a diagram for featured status. And much as I hate to disappoint someone who has worked so hard on something for so long, not allowing errors to creep onto on Wikipedia is more important. Being true to science is my first responsibility, being nice to people sometimes has to come second. Sorry, but that's the way it is, otherwise I can't call myself a scientist. Invertzoo (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
A gift for you !
...Other cannon details to be seen on my galleries !
Out of project scope images
I am the person who nominated one of your images for deletion from Commons. It does not appear that any of these images has any educational value, and therefore all of them are outside of the project scope of Commons. Please do not upload any more personal photos to Commons. All of your current images should be deleted unless you can argue that they have an educational value. Thank you. KDS444 (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The image File:Cannon-diagram2.svg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cannon-diagram2.svg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.
This file just came to my attention - very impressive work. I noticed a stray thin orange bracket near the label "Coelom (body cavity)", which looks like it should be removed. Rather than re-save it with Inkscape, would you mind doing the edit? Thanks. As a side note, all of your educational diagram work is fantastic, and Wiki Commons is IMO ideally suited to this kind of contribution. Would you be willing to document your methods more comprehensively (e.g. a screen-recording during your work?) so that aspiring Commons illustrators can follow your path? --99of9 (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am flattered on two accounts: one, that you looked at my drawing carefully enough to catch a stray bracket (I will try to revisit the drawing within the next 24 hours or so and address this), and two, that you enjoy my technique enough to think it's worthy of being recorded for others to view. I have never done a screen recording, but I have seen the recordings of others and am going to presume that with the right software it is a fairly straightforward process (?). I should also issue a warning with any such recording I might make: my process is not particularly efficient especially in terms of time. I do not record the actual number of hours it takes me to make an image like the annelid because if I did, I would be appalled. I am revamping a drawing of a spider right now and I just added another six or seven hours to my total for THAT project (which means it is now probably over 80 or even 100 hours at this point... for a spider!). I doubt anyone is going to want to watch me work for more than 10 minutes at a go, but then you aren't asking me to record my entire process beginning-to-end (oh, the tedium). I don't know what 10 minutes or so might capture, but yes, I'd be up for giving it a shot! Please send further instructions. And thank you for the compliment. KDS444 (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)