User talk:IsadoraofIbiza

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Your work is amazing mate :) The amount of effort and care really comes across. Thank you for making the cells and the planets far more easy to understand. Please keep it up, you're enlightening so many people to the complex universe we live in. Drjonesgp (talk) 16:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Wow. I was impressed when I saw File:Animal Cell.svg, then I looked through your user page and your portfolio and saw your amazing work — and that it's all CC0-licensed. Wow. Thank you. — OwenBlacker (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Gracias por tu trabajo Ortisa (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a mispelling on your diagram of the atmosphere. "Noctilucent" is spelled as "noctiluscent". https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Earth%27s_atmosphere.svg Qwed117 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	These vector illustrations are simply delicious! Jamadagni (talk) 09:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	thank you! Whirlpool4 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thank you for your amazing diagrams, they really helped me understand scientific concepts! Can't wait to see more diagrams, especially molecular biology and genetics. Your diagrams are wonderful! Fzxgao (talk) 15:36, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The labeling concerning rotation of the wonderful cyclone graphic is correct per your "from below" perspective, but sorry, I'm 59 years old and low pressure systems in the northern hemisphere my whole life have been described as rotating counter-clockwise. Standing within hurricanes many times as I did growing up in south FL the rotation direction at the ground was not that noticeable. Satellite images and aircraft images from above storms clearly show the rotation direction and must be the reason why the counter-clockwise denoted spin is spoken of as such. Sorry, but the choice to label the rotation clockwise on the wonderful graphic just causes confusion IMHO. The arrow in your graphic from the perspective of the viewer is counter-clockwise and thus is contrary to the current text label. Do you think the image would have withstood FP review had the text said the storm rotation was counter-clockwise? I'm not a scientist, however I relish logic and clarity. The graphic is amazing...except the single text label I find sadly spoils its ability to be as educational as it could be. To leave it as "clockwise", consider adding "when viewed from below". Thank-you for your attention and consideration! Kind Regards, Ed S. Sept. 6, 2017 12:44 AM ET — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.240.21.18 (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kelvin, writing in regards to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tropical_cyclone&action=submit#/media/File:Hurricane-en.svg. It's been pointed out that the graphic labels rotation as clockwise. However, the circulation at low-levels in an NH TC is counter-clockwise (at upper-levels, the anticyclone above it will relate clockwise). You've shown all this with the arrows correctly, and the graphic is perfect, except your labeling at the bottom left of the figure. Any chance you could change that? Thanks a lot :-) JeopardyTempest (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JeopardyTempest: The labeling is correct, the storm rotates counterclockwise from below, but clockwise from above. The red circular arrow is traveling in the correct direction. This was brought up when the picture stood FP review.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 19:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I can actually see what you're saying I believe... you're saying if you look up in the sky at it, it rotates clockwise above you from your perspective? A unique way of looking at it... 15 years of meteorology, can't say I've ever heard it described that way... though honestly I KNOW I actually struggled with quite a few ideas\equations for a while in college because of exactly this. I wonder if it's some kind of education perpetuation... or based upon dominant experiences... or brain weighting... or self image or who knows what that some people are most comfortable one way while others are the opposite.

Definitely can still be seen as a perplexing way of putting it... it would be like me telling you that you've raised your left hand when you put up what you see as your right... perspective is sure a peculiar thing. I'd say that your figure sits contrary to the way science has chosen to define the right hand rule. But honestly we all say things like "the sun rises"... and scientists still debate the "ficticious" quality of Coriolis and centripetal\centrifugal forces... so what's in word at all when it comes to perspective differences like this? I just wouldn't be too surprised if you end up with some more meteorologists (or just regular folk) stopping on by to ask again. But shan't be a problem here. Thanks for helping me understand your thinking :-) JeopardyTempest (talk) 07:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:C7F:2C13:3F00:FC55:D7D0:228F:C44D (talk) 11:36, 02 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should read "noctilucent." LewisChessman (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am currently an undergraduate major in medicine in Taiwan. I would love to help you on translating your cell organelle diagrams into Chinese(Traditional). May I have your consent to do so? How should I upload the translated version into the collection? May I substitute your proprietary(I presume?) font for Noto Sans? Thanks for your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom282f3 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translations should be uploaded and categorized the same way as any other Commons contribution, just make sure to add it to the translations template for ease of access. Substituting the font is fine.—♥ Kelvinsong talk 21:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hullo,

I hope I'm going about this the right way. I have made a note in the Talk page for the Wikipedia article "Electoral College (United States)" that might be of interest to you. I don't mean to be antagonistic in the least, just wanted to raise a point about it (and actually about the political map above it as well), mostly about the captions or legends rather than the maps per se. Cordially,

NicholasNotabene (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kelvin, I just noticed a small error in your picture for the chloroplast cycle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chloroplast_division.svg). In the lower right you switched the labels of outer and inner membrane. Just a small error but you had me confused there for a second.

greetings — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.93.165.120 (talk) 15:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Wow, you are right! I’ve corrected the picture, thanks for the catch! don’t know how that went unnoticed for 3 years…—♥ Kelvinsong talk 18:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a number of new illustrations, including some I now wish deleted. Come see! I owe rather more than you realize to your instruction, for which I remain forever grateful! (still... not a fucking barnstar in sight. aint that the way of it). KDS4444 (talk) 10:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

wait why are you trying to delete them lmao—♥ Kelvinsong talk 01:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You know how when you see an article with a photo in the lead, and you know you could make a better diagram that would point out all the good stuff, and you spend (more like "shoot") a few days coming up with something pretty neat looking, and you add it to the article, and someone comes along and removes it and puts the cruddy photo back? And you talk to that person and they tell you that they liked the photo better just 'cause? So you open up an RfC to get feedback from other editors and at first they seem to be supporting the diagram but then the balance tips against it and the reasonings are thing like "It's too cluttered" or "I wasn't sure what it was until I read the caption" but any idiot would know exactly what it was? And this is the only article for which that diagram would have been relevant, so without it there's no wikiproject anywhere that will be using it? Which means it shouldn't be retained for the sake of retention? And people are such fools? That's why deleted. Also, I am a little bitter. But that's me! KDS4444 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dude that happened to me a lot I remember. some people on EN can be territorial and very conservative towards changes on “their” articles, don’t take it personally. && like as for the RfCs, they generally have good suggestions and you’d do well to listen a little and try to improve the diagram instead of deleting it uk? && when people say that a diagram is cluttered what that usually means is you didn’t use enough distinction on the “main” contours of the picture and not enough hierarchy in the labeling.

ps, i saw you are trying to get rid of File:Blausen 0864 ToothDecay.svg, I read the RfC and i think most of the editors were on your side, and wikimedia projects in general have a sort of tenth-man culture where people will take the opposing viewpoint just for the sake of diversity of thought. You shouldn’t get offended when someone takes the other side in these things, that’s the whole point of having requests for comment. btw the “readability” of the tooth could be greatly improved just by bumping up the font size a little and using a brighter color for the tooth and darker for the rest—♥ Kelvinsong talk 01:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. ↑ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
2. ↑ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Your graphics are so beautiful I literally cried. They are so aesthetic and clear. How can I learn this kind of art? GiveMeYourKnowledge (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	One of the best illustrators I've seen on Wikipedia! Your illustrations are aesthetically pleasing while still being very visually informative. Simply awesome work! :) Gargamol2000 (talk) 23:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)

Hi Kelvin, I would like to translate cell organelle graphics in Serbian, how should I do so? Do You agree with translating your work?

Yes, all diagrams may be freely translated so long as the translations are released under the correct license —♥ Kelvinsong talk 17:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kelvin,

I love your work - nice clear diagrams; much appreciation. Your pic of blood vessels showing the capillary exchange between arteries and veins is the best I've found on the internet. I would love to get your permission to use it in a science course for a charity college. Not-for-profit, I do it as a volunteer and don't get paid.

If you need my email, please let me know.

thank you, Dianne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianabyron (talk • contribs) 03:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See COM:REUSE — ♥ Kelvinsong talk 17:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Great work! Deserves lots of stars... Dianabyron (talk) 03:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!! —♥ Kelvinsong talk 17:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Hey, I am a student who just ran into your contributions to the work on some of the biology pages. I just wanted to send appreciation your way. If your up for talking I am very interested in what got you into do this kind of work. 7jameslondon (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! —♥ Kelvin13 talk 16:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin, I am at my wits' end here— Thoughts? KDS4444 (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LOL sorry i’m late, congrats on the FP! —♥ Kelvin13 talk 04:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call you a "Bastard!" but since the FP nomination flew (and at last!), all I can say now is, "Thank you!" Kelvin, have been and remain a sounding board for me and my SVG experiences, and I continue to notice and admire your work when ever I come upon it, which is more often than I would have thought, given how big the whole world is and how small we are in it. And I might be alittledrunkbecauseitslateincaliforniabutthankyouKelvin!!! KDS4444 (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And not "butt thank" ("butt-thank") but "but thank", which when you write it together as one word comes out as "butthank", which looks like "butt-thank", which is not what I mean, but, well... Maybe you know what I mean. I need to go to bed now. KDS4444 (talk) 09:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHAHA —♥ Kelvin13 talk 15:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! First, I really like your illustrations! It's so simple and very clear.

Okay, move on. I'm interested in translating to other language (bahasa Indonesia). Any guide on how to translate (especially on fonts) and how to name file when uploading?

S Rifqi (talk) 11:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of my images contain an invisible text layer which lives on top of the entire document. This layer is usually called Text. This layer is baked into a visible outline layer usually called Text display. To edit the text, delete the display layer and edit the text layer, and create a new outlined display layer (with Text to Paths) before you make the text layer invisible again and save the file. All of the text objects should be aligned correctly so all you have to do is replace the words. You will also need a copy of the Neue Frutiger font family, or a metric-compatible font. Frutiger is not free, I’ve been meaning to convert all my images to use an open source font, as many of them were created before we had great open source sans serif families available, but this hasn’t been a priority.

PS, you may want to take a look at User:Kelvin13/Standardization—♥ Kelvin13 talk 21:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The atmosphere of Jupiter lacks a clear lower boundary and gradually transitions into the liquid interior of the planet. Could you please modify File:Jupiter diagram.svg to show smooth transition of the interior of Jupiter, except maybe at the surface of the solid core. Thank you very muchTttrung (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was brought up when the diagram was first created; the reasoning is that there is still a fairly ‘agreed upon’ fuzzy boundary, just like we have a boundary for the troposphere of earth, even though it can vary by miles. —♥ Kelvin13 talk 01:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, text says clockwise, but arrow shows counter-clockwise (which I think is correct.) Outflow arrow is clockwise, but why would outflow be opposite to rest of storm? (Might be, but I couldn't explain it.) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.217.178.179 (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, diagram clearly shows counter-clockwise rotation, which is definitely the case with northern hemisphere hurricanes. Previous versions of the file correctly identified it as counter-clockwise. I believe the edit history indicates that the text layer is editable, so I hope it's an easy fix! P Aculeius (talk) 04:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t remember why it was changed originally but since you’re like the fourth person to ask about this i’ve changed it back to say “counterclockwise” —♥ Kelvin13 talk 05:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, Kelvin! I just came across another of your amazing planetary drawings in the article on "mantle (geology)". I don't know if you thought much about the association between labels and the thing they are labeling (how could you not?) but as I looked at the diagram I found myself confused by a few things that I wanted to point out to you (I could just go ahead and modify the diagram myself, of course, but that seems terribly presumptuous). From the top of the image down, then:

1.) The first thing I noticed was that the line for the "rigid mantle" extends into that structure by such a tiny margin that anyone seeing it within the article I just mentioned would be pretty unlikely to notice it— in other words, I can't tell (from the thumbnail diagram) exactly what the "rigid mantle" refers to here unless I click on it and open it up (which is a step that many viewers of the article won't bother to do, I am guessing).

2.) Some of the letters on the right hand edge of the words "basaltic" and "granitic", which are white, become kind of hard to read at the end because they are located over parts of the earth that are also largely white.

3.) I am still not 100% sure what the words "stiffer mantle" refer to, because there is no line between it and a specific part of the diagram and because the word itself, runs across at least three distinct layers of the diagram.

4.) Because of the realistic way you have shown the surface of the earth, I cannot tell what the line for "Continent" connects to— obviously I know what a continent is, but this diagram doesn't look like it confirms or refutes my own understanding because the swirling cloud cover makes this difficult to distinguish.

5.) backing up a bit, I only just noticed that there is a line from the "crust" section to an actual layer on the planet— this line is so thin and subtle that I did not know it was there until I looked very carefully at the image on Commons, and I reader of a Wikipedia article will probably never be able to see this line.

6.) The line for "atmosphere" seems to point at the surface of the earth, which is a little disorienting.

7.) The line for "hydrosphere" has the same problems that the one for "continent" does— I can't tell from this image what it is referring to because of the cloud layer.

I have some suggestions about how some of these things might be fixed, but I don't want to presume to know how you might fix them yourself (if you are at all interested in doing so... I know that once I finish a drawing, I often feel like "That one is now done! Wshew!" and the last thing I want to do is go back over it and make half a dozen small changes to it at the behest of some other editor). But please do consider them, as I think they might make this a better, more useful drawing. THANKS! KDS4444 (talk) 03:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The earth picture is now how I would have drawn it now, it’s very old. If it was drawn later I probably would have made it look more like File:Return of the moon diagram.svg. Maybe I’ll redraw it someday.—♥ Kelvin13 talk 15:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kelvin13, I notice that your very nice graphic: [2] shows the position of the aurora at different altitudes depending on whether or not the graphic is in English (or Spanish or French). Is this something you can fix? Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 13:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the history of the file and it looks like I raised the auroras on purpose in 2015, but i don’t remember what the reason for it was. I’m tempted to change the es and fr versions of the picture to match, but I don’t know why the english version was changed to begin with…—♥ Kelvin13 talk 19:39, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, "Wiki Science Competition" 2017 has started It is a world event. The upload phase in Asian, American and European countries without juries ends on December 15th. Here you can find more details. This is a manually inserted message for commons users with knowledge of the English language who are also globally active or who have uploaded images related to the competition's themes (science buildings, microscopic images, scientists, wildlife...). #WSC2017 #WikiScience #WikiScience2017 Wiki Science Competition

I hope you're not from the USA because it's closed there.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kelvin13, I really like your illustrations of the moons of our Solar System (and everything else that you do by the way). Great work.

I am currently writing a book on planetary objects within our Solar System for a publisher in America and want to know if I would be able to use your illustrations of Ganymede, Callisto, Europa and Titan to illustrate the current models we have of these moons' interior. I would of course list your name under each illustrations.

Let me know how you want to proceed - I can give you my email if you want to discuss this directly with me. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redmars99 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The images contain all of the licensing information on their respective pages. Please refer to Commons:REUSE —♥ Kelvin13 talk 18:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the many gorgeous and useful illustrations! So many other illustrations are gorgeous too but useless or useful too but butt-ugly! Well done Sir, and keep up the great work! --Palosirkka (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of Puttershoek.svg 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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

Quistnix (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been admiring your work, and recently sent an image I made of the insides of the planet Mercury for Featured Picture consideration, but so far it isn't going very well (see here) and I am not sure what I am doing wrong. Can you give me any advice on this? Thank you very much! A loose necktie (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A loose necktie, I saw your post here and your nomination at FPC. The most common reason that an image fails to attract support is that voters are not immediately wowed by it. The small canvas size you used also makes it harder for people to see a large (and therefore impressive) image on their screen. They may assume that this small size is all you are offering (and no amount of tweaking the FP rules will change that -- people do not read the instructions!) Another reason for failure is when you get an oppose or comment like Wilfredor's that does not appear to have been resolved. Most reviewers at FPC are photographers or at least are more familiar with judging photographs than judging diagrams. The diagram of Mercury is similar to what I'd expect in any textbook or article, and so it appears mundane. Look at the other FPs of planets/moons/etc. I think rather than fancy arty interiors (of which we know nothing other than depth) these images include other bodies in the background (where appropriate) or a wealth of information (e.g. File:Saturn diagram.svg). Perhaps Mercury just isn't interesting enough. -- Colin (talk) 08:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Colin, I see you are understanding some of my frustration. There isn't anything in the req1uirements for FP (that I have read!) which indicates that the image must be breathtaking in order to warrant a support vote, and I get the sense that other editors aren't able or just aren't willing to look at the existing criteria, ask themselves if this or that computer generated image meets those criteria, and then offer their support for it. I worked very long to create this image of Mercury, all of it, of course, volunteer, and was hoping to see some acknowledgement for the final product. I take it that my pointing out that the image meets all those criteria but happens to be a somewhat dull kind of planet means that my image will never become featured. I've tried to spice up the innards of the thing with lava filters but I guess maybe there was just no point. There are't any planets in the background of Mercury to add "wow", and it doesn't have any moons (and I was told my background stars were unnecessary and removed them!!). The only other prominent significant interplanetary object is the Sun. A loose necktie (talk) 15:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Colin: @A loose necktie: “small size” is honestly a silly criticism to give to a vector diagram. They are resolution independent. Personally I prefer it when diagrams use a smaller pixel resolution so that the pixel grid can contribute meaningfully to alignment and layout of elements in the image. “mercury isn’t interesting enough” a subject is even more peculiar complaint, I’m sure many astronomers would disagree. That being said images should not automatically get FP status just because they take a long time, and the image certainly has a lot of room for improvement. personally i’d replace the lava textures with solid material because it’s a little distracting, and up the lighting contrast. i did an image of the moon (an equally “boring” subject) a while back but i think it turned out pretty well. —♥ Kelvin13 talk 20:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us know they are resolution independent but not every reviewer will spot it is an SVG or understand how that is different to PNG. They will click on the image and in this case they got a 340x230px to examine rather than 4000x2000px in the moon example. This is just a practicality and affects not just FPC reviewers but also anyone browsing Commons to look at the image. To see Mercury in my browser at any size larger than that given, I have to use one of the 'other resolutions' links in small text, and if they aren't big enough for me, I need to get familiar with MediaWiki thumbnailer URL syntax. All rather horrible. Your concern with aligning pixel grids is really just a problem that concerns the artist but not the viewer.

I've taken many photos that cost me a lot of time arranging/travelling/photographing/processing but that in the end were not good enough for FP. The Commons:Image guidelines do say that FPs 'must have a "wow factor"'. This, and that they are among our 'finest', rather than merely 'good' is what separates FP from QI.

I'm not at all claiming that Mercury isn't interesting as a subject, but that it isn't as visually interesting as some other planets. That's going to make it harder to get 'wow' than a more visually exiting planet. Kelvin managed that with the Moon by providing lots of information about named surface features. I recently watched a TV program about the Voyager craft and remember their disappointment that Uranus turned out to be really really boring to look at.

Wrt to 'boring subjects' they just require more talent to make an image with wow. Compare this diagram and this photo of a Philips shaver with this photo of a Philips shaver. The latter is an FP. You aren't going to get an FP with a merely informational diagram. It has make the viewer go 'wow'. -- Colin (talk) 09:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Kelvin, Sorry if my comment was very rude or very rough, however, my mother language is not English. So, to avoid misinterpretations I try to talk as little as possible and go straight to the point, so maybe my criticisms were oil free. I know how difficult some criticisms could be, however, leaving emotions aside and solving the problems indicated is the way to improve the quality of your work. I have also made SVG designs and it is something that appeals to me, however, I used to use inkscape. I sincerely hope I have been helpful, I have left an additional comment on the nomination. --Wilfredor (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, dear Kelvin13. I can`t find any editable labels for Jupiter_diagram.svg Mostly, I use Notepad2 for text translation to save the styles of text. But there no text in svg, and there no labels for editing in InkScape. What should I do for easyly translation of your illustrations of planets? Regards. --Kirill Borisenko (talk) 10:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The editable text is stored in a hidden layer; to edit it, you need to change the text layer, copy it to the visible text layer, and convert it to paths using the appropriate fonts. See this tutorial —Kelvin13 talk 07:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.

Possible acceptable uses of this ability:

• To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
• To perform file name swaps.
• When the original file name contains vandalism. (File renaming criterion #5)

Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.

The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

File:SVG Text tutorial PNG.svg 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! Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ 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） ∙ +/−

EpicPupper (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	I love your drawings. Betseg (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whaddaya think? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triton-en.svg A loose necktie (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kelvin13,

I sent you an email to your correspondence mail here on wiki. I hope to hear from you. Best Mrdola (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you For your ideas! Qbulakema114 (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]