User talk:Seedfeeder/Archive2

Facial image

Your image for "facial" has been heavily criticized as offensive. It contains what can be perceived as rape as the woman does not appear consensual nor enjoying the action. It also could be perceived as racial stereotyping by the image of a dark skinned male ejaculating on a light skinned female. If you could redraw it in a more tasteful light that would be great. The "bukkake" image has been similarly criticized.

Also, mammary intercourse is in desperate need of a replacement image as the general consensus is that the current image is uhh... unsatisfactory. 71.232.101.78 (talk) 00:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do not currently have a discussion page set up, I will address your comments here. As drawn, the female in the facial picture has a neutral facial expression, this was done intentionally. Facials are viewed as a pleasurable and harmless activity by some... while percieved as a hostile perverted act by others. The image was created to strike a balance between the two opposing points of view. The fact that the subject is maintaining eye contact and is not being physically restrained in any manner, should indicate some degree of willingness. As for the interracial aspect... the prejudices and concerns of the small-minded do not concern me.

In short, I really have no intention of redrawing any images. Should you (or another editor) find/produce a more appropriate image, then by all means replace the one I have created. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seedfeed i think all the images are great and wouldnt mind if you sent me all of them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.211.113 (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New image for Snowballing (sexual practice)

Snowballing (sexual practice) has recently had several sources added to it to allow it to satisfy notability requirements. However, it is now clear from external material that the primary use of the term "snowballing" is when semen is swapped between the mouth of someone performing fellatio and the male donating the sperm. Accordingly, I have removed your image from the page, as it is misleading about the primary use of the term. It would be appropriate for a paragraph on the modified form of snowballing used in pornographic films, but as yet, I can't find an external source to justify the inclusion of that material. In any case, we need another image for the page, of a woman passing semen into a man's mouth, which should go at the top of the page, to be followed by your other image if a source can be found for the material it would be depicting. I was hoping you'd do the new picture, as your last one was pretty good, despite the fact that the paragraph it was drawn for needed to be cut. MrNerdHair (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to let me know that you removed the image. I have a different perspective on the issue. Being heterosexual, and only familiar with mainstream heterosexual pornography, when I think of the term "snowballing" I envision the illustration I provided. Furthermore a Google image search of "snowballing" reveals far more female-to-female swaps than female-to-male swaps. But I see your point. In any event, I have no intention of creating a new image for this article as I am currently retired from creating images for Wikipedia. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know, I'll post an open invitation on the talk page for an image. I agree with you that I think of two women more readily than a woman and a man, but I don't feel that it can be justified without external references. In fact, now that I've looked at the references, I wonder if I was wrong about the definition in the first place (I don't have any experience at all with this sort of term, just what I've picked up and heard in popular culture). Sorry to hear you've retired, but you did a good job when you weren't. MrNerdHair (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the illustrations

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Thank you for much needed high quality illustrations of sexual topics. Simon Speed (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you've given up on the sexuality Wikiproject, but I do understand. I think it may be the most frustrating area of the Wikipedia to work on and the one where editors get burned out the fastest. The sheer volume of vandalism is phenomenal, it's the censor's favourite target and its emotive nature adds fuel to the battles that bedevil all subjects. I do think sexuality is the most important area of the Wikipedia though: on what other subject do you have the religious and sex (porno) industries pouring out misinformation? Just the existence of the Wikipedia articles helps break the taboo on talking about it. In one country, South Africa, AIDS deaths are now well over 800 a day and knowledge is the potential victims' only defence. --Simon Speed (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facial Image

What's the history here? It looks like it started off as it is now, then somewhere along the way it was changed to have a white guy. From reading your responses here, it seems this was not your doing, so I'm wondering how that came about. For the record, I think the image does a great job at its purpose, and I think it is totally ridiculous that someone found it racist. Definitely a case of someone imprinting their own subconscious racism on a neutral subject. So what happened there? Did someone else change it?Conical Johnson (talk) 07:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for 'The Return'

Thanks for creating new images. Your work is really quite good and adds a lot to the articles. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to just write to say I second this, thank you so much. You've inspired me to maybe one day contribute illustrations of my own to Wikipedia :D --King0lag (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't see any reason why you should wait to contribute your illustrations, just jump in. For the most part it's pretty rewarding. Though if your illustrations cover the same topics mine do, be prepared to weather a fair amount of criticism. Good luck.--SeedFeeder (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I live for criticism <3 although with the debates I'd seen I would be wary of treading such sensitive turf! --King0lag (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Your work is always appreciated. Exxolon (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Barnstars and kind words are always welcome. --SeedFeeder (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice having better quality pictures for the articles. Thanks. Now if we could only get some of the other idiots to stop uploading their personal porn stash because "it's relevant". 71.123.24.84 (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I try. Yeah I don't know why some people waste time uploading porn they scrounged off of some free site to post in an article. Then they make matters worse and claim it's their girlfriend or wife... riiiight.--SeedFeeder (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see that you're back, your work is top notch! Might you be able to provide a picture for the handjob article? The one they have is too... artsy. Quite a bit is lost in translation. If I may offer a suggestion, how about a dark complected woman providing a handjob to an East Asian male? Thanks again for your work!! Keyuehan (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it's good to be back. I agree that the current image for the handjob article isn't the best, but it is passable. Right now I'm concentrating on articles that either have no image at all, or currently have an image that is hotly debated. Time permitting I may look into working on your request. I make no promises.--SeedFeeder (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, it's nice just that you took the time to reply to my request. I'm anxious to see your next work!Keyuehan (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prodigal artist returns!

I'm glad to see you are back. Found your images while "surfing for porn" on Wikipedia. Must admit I was quite surprised, both, by the level of detail, and your valor, for putting your unique talents at the service of this wonderful project. Criticism will surely come, but please don't give up in your endeavor. Know that your efforts to provide original content to what are, at times, neglected articles, has not gone unnoticed and is truly appreciated. Keep up the good work! Ronin Distance (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to be back. Yeah there's criticism to be had, but unfortunately it just seems to come in waves. Not to mention the fact that every couple weeks some champion of All Things That Need to be Censored will ~~troll~~ come along and delete my images from all the articles that they were in. It also gets frustrating see one of my images added to a fairly lengthy article... just to go back a week or so later and find that the article has been whittled down to 3-4 lines. Any way thanks again! --SeedFeeder (talk) 01:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		Welcome back, I now realize you'd only just arrived. Thanks for the Mammary intercourse picture, it was much needed. Simon Speed (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your anti-censorship barnstar. I think it's an excellent idea, but I think this version is a little too close to the anti-vandalism barnstar File:Barnstar of Reversion2.png.--Simon Speed (talk) 02:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks for the award! I would like to say that I am above such signs of gratitude... but I can't lie, it feels good knowing your work is appreciated by others. BTW- you're correct, my barnstar idea does kinda look like the vandalism one. Good catch. I'll work on a different design. Let me know if you have any suggestions.--SeedFeeder (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erogenous zone

I've been having a look and a think and frankly I wouldn't know where to start. The only thing I'd say about the sexuality articles in general is that they need more referenced material. It's very hard to get in this subject area but it's what stops decent stuff getting deleted and helps us filter out the rubbish. I suspect the article could have a good ethnographic/sociological section if you had access to that sort of material. And then there's Psychoanalysis :-) . --Simon Speed (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fairly large amount of information on erogenous zones from reliable sources, that's why I was surprised to see such a relatively weak article on the subject. In any event, I plan to work on the article as a sandbox page on the side. If you don't mind, I'd like to consult you from time to time about my progress. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image you provide on Wikipedia and I hope you get discouraged by the negative comments or edits. A picture is worth a thousand words they say and I believe that. Justgetmein (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume you meant to say "I hope you don't get discouraged..." In that case, thank you.--SeedFeeder (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Albert Piercing

Hi, I was wondering if you could make an image for the above article, Instead of the actual photo that's allready on there--DFS454 (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer:NO

Long answer: So far in my time on Wikipedia I have found that sexually themed articles that have photographs (which have survived all attempts at censorship and/or removal) are nigh impossible to replace. Editors will fight tooth and nail to keep them. Even in cases where a particular illustration is a better example than the supplied photograph. Since it would take me anywhere from 2-12 hours to create a new image, I rather not waste my time on an endeavor that I know will get reverted and argued about ad infinitum. Sorry.--SeedFeeder (talk) 09:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. But you support replacing it with an illustration in principle right? --DFS454 (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, yes. In practice, not so much. The reality of the situation is that in the eye of the majority of Wikipedians, a photograph always trumps an illustration. As an example, see the discussion page of the Pearl necklace article. --SeedFeeder (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Yes I fully agree, having seen the article you mentioned. P.s. Thanks for signing my sock page! If you need anything don't hesitate to ask. Best Wishes --DFS454 (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coprophilia needs an image

I'm a big fan of yours; I'm sure you could make a great image for this page.

62 Misfit (talk) 03:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm glad that you like my work. Unfortunately, I can't accept your request to create an image for the coprophilia article. It's a subject I find to be too distasteful (I know, funny coming from me) to spend time illustrating. Sorry.--SeedFeeder (talk) 09:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your rather brilliantly well-done images.

Seedfeeder, well done with your artwork. I'm sure you've heard that before, of course, but I'll say it all the same. I was looking at one of them today and it occurred to me that they look like they were created with a 3d modelling program, like Blender or Maya, and was rendered using a cell-shader or the like. As I, myself, am starting out in 3d modelling, I am curious to know, is this the case? James.Denholm®^{Talk to me...} 10:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment! I am flattered that you think I have more technical ability than I actually posses... 3D applications simply own me. No, I do my "thang" pretty much the old fashioned way. Cell-shaded 3D renderings do have a fair amount of advantages, I must admit. The ability to re-render images from different angles, is one that pops instantly to mind.

The simple shading style I have settled upon actually sprang from the simple illustrations in airline safety pamphlets LOL. I figured, why argue with what has worked in the past? Again thank you. ---SeedFeeder (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can agree with you there, the applications can be rather painful to use sometimes. I can also think of a disadvantage, to match your advantage, however: A lot of the detail one puts into a model would not be used, namely the other side. Ah well, I suppose that's the compromise. But, I suppose, that they were not done with a 3D application just makes you a better 2D artist.

Your source of inspiration for the shading style, I must say, I find rather humorous: I don't think I'll ever think of safety pamphlets in the same way! Though, I suppose, ideas come from unlikely places at times. James.Denholm®^{Talk to me...} 06:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fellatio image is wonderful....... It contributed to my understanding of it a lot.

Felching

Would you be able to create an image for this article? --MZMcBride (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The article is not long enough (nor does it site enough reliable sources) to warrant expending the effort of creating an image. Should the article increase in length and quality in the future, I may rethink my position.--SeedFeeder (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signiture Request

Hi I was wondering if you could make Gordon Brown's signature ? I notice most other political leaders currently in office have their signature on their article except Gordon. Thanks --DFS454 (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thinking of me, but creating graphics of this type are of absolutely no interest to me.--SeedFeeder (talk) 05:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tools?

Hello Seedfeeder. I'm just curious what image tools you use to make your images. Thank you. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 23:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By 'image tools' I will assume you mean software and such. Not much to it, I use a Wacom tablet, trackball, and Adobe Photoshop (I have tried Illustrator and other vector programs, but can't get the hang of it). In some cases I have made a sketch on paper, scanned it in, then cleaned it up and finished in Photoshop. To replicate the look simple cell shaded work, I make each color a separate layer. That's about it. ---SeedFeeder (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, meant software tools. Thank you for the information. :) Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 15:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking myself the same question and your answer is a real surprise for me! Wow! A layer for each color! Anyway, the result is stunning, and the details so tender it's really marvellous to discover that a sunny saturday morning. A question : have you tried Gimp as a open licenced bitma editor? Maybe one day to release your working files with layers (xfc format), as a matter of showing how the work is done, and maybe to promote this kind of beautifull illustrations? Crickxson (talk) 08:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about where did you base your pictures

SeedFeeder, where did you get the image for the vector art? Some of the women depicted looked East Asian/Japanese. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyuzoaoi (talk • contribs) 15:32, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you noticed that some of the women in my illustrations appear to be Asian, that was by design. As far as what I based the images off of, they are figments of my imagination, and not based off of any living person. Of course due to the billions of people on this planet, some unintended resemblances are unavoidable.--SeedFeeder (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]