User talk:Seedfeeder/Archive4

Comments

Your images are hot. Nice work... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.116.163 (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to know how You did these illustrations - which are the hottest, to me? Which software did You use etc. I know this is asking too much, but if You could ever write a kind of tutorial, with some hints, if You used a particular tool to make Your work easier, anything?! Thank You... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shinji Rome (talk • contribs) 07:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Approach to Illustration

Do you make your own photos to trace or are all your images drawn from skratch? Just curious because the girl in the gangbang image looks disturbingly like a girl I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.253.84 (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The images I create are from scratch. If an image I have created bears a resemblance to any living person, it is purely a coincidence. Thanks. --SeedFeeder (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sex positions in SVG format?

Hello. I was wondering if you had generated the PNGs of your illustrations of sex positions/techniques from SVG files or some other raster format. These illustrations would be more useful in SVG format (not to say that they aren't useful already; they are great in terms of technical quality.) If you have original SVG files of these illustrations, it would be appreciated if you uploaded them to the Commons. If not, then we can convert them to SVG format. Thank you. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I hadn't read your discussion archives. We'll work on converting them to SVG format. Thanks again. --Siddharth Patil (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on vectorization of these illustrations using inkscape. --Aakash602 (talk) 08:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bareback (sex)

Would you be willing to create a drawing for this article? It used to have a photo showing two gay males, but it proved too controversial and kept being deleted. Your drawings, on the other hand, do not appear to have the "deletion" problem, thus being acceptable, by and large, to the Wikipedia community. Thanks for considering this request. GBataille (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I'm taking a break from creating new images, due to the approaching holiday season. As I have not been following the particular article in question, I am not aware of any image controversies that may have taken place. A cursory scan of the article's history didn't reveal any image deletions in the article's recent history (though I fully admit, I may have missed it).

Even if I decided to illustrate a new image for this article, you should understand that controversial topics tend to generate controversial images. And the illustrations I create are no more immune to frequent deletions, than their photographic counterparts.

--SeedFeeder (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fisting illustration

Hi. I see that you made many illustrations of quality about sexuality. I saw that you made one of a woman fisting herself but I realized that we didn't have any illustration of somebody fisting someone else. Would you be ready to make one? Regards. --TwøWiñgš Talk to me 11:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally chose to illustrate a person fisting themselves, as opposed to one individual fisting another.

When discussing the topic of human sexuality, each person brings their own personal beliefs, experiences, and biases to the discussion. Regardless of the gender combination of the participants, some wiki editors would perceive some sort of bias, agenda, or point-of-view, that simply was not intended to be depicted. For that reason, I chose to produce an illustration that only involved a single person, to hopefully mitigate such arguments.

Due to the length of time it takes for me to create an illustration for Wikipedia, I attempt to reduce the level of controversy as much as possible, given the particular subject matter. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion and possible request

Hi there. Been meaning to tell you nice work on the images for awhile. I have been tweaking the Teabagging article and used File:Artistic - Erotic licking.png. I have no reason to suspect anything malicious from the uploader at commons but noticed that it was brought over from Flickr from an account that is no longer active.[1] This got me thinking that the subject may not want this image public (as in a ticked off ex posted it). There is no real way to tell and it is properly licensed so it might be acceptable. Any thoughts? It presents the information OK but an illustration might be better. Is this something you would consider?Cptnono (talk) 09:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a rule I do not create illustrations to replace photographs. Photographs are usually the preferred format among most wiki editors. That aside, the particular image in question appears not to have any form of model consent associated with it, and will most likely end up being deleted. Should the image be removed or deleted, and no suitable replacement can be found, then I would consider creating an illustration. Thanks --SeedFeeder (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll shoot a message if it is deleted. Are you familiar with images and the topic area to know if I should bring up my concern anywhere?Cptnono (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded an illustration that may be applicable to this article.--SeedFeeder (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right on. Thanks for the effort on this one. Looks good.Cptnono (talk) 10:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love your work

Your art is excellent and exciting. Would love you to use me as a "model" in the future.

Jill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Messalina9 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. I am flattered and intrigued by your offer to pose as a model for a future illustration.--SeedFeeder (talk) 18:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you may be interested by this

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/10104946.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.246.22.235 (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question.

Hello. I tried to add one of your pictures to a related article only to find it doesn't show up on the page. Out of curiosity, I tried several others of your pics and found that some did and some did not. Would you have any idea what is up? I suspect it is something to do with "out of scope" but find no mention of said on the image pages. Thanks for your help. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image you were trying to add was most likely placed on the so-called "bad image" list. Which means it can only be added to specific articles. You can make a request to allow use of the image for new pages by going here: MediaWiki:Bad image list --SeedFeeder (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll check out the page in question. By the way, as mentioned before, excellent work. :) --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

It's very clear that your images are created from pornography. That is a copyright violation (see Shepard Fairey and the Obama illustration). Do you understand that you cannot just trace a copyrighted image and make it yours? I cannot prove this without a massive search but I want you to comment on this now because eventually someone will find proof that you're ripping off porn. It'd be great to get that on the record now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.185.166 (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your legal reasoning seems sound enough. Thankfully, it's not an issue that concerns me. I am flattered. --SeedFeeder (talk) 05:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seedfeeder, I'm a newcomer to wikipedia so I'm not sure how the editing works, but I hope you see this because I want you to know that you're the biggest, most intelligent badass I have ever wanted to meet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.43.94 (talk) 02:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A madrigal of Naivety

Hi Seedfeeder
I take it from your comment above that your work is indeed original - and very effective too.
You might like to see my "madrigal of Naivety",
which makes use of your prozzie at the car (initially within a local carpark setting and later on its own)
Many thanks for the image
Here is the video Madrigal of Naivety
Kind regards
David
Dwsolo (talk) 13:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your pic on the cover of a magazine

Hi! I don't know whether you know about this... The newest issue of Przegląd magazine in Poland has an article about the recent 'pornography on Wikipedia' controversy, and there's one of your pics, right on the front cover. Its here, the cover is kind of small, but it can be clearly seen in the top right corner. Here's the article itself, also with your art (the full version of the article should be archived next week). - ArCgon (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting... --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cup 'O Jizz

Seed,

I recall a page that had a woman drinking what looked like a tall glass of semen, or some kind of container, as if it were milk and she was concerned about her bone structure. What was the name of this page, and is there any place where I can find a complete gallery of your works, in an organized format?

Thank you in advance,

~Anon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.41.177 (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the image you are looking for is Wiki-gokkun.png. It once appeared on the English wiki page for 'gokkun', but now only seems to exist on other articles within the Wikipedia project. For a complete portfolio of my work, that is currently available, please check HERE. Thanks - --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I find your work excellent ! How do you make these, anyway ? I find controlling mouse while drawing on screen the most cumbersome thing, how do you manage it ? Or you use some other equipment ? Kindly reply on my talk page. Thanks Jon Ascton (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your doggystyle image lacking head (literally)

Hey, I've found your image in the doggy style article. Excellent work, but would it be possible for you to include the entire body of the giver? The current, female-focused perspective seems very pornesque (no face = fantasize about it being yourself, etc.), and we know that Wikipedia is a powder keg when it comes to sex images, so... In any case, I feel that would be an improvement to the image. It's also being used on the Danish page, which I'm considering expanding. --Metalindustrien (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. Being a heterosexual male, I do tend to take more interest in drawing the female form (which may appear 'pornesque' to some). Regardless, drawing details such hands, faces, and feet, are more time consuming for me than drawing the rest of the entire body. As such, I "cheat" to limit the amount of drawing I have to perform (which often results in 'headless' bodies). If I decide to produce an updated version of this image, I'll keep your advice in mind. Thank you. ---SeedFeeder (talk) 06:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creampie

Hi Seedfeeder, would you be available to produce something more appropriate to illustrate Creampie (sexual act)? See Talk:Creampie_(sexual_act)#Image_discussion. Cheers, --JN 466 03:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of an image in this article appears to be fairly contentious. The two major camps appear to be defined as one group protesting the quality of the particular image in use, while the other camp feels that no image at all is required. I am of the mindset that if media exists for the article (regardless of perceived quality), it should be associated with the article. Yet, my current feeling is that the brevity of the current article makes me reluctant to expend the energy required to create an alternate image. Should the article be substantively improved upon (includes such information as health and STD risks), then I may consider creating an image. But until then, I must respectfully decline your request. Thanks --SeedFeeder (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll get back to you if and when the article is suitably expanded. If you are aware of any good sources, please advise. --JN 466 13:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seedfeeder, I've done some work on expanding the article now. Could you have another look? If it's now something you would consider illustrating, one point to bear in mind is that the article covers both gay and straight creampies. I know you don't like doing illustrations of gay sex, but from looking at examples of creampies online, I think it might be possible for you to find an angle of depiction for an anal creampie that would leave the recipient's gender ambiguous to the viewer (say, viewed from above, with the penis blocking the view of the vaginal area, or reclining, with the recipient's hands stretching the anus, and blocking the rest from view). Do you think that might be possible? That way we could concentrate on the commonalities, and leave neither group feeling like their practice was rejected for illustration. Look forward to your thoughts. --JN 466 03:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

JN, I will consider illustrating an image for this article. But I am working on a couple of other illustrations and will have to complete those first. I apologize, but I reject the notion of leaving the recipient's gender up to the interpretation of the viewer. Not only would the recipient's gender be ambiguous, but so would their apparent age. I fully understand that many LGBT supporters want the inclusion of gay and lesbian themed imagery, but I think it is unrealistic to include an image of every permutation of a given sexual act. Most sexual acts can be carried out by both homosexual and heterosexual couples. Since the hetero pairing occurs more often (statistically speaking), in my opinion it should be the default depiction. In cases where the act in question is almost exclusively a homosexual act, then it should be depicted that way (see: Tribadism). In any event, when I have the time, I'll start working on a new image. I may even do two ( a male-female version and a male-male version) and let the editing process decides which, if any, gets used. --SeedFeeder (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. Thanks. --JN 466 22:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bukkake and the creator of its images

I thought you might be interested in knowing that discussion of the images on Talk:Bukkake have gone from discussion of the images to, well:

The artist, User:Seedfeeder, is a skilled pornographer and, I infer from his work and writings, not terribly fond of women. These images are not presented to us so that they we may condemn what the represent. They are presented as, not to put too fine point on it, stroke pictures for our admiration.--Herostratus (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated many times before, I am not particularly interested in debating the merits or content of the images I have created for Wikipedia. Each individual editor is entitled to interpret my illustrations however they see fit. Given the specific subject matter, certain images will be viewed as misogynistic regardless of how they are depicted. Thank you for bringing this controversy to my attention, but as in all previous cases, I am not inclined to insert myself into the discussion. Thanks.--SeedFeeder (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]