User talk:Chuzzard

OMG this guy is a dumb

--Chuzzard (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2013 (CDT)

Adding transparent background to your images

Hi, I noticed you uploaded two part images. It would be nice, if the background color isn't white but instead transparent. The white background is obvious in the infoboxes. I “fixed” your two images, but maybe you could do it for any part in the future. — xZise [talk] 13:30, 14 August 2013 (CDT)

Oh, alright. Sorry about that, I didn't take notice of it. Also are you using photoshop to get the images transparent? Chuzzard (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2013 (CDT)

I'm using GIMP and the wand tool to select the white background. I'm not sure how you get your images, but it looks like your new images are now transparent, nice. — xZise [talk] 15:36, 14 August 2013 (CDT)

Yeah, I was getting the images from my screenshots, and then cropping out the background and replacing it with white. Now, I'm using Paint.net (not MS paint) to get it transparent. — Chuzzard (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2013 (CDT)

Paint.net a vast improvement above the MS Paint and also allows transparency. — xZise [talk] 16:33, 14 August 2013 (CDT)

MLI

Hi, how do you determine if a part is coated in MLI? They don't look very insulated. — xZise [talk] 16:33, 14 August 2013 (CDT)

Well, how I determine it is I look for wrinkles on the textures surface. I assume you are wondering about the hitchhiker capsule, the cupola module, and the probe cores, as they don't seem to be covered in gold foil. Well, for the probe cores: (QBE,HECS,OKTO) the surface of each is wrinkled. I assume it not to be textured metal, but instead a variation of MLI. I might be wrong though, so if anything pops up please feel free to correct it. As for the two with no visible covering: the top and bottom of the hitchhiker capsule, and the bottom of the cupola, are both covered in MLI. It's just not shown in the wiki page. — Chuzzard (talk) 17:08, 14 August 2013 (CDT)

Okay if I don't change your edits regarding to MLI. — xZise [talk] 03:35, 18 August 2013 (CDT)

Your Kennedy SC

Hi I noticed you uploaded File:39B Launch Pad KSC.jpg. Can you please add at least some sort of license or source, to images that you didn't made? I now added them, and NASA images are of course PD so it's not that big problem. — xZise [talk] 08:21, 15 August 2013 (CDT)

Of course. Thanks for giving me a heads up. — Chuzzard (talk) 11:57, 15 August 2013 (CDT)

There are already a few files from the Wikimedia Commons in the Category:Wikimedia files which need some sort of “where does it come from”. Your image of KSC is a first which is PD and licensing this isn't that restrictive so I guess even your original text was valid (and even now, Wikimedia Commons is only a secondary source). — xZise [talk] 03:35, 18 August 2013 (CDT)

Fighting spam

Hi, you tried to mark a spam page. Now to do this properly I created Project:Fighting spam, so for the next time. — xZise [talk] 03:35, 18 August 2013 (CDT)

Thank you mang :) — Chuzzard (talk) 04:18, 18 August 2013 (CDT)

Suggestion when you upload high resolution images

Hi, to make it easier for both of us, you can upload a new version of a already existing thumbnail. When the file type (png) is the same, it saves us both time, as you don't have to update the infobox and part table and I don't need to delete the thumbnail file you updated. And of course keep up the good work, the images look amazing and we get rid of many thumbnails, so that after an update hopefully there won't anybody upload a thumbnail anymore. — xZise [talk] 02:07, 4 October 2013 (CDT)

Yeah, I actually thought about doing that. As I uploaded the last image, I finally noticed that I could just update the pics. Anyway, yeah I'll just update them from now on. — Chuzzard (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2013 (CDT)

Your fixed image size on Astronaut Complex

Hi, you added a fixed size on Astronaut Complex, and I'm not really sure how this should make the page “alive”, because now the images are almost three times as high as the text beside it. At least on my display. And that is the reason, why I removed the fixed size at Category:Space Center Buildings: On my screen the image was to large and you can't make the width depending on the viewers resolution like 100%. So even when I lowered the size matching my display, others with larger displays would see an image with white space around it (which mustn't be a large problem). But for the third group it is still to large. Here are three screenshots, to show why setting the size of an image is only helpful for some. Standard sized images for example would look better at the Astronaut Complex article. But I won't change it back so the article looks for you alive. I guess the better solution would be to have more text, if there is anything there could be added. — xZise [talk] 03:35, 20 October 2013 (CDT)

Right, sorry about that. I only changed it because I couldn't make out the shape of the Astronaut Complex while the image was the size of a thumbnail. I didn't think that it was right to have the main picture of the building to be really small. Anyway, thanks for the heads up, though in the future if any problems come up with the images, just change it back, cause it's for the benefit of anyone who visits the site. — Chuzzard (talk)