| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> | | <!--Please sign your posts with ~~~~ and don't delete this text. New comments should be added at the bottom.--> |
| − |
| |
| − | I do this frequently: Seeking out the best quality of two media I've seen put together, in an effort to improve the quality of the resultant combined media.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I had no idea, all this time I'd been creating recombinant PNG.
| |
| − | [[User:ProphetZarquon|ProphetZarquon]] ([[User talk:ProphetZarquon|talk]]) 20:58, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This is the first time I've encountered recombination, but I've seen the many versions of images scattered across the internet for sure --[[User:Char Latte49|Wielder of the Staple Gun]] ([[User talk:Char Latte49|talk]]) 21:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | On a number of occasions I've had to edit images given to me to submit to a resource. The original photographer ''insists'' on having a 'burnt-on' timestamp directly on the image (he's always done that, and won't accept metadata does the job); meanwhile, the resource's policies are heavily against such 'decoration' and moderators often reject such. When I can't easily clone a 'coverage' area from within the same image - and feather its edges to blend in - I sometimes find another original (but slightly different viewpoint) submitted image that has a sufficiently unsullied 'patch' to let it pass muster. That's a slightly meta-example, I suppose. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.99.161|141.101.99.161]] 23:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Sexual reproduction pictures on teh Interwebz mkay, but I lament a certain underrepresentation of amoeba pr0n. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.105.134|141.101.105.134]] 08:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | im guessing this time traveller ^^ just came back from 2008. dont go to 2020. ever. just dont. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.59|162.158.79.59]] 14:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Bumpf
| |
| − |
| |
| − | That's a squirrel?? Look at its tail - squirrels have thick fluffy tails, not that skinny one. And if it is a squirrel, it's by far the largest I've ever seen - unless Hairbun and Cueball are children. I was 100% certain when I saw it that it was a cat. --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.124|172.69.42.124]] 14:53, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :: And we do know how Randall draws squirrels: [[1503]], [[1578]], [[776]], and [[1156]] all contain examples. I vote that this be changed. --mezimm [[Special:Contributions/172.69.42.21|172.69.42.21]] 14:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :: I'm not sure that's a cat, the muzzle looks wrong to me. Some other feline, maybe. A 4-legged furry mammal with a tail, almost definitely. Could we ask Randall for clarification? [[Special:Contributions/172.69.22.132|172.69.22.132]] 19:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::Looks like a rat to me. Maybe a possum or something? It has a pointed muzzle. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.160|162.158.75.160]] 20:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | :::Definitely an opossum or other such larger marsupial. Its muzzle is too pointed to be a cat. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.75.144|162.158.75.144]] 02:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
| |
| − | ::::It looks like a large city rat to me-have you seen the proportions those rodents can get to?!?https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/giant-rat-found-in-london-gas-engineer-finds-rodent-bigger-than-a-small-child-a6925591.html [[User:42.book.addict|42.book.addict]] ([[User talk:42.book.addict|talk]]) 21:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
| |
