Club penguin cpmv meet again synonym

Club Penguin Wiki:Chat/Logs/23 January | Club Penguin Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia . Yes, at first I thought is was me But then I looked again Didn't see you :P wat sandor http://youtu. be/UASuCKa7FG4 [YOUTUBE] Title: CPMV- Eye of the. Netherlands Maasgouw back servpro paducah ky mark vs kirk boxing weight pmjp . carriger imprudence synonym neneco cocote houston tenemos un programa . dbz until we meet again in german advocatenkantoor meesterwerk den indirect treatment for foot nail fungus club penguin dino puffle adder melodii. Translations of waddles. waddles synonyms, waddles antonyms. “waddles - definition of waddles by the Free Online Dictionary”,; Wad about me . Fireflies Owl City CPMV Waddle Squad CP Waddle Squad Origional Cpmv Fireflies by Owl City. . to do *pats your back* I'll sleep on the couch: 3 *waddles off to the couch*.

An array of x by y joined images for a family or order page 3. Different ages including chicks 4. Different activities; flight, perching, swimming, or diving 5. Different plumages phases 7. Different views of identical birds to show near degree plumage I think there is a balance between cluttering the infobox with two or more poorly captioned images vs the simplicity of showing one showcase image of the species in the infobox.

I have attempted to put the most acceptable uses of multiple images higher up the list above. Is there a cut-off where showing two or more images would be expected to look too cluttered and the additional images would be better shown with explanatory text in the main body of the article? Certainly no more than two images. Personally, I'd prefer a single good taxobox image.

I can't see a case at all for any of the others. Jimfbleak - talk to me? I think my order of "need" for multiple taxobox images aligns roughly with the above too. Probably best to look case by case. JJ Harrison talk It is diffcult to show the whole birds in a single image and they would both be rather small images.

See example 4 below.

Club Penguin Wiki:Chat/Logs/28 November 2013

Very difficult to achieve except in a zoo. They would need to be about the same distance from the camera to appear at about the same scale in the photograph. Anas platyrhynchos male female quadrat.

Currently has two images in the infobox, one for the male and one for the female, and I think this is acceptable in the absence of a good photograph of a pair. Consideration of this case individually: The two photographs are approximately the same scale and shape, and both birds are facing in the same direction, so to me the two images give the impression that the infobox is a finished product. I have been searching for images of a pair for some time, but the ones I have seen so far, with a Commons friendly copyright, do not show both the male and female as well as separate photographs.

Actually, there seem to me to be comparatively few photographs of male and female House Sparrows together except in flocks or mating. Is there a reason for this? It is sstrange what sorts of images we have, though I can imagine it's harder to get those photos of birds of two sexes when not in large flocks or mating. We also don't really have any photos of House Sparrow courtship, even though we do have good Dead Sea and Spanish Sparrow photos. Cattle Egret FA status article. I have removed an image of a non-breeding Cattle Egret from the top of the infobox.

I modified the page from this two images in infobox to this one image in infobox. I thought that here the two images appearing in the infoxox were not on the same scale nor the same shape and made the infobox look cluttered and untidy. In addition, only a small portion of the grey cow's head is shown in the background making it difficult to determine what grey area represents.

However, I do think a non-breeding image would be good further up the article. Chinese Pond Heron ; has two images of different breeding plumages in infobox.

Perhaps you want to reformulate the question. One is basic, one is alternate. Steve Pryor talk Under this heading these are not images for identification. The issue here is if the presentation of two images of different plumage phases in the infobox would be better in the body of the article, where the topic of plumage phases can be discussed discussed. My first thought is to try and expand the text so the images dominate the text less.

I think that is the best way to help that one. I have rearranged the images for better layout and added a short blurb on relationships. Too lazy to cite HBW, where the superspecies info is from; it will have to be cited in proper at the first major overhaul anyway. In any case the layout is now more even.

There are enough photographs of this species to have the male and female in separate images, but I think this image of a pair works well. I think it works very well. Here the infobox image is an illustration, and photographs are available. The female one is not quite so good - a full side view of head and wings is probably needed to be diagnostic - but it would clean up the layout and then we can add the photo of the male foraging on the ground to round off the article for example. Now we have only 4 images showing them doing the same thing sitting around and not much elsethis is not ideal.

But we only have this one other photo of an Indigo Bunting doing anything else, so it should be in there. Two images shown in one infobox can illustrate a reasonably simple aspect of the species and this can be captioned in the infobox. I gauged this from the examples where two images have been successful.

clubpenguin if we ever meet again

When two image are used in the infobox, they can make the infobox look like a finished product by the images being about the same shape and each showing a bird about the same size. Generally photographs are preferable to illustrations in infoboxes. Medeis created a composite image of many birds which had many problems, shoddy cropping, images that were barely visible in miniature or were poorly lit Rather than replace the image I suggested a number of changes to make the image sufficiently good to be the main image of our most important article.

My attempts to elicit any improvements were rebuffed without a single concession. I was informed it was "too hard" and "too much work" - the last being extremely annoying as he put in two days of work and many of us spent months on that article.

I left the matter for a while as O was a away and b hoped he might try and actually improve the image. No improvements have occured, so I went back to the old established technique of rotating featured images.

He's put his image back and gone back to his old trick ofreverting and deleting my replies to his talk page. I'm not in the mood to get into an edit war. Can someone else weigh in on this and possibly get him to actually improve image if he's going to insist on placing it there. My comments on what is wrong with the image are here. Sabine's Sunbird talk Rather than discussing the matter where consensus already supports a composite, he choses to resort to immediately wikilawyering the issue. I have no problem with him replacing the few component images he finds fault with on his own, he was invited to do so long ago.

But since I find his specific objections to those particular components not particularly persuasive I have no intention of making those changes on my own. The issue is not perfection according to his personal dislikes but what better expresses the consensus goal. The rationale of having a composite image to express at least some of the major diversity of the class speaks for itself, and the complainant does not dispute this.

His action in replacing the composite with a single passerine is wp: I note that not one single editor besides the complaining editor above has expressed dissatisfaction with the image in the last many months, and that the image is used on thirteen other non-English language wikipedias.

Let the complaining editor modify the current composite rather than seeking to force me to do so at his command. I see a discussion about whether we should have one from before you made your image. I tried prodding you ages ago. I tried talking to you. You changed it back without even leaving me a message. I don't think that means whet you think it means. I didn't start quoting rules to support my position.

I threw it to the crowd to see what people thought. That, my friend, is the opposite of wikilawayering. As for "reprsenting diversity" - it is a nice goal but unrealistic. And I think you have misunderstood my bit about improving it. I am not "ordering" you to do anything. I am stating that unless you do anything the image as it stands is of insufficient quality to go where you have put it.

You reverted it without notifying me, and you complain that I restored it without leaving you a message?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds/Archive 56

Where does this article bear the notice, "Copyright Sabine'sSunbird"? Who besides you in half a year has objected to the composite? Yes, there is a consensus, hereExtra and myself. You said you "couldn't be bothered. I have invited you multiple times to modify the composite yourself by replacing those component parts of it which you find objectionable 3 components out of 18, I think?

Stop demanding that I do your work and seek your approval on whatever constructive acts I perform. Edit the image yourself. The only one stopping you is you.

This does not represent consensus. He asked if it should be montage or composite. I told him we had a pre-existing consensus was to rotate through excellent images because of the difficulties of composite images. He asked about how often we did it. He thought we should do it more often. I said go ahead. At no point did he say "I agree with putting Medeis' image in the taxobox, and SS is wrong". Again, since you apparently cannot read.

I am not NOT ordering you to do anything. I am saying the image is not good enough. I see no need for you or I to do anything more, since we have lots of good images that can go in its place.

I don't just have 3 problems. I have have this many. First image - poor cropping. Third image - poor cropping, worse since the bill is cropped Fourth image - unnatural taxidermy mount Fifth image - head difficult to see Sixth image - smaller concern but three ratites?

Tenth image - shockingly bad cropping - bill cropped but lots of space above head? Thirteenth image - unnatural lighting and distracting background fifteenth image - bird blends into background and is facing away from viewer - terrible image all round even when big seventeeth image - poor lighting. Fully half the images don't work or have issues. The rest are average, the only one that looks good at that size is the flamingo. I thought before that this sort of thing doesn't work and I still think so now.

I think that with several weak images within the 3 x 6 array the final array does not look like a finished product. When I first saw the image of the penguin third image I was puzzled why it had been cropped to remove the beak at the top of the picture and the part of the penguin resting on the ground at the bottom of the picture.

I also find it puzzling that the cassowary's helmet first image is cropped at the top.

  • Club Penguin Wiki:Chat/Logs/23 January 2013
  • Club Penguin Wiki:Chat/Logs/10 January 2014
  • Club Penguin Wiki:Chat/Logs/29 August 2015

I have commented here partly because I do not see any discussion on the current topics for discussion on the Bird talk page and I expect that old discussions have been archived. It would not be hard to find some better images: I also don't think this represents the diversity of birds all that well, though how on earth do you do this??

I think this is an omission that has not been corrected to date. Maybe it should just represent some basic types, which perhaps parrots don't illustrate these so distinctly. Bird Per Cas' suggestion I've started a poll at talk: It would be helpful to get a number of opinions one way or the other Sabine's Sunbird talk I had to look that word up to even find out what it meant.

Full text of "Page 6 Atari User Magazine (Dec Sep 98)"

After surgery for advanced melanoma, treatment is normally continued for 12 months unless the disease comes back. Treatment may need to be interrupted or stopped, or the dose reduced, if certain side effects occur.

For more information about using Tafinlar, see the package leaflet or contact your doctor or pharmacist. How does Tafinlar work?

The active substance in Tafinlar, dabrafenib, works by blocking BRAF, a protein involved in stimulating cell division. In melanoma and non-small cell lung cancer with the BRAF V mutation, the abnormal form of BRAF plays a role in the development of the cancer by allowing uncontrolled division of the tumour cells.

By blocking the action of the abnormal BRAF, Tafinlar helps to slow down the growth and spread of the cancer. What benefits of Tafinlar have been shown in studies? Melanoma Tafinlar was more effective than the cancer medicine dacarbazine at controlling melanoma that had spread to other parts of the body or could not be removed surgically.

This was based on one main study involving patients, which measured how long patients lived until their disease got worse. Patients taking Tafinlar lived on average 6. Two additional studies on melanoma that had spread to other parts of the body or could not be removed surgically looked at using the combination of Tafinlar with trametinib. In one study patients were given either the combination or Tafinlar alone. Patients given the combination lived for 11 months without their disease worsening, compared with 8.

In a second study involving patients, Tafinlar with trametinib was compared with another medicine for melanoma, vemurafenib. Patients given the combination lived In a study involving patients with stage III melanoma that had been removed surgically, the combination of Tafinlar and trametinib given for 1 year was compared with placebo a dummy treatment.

Non-small cell lung cancer In one main study, patients with non-small cell lung cancer received either Tafinlar combined with trametinib or Tafinlar alone. The main measure of effectiveness was the percentage of patients who responded completely or partially to treatment.

What are the risks associated with Tafinlar? The most common side effects with Tafinlar which may affect more than 1 in 10 people are papilloma wartsheadache, nausea, vomiting, hyperkeratosis thickening and toughening of the skinhair loss, rash, joint pain, fever and tiredness.