Hi Walter - thanks! very nice pics again :-) I'm doing very little on wiki just at the mo, my computer seems set to expire, keeps on freezing in mid-type . . grrrr! (so if I disappear that's why). Nootka Cypress has been reclassified recently, you'll find it at Callitropsis nootkatensis now (the reasons for the change are outlined there) - MPF22:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Been wondering - do you have any opinion on whether it would be better to have Subalpine Fir at one page or two?: the two species split used by Fl. N. Amer. is far from universally accepted (e.g. USDA don't accept it). I was thinking of (a) moving the present page to just 'Subalpine Fir', and (b) expanding on the one/two species discussion, to make a page similar to that for White Fir (also split into two species by Fl. N. Amer.), or the coverage of Alpine Spruce at Norway Spruce. Let me know what you think - MPF16:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good proposal and support it. Pojar (op. cit.) does much the same and it works well. Coast Range Subalpine Fir and Rocky Mountains Subalpine Fir would be replaced by redirects to help those unfamiliar with the issue.
Will do, computer permitting! (just now, it seems to need 2 hours cool-off time for every half hour of working before it goes on the blink - yet a temperature indicator says it isn't overheating)
Hmmm - needs an admin to do it; I'll give Guettarda a buzz - MPF 20:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Addenum - Guettarda's done it now, I'll start working on the page - MPF21:33, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Some redirects for the White Fir and Norway Spruce common names seem to be missing. Is this intentional?
No, my oversight - I'm forever forgetting to do all the necessary redirects. By all means add any you see missing!
Do you have plans to work on Abies amabilis anytime soon? It is the dominant mid-elevation species west of the Cascade crest in Washington, often with only small number of other individuals, mostly Thuja plicata and Tsuga heterophylia.
Yes, again computer permitting; for pics I've got a studio closeup of some foliage (useful to show the dense pubescence) but a pic or two (or three or four ...!) from the wild would be brilliant. Any options on getting cones, or is it a poor crop this year?
Your suggestions of image subjects from Washington are welcome.
Any are welcome! If there's lots, they can always go in <gallery>...</gallery> format. Outsize trees are nice, but typical 'average' mature specimens are also perhaps better for an encyclopedia (I liked the Whitebark Pine pic in that respect), and shots of foliage + cones. Vine Maple would be good too, there's already a PD pic from the USDA, but it's very low res and could do with replacing, ditto for several other broadleaves too. And Taxus brevifolia (only very low res PD pic at the mo).
Excellent article. I like the illustrations you found, especially the closeup of the lower surface. I spent several hours looking through thousands of images without finding any that are suitable. Either the trees/foliage are incidental to the image or the identity of the species is uncertain. Now that I have a good reason to go on a photography expedition, the weather has turned bad. Snow is forecast down to 4 to 5000' in the next few days. It is our first significant storm of the fall. When it improves, I'll try to take good images of cones, bark, and typical trees. The pitch blisters in the bark of younger trees is a good ID feature. - Walter Siegmund20:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :-)) The pics are from a twig I picked and stuck on a scanner a while back (before I got my digi camera); unfortunately, the tree it is from is a long way away (it isn't a common species in cultivation around here) so I'll not be revisiting it for a while. Want to add a sentence on the bark? Annoying about the weather, nowt I can do about that! - MPF21:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I finally found an image. Please look at A. amabilis bark[1]. All but the Western Hemlock to the left of the foreground tree are A. amabilis. The pitch blisters are clear. I think a closeup might be better. Do you think this image is worth uploading?
No reason why not - it's a little blurred, but no worse than some of my pics! You could always put it on, and then overwrite it when you can get a better pic (like I did with Image:Abies homolepis cones.jpg, see its file history at commons) - MPF
On October 1, 2005, I walked about 6 miles in Cougar Mountain Regional Wildlands Park[2] to look for Taxus brevifolia individuals to photograph. The first hour was partly sunny, but later, a rare western Washington thunderstorm developed and brought rain.
I didn't see any Taxus brevifolia, but I did get Acer circinatum images. They are not completely satisfactory. This late in the year, they are somewhat damaged. Moreover they are damp from recent rain. But, they are higher resolution than the fall foliage image, they are sun-illuminated summer foliage and their provenance is well documented. I took pictures of Western Redcedar foliage, Western Hemlock, Red Alder and Bigleaf Maple bark and Douglas-fir cone and foliage. Please see the additions to my gallery. Walter Siegmund05:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the Mountain Hemlock image with open cones with the one with fresh purple cone. People are more likely to see the purple cones in the late summer, than the open cones in the winter or spring (when the snow is deep).
Is there a standard for referencing additional pictures? You mentioned using a gallery. Where is that done? Hike395 added the Commons template to Whitebark Pine. I added a {{Commons|Tsuga mertensiana}} template near the bottom for now. Walter Siegmund05:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Having a vague memory of seeing some Grand Fir trees about 1976 at the Kachess Ridge Trailhead, I returned to that location today, in part to check my memory. In any event, I expected to get some exercise, enjoy the fall weather, and obtain more images of plants, even if they weren't Grand Fir. My trip was successful. I returned with images of Grand Fir, Pacific Silver Fir, Vine Maple, Oregon-grape, Douglas squirrel and an interesting, but unidentified fungus. Unfortunately, I didn't see any cones other than Douglas-fir, but did obtain images of the Vine Maple seeds.
Sounds good! (apart from the no cone crop, but that's life :-). They may well be Interior GF (var. idahoensis) or intergrades with it, up there - MPF22:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is good. You indented and signed your message!
Here are a couple of more suggestions:
When you start a new discussion on a talk page (like here), use the "+" tab at the top of the page. That will at a subject headline and separate the new discussion from what went on previously. Also, it will add the headline to the table of contents at the top of the talk page.
Click on watch, the rightmost tab at the top of the talk page. That way, when someone replies to you, you will see it when you click on my watchlist at the very top of every page. Walter Siegmund13:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
MPF, I was able to obtain images of Taxus brevifolia foliage and form yesterday. It was in the eastern portion of its range, east of the crest of the Cascade Range. Other images include Larix lyallii and Picea engelmanni. I have another Tsuga mertensiana cone and foliage that I might add to its gallery. It is from a dryer and higher elevation location about 200 km from the other fall image location. Is there a policy on displaying geographically disparate images? -Walter Siegmund21:59, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Walter - Look forward to seeing them! When you're ready, just junk the old NPS Taxus brevifolia pic, it's crap resolution. On geographically disparate pics, there isn't any policy, but it's an excellent idea - Michael MPF22:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Michael - I uploaded the Sprite Lake images last night. Thumbs are at Commons:User:Wsiegmund. I added images to Taxus brevifolia and Mountain Hemlock. I think the new taxobox image is an improvement, but I don't think the foliage underside does much for T. brevifolia and will probably move it into a gallery soon, if you don't beat me to it. I didn't see any T. brevifolia tree forms near Sprite Lake. I know where to find some in Oregon and may be able to obtain images there of a fairly old individual near the end of October. I'm told that there is one on the University of Washington campus, as well, so may look for it later this week. I'm a bit partial to those in less disturbed settings however. I might have one in my files of one in Vancouver taken 2001.09, but it would be digitized film. -Walter Siegmund15:35, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! - I'd keep the T. brevifolia underside pic; it shows fairly conspicuous whitish stomatal bands, which, if it is typical of the species, could be an important overlooked identification character to tell it from T. baccata (often naturalised in the PNW) which has yellow-green stomatal bands. This character wouldn't be visible in herbarium specimens, which may be why it hasn't been mentioned before.
Pojar says "Needles ... dull green above, striped with stomata below ...".
No, it isn't; I recently read some research that debunked these extreme ages for T. baccata (cut the likely max to about a third to a half that), but haven't got round to incorporating it here yet; I'll try to get it done soon. See you've found the Gymno D'base is down at the mo too, I've asked Chris about it but he doesn't know why yet, nor when it'll be back up - MPF01:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This possibility would need more checking before it is added to the article though. I'll try to get a comparable T. baccata pic when the rain stops here. East of the Cascades, I wonder if it is too cold for T. brevifolia to grow above the winter snowpack depth? Or maybe all the larger ones have been cut for taxol and all there is left is seedlings and stump sprouts? - MPF20:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think to look for evidence of taxol harvesting. These individuals were adjacent to the trail and the highest one that I photographed was at 4100' elevation, 800' above the trailhead. That is about 1 hour round trip, so poaching is possible. I will look for evidence next time. -Walter Siegmund22:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your pictures are making me so nostalgic - I lived there '81-83, was very active in the Mountaineers. It would be cool to have some portraits of the various mountains you're passing by, like the ones in Beckey's Cascade Alpine Guide but better and in color... Stan13:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Walter - you raise a good point; I don't think it has ever been discussed anywhere (at least not that I'm aware of!) though I've wondered about myself at times too. I guess the basic answer is that conifer cones, leaf, bark, etc, all lead to fairly comprehensive pages, whereas there isn't a page for pulvinus at all. Equally, it isn't easy to know what to write about a pulvinus that would be more than a dictionary definition (and thus belong at wiktionary, not here). Another option might be to use a link [[spruce|pulvinus]] as the word is defined there. The other problem is thatiftoomanywordsarelinked, itgetsawfultoread!! It might be worth raising at WP:TOL talk. - MPF17:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for brightening up my home page. I finally took a virtual tour of Olympic National Park and very pleasant it was to, a truly beautiful world of unspoilt wilderness. Then I realised how damn big it was, you call that a park? In Europe we'd definitely classify that as a small country :). A park should be something I can walk my dog around the entire circumference in an hour or two! Majts18:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Thank you for your invitation to contribute.
I enjoyed your observation about parks. Your comment reminds me of other differences: In the US, overnight users rarely use huts. Mostly, they don't exist. Instead, nearly everyone carries lightweight tents. Also, climbing guide services exist, but only for a few of the peaks. I think they are more common in Europe. I should try to find a place for those points. I was disappointed to find no overall article on US National Parks, only a list. Also, I didn't find park areas in one place, e.g., a list by size. I'll be adding more images of Washington wilderness, so check Commons:User:Wsiegmund occasionally, if you like. Comments are welcome. ~----
Hi Walter - have to admit, I didn't, as it isn't a species I'm familiar with (I'm mainly into conifers and other trees, and also UK/European native plants). I've got some info on it in my books but not a huge amount so I could do a brief stub if you like. Been out birding all day today myself, there's east winds blowing here at the mo, bringing in lots of unusual birds from Siberia. - MPF21:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I can put together something on Cirsium edule if it isn't a project that is close to your heart. I hope you had a successful birding trip. Our last success was in September. We saw a Dryocopus pileatus really close and watched her peck a hemlock snag for several minutes. They are not particularly rare, but it is unusual to see one so well. Walter Siegmund22:35, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of fiddling a bit with the Pinus contorta map with the help of a color blind friend. See Talk:Lodgepole Pine. I hope you approve, but if not, feel free to revert. BTW, the color blind subgroup on Wikipedea seems quite active on the Color Blindness talk page. Some of those users might be happy to comment as well. The links from Color Blindness to external web sites on the design of graphics for the color blind were not as helpful as I might have hoped. -Walter Siegmund05:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at the color blindness talk page sometime soon; I find the cyan a bit glaring (and hard to read the cyan text), but that's a small price to pay for clarity for all.
I agree with your comments about the colorblind version. We could have both versions and put the colorblind version in a thumbnail.
Thanks for the compliment on the Goldcrest pic! Taken with macro from about 40cm range. I got Pileated Wp in the Oregon Cascades on my western US trip in 2000, super bird.
How in the world did you go so close? You must be a bird charmer. I would have guessed you were at 10 m with a 300 mm lens.
I found another map site with a high resolution aerial image of the Pallas's Warbler location [5] You probably know about it already, but it is quite impressive to me. The geography box for Harwich has a Maps for TM243313 link that has some other interesting example, too. See Geolink for Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge below for US examples. -Walter Siegmund(talk)22:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's impressive, thanks! Much better resolution than Google Earth currently has in the area, I scrolled across to my house and could see it clearly if a bit pixelly (tho' the photo is a few years old!). I'll check on the Harwich page later and see what's there - MPF23:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pleased that you found it interesting. I think some of these tools might be useful to document the location of an image, a collected specimen or a localized occurrence of a species. -Walter Siegmund(talk)00:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck on the Lassen trip, hope it doesn't decide to erupt suddenly! Look out for Cupressus bakeri (I've got location info if you need it). - MPF21:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For Cupressus bakeri, these directions are from Wolf's The New World Cypresses (1948), so they're old (!) and the road info may not still be applicable: "The Timbered Crater grove is located in the extreme southeast corner of Siskiyou County, southwest corner of Section 2, Township 38 North, Range 4 East [whatever that means!!]. When driving in from Fall River on the Dana to Day road, follow the road for 5.5 miles, at which point the old stage road swings off at a slight angle to the east but is roughly parallel to the new road for a short distance. It would be possible to drive out to the cypresses on this old road, but the distance is not more than two miles, and it is not only easier to walk in, but probably about as quick". Hope that helps! - MPF22:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the Cypress location. The driving directions may or may not be useful, but the Township/Range/Section description seems unambiguous. Selecting the California, Mt. Diablo Meridian (the only one that makes sense) and entering Township 38 North, Range 4 East, Section 2 in the locator form, leads one to Place point in HUC and a 10 km zoomed map, both with crosses at the center of the specified section. That is consistent with the USGS map (the north row of sections in a township are numbered east to west). The cross on this map is in the southwest corner of the section. Unfortunately, this location is just south of Siskiyou County in Shasta County and not in the extreme southeast corner of Siskiyou County as the directions state. That suggests to me that the directions may not be completely reliable. I hope that it will be obvious when we get there. -Walter Siegmund00:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - this actually clarifies some ambiguity in Wolf's account, I understand now (it isn't brilliantly clear in his text!) the Township etc location is for the place named 'Timbered Crater', and he says the Cupressus bakeri stand he calls the 'Timbered Crater grove' is slightly away from the crater itself - another bit I missed typing out (sorry! - it was in a different section of his text) "the center of the grove is about 1 mile northeast of Timbered Crater, the most useful landmark in this undulating lava bed country". Hope that helps more! - MPF15:55, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is a big help and gives me a lot more confidence that we will succeed. Also, it puts the grove in the extreme southeast corner of Siskiyou County. That removes an inconsistency that was bothering me. BTW, a search for "Timbered Crater" on Topozone.com, finds this feature straightaway. You don't even have to specify the state. All this is so much easier than in Wolf's time. What splendid times we live in. Thank you. Walter Siegmund16:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
2005:10:24 was our opportunity to look for the Cupressus bakeri grove. Our efforts were hampered because I misunderstood the nature of Timbered Crater, the crucial landmark. I expected it to be a depression in a fairly flat landscape. Instead it is a 100 m high cinder cone with a 10 m deep depression on top. This is obvious from the 7.5' USGS map, but I didn't understand it until that night in Red Bluff. Consequently, we drove to the top of Timbered Crater and was puzzled by the presence of this hill where I expected a depression. We spent the next two hours exploring the side roads looking for Timbered Crater not realizing that we had located it almost immediately.
Visibility in the forested portions of the area is poor, perhaps 50 meters. Also, there may be tracks that are not shown on the USGS map. About 17:30, running out of daylight and confused, we departed. Perhaps we can try again on another trip.
We arrived at the area about 15:30 PM and found the proper (unsigned) access road easily. Glenburn has a sign and the bends on the road to Dana are good landmarks. The crossings of the Fall River and Little Tule River (0.5 miles) provide confirmation of the correct access road as does the sign at mp. 2.4, "Timbered Crater 5 miles" (distance incorrect). The road to Timbered Crater is signed "39N03" and indicated on the 7.5' USGS map with a red label [6]. At milepost 6, it is a better quality road than the other branch roads. We drove 1.2 miles on that road and reached the bottom of the crater (the inconsistency with the distance on the map is likely our error).
At milepost 6.6 is 40NO4C and at milepost 7.2 is 39NO4. Both are signed but only the former is labeled on the USGS map. They provide access to the northeast side of Timbered Crater. We drove 1.9 miles on 40NO4C before the brush began hitting the sides of our car. At 16:37, I took a picture to the northeast after walking an additional 0.1 mile on the road. That location is consistent with the point where 40N04C enters the brush zone on the USGS map, near the NE slope of Timbered Crater. We drove 0.7 miles on 39N04 and likely could have driven somewhat further. That road directly or via 40N04C and the one marked 4WD on the USGS map are the two most likely routes to the grove[7]. I don't remember seeing the 4WD road, so I don't know how straightforward it would be to find it. It is shown on the "Modoc Country" map of the U.S. Forest Service, so that it encouraging.
Road 40N04 at milepost 8.1 is useful only as a landmark. It is not labeled on the USGS map but the water tank at 0.1 miles is present and indicated on the map. Walter Siegmund02:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Always glad to revert a vandal. I encounter (including on my own page, sometimes) the same nature of vandalism on an almost daily basis. I get sick of it, I'm sure you do too. So, anytime! Cheers Banes17:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Have been thinking about your comments as I have taken more pictures. Not sure I am yet seeing things before I take the pictures always, but have been taking many more to compensate. I was pleased with Image:Libeskind Holloway Road close up.jpg because of the engagement of the passers by in the picture (actually they looked at me about to take the picture first, then looked at the building, which I found more interesting, people just walking past a building like that in that street without seeing it). I also like Image:Mirror in kings Cross.2005.jpg perhaps for personal reasons - I had just been to the Nobuyoshi Araki photo exhibition and had been thinking about photography, and also the building in the mirror is a particular block of early 20th century flats that was duplicated in several parts of London that I like, and must write an article about. I am meaning to try fill-in flash again - the only time I got it to work was photographing flowers in a dark wood, will try more. Anyway thanks for all your comments and suggestions. Justinc01:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Libeskind Holloway Road Wow! Great subject, marvelous shadows and light, and a pastel sky that doesn't draw attention away from the subject. I'd almost say that you hired models. The passersby echo the dark and light of the subject in their clothing, accessories and skin color. Their interest in the building draws us in and increases our interest in it as well. But, why show so much of the street and sidewalk? That detracts from the subject, I think. I rotated the image so that the right edge of the building is vertical and cropped off the pole. It makes a better thumbnail, too.
Libeskind Holloway Road Given the title, the mirror is the subject, but the building is the subject according to your comment. I think that neither the mirror, nor the building is depicted well. The mirror background is a similar color to the mirror frame, the mirror is at a oblique angle to the camera and the well-lit building reflection draws your attention from the mirror. The building does not fill the frame, is cut off on the right and top and is obstructed by the automobile and sign. Moreover, there is no apparent reason not to photograph the building directly. That said, a mirror is a challenging element to include in images. Most commonly, I think they are used to show a second view of the same subject. The Edouard Manet painting, A Bar at the Folies-Bergere is a good example.
Did you take closeups of the frame decorations? I think they might be interesting, if you could learn something about their history or place.
I'm glad you are taking more pictures. I often take 100 to 200 pictures in a day. Take pictures from a lot of different angles, left and right, high and low. That will give you a variety of backgrounds, some of which will be good. I think it is hard to know how the background is going to look when you are planning the picture.
On Sunday, I took pictures of the fountain in Edmonds, Washington. Unfortunately, the best picture is tilted a bit and I don't have enough extra at the top to crop it without cutting off the top of the fountain. I should have taken more images.
Do you know the three element rule? Good pictures have three elements, e.g., passersby, building and sky. It is a less is more rule. Three contrasting elements are pleasing and interesting without looking cluttered or confused. It is more important for encyclopedia illustration than for photography as art. For illustration, simplicity and filling the frame with the subject are cardinal virtues.
Sorry been tied up in work and other things. Saw you put the unsigned comments sigs on my talk page - thanks. Its my most drastic intervention to stop a row so far (and accidental too, just was browsing about something else). Reckon if I keep them from editing for a few days to calm things down then can tidy it up a bit. I really enjoyed the Araki, lots of different styles of pictures, some idea of his obsessiveness (there was an album of marked up contact sheets, with cuts and notes on, some idea of just how many photos he takes, reminds me of my one brief trip to Tokyo, must go again; perhaps my favourite was the pictures from the book he did in the 80s of opposite pages of nudes and Tokyo architecture). Weather terrible here, just a few part days of non rain, but the other weekend I borrowed the camera from work (Epson RD-1), and took another few pictures including another bridge picture which is rather better than the earlier which you commented on before. Actually I think the whiteness of the bridge could stand even more autumnal colours, but it is the manual focus that makes most difference, and better lens. Took some getting used to as had not used a rangefinder before; will borrow it again especially as there are some other lenses somewhere in the office. Justinc02:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Justin! Sorry to be slow responding. I've been trying to add pictures from Lassen Volcanic National Park and environs. Also, despite my better judgement, I commented extensively on the Adi Shankara edit war, to no good purpose I fear. I looked at Talk:Circumcision. I was unaware of that debate, and I'm not sure I regret my ignorance. You have my profound sympathy. Anyhow, I think you are spot on (did I use that right?) in your image judgement. I like October very much. Thanks for showing it to me. Let me know when it appears in an article, if you would, please. Best wishes. Walter Siegmund(talk)19:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Great pics! None of the trees with any cones ("berries") on? (a good crop, as always, on T. baccata here) - MPF00:48, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Always annoying when there's no cones (my western US trip was also in a poor cone year, tho' I did manage to collect cones of most species eventually (actually, if it had been a good year, there's no way I'd have got them home :-)). Maybe T. baccata's greater fecundity is part of the reason it is more successful (I've never seen a blank year on it, and often get bird-sown seedlings in the garden). - MPF01:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You're safe on Juniperus occidentalis subsp. occidentalis, it is the only juniper in that area (it doesn't have a page yet, I'll do one for it tomorrow) - MPF01:28, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Juniperus occidentalis. "One is from Hilt, CA, about 100 km west of Lava Beds NM, but looks very similar to the Lava Beds individuals, so I'm calling it J. occidentalis as well" - yep, sure is (and not far from where I got some of mine at Yreka) - MPF14:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Juniper Tip Midge gall Is the brown feature that looks a little like a miniature Douglas-fir cone, the gall caused by the Juniper Tip Midge, Oligotrophus betheli? That was splendid (and quick) work on the new article, Juniperus occidentalis! Thank you. -Walter Siegmund16:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Michael, I wonder if you might be kind enough to check my ID of the individual in this image? The lower cone is very similar to the fourth one at http://www.conifers.org/pi/pin/murrayana.htm. But the youngest cone is much more prickly than my P. contorta subsp. latifolia image. Is that one of subspecies differences, or did I misidentify it? Thank you for confirming the ID of the Oligotrophus betheli gall on my talk page. That is fascinating. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund(talk)03:14, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Walter - spot on! I've got a lot of near-identical cones from various places from southern Oregon down through the Sierra Nevada. Other useful distinctions are the yellow-buff (rather than orange-brown) cones which are never serotinous. - MPF12:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Michael. Thank you for the confirmation. Do you think this is a good illustration? It shows three different aged cones, but it is not typical to see three cones of different ages in close proximity. It doesn't look like an entry for serotinous exists yet, but maybe it is a dictdif. How difficult is it to bring nonindigenous plant parts into the UK? Walter Siegmund(talk)17:26, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Walter - looks OK as a pic to me; there's always the option of replacing it if you get a better one later. I'd agree serotinous would be something more for wiktionary, though maybe I could add a para or two on conifer seed dispersal tactics at conifer cones. Importing into the UK - live plants are (mostly) banned, seeds are mostly OK, and dried/preserved specimens (i.e., herbarium material) no restrictions. Personally, I tend to stay on the cautious side, not collecting any herbarium specimens that look diseased or pest-infested (in case fungal spores survive drying), nor old (grey, weathered) cones, which may contain woodworm; I also freeze incoming specimens at -20°C for 3 days to kill any insects - MPF21:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've just left this at Talk:Adi Shankara. My apologies for missing your contributions (though, as I explain, I requested page protection before most of the discussion had taken place). I very much hope that you'll return to the page and continue your extremely helpful intervention. SS's long-standing hostility to me meant that the only way that he'd discuss the disagreements sensibly (or at all) was through a decent third party, and I'd hate to lose that through my own careless haste.
I had explained to SS why I'd made the edits that I had, and he refused to discuss the issue, merely making general comments about me and the edits (mainly in edit summaries). I eventually (two days ago) asked for the page to be protected. I'm currently struggling with a particularly heavy teaching load, so I'm a couple of days behind checking on my Watchlist (I'm now at 02:06 on 8 x 05, if anyone's interested), and I missed the current discussion. I'm pleased that the intervention of a third party, Walter Siegmund, has finally brought SS to the discussion, but I'd asked for page protection before most of that discussion had taken place.
I agree with almost everything that Walter Siegmund said, and even where I don't I appreciate his calm and serious approach. I hope that he'll return to the Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)22:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing in your suggestion at the Talk page to which I take strong exception. Could I ask what yout position is concerning what I described in one of my attempts to explain some of the edits that SS was reverting: "the unnecessary division of the article into smaller sections, a lot of duplicated internal links, some PoV language (e.g., I replaced "his greatest lesson" with "his main lesson"), and the addition of a section which mentions what one writer (out of very many) has said about Shankara's dates — an addition which I think is somewhat PoV, as it raises one opinion above others. I also removed a duplication in the bibliography ("The commentary on the Bhagavad Gita" appears both as book that he certainly wrote and as one that he probably wrote, but on which there's no scholarly agreement), and I organised the external links section so that links to the same sites were grouped together."
I should stress that I'm not saying that my agreement to your compromise suggestion depends upon your answers here (indeed, I'll place my agreement at the Talk page now), but you'll understand my interest. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)22:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mel Etitis, thank you for your agreement without conditions and your inquiry. I think that the response by Sam Spade to my proposal renders my opinions on the substance of this matter meaningless. Best wishes. Walter Siegmund(talk)03:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that your efforts came to nothing. I've reemphasised the RfC entry, but given the lack of success of your attempt to mediate, I don't hold out much hope. Thanks again for trying. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης)22:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleased to attempt to help. I am disappointed, too. I was hopeful when you agreed to my suggestions. In my opinion, I was asking you to give up more than Sam Spade when I asked you both to agree not to revert the other. Unfortunately, I was not skillful enough to persuade him that it was to his advantage to agree as well, but I believe this to be true. I hope that others comment. Perhaps someone with more experience or a different perspective can help. Best wishes. Walter Siegmund(talk)03:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interesting question. I've just spent a happy few hours looking through ancient history, as far as my Wikipedia edits go. As far as I can tell, this is a diff between the edit immediately preceding my very first edit and the current version. I had looked at Wikipedia's article about 6-12 months before that, but it was so awful I didn't bother trying to edit. When I started editing, the (infamous) Robert Brookes had been taking on some of the bias, so it wasn't so bad. Jakew20:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Your first comment didn't wrap because you started the line with a space. This causes the Wiki to interpret it as preformatted text. Cheers. Jakew11:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
... other images (while shadowy) give idea of scale better; also gallery at bottom looks a bit rubbish; picture placing complements text nicely (copied from edit summary, 22:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)).
Hi, Plumbago. That is an excellent point about scale! Scale is depicted well in Image:A Yool DevilsTower 04Sep03.jpg. Your point about layout is valid too. But, I'd like to see Image:Devils Tower portrait.png] (largely redundant with the first) replaced eventually by a closeup of rock, rock climbing, flora or fauna characteristic of the area to contrast with the other two images and add more content. Also, I wonder if Image:Devils Tower.jpg might be improved (given the 250px width) by cropping some of sky and sides? Walter Siegmund(talk)05:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Devils Tower National MonumentDevils Tower National Monument (cropped)
Hi Walter. Just to let you know that I've slightly edited that photograph of Devils Tower to reduce "surplus" sky and trees. Essentially so that the subject dominates the image. I hope that it fits the bill, but please feel free to revert to the original image if you prefer it. Cheers, --Plumbago11:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Plumbago, I think the new crop is very good and illustrates the article better. The columns are apparent, even in the thumbnail image. Thank you. -Walter Siegmund [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 17:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Glad you like it. I think it does the picture justice now. It's a lot better than the ones I took from a similar angle when I was there! Cheers, --Plumbago17:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. BTW, I have an image from 2000.08 or thereabouts that illustrates the "dark red sandstone and maroon siltstone, interbedded with shale, along the Belle Fourche River". I wonder if you might want to consider it as an alternative to the third image in the article? Thank you. Walter Siegmund [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 17:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
When pictures show something different, I tend not to think of replacing existing shots. There's plenty of space on the article as it stands, so I'd just add it to the page. --Plumbago18:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That one is easy. You have [[ as [[<nowiki></code>. I suggest you put <code><nowiki>[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] as your signature in the "my preferences" option, which will result in:
I selected "Raw signatures (without automatic link; do not use templates for this)" under My preference/Nickname: and did as you suggested. It seems to work now. Thank you. Walter Siegmund(talk)02:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you may be more interested in flora and fauna than land areas but this project may interest you. See also the new template that has been developed...and there are over two thousand articles it needs to go into, so we need all the help we can get!--MONGO10:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Walter. Thanks for pointing me towards this project. You're right - it's not a priority for me (though it's more worthy than many of the priorities I do keep), but I will try to look in on at least the Parks I'm familiar with. Cheers, --Plumbago08:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I answered you on that talk page and post the same answer here...let me know if I can be of any help.
I haven't been using any visitation numbers for wilderness areas due to the fact that those figures are either impossible to find it seems or merely guesstimates. Even for more heavily visited areas such as National parks, they base it on paid entrants and an average of occupants per car (something like 2.6 people per vehicle). To get rid of the brackets, simply take them out as I haven't had that problem by leaving the field completely blank for the visitation and year stats. Hit edit this page on this article and you'll see how I do it.--MONGO06:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support on my RfA. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! If I can ever help with anything or if you have any comments about my actions as an admin, please let me know! Regards, JoanneB13:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've done more than 2000 edits, but these are tend to be repeats. The majority of my edits are related to the now-winding-down EB1911 project -- and these mostly annotations. The rest are to articles I've composed or majorly rewritten (e.g., all those EIEC based archaeological culture and Indo-European articles). Pseudo-Isidore was my last major article, and this was just a merge. Of the remainder, most are of the copyedit variety, catching a typo or fixing grammar, and these are indeed minor. I try to remember to add a memo for larger changes. I tend to leave notes on the talk page instead of in the edit summary to indicate substantial changes. I tend to hang out in little visited corners of wiki, though I've occasionally gotten into the crossfire of the Balkan Wars (look at Tripolye culture to see a textbook example of this). The admins I've worked with are User talk:Wiglaf (a Swede) and User talk:Dbachmann (a Dane). What were you wallowing through for me to come to your attention? --FourthAve01:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It was a somewhat disturbing message at User talk:Reyk that prompted me to investigate your contributions. [9] I saw a couple of recent edits that I thought merited a brief summary and were not minor. [10][11] One approach that I use for short edits is to copy my edit into the summary box. [12] It is easy for me and is useful to others. Anyhow, thank you for taking my comments in the way that they were intended and for your pleasant and interesting reply.
Also, thank you for the links above. I enjoyed the Pseudo-Isidore article especially. I'm not sure how to include it in ordinary conversation, but I'm thinking about it. It is splendid that such a breadth of knowledge is contained in Wikipedia! I'm afraid we don't overlap significantly. My interests have been mundane, for the most part. I've been adding pictures to tree articles and pictures and infoboxes to Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas in Washington, Oregon and California. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund(talk)02:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Biographical articles, paticularly those of very public personalities, become subject edit wars; very often, a flack on the personality's payroll is the one doing the edits (see Paula Zahn vis-a-vis Pale Male (her hubby ordered the destruction of his nest). With Jim Nussle and Bob Vander Plaats, we're in the political arena, where flack edits are routine; Karl Rove has caused a full fledged, ongoing war. With Nussle, he has every motive to keep the sordid details of his lurid, adultery-drenched divorce and the that kind of woman details of his 2nd wife as quiet as possible (she worked for Newt Gingrich then became a K-Street lobbyist for a foreign-owned lobbying firm), then seduced her way into being a trophy wife. I assumed the guy was just another flack; he was supposed to put his objections onto the Bob Vander Plaats talk page, but failed to do so, which makes his objections meaningless, and to be immediately disregarded (and even flamed, which I did). I also fail to see how an Australian can have any insight into some so provincial as the the 2006 Iowa Governor's race; it's like me objecting to races in Victoria state. --FourthAve00:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zoe! I've added my view of the consensus on additions to these sections to the article talk page. That was a very good suggestion. I wonder if a comment of the sort, "Before adding to this section, please read the editorial consensus on the article discussion page.", might be appropriate to add to the article? I wonder if you would be kind enough to point me in the direction of the relevant WP policy or guide on the use of comments in articles, please? Best wishes, --Walter Siegmund(talk)05:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Talk pages: On Wikipedia, the purpose of a talk page is to help to improve the contents of the main page, from an encyclopedic point of view. Questions, challenges, excised text (due to truly egregious confusion or bias, for example), arguments relevant to changing the text, and commentary on the main page are all fair play.. User:Zoe|(talk)03:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Zoe, thank you for the kindness of your reply. I can't help wondering if your answer is to the point, however, since my question was about the use of <!--comments--> in articles and the reference you cite is about the talk pages. Moreover, it seems not to discuss comments. DreamGuy cites the use of comments in Wica (see his edit summary). I might add Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. These examples suggest to me that some use of comments may be appropriate in articles. The Katrina article was edited frequently by many distinct editors. I don't think comments would have been retained without support for their use.
I wonder if you might be willing to reply to my query regarding the comment wording (and caps use) that I proposed in my previous message?
May I say that I don't agree with the reversion by DreamGuy of your deletion of my comments? My preference is to resolve this matter through discussion and dialogue. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund(talk)04:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help! Been thinking I ought to beef up that P. ponderosa article with some refs and more detail (it's ages since I did anything on it) - MPF12:02, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. I'll be uploading some more images from the Mount Lassen trip of P. benthamiana over the next two weeks or so. Some of those may be good illustrations for the augmented article. --Walter Siegmund(talk)15:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Walter - those are mostly last spring's old male cones, which would have shed their pollen about 6 months before the pic was taken. There are also two vegetative growth buds (just to the right, and top left, of them; behind and a little out of focus); in P. contorta these are smooth due to a covering of resin (not all pines have resiny buds though). For recognition of male cones, they can be told most easily (in photos) by their scales being short and stubby; veg. bud scales of pines are slender and acuminate (as visible in your P. benthamiana pic). In the hand, old male cones like these are also very fragile, easily scrunched up into a heap of fragments; bud scales less so. - MPF17:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Walter - I'm about to archive some stuff from my talk page and didn't want your pic to disappear into archive oblivion, so I've started a Cirsium edule page for it. It isn't much more than a stub, can you add more? - MPF19:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for starting Cirsium edule. I'm not sure what I can add, but I'll work on it soon, maybe even tomorrow. Your stubs are impressively complete. Also, thank you for the helpful description of the distinguishing characteristics of vegetative growth buds and male cones. I see the vegetative growth buds in Image:Pinus contorta 8030.jpg now. I didn't even notice them before. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund(talk)21:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Walter, and thank you for your kind words of say a month ago or anyhow it seems like a long time ago. It was very encouraging to me to hear some kind words. But now I could use some help and I don't yet have anyone I can go to to talk things over. And I volunteered to Friday not to bother them (him or her) more than say twice a year. If you see anything I can improve on in this current problem, please let me know. Below is just part of my comment, and the rest of my comment will orient you better. This is just what I put on Slim Virgin's talk page an hour ago. No reply expected or needed. But thank you in advance if you do reply. And feel free to throw all of this out of your talk page, because I agree that it doesn't fit in well. As a scientific type, I would guess that you're interested in using footnotes too, though.
Subsection=(Correcting a minor oversight in) the subsection Embedded HTML links : I inserted a paragraph repeating the same example link but now using a text fragment following a space in the single square brackets, so the reader clicks on the text fragment rather than on an automatically generated number. This addition merely corrects an oversight in the article. Let me point out that if there are any users who might wish to disallow this type of embedded HTML link, they would thereby be disallowing automatically numbered footnotes which this article otherwise permits. For7thGen 00:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Frank, it wasn't an oversight. We like to distinguish clearly in articles between internal and external links. Typing chaos indicates that's internal, and typing [6] tells the reader they're being taken to another website more clearly that typing The Guardian does. It can also be useful to have the links numbered. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi Slim, may I call you Slim? I do have questions for you in response to your good message on the above talk page. 1st, do you wish to disallow automatically numbered footnotes to coexist with embedded HTML links in the same article? If you answer no, you do allow this, then please tell me exactly how it can be accomplished?
2nd, and far less important than the main question(s) above, your revert description was "no link title should be added to embedded links in articles, only in further reading or references." Please tell me where I can find this statement? I would like the source for this or for a substantially-the-same statement which you feel is the most official or highest credibility source in Wikipedia-land. Merely so that I can see where you are coming from. Thanks for your kind help, especially on the 1st question(s). For7thGen01:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Frank, it is a pleasure to hear from you. It appears that SlimVirgin may have been able to answer your query. She is certainly more knowledgeable than I on such matters. I fear that I am not nearly as diligent as I should be on citations and verifiability. I applaud your efforts to make policies and guides more clear. --Walter Siegmund(talk)05:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Walter. Wanted to thank you for your taking the time to welcome me to Wikipedia. After you mentioned proper styles for linking dates, I went back and corrected the date links in the Lassen Volcanic National Park article. Thanks for the advice. I viewed your pictures of Lassen. Nice pics. It is a great place, isn't it?
You should check the spelling of "Almanor" in the pic looking toward Lassen from Lake Almanor.
Thank you for following up on the date links. I find myself referring frequently enough to WP:MOS that I have it memorized. You might find the numbers and units section useful, too.
Topozone finds no Lake Alamanor. It finds Lake Almanor (redlinked!) in Plumas County, CA, a reservoir at 4500 feet on the USGS Chester quad, 40.253ºN, 121.160ºW. [13] Mount Lassen is at 40.4879°N, 121.5061°W. [14] So the separation is about 0.4 degrees or 25 miles. That looks about right. Leave Matt314 a greeting with the spelling question, if you like. If you aren't fluent in German, he welcomes English messages and he is a very active editor so you will likely get a quick reply. If not, fix it yourself. I wonder if it wouldn't be be good to add the view direction and the distance to the image summary, too.
The October trip was my first visit to Lassen. I liked it a lot. Bumpass Hell is the most scenic thermal area that I've seen. That includes the Rotarua area in New Zealand. I haven't been to Yellowstone yet. Thank you for the kind words on my pictures. I've been working through the backlog of tree images. I'll return to mountains, next.
My mistake on the photo taken from Lake Almanor. I thought it was one of your photos. I should have clicked on it for more info. I noticed the spelling as I used to live about 10 miles from Lake Almanor. I will let Matt314 know about the spelling (in English).
I really wasn't sure about the linking of dates you mentioned on my Talk page. I will read the MOS again. I may ask for some help! Work on astronomical telescopes sounds interneting. Have a good one, QuickDraw06:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The section (that I should have cited above) from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_formatting is Adding square brackets "[[DATE]]" to full dates allows date preferences to work. Editors are not required to link full dates, but most full dates in Wikipedia are linked so that each user's date-formatting preference appears in the text. For this to work, at least the day and the month must be included; some date preferences won't work unless a year is also linked. That is why I thought August 9, 1916 should be linked. BTW, you can set your date preferences by clicking on my preferences (at the top of the MonoBook (default) skin). I think I have mine set to the European order, currently. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund(talk)07:08, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Walter - I don't know what they are, but I'd say something in Lepidoptera (moths/butterflies) rather than Symphyta (sawflies, the other possibility). They're certainly eating the leaves though. My best suggestion would be to have a search at Insect Images or ask Richard Barlow (his talk page) as he's doing a lot of Lepidoptera pages.
Of Taxus brevifolia, I'd be wary of yews in a major city public park - I gather (from a very knowledgeable WA contributor on the Gardenweb Forums) that T. baccata, either deliberately planted or naturalised from nearby gardens, is commoner in such situations. A 20 cm diameter specimen need only be about 40-50 years old. Interesting on the mat form in the east, makes me feel my other guess about winter snow cover protecting them is significant, given the much colder winters east of the Cascades - what would be interesting to know is if they are all like that there, or whether any achieve substantial above-snow-cover growth.
Very quiet on the birding front for the last month, things have settled down to the winter routine with just the regular 'everyday' species around. Had a dusting of snow a week ago, but it only lasted 2 or 3 hours. MPF11:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nice pics! I'll have to pad out the text a bit as the tree pic conflicts (in IE at least!) with the bullet point for the North Plateau paragraph :-) (maybe now, more likely t'moro). I've added refs now. - MPF22:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops!! - just checked the location . . . at 42° 51' 28"N 121° 39' 41"W you are just east (by about 40km/25miles) of the boundary line between "P. benthamiana" and P. ponderosa (there, the Cascades crest, about 122° 30'W), so they should be P. ponderosa. The two do intergrade along their boundary (which is why they're not treated as distinct species!), so trees close to the boundary are inevitably more difficult to identify. Unfortunately the immature cone colour (the most conspicuous distinction) isn't visible at this time of year :-( - MPF00:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Michael, thank you for catching the bad IDs. I thought I checked the range map, but obviously didn't or misinterpreted it. Anyhow, I think it is all fixed now. The images with the incorrect file names are tagged for speedy deletion. Walter Siegmund(talk)03:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Walter, thanks a ton!! As you know, I've been elected as admin with the tally of 50-0-0. Your comments abt me, saying that I do not get easily provoked were really helpful. You are the last person I'm thanking. It is because I was not ready to face you as my work on Adi Shankara is still incomplete. Hopefully, I'll be able to reach a satisfactory stage with my efforts by this weekend and then I'll let you know. I'll be replying on your talkpage and I've added it to my watchlist. Thanks again for showing trust in me. --Gurubrahma14:09, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome. If only there were more editors like you! Thank you for your interest in Adi Shankari. Since I contacted you, User talk:Tony Sidaway removed the block and User talk:Sam Spade reverted it to his version on November 5. So far, User talk:Mel Etitis has shown restraint and has not resumed the revert war. In light of these developments, I suggest that I proceed with the edits that I proposed on the talk page. These are edits to make the article consistent with WP:MOS mostly and not edits regarding the substance of the article. Your comments on my edits will be welcome. I wonder if you would be willing to look at the two items that Mel Etitis identified as more substantive on my talk page; the alledged POV language and the citation of one writer (among many) on dates. That done, perhaps we can both watch the article and contribute as we have the time and interest. Your comments on how we might best proceed are welcome. Thanks again for your interest. You must be relieved that your thank you notes are complete. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund(talk)14:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](http://home.comcast.net/~w.siegmund/Washington/20040906_BastileRidge/IMG_3288t.jpg){kind=link}
Hi Walter - thought it was about time you had one of these for your pics! - excellent illustrative work.
