User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2010/10

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Fungi ID

The most usual view of Ganoderma applanatum. Rusty brown with white edge and white at bottom, and some brown dust (spores)

Hi Walter!

Please check and fix it.
And note for future identifications: Ganoderma applanatum spores rusty brown, Fomitopsis pinicola spores rather colorless.
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky talk 13:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree and will fix it. I read that the lower surface of Ganoderma applanatum bruises dark, a good field diagnostic.[1][2] Thank you. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Young (alive) Fomitopsis pinicola bottom part (hymenophore tubes) bruises dark too (very easy for painting), but spores dust is white, cream or yellow (colorless in microscope).
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky talk 06:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
That is good to know that the spore dust is the more reliable distinguishing feature. I wonder if you'd have a look at File:Ganoderma applanatum JPG1.jpg, please? To my eye, it looks more like Fomitopsis pinicola. Thank you for fixing the categories and gallery. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 09:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It is wet Fomes fomentarius --George Chernilevsky talk 10:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I continue to be assured that it is Fomes fomentarius. The best biologist in mycology in Russian and Ukrainian Wiki confidently informs: "It can't be Ganoderma applanatum" --George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating! I'm watching your discussion with Jean-Pol GRANDMONT with interest. I hope that one of you will copy the discussion to File talk:Ganoderma applanatum JPG1.jpg when it is concluded. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Walter!
My photo of Ganoderma applanatum. Note: Russian common name of this fungi is "плоский трутовик" = "flat bracket fungi".
With best regards, --George Chernilevsky talk 15:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi George; Good work. I think the lighting and resolution are better than James Lindsey's image. Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Nominated as VIC now --George Chernilevsky talk 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Supported, but not the first. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Montana flora

I've started a crude gallery of flora at User:Acroterion/Glacier flora. There are a few issues with consistency of color balance that I need to address. I've had to reluctantly give up on a few images due to depth of field issues - I normally shoot things that are all in focus, and I'm out of practice in the area of manipulating DoF: it shows. Any identifications you can provide would be much appreciated. I can identify asters and Indian paintbrush, but that's as far as I can go. Acroterion (talk) 20:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I came here Walt to link you back to Acroterion's page...will work on this too as I can but I'm not much better than Acroterion at flora identifications.--MONGO (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I've only had time to take a brief look. I recognize about half and may be able to suggest genus on a few others. Good pictures and welcome. Thank you for taking them. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at them; I suspect that the rose is a vagrant. Most of those images came from a formerly inhabited area at the foot of Saint Mary Lake, and the rose could be naturalized escapee from a cabin about 100 meters away. Acroterion (talk) 04:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Did you get any pictures of the rose thorns? I'm pretty sure of the IDs. When you add the geocoding, I'll check again. On some of the ones I couldn't identify, photos of the leaves may help, if you have them. File:Yellowstone flora1.jpg may be a Crassulaceae; it resembles Sedum divergens. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll look - there are some rejects (depth of field problems mentioned above) that might help. I bet I have something with the thorns or leaves in focus. Acroterion (talk) 12:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
On depth of field; I take most pictures at f/11, but occasionally at f/22. At the latter setting, diffraction-induced degradation of resolution is obvious, but the increased DOF is sometimes worthwhile. Recently, I've used focus stacking to avoid the diffraction problem, but it is time consuming. I use my built-in flash for most pictures, even on sunny days when the flash helps fill in shadows. To avoid overexposure on subjects with intense colors, especially red and yellow, I underexpose about 2/3 stop. I post-process (levels or curves tool) to brighten the dark and mid-levels of the resulting images. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help for flora identification, please

Bonjour Walter Siegmund.
J'ai "uploadé" ceci. Je l'ai classé en Cirsium vulgare. Myrabella says to me that I'm probably wrong. It is very possible and probable. Could you please help me for a better ID ? Pictogram voting info.svg Info the pic was taken at almost 2500 m., in the Sierra Nevada, in Spain (geocode provided). Many thanks !--Jebulon (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Bonjour Jebulon; Cirsium vulgare and C. arvense are invasive exotics in my region (northern Pacific coast of North America), but I don't know them that well because our native Cirsium, C. edule is easily distinguished. Otherwise, I'm not familiar with Cirsium in Eurasia. Your individual looks short for C. vulgare but may be dwarfed by the altitude. It has the large heads of purple disk flowers, the involucre of rows of bracts with spines, and the lobed leaves with spines on the lobe ends and leaf upper surface of C. vulgare. I can't see the stem, unfortunately. Did you check the range, especially the elevation, and the habitat? C. vulgare doesn't do well at high elevations in our mountains but it is common at low to mid-elevations in pastures and roadsides. MPF is European and may be helpful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for very kind answering. As I said, the picture was taken at 2500m high. You may see the habitat in the background: sol caillouteux, aride. I'll try to ask MPF too, for another opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I note the elevation and the habitat of your subject. The geocoding is good because I can see the satellite image. But, I meant that a plant book may describe the elevation range and habitat for each species and that may be helpful. In the meantime, I've looked at Flora Europaea v. 4 (Tutin et al.) and Flowers of Europe (Oleg Polunin). The description of C. vulgare seems consistent with your image. Flora Europaea has the unhelpful comment, "Almost throughout Europe", for its range. However, with 65 species of Cirsium and 45 species of Carduus which is distinguished from Cirsium by its pappus, it may be difficult for even an expert to identify your subject. Photos of the stem, leaf underside and/or fruit may be necessary. Sub-alpine plants: or, flowers of the Swiss wood and meadows (Harold Stuart Thompson) may be helpful since it includes elevation range for the species that it describes.[3] You might ask Orchi. He mostly works on orchids, but he surely knows more about Eurasian Cirsium than I. Amicalement, Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

Lonicera involucrata 6504.JPG
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lonicera involucrata (Twinberry Honeysuckle), flower.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Reviving the discussion about new Valued Image Set criteria

Hi there! I'm poking you as someone who was involved in working out new Valued Image Set criteria earlier this year. I'm trying to get them rolling again, so kindly take a look here, where I've restarted the discussion. The proposal for new rules has in the meanwhile been improved by incorporating a lot of input from people. I'm hoping we can agree on the text and start a voting! Thanks for your time :) --MichaelBueker (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Hi, Lycaon said you were good with Flowers. I was wondering whether you could tell me what species of flower is in this picture?

This is the picture

Thanks, Thomas888b (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm only a dilettante, I fear. What knowledge I have is mostly specific to the northwest coast of North America and I'm not familiar with cultivars. It is an Astereseae and probably a en:Coneflower. For the identification of many Astereseae, it is important to have pictures of the bracts immediately under the flower, both sides of the leaves, and the whole plant, e.g., Saussurea americana. If you can't find a better ID, you can categorize it as Category:Unidentified Asteroideae. The insect looks like a Category:Bombus species or a closely related genus. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
thanks :-)
Thomas888b (talk)


Danke Walter ist eine gute Idee! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban clarification

Hi Walt,

I'm not sure of understanding what your present stand is on the Mbz1&etc ban proposal. On the one hand, you have defended that "it may suffice to reiterate the policy from enwiki on this matter" ("Alternate to proposal just above"). I sympathize with this solution and have supported it; on the other, you seem to agree with ZooFari interaction restrictions (Mbz1 vs Lycaon, Kuiper and Rama). Am I missing something? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Alvesgaspar; on the narrow issue of Mbz1's civility proposal, I think it is better to remind everyone that, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." Please see No Personal Attacks. I am hopeful that we can do more to embolden FPC and QI participants to follow this policy. Mbz1's proposal is too narrow, in my opinion.
I think that without interaction restrictions, indefinite blocks, or other strong measures (in addition to more vigorous response to personal attacks), conflict will recur. That is our experience. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I would give it a try, anyway. With the guarantee of a prompt a severe reaction if PAs are resumed. If the ban is enforced it will make victims. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts. I don't think there is any rush to move to implementation as long as calm prevails. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
If you must comment on Mbz1's work, please try to be clear and helpful.[4] This is good practice for all reviews, not just those for Mbz1. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess you are exagerating a bit here (and Mbz1 is probably smiling...). The comment is a joke for the nominator, concerning the choice of the scope. It has nothing to do with Mbz1 or her picture! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Even if it isn't misunderstood by the creator, it may be wise to provide a good example for new reviewers who may not understand the joke. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)