User talk:Mdvaden
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] Image size
Please upload higher resolution images. I can't see the sunburn in this tree-trunk at all, yet I've seen plenty of beautifully sunburned tree trunks in the Coast Ranges on exposed trees facing south. KP Botany 19:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
On the sunburn page, no higher resolution should be needed. I reduced the file to speed page loading. As it appears, the sunburn is clearly evident. Its not easy to miss the hollow cavity in the photo where there sunburn destroyed tissue, and callus grew on either side.
Anyhow, its clear as day on my screen.
Is your monitor older or newer?
Mdvaden 23:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, if it's clear as day on one computer screen in the entire world, the one it was uploaded on, that should be fine for the whole world of Wikipedia users. Sarcasm aside, that it works well on your screen is not the issue. I have a brand new, lovely, flat-screen, larger sized monitor, with excellent and calibrated rendition for my color photography digital imaging work, though--the issue is not your monitor, nor is it mine. The upload request was about your poison-oak images. The sunburn is not "clearly evident," what is evident is the damage from the sunburn. An image of a sunburned tree-trunk would be better. Also, the best way to get your poison oak images on Wikipedia is just to upload some on some Wikipedia compatable license. As an arborist you must have lots of useful images for various Wikipedia articles. KP Botany 23:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Sunburn to most bark, cannot be seen. It's actually the tissue beneath that's burned. Occassionally, sunburned leaf damage may be evident within a day or a week, but not 99.9% of sunburned trunk damage.
In almost all cases, it takes about 1 to 3 years for the bark to start peeling and cracking.
When teaching tree care at the local college the past two weeks, we looked at multiple photos of sunburn damage. Every photo showed damage that took months or years to manifest itself. I have found no other sunburn damage to tree trunks in nurseries, landscaping or forests.
In over 25 years of tree care, I've observed or worked at about 8,000 separate residential properties. To this day, I have never found a sunburned trunk where the actual "burn" could be seen. It was always the resulting damage. It's incomparable to human tissue damage.
I also have driven the coastal highways, as well as Mt. Hood, Crater Lake area, etc.. Only sunburn damage results from past sunburn were evident to bark on trunks - never a visible example of current sunburn damage, such as days or weeks old. It just doesn't work that way.
One year, I recall seeing Bear's Breach, a perennial, sunburned or sun-damaged on the way to Seaside from hot weather. That's the closest thing I've encountered to any immediate sunburn.
The only burn damage I've seen that could be photographed just a few days after the fact, was actual FIRE damage. I was hired to do consulting, and then tree replacement in Central Point where a fire in ravine torched the sides of some incense cedars and quaking aspen.
The aspens had some discoloration on the side of the flames, and some spots of oozing. Anyhow, that was a fairly speedy transition of appearance due to burn. But I've never encountered sunburn on tree bark that produced the same fast results as damage from hot flames.
Mdvaden 03:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've seen sunburned Madrones after clear-cutting near them. It's not something, however, that I've looked at otherwise, or thought of other than now and one field trip. Bear's Breach grows fine in the Central Valley, so it's hard to think of it sun-burning. Anyway, add some pictures, it sounds like you've had years to gather some interesting ones, and Wikipedia could use some good high resolution horticultural images. KP Botany 03:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I've got an image of our Madrone with sunburn damage. It's a 40" DBH tree trunk, sunburned before we bought this place when tree were cut to build the library next door. The spots show up as bare spots - shot from about 40' away.
If it's not clear enough, I can try another shot on another day. It at least gives a distance view of what happens.
It's too bad the damage happened to it. I'm trying to see if the local paper will let me write an article about preventing this damage.
The reason that Bear's Breach burned, was that the route to Seaside Oregon had like 60 degree weather for a long time, then when Portland got slammed with an unusual 100 degree day in May of about 2002, the coastal area got a quick 85 degree or hotter day. The Bear's Breach just didn't adapt to the fast temperature increase. It was only the ones in full sun that wilted. When I drove through the shade, the plants were fine. Only saw that happen once or twice. The coast is my common escape after it gets hot in Beaverton / Portland area. It was probably the day after the 100 degrees that I drove down.
The same month, I planted a Japanese snowbell tree. The 100 degree day happened the day I planted it. Half the leaves fell off like corn flakes over the next few days. It stayed a bit bare the rest of the summer, but filled with full foliage every other year. It's because it came out of the shaded nursery rows, into full sun.
By the way, if anybody every buys nursery trees, don't pick the one on the end or the row facing the sunset, if the trunk is not protected (industry tip).
[edit] License tagging for Image:Bigfoot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bigfoot.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Nehalem Bay.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nehalem Bay.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Duplicate images uploaded
Thanks for uploading Image:Golfcourse.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Golf course M D Vaden.jpg. The copy called Image:Golf course M D Vaden.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.
This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 02:00, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Applegate Valley
I responded to your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon#Applegate Valley Inclusion. —EncMstr 06:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
