Image Use

Those of you wishing to request use of my images, please see my CONTACT page at North American Insects & Spiders

Hi Bruce - because it looked suspiciously like spamming, when a contributor adds the same external site to numerous articles but without adding anything else (i.e., it looks like it is more for promoting the site, than for adding to the encyclopedia). Please check out Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. I (and others) have no objection to external links being added to provide cited reference to content added to wikipedia (and welcome such gladly), but adding external links alone is widely frowned upon.

One aspect which made me particularly suspicious about your additions was the way the link was always added at the top of the external links, trying to suggest it is the best link, better than even official or university websites (e.g. your addition at Osage-orange, given priority over references from the US Forest Service and Iowa State University). This looked to me to be a clear case of vanity or web traffic-seeking, and therefore something to be very suspicious of.

I should also add that spamming like this is quite common on wikipedia; I and many others delete spam links very frequently. As sites added by hard-core spammers may be very dangerous to visit (containing spyware, trojans, illegal paedophilia sites, etc., added with site names made to look relevant to the pages they are added to so as to confuse people into clicking on them), I generally do not look at suspicious links to unknown sites, so did not realise your site was genuine; for that I apologise. But I would still ask that you go easy on adding links to your site, and only in accord with the wikipedia policies above.

I hope this helps - MPF 01:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC) reply

hello, your insect images are truly stunning! a little request: do you happen to have an image of Scarabaeus sacer? (to be used in the dung beetle article) :) -- K.C. Tang 00:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC) reply

you mean you've got many Geotrupes images that have not been uploaded? :)-- K.C. Tang 03:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC) reply

why, of course! your images are simply stunning. pls leave me a message when you've uploaded your masterpieces on the Common. Thanks a lot! ^__^ -- K.C. Tang 00:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

i've used the image at the article (the green sheen still dazzles me), you can take a look...:) btw, i still think an image of Scarabaeus sacer can be illustrative to the article, do you know where one can get an image of that creature in the public domain?-- K.C. Tang 00:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Regarding your many pictures now in use in taxoboxes, please do not add photo credits in the taxoboxes themselves. The credit for the photo belongs on the photo's own page ("Image:…"), not in the article. -- Stemonitis 15:40, 28 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi, Bruce,

Do you have any info on the species of Opiliones in the photo you used to replace the previous one, in this version? Is it a common species?

Reason I ask is the previous photo I thought was a very good example of what I think of as a harvestman (well, actually I only knew the name "daddy-longlegs" until I came to WP). I don't know much about the family, so my concept of this creature could simply be a bias from my Mid-Atlantic US background, but if I'm correct, I think the previous pic is more representative. It may be hard for people who see your picture to associate it with the leggy creatures they have seen; it looks fairly close to a spider.

IMHO.

-- Rschmertz 06:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi Ron, The beast in question is Leiobunum politum. I will caption the photo. Please feel free to replace / revert the old photo if you feel it necessary.

The Pipevine Swallowtail, Battus philenor is a stub 'fathered' by you :). An important species, it appears quite neglected. Requires info and images. On looking you up, I found you are a reputed and excellent photographer. How about adding some images? If you do that, I'll take time off from my present project and add the little data I have on the species (with reference). I'm sure others will follow. AshLin 02:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Hi AshLin,

Unfortunately, I have no good images of this butterfly to call my own.. the ones on my site were taken by a friend who owns the copyright.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.-- Curtis Clark 03:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Bruce,

Your comment reflects a problem we have. Why dont you add your two bits here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Lepidoptera#Comments_re_common_names_vs_scientific_name where it would make a difference. Regards, AshLin 16:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply

May I use your photo in an article on elm cultivars I am preparing for the BBC Wildlife Magazine? Attribution would be included, of course. Regards Ptelea 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC) reply

A tag has been placed on Tilia × euchlora, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{ hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{ hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Rocket000 12:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello, Bruce. Could you please help me to ID the moth . Thank you for your time.-- Mbz1 15:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Bruce - the location of a cultivated specimen is of very low relevance to a species article; humans can (and do) cultivate plants in huge range of places which have little or no scientific relevance to the species. Actual location is only valuable on the species page when the image shows the species in its native environment (i.e., if it was a photo of it in the wild in Manchuria). The cultivated location, and its source reference, remain on the image page, which is where such information most certainly should be recorded (including, if available, the provenance of the plant if grown from wild-collected seed). That it is cultivated is important information, as otherwise one might get the false impression that the species is native at that location. Hope this helps! - MPF 15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

"The irrelevance of a "cultivated" specimen's location and provenance: is that wikipedia policy, or your personal opinion? Are you implying that cultivated specimens are somehow inferior or less important as representations of the species simply due to their location? (Were this true, animals in zoos would become irrelevant to our articles). I find this argument as misguided as those who argue "synthetic" chemicals or drugs are somehow inferior to "organic" or those found in nature; the fact of the matter is, they are identical."

Yes, very much so. Plants in cultivation, and animals in zoos, very commonly exhibit different characteristics to those in the wild (see e.g. stereotypical behavior), and/or show the plant/animal in abnormal habitat. This is relevant data that needs to be included.

"I think you might be missing the point of my insistence on location information: It is because of the location of these specimens the provenance and documentation occurs; The Morton Arboretum is one of the premier botanical collections in the United States, indeed, the world."

As an aside, the provenance isn't cited, only Morton's accession number, which might (or might not, if they acquired the plant from an unknown cultivated source) be connected to provenance information in their records.

"The fact a specific plant exists in, and is documented by this institution is my whole purpose: credibility and certainty."

I don't regard that as more than limited importance (q.v. below). Botanical gardens are far from omniscient, and often have errors of identification (where the plant has been misidentified) or labelling (where the plant is correctly identified in their records but carries an erroneous label). And plants in the wild don't carry labels or institutional documentation, and are none the worse for it.

"And one final thought. Had I not identified the location of the tree in question, would you have found it necessary or accurate to label it "cultivated"? "

Possibly yes, possibly not. In this case probably yes, to explain the fact that it is not in natural habitat.

"Would you question the identification of the specimen and make notes of such?"

Most certainly, yes. One always should. Never take the identity on a label on trust; examine the plant first and foremost. I have found plenty of mis-labelled plants, both in wiki photos and in real life in arboreta and botanical gardens. And that includes places with an even higher reputation than the Morton, such as Kew (and I should add, have had my identification corrections accepted by their staff on their re-checking). As it happens, your Prunus maackii photo is correctly identified, but I know that from inspecting the plant in the photo, not from the label.

"There are far too many (almost all poor quality) images of "identified" organisms in Wikipedia which, in fact, have no other authority than the photographer's guess. Why then downplay or banish to the obscurity of an image page the credible location information on the quality images this encyclopedia needs?"

That strikes me as odd, that you're talking of 'quality images' and 'banish[ing] to the obscurity of an image page' in the same sentence. What makes you think that people never look at the photo pages? Certainly anyone who has a real interest in the topic will.

"All articles should include information on native range; the argument someone might mistake the plant in the picture as native to the specimen location as outweighing the value in certainty of a specimen's identity. Do we label all images of animals in zoos "ZOO ANIMAL" because someone might think a polar bear native to San Diego, CA.?"

I think you'll find that zoo images are quite widely frowned on in wikipedia; usually they are only used in articles if none other is available (and if so, are often so labelled), or to illustrate sections on captivity. - MPF 17:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the note. On the choice of photo, the Japanese photo shows the foliage, and fruit, of the tree, very clearly, and is also of a specimen from within the species' native range (even if it can't be determined as a wild specimen). Your photo shows a tree, which at the distance taken, could be any of a wide range of species; its identity is only knowable from the photographer's caption. While I'm happy to accept your statement on its identity, the photo does not provide a particularly useful guide to the identification of the species. The other photo was taken by a Japanese photographer 利用者:Pieria, so it is reasonable to deduce it is of a tree in Japan (I have asked the photographer for more information, which would certainly be welcome).

Of the removal of the link to your website, may I refer you again (as Curtis Clark has also done above) to Wikipedia:External links, where it states (under Advertising and conflicts of interest) "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it". Personally, before I would consider adding it as a link, the site needs to be improved to be less biased towards one particular very parochial point of view (e.g., use standard scientific units, not US imperial, and use a global viewpoint); also a few errors such as the native range of Acer carpinifolium. Also please have a look at Wikipedia:Spam, which says much that is relevant to what, prima facie, looks very like a attempt to promote your website, regardless of how good or not it might be. Finally, many (?all) of your pages contain lengthy excerpts from other websites (e.g. Morton Arb.) which at least appear to be in breach of their copyright; from Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking: "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception. 1. Sites that violate the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors". Maybe you have permission from Morton to include the excerpts, but I can't see any explicit statement of it, such as "From The Morton Arboretum "Go Green" ..... Used with permission".

"You told me you would have captioned the "Bark on a cultivated plant" in the Prunus maackii article even had I not provided location information; I ask you: How could you have known the plant was not growing in its native location without any documentation to support your claim?" - the presence of a lawn in the background makes it obvious! Lawns don't exist in nature.

Now if you could add some good photos of species native in your local area, that would be very nice! There are still plenty lacking good photos. A quick look around shows that Swamp White Oak could do with a good native pic to replace a distant view of a cultivated specimen far from its native range. Scarlet Oak and Butternut, the current taxobox pics are awful. The American Hornbeam photo is wild, but very low resolution (only 89kb). And Black Willow, Rock Elm, Blue Ash and Black Ash don't even have photos at all! - MPF 16:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Had I noticed (when this was originally posted) your reference to my use of Morton Arboretum articles on my website as a possible violation of their copyrights: I have express written permission from The Morton Arboretum for all the materials I use. I do use pertinent material from USDA primarily and other websites which allow such use. Everything on USDA websites and site maintained on government websites, i.e. NASA are in the public domain and I have paid for their support with 50 years of tax-paying. I do not use other people's or institutions' copyrighted material without their express permission. Nickrz ( talk) 04:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC) reply

It is self-evident - to anyone with any knowledge of habitat studies - that it is planted. The caption helps readers (particularly those with less knowledge of habitat studies) to understand why the plant is not growing in the habitat described "typically found along streams and in swamps" in the text. BTW, thanks for adding the pic, it is a vast improvement on the previous drawing! - MPF ( talk) 15:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 14:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

um, excuse me, but Alvin IS the middle child. Simon's personality clearly fits that of an oldest, and Theodore's of a youngest. Hence, Alvin is the middle. Besides, Simon's the tallest, so having Alvin older than him would make no sense.-- thegreatandpowerfulsimonseville —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreatandpowerfulsimonseville ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Bruce. I notice you added a couple of references to the Monarch Butterfly article. The article is, well, terrible, and it certainly needs a lot more references, but we can never cite Wikipedia itself as a reference. If another article cites something as a reference, you need to get the citation from the other article and add it to the one without the reference. Cheers. Richard001 ( talk) 06:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I noticed you appeared to intend to move Macedonian Pine to Pinus peuce. Editing an article into a redirect and copying the content to the new article loses the article's edit history. Well, it's there, but few will guess where to look for it. Next time, use the "page move" operation if you can, or request a page move if there is a redirect in the way. I've taken care of it, but only happened to notice your edits because the article was in my watchlist. — EncMstr 17:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I replied here. — EncMstr 20:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

I rewrote a few parts of the article and hopefully there is no longer a contradiction. Shyamal ( talk) 09:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Bruce, I'm writing to you because you've edited many of the plant articles. I wanted to let you know about a plants-specific wiki site which you might be interested in contributing to. The site focuses specifically on how to grow any plant. Since Wikipedia is not a how-to, and articles are not allowed to be written as a guide on how to grow plants, two years ago I started http://www.plants.am - a wiki solely to address that topic (much like how wikitravel.org is solely to advise tourists visiting a country or city on their destination).

An example of how the sites differ can be seen immediately by comparing the Wikipedia article on Asparagus, with the Plants.am Asparagus article. Many of the articles currently on the site are placeholder articles taken from Wikipedia which are being rewritten from scratch, or shells of articles using new templates. However, a core of new articles like the Asparagus article (which still has a lot of room to grow) are being created, and the undertaking is huge. Perhaps you have some materials you can add which are not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you have any questions at all about this new resource, feel free to contact me on my user page here or on Plants.am. Thanks! -- RaffiKojian ( talk) 15:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, you mentioned sugarbush has other meanings beyond Protea. The redirect was swerving between Protea and Sugarbush Resort, but none of the things you alluded to. Care to add? :) - pinkgothic ( talk) 18:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC) reply

Hi, the image that you have added (with citation) to the Prunus maximowiczii taxobox appears to be copyrighted, see [1] :-( Nadiatalent ( talk) 20:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, That's my copyright. Read the description pages: it's from my own work. Nickrz ( talk) 01:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC) Bruce Marlin reply

Ah! Missed that. Not used to seeing that sort of dichotomous copyright. Sorry! Nadiatalent ( talk) 17:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I think your two images "Anax junius.." are misidentified. Please do not replace taxobox images of documented specimens unless a higher quality image is available. Nickrz ( talk) 05:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC) reply

You are right about the images. BTW, I was under the assumption your image was being deleted. I notice that the renewed image is again markered for quick deletion because of copyright problems. Have a look yourself. DGERobertson ( talk) 02:21, 18 January 2010 (UTC) reply

I just did some things to the categories for the article Pinus peuce, and its redirect page Macedonian pine. Since you've worked on those, I wanted to explain it so that you don't run into it by chance, and think it's vandalism. On the page Category:Pinus, the entry Pinus peuce was alphabetized as if it was Macedonian pine. But I thought that was problematic since it showed there at Pinus peuce. I've edited both the article and the redirect page. Now, on the Category page, Macedonian pine is alphabetized as M, and Pinus peuce is under lower-case p for peuce. So now, one finds them both where one is inclined to look. 140.147.236.194 ( talk) 16:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza reply

Dear Mr Martin, The Cirrusimages website features a superb photo taken by yourself of the original 'Accolade' elm at sunset at the Morton Arb. Charged with preparing a report on all the elm cvs now available in the UK, I would much appreciate your permission to use the photo, with due acknowledgment of course. Regards, Ptelea ( talk) 12:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Unfortunately, I know little about the cars, and the best description I could add would be "an unknown old vehicle in the Detroit Car Museum". Perhaps you could get more knowledgeable help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cars. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC) reply

I'm going to place an image in the gallery on this page. It's a photo of a cicada exuvia, and it clearly shows the eye coverings, coverings for the wings, coverings for the extremities; it also clearly show setae on the legs and the face. Are these features really considered part of an exoskeleton? I think not, but I may be wrong. We need an entolmolgist or someone very knowlegeable to clarify what structures are contained in exuviae. Nickrz ( talk) 18:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I am hardly "very" knolwledgeable (I have taken an introductory entomology course), but the features you describe are indeed made of chitinous exoskeleton material. Termites (and some other groups) even shed the gut lining, along with its endosymbiotic microbes (they then eat the exoskeleton). I think of this insect chitin "skin" as analogous to vertebrate squamous epithelium. It covers everything, and it is shed regularly (or continuously, as the case may be).-- Quisqualis ( talk) 22:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC) reply