Open main menu
Please note that if you post something for me here, put this page on your watch list -- I'll respond to it here.

If I posted on your talk page, you can reply on your talk page and I'll be watching your page.

This makes it easier for both of us to keep everything in context.




Reid,iain james (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Ainigmapsychops inexspectatus SRUI 99-96-76.jpgEdit

File:Ainigmapsychops inexspectatus SRUI 99-96-76.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans | العربية | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Question on license of fossil plantsEdit

Hi Kevmin, I noticed you've recently uploaded several images of fossil plants (Category:Notoscyphus balticus and Category:Rhizomnium dentatum). I think the CC-license needs to be clarified- the images appear to be used in modified form in Heinrichs et al 2015], and Heinrichs et al 2014 which do not appear to have CC-BY licenses. Can you clarify the license, with a link or other evidence of permission? Thanks.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs)
@Animalparty: The images were donated by A. Schmidt after I emailed the authors asking if they would be willing to donate any. I did not copy the images from the papers and modify them.--Kevmin § 23:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
In that case, please see Commons:OTRS: If you are not the copyright holder. You should have A. Schmidt email a declaration of consent, specifying which images are released, to; after this has been done add {{OTRS pending}} to the file pages. Animalparty (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Done and waiting for a reply from Alexander. Apologies, this was my first attempt at asking authors for images of holotype fossils--Kevmin § 05:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Hi Kevmin, regarding this: we put all categories of Lepidoptera families in Category:Lepidoptera, as done automatically by the template {{Lepidoptera}}. The categorization by superfamily comes additionally, but it is too unstable to rely exclusively on it. --LamBoet (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Per whom?--Kevmin § 18:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Kevmin and LamBoet
Having all families under Category:Lepidoptera is not the standard behavior in taxon categories.
If you want the list of all Lepidoptera families, you have Category:Families of Lepidoptera which is described in Category:Lepidoptera + is filled automatically even if{{Lepidoptera}} is not used.
Clearly there is no need to have all families also in Category:Lepidoptera
Regards Liné1 (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Liné1 and Kevmin,
OK, but if you think we should switch to having only superfamilies in Category:Lepidoptera, then let's make the change for all family categories at once, in a consistent way...
As hinted above, I am worried that this will not be straightforward, because the superfamily-level classification has been evolving a lot lately. --LamBoet (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
You are right, we should not change only one family.
I think as a first step, I need to check/update the list provided in Families of Lepidoptera.
Don't you think that we can follow Lepidoptera Names Index for superfamilies ?
Best Regards Liné1 (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Hi Liné1, I just checked a few superfamilies on that website, and indeed, it looks like a reasonably up-to-date reference. It just has a few problems that we can solve case-by-case (for example Hesperioidea is not used anymore, and I am not sure what is happening with Adeloidea=Incurvarioidea). Best regards --LamBoet (talk) 13:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


Hello Kevmin,
I don't really know what you are doing with Coleoptera categories.
But clearly your are not strong enough in wikimedia syntax (I am trying to be polite and nice, you broke thousands of pages).
So please stop.
You can ask me what you want to do.
But your recent contributions are quite a disaster. !!! Regards Liné1 (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Now how do we correct all the Taxonavigation including Coleoptera and leading to a loop error ?
Liné1 (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
@Liné1:I do know what I was doing, actually. If you took a moment, (instead of throwing a drama-fest), you would have seen my self revert of Template:Coleoptera. It was NOT a "disaster" so please do not act as such. I fully inderstand the wiki syntax (I have been working on EN and commons for over 10 years afterall). Template:coleoptera as it stands now is not functional to nearly the same capacity as the Taxonavigation template and needs to be removed in favor of taxonav. It does not support a number of taxon ranks and does not link correctly when † is placed to denote an extinct taxon. I WAS working at the categories before you mass reverted everything that i had done without looking at anything that I had done. (Correcting is easy....).--Kevmin § 13:56, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I am not talking about replacing{{Coleoptera}} by Taxonavigation, which is is also my goal.
You did 2 problematic things:
  • you changed{{Coleoptera}} without checking the effect on thousands of pages using it (big error "loop detected")
  • When you reverted your{{Coleoptera}} changes, you left all the pages you changed to include Coleoptera unchanged (big error "loop detected"). I had to correct them. When I was doing something else.
I corrected the problem, so no harm was done (except my time)
Just, please, in the future, don't modify heavily used templates without my help.
The actual situation is better
  • Category:Coleoptera contains only the 4 suborders
  • the 4 suborders, infraorders, superfamilies are now migrated to Taxonavigation (I am checking that currently)
  • I am migrating the families to Taxonavigation (I take each superfamily then iterate on all its families)
I will stop there.
Regards Liné1 (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


Hello Kevmin,
About this commit.
Clearly there is no voted decision on ordering of Taxonavigation,{{wikispecies}},{{VN}},{{SN}}.
But (there is always one):

So for the sake of homogeneity, wouldn't you agree to leave{{wikispecies}} and{{VN}} near the top, please ? regards Liné1 (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I forgot to give your reasons:
and{{Taxa}} are far from the category content (the categories). I always compare the content of{{Taxa}} with the content of the category.
  • homogeneity (I swear that you are the first contributor I see to move VN to the end).
  • Orchi thinks that people are looking for Vernacular Names first ({{VN}} at the top) (I think that they are looking for classification first ;-)(Taxonavigation first).
Regards Liné1 (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I agree with you that people who are using the category structure are most likely looking at the taxonomy first, since most use of the categories are for taxon specific image searching. :D I would agree with homogeny, except that the VN feild is not homogenous with itself, as seen by comparing Category:Diptera with Category:Archaeorthoptera, the large shifts in size contradict the homogeny. I place WS and VN also as they are external links that take people off commons, something that always placed at the bottom of a page on I agree that TN then SN should be at the top.--Kevmin § 21:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Can you show me even a few categories (not modified by you) where VN and wikispecies are at the bottom ?
Liné1 (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Disposition againEdit

Hello Kevmin,

  1. this change is considered rude in wikicommons. You change nothing, just change the ordering of informations provided by others. Its automatically leads to a revert war (which is the case here). If I ask an admin, he will agree with me.
  2. There can be many arguments for each kind of formating. I even told you what other contributor think. Your argument is not stronger than Orchi's or MPF, ‎MILEPRI (which are huge contributors). But for me homogeneity is more important.
  3. Last time I asked you where you saw VN and wikispecies at the bottom of a category. You did not answer. The purpose of the question is to know if you saw that order somewhere else or if try to impose a new ordering.

Regards Liné1 (talk) 15:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Rude by what rules? I get that you personally don't like the structure, but you do not dictate page structures, and you already stated further up this page that there arent any set rules on who a page should be arranged. I have always put external links (which is exactly what VN< DATA, & WS are) at the bottom of pages, as is done at and on other areas since any click on the links in them takes a user OFF commons with no warning.--Kevmin § 16:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Again, there is no rule on ordering.
Rudeness is to change wikisyntax without adding any information. That is the reason why I did not revert your revert.
VN is not about external links. (I added external links recently for convenience). VN is about vernaculare names. vernaculare names are very used by pictures provider.
Liné1 (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Kevmin".