User talk:Kevmin/Archive 1

Image:Metasequoia occidentalis cone 02.jpg

---

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful informations about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Filbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Chiton on the bank at Caleta Buena.jpg

Renamed, thank you! --Panther 15:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

actually

MediaWiki cannot generate thumbnails for PDF files, you have to directly open it for it to work. I suggest you withdraw the nomination. ViperSnake151 14:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've closed it, hope it's ok with you. Yuval Y § Chat § 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This one...

[1]

...is not unidentified. The genus name is in the description. Woudloper 18:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Fossile-seelilie.jpg

Why did you revoke my changes? I created the image on 02 Jan 2005 and copied it to de.wikipedia.org. (See the history of http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seelilie) From there it was copied (with a new author name ??) to en.wikipedia.org. And then automatically moved to commons. --Berengi 11:59, 28 May 2008 (MET)

Acanthoplus longipes?

Hi Kevmin, you just put this image into Category:Acanthoplus longipes. Do you think this would be right for these images, too? I shot them this summer in the Namib Desert, Namibia.

• 
• 

Regards, --Mosmas (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories for fossils

I separated them out because it gives far greater clarity and ease of finding; they need to be clearly distinct from extant species. The way you have it now, fossil species are mixed in with extant ones, which is very confusing for those dealing with extant species (suddenly happening on an unfamiliar name, "duh, what the heck is that??"), and leaves them hard to find for those dealing with fossils (having to search through a long list of extant species they don't want to deal with). Giving them a separate category makes it much clearer for everyone; please stop reverting this improvement. - MPF (talk) 10:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I think it is important to keep extinct species listed separately from extant ones. BTW, I have no problems with a pic of a fossil of an extant species being in a category with pics of living specimens. Been thinking about it a bit; one possible solution so that the extinct species are still listed in the genus category but separately is to prefix them like this: [[Category:Pinus|† extinctifolia]] - then they would appear under symbol † much like hybrids appear under symbol ×, rather than in direct alphabetical order interspersed among extant species. Do you think that might be a better idea? - MPF (talk) 23:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll start doing that then - MPF (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

"Fossil" categories

While extinct taxa are usually only found as fossil specimens, this does not mean that all the media collected in Wikicommons about those taxa are images of fossils. Many taxa such as those in category:Dinosauria are represented by illustrations and models, not by actual specimens. Thus the fossil specimens are subcategorized for easy location in the main Category:Fossils. Please do not arbitrarily blank these cats!--Kevmin (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will. But in my view it's a typical, poorly thought, overcategorisation : I guess some peoples on Commons sometimes forget we are linking from Wikipedia's articles. Finding two categories for every dead taxons doesn't help. Entia non sunt multiplicanda (en:William of Ockham).

Happy New Year --Chaoborus (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kevmin, could you please refrain from removing lithostratigraphic categorization from fossil images? Maybe you're a biologist, and only consider taxonimic classification important, but from the viewpoint of geology/palaeontology it really matters from which age, or rather, stage a fossil came. It would be great if every fossil picture had at least one stratigraphic category. When I write articles I find it very hard to find pictures to illustrate cause most of them are only in a taxonomic category. And taxonomy of fossils can be a rather disputed area with a lot of uncertainties, so the solid looking categorization on commons is a bit deceptive too.

Ideally, the category would be "Triassic fossils" of course, but in the absence of such a category I put pictures often in the category of the age ("Triassic") instead. If that bothers you please create the subcategory "<age name> fossils". Thanks, Woudloper (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

More fossil categories

Hi Kevmin - I was thinking these two would be best merged into one category: Category:Extinct plants and Category:Fossil plants. Any thoughts? Do you agree, and if so, which is the better? - Thanks! MPF (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be they remain seperate, with category:Fossil plants linking to extinct plants. But I will admit that at this time the majority of the media in both is of Fossil images. I am just hoping that we will get more Illustrations, Whole plant reconstructions, and the like to flech out the extinct taxa. If the two were to be merged the only appropriate merge would be to subsum Category:Fossil plants into Category:Extinct plants for while not many ther are some illustrations, and reconstructions.--Kevmin (talk) 19:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll leave them separate in that case (my initial thought was to merge the other way, as all extinct taxa are fossils, but not all fossils are extinct taxa). Sounds like it would be worth re-catting a lot of the files to the more suitable cat., do you want to give that a go? - MPF (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually all fossils are not extinct taxa, Ginkgo biloba is a classic example of a modern taxa covering a long geologic range. ;) Also there are several notable places which have produced unfossilized organisms such as the Miocene stratas at Clarkia Idaho which produce green leaves and iridescent insect wings. I am slowly sifting through and trying to recat thing. Any particular areas you think I should tackle soon?--Kevmin (talk) 01:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"Actually all fossils are not extinct taxa, Ginkgo biloba is a classic example of a modern taxa covering a long geologic range" - that's the same as what I was saying, just different grammar! ;-) I'll see if I can get a bit of re-catting done too. - MPF (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Pinus cone 01.jpg

Hi Kevmin - thought I'd better clarify on this one - it very definitely isn't anything in subgenus Strobus, as they all have an apical umbo, not a dorsal umbo as clearly visible on this cone. It is actually a good match for several extant N American pines in subgenus Pinus, most notably of all Pinus palustris. If you know the person who gave the Strobus ident., it would be worth pointing this out to him. - MPF (talk) 18:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fossil Ediacaran biota

Saw you doing this. I didn't know the category: fossil Ediacaran biota yet. Wouldn't it be more consistent to rename it to Category:Ediacaran fossils, analogous with the other fossil categories? Woudloper (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Done --Kevmin (talk) 14:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

File:Ilex sp. 01.jpg

Hi Kevmin - sorry, not sure which species (the Flora of Japan lists 22 Ilex native to Japan, while China has over 200 Ilex species). I'll take another look through some time to see if I can find out, but don't hold your breath! Can you add location of where the photo was taken? - MPF (talk) 13:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding, thanks for the info, that is definitely a lot of species to look through! Ill add the general location to the image.--Kevmin (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow

Not sure if barnstars can be given on Commons, but I'd just like to show my appreciation for your insane amount of work on categorization of images of extinct animals here. Keep up the good work! FunkMonk (talk) 08:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

• On image identification, I was thinking, could we maybe not have categories called "unidentified fossil something", such as this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Unidentified_fossil_Ichthyosauria, if all the animals involved are extinct? It's hard to identify all images when there are more than one category for a type of extinct animal to sort through. There are usually not that many images of each family that need identification, so I think further dividing them is redundant. It's easier if all the images are in one category, such as simply "Unidentified Ichthyosauria". FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Categorization

Hi there, thanx a lot with categorization help of Palaeonthology exhibition of NM Prague!--Kozuch (talk) 10:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rename requests

Hi Kevmin, why do you want to rename a properly named file [2]? I would not oppose if the file had a wrong (= wrong identification) or a misleading (wrong location or something like DSC_0897.JPG) name, but is has definitely not. So please leave meaningful filenames as they are and as the author has chosen on upload. The photo in question illustrates the article Seppenrade on German Wikipedia. -- \mu/ 07:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding usage of the image, I would point out the image is used in 3 wikis, de, en, & ja, in the Ammonite articles, thus use would show that image to be primarily of the ammonite species and not the locality. Looking Just at the image the primary focus is not the town of Seppenrade but of the Parapuzosia seppenradensis cast, and it is general commons practice to name files for the taxon represented, which is why I have requested the rename. If it is of serious concern the image could be renamed to "Parapuzosia seppenradensis cast in Seppenrade.jpg" or similar to retain the fact the cast is in Seppenrade. --Kevmin (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

I renamed the file as requested by Kevmin, but you should know that from now, redirects are enabled on "File:" items, so there is no problem for calling the image with it's old name. The renaming facility is also now preserving the file history :)

Best regards from France,

-- AlNo (discuter/talk/hablar/falar) 11:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Commons:MediaMoveBot/CheckPage

You was added to the list of trusted users.--Anatoliy (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fossil Pitus image

Always regretted that I forgot to get the spp. name of this fossil tree. Glad you cd id it.....was it because you have been to RBGE or you could tell by the photo itself!Prashanthns (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the confidence in me, but you should be thanking anon. user 138.251.30.10 for actually adding the binomial. I simply corrected it to the correct genus spelling and confirmed the RBGE had it on its grounds.--Kevmin (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

He he...ok. But, are we sure enough of the id....(with due respect to 138.xxxxx)?Prashanthns (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes what I found confirmed the tree to be on the RBGE grounds--Kevmin (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Authority formatting

Hi Liné1,

May i inquire as to why you are removing the <small></small> parameter from the authority fields? I find it much easier for users to tell where the taxon name ends and the authority name begins with this formatting. --Kevmin (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Kevmin

First of all, thank you for all your cool pictures of fossils and your work of categorizing. Not many people can do Fossil categories. Not me sadly ;-)

As for your question, the idea of such a template is to avoid any formating in the calling article/category. The formating is supposed to be done in the template.

The second idea of this template is to have the same display in all the article/categories of commons.

You should simply put a comment un this discussion page of {{Taxonavigation}} telling them that as the species is in italic and the author not, the space between them is ont enough. That the top left of the species name almost touch the author name. Perhaps they will simply double the space in between.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the {{Taxonavigation}} request.

It is much better now.

Cheers and good work Liné1 (talk) 07:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Dino Cats

Hey Kevmin, Thanks, I'm still new to editing on commons. Maybe there should be a bot (can we do that here?) to eliminate de-linked cats. I was making the changes since a lot of the categories seemed superfluous compared to their corresponding cats at Wikipedia. For example, may "categories" only contained one or two images, making it very difficult to browse for images for use in other projects. For example, working on the Sauropoda article at Wikipedia, I had to navigate sometimes three or four pages down just to take a look at what images were available for some taxa, when it would be much easier to group as many taxa as reasonable on one page, reserving subcategories for taxa with a large number of associated images. I was attempting to re-organize a bit to follow the standard we use for wikiproject:Dinosaur categories, which is that a category must contain at least four or five images before it's created, rather than creating all imaginable categories and then filling them with content later. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

In the case of commons its betterto use{{Category redirect}}, this way any media which gets placed in the delinked cats wil be bot moved to the categories which are in use. --Kevmin (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, that makes sense, thanks! Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

File:0030.jpeg

the reason that the rename kept failing was because you where changing the file extension. The bot does not see jpeg and jpg as the same file type as it as a different file extension. Betacommand 20:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

yeah I saw some other places where you where changing the file extension. gif -> jpg and others. the bot does not like that and sees that as an invalid target filename and will not move it. just a heads up. Betacommand 21:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Dinosaur images

Hi. I'm thinking that categories called "theropod images" and "dinosaur images" are quite redundant, when we already have categories called "theropoda" or "dinosauria" (an image within these categories is already an image by default, so no need for specifying it further). All it does is making images harder to find. Don't you think we should merge such categories with their parent categories? FunkMonk (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have always rather disliked the "Dinosaur images" categories. While working through Cat:Dinosauria in December I seriously debated nominating the category for deletion. I chose not to at that time because several of the previous workers of the cat and several of the paleoartists seemed to regularly post images in that category and no where else. Thus I figured to leave it at that time and as it was so large (~400+ images) I divided it into suborder cats. I would not be sad to see them be merged. --Kevmin (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, good. It does appear that the people who made these cats in the first place didn't know what they were doing. So if you one day decide to empty those categories, and transfer the images to other ones, just post links to the ones you've emptied and I'll delete them. I don't think they're helpful at all. FunkMonk (talk)

Or maybe I should just delete those categories on sight? For example, it wouldn't help so much moving all images from ornithopoda images to simply ornithopoda, it would still be overcategorisation if the images were already in genus categories. FunkMonk (talk) 01:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The best slution is to go through the images (lots of work i know) and remove/recat to the appropriate taxon level, then the emptied cat should get redirected to the taxon cat eg Category:Theropoda images to Category Theropoda. Thus someone searching for Theropoda images is taken to the Theropoda page. --Kevmin (talk) 11:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

All of them were in genus categories, which are theropoda sub-categories by default. So it would be overcategorisation to have say, an image of Velociraptor in both the Velociraptor category and the Theropoda category, no? FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I completely agree and was not suggesting moving them all to category:Theropoda. My experience has shown that I would be quite possible for there to be image which only had category:Theropoda images and no other categories. So I would be prudent to go through the images and check that they do all have appropriate genus cats.--Kevmin (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. By the way, you should enable hotcats:[3] Everything gets so much easier. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Fossils of South Africa

Geology not geography - Thanks --NJR_ZA (talk) 08:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi Kev - re File:Apachelytron transersum.png - I've deleted it; as a clear copyvio it was a case for speedy deletion. Not sure why it has escaped notice until now! - MPF (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting the image, I kept waiting for something to happen and it never did.--Kevmin (talk) 19:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fossil Pelagornis

Hio, I have reverted your changes.

• there are no living members of this taxon
• the "fossil [taxon]" system in itself is usually (as in this case) in violation of categorization rules on Commons and globally
• the "fossil" shown in File:Pelagornis.jpg is actually a replica; in fact, it is likely that there is not a single fossil bone in it (there are vey few pelagornithid fossils which are not completely flattened and crushed to bits).

The "fossil"/"extinct" system has been introduced unilaterally (without consulting COM:TOL) and is very badly thought out. For birds and probably most other clades it does not work and it is discouraged, because it introduces misleading and erroneous information (there is actually far less content of actual fossils on Commons than one may thing. Most museums publicly exhibit only replicas except for a few common taxa simply for insurance reasons.)

The appropriate way to categorize extinct forms for most taxa is:

• taxa with living and extinct members use an "Extinct [taxon]" category, which is placed in the main taxon category as well as in an "Extinct [higher-ranked taxon]" category.
• taxa without living members use no special category at all, but go in the "Extinct [higher-ranked taxon]" category.

Thus, if we had content of a fossil ostrich egg, it would go in
Category:Extinct Struthioniformes, which in turn would go in
Category:Extinct Paleognathae (or presently, Category:Extinct birds).

Whereas a photo of a lithornithid specimen would go in
Category:Lithornithidae, which in turn would also go in
Category:Extinct Paleognathae.

That way, it is also immediately obvious which taxa are entirely extinct.

If you browse for example Category:Struthioniformes, you'll immediately notice what a mess this attempt to categorize extinct-taxon content has made. Note that there are, strictly speaking, NO fossil aepyornithids, as no fully mineralized specimen has ever been found of this group (excluding Eremopezus which is probably not an aepyornithid despite being once place there). So the categorization is not only in violation of global rules for Commons categories and does not have a good reason for that, it also is scientifically wrong.

If a finer categorization is needed, it is better to use lithostrathigraphic units or geological time periods as proposed above. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your post on the ToL page and would ask you to please go throgh and sign yours with your user name.--Kevmin (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Snek01

I know I like to be made aware when my name comes up even if it's just in passing, maybe do you as well, but I also have a feeling you might have something to say. Rocket000 (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I have put a comment on the noticeboard clarifying the reason for my edit. I have refrained from making any other comment on the admin request at this point as I feel Im too involved with the user.--Kevmin (talk) 16:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Proterozoic Stromatolites.jpg

Hello Kevim,

regardig to File:Proterozoic Stromatolites.jpg - can you please give the source for your information that the stromatolites are from the Cretaceous and not from the Proterozoic?

Thank you in advance.

--TomCatX (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Some cats

Hello Kevmin, I have though, that wyou will see, that everything is now in Category Extinct Gastropoda only. Have you looked at this category? There is everything and additionaly there are only few additional categories. Have you looked at this at least? --Snek01 (talk) 16:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I did and I will note again that the condensation of Fossil into extinct was NOT agreed to in the ToL discussion. the only agreed to point at this time was to remove the lower levels of the fossil categories to reduce over-categorization. At this point you are proceeding with your personal opinion against consensus.--Kevmin (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning

Please understand you are walking a fine line right now. Edits such as this are, while not exactly revert warring, disruptive. You are aware that the addition Category:Fossil Bivalvia is not yet supported by consensus. By adding this category to an image, you are asking for trouble and asking for it to be reverted by the other party. If consensus decided at a later time that said category should be used, you can always add it. But for the time being, I recommend that you stop adding it to images until the dispute is resolved. Tiptoety ^talk 23:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood and I will stop putting the categories on fossils at this time. However, at this point and from my understanding, the ToL discussion does support higher level fossil categories with only Sneck01 and one other user advocating the entire removal of Fossil categories except for unidentified fossils. --Kevmin (talk) 23:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for being receptive. When I find some time, I will attempt to read over that extremely too long of a "discussion". If I can judge a clear consensus, than maybe we can end this here and now. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 23:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Fabaceae ident

Hi Kevmin - thanks for the note! It is Gleditsia triacanthos, I'll tag it shortly (part-way through a run through bird maps, which I want to finish off first) unless you want to do it first - MPF (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, I've reworded and recategorized the images, and added rename templates to the images. --Kevmin (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

quality/featured images

Hi Kevmin - oouf, sorry, no real idea!! The whole quality/featured images thing is one I've never really taken much notice of ;-) Haven't ever nominated any pic for either (neither my own nor others) nor voted on any for ages (a couple of years at least). At a vague guess from what little I've seen of it, I'd say that self-nomination for featured is mildly frowned on (tho' if i remember rightly, it does happen), while for quality it is probably welcomed. I've not looked at the rules at all though. Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tiphiidae

Hello Kevmin,

regardig to the image File:Grasbaum fg3.jpg - please explain me the removing of the category Tiphiidae, provosed by Emijrpbot. If the image show another hymenopteran family, please add the category Unidentified Hymenoptera. Thank you --Dysmachus (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I dint think that the genus level identification was for the host plant the Tiphiids are resting on, I will readd Tiphiidae to the image. --Kevmin (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Peltoceras

I don't know how this renaming of images you do works. File:Peltocerassolidum.JPG is now File:Peltoceras solidum Israel.JPG at your request. It disappears, though, from the wiki pages it was originally on. Does renaming mean the images have to be reposted to each wikipage they were on? That makes no sense. Please see what you can do to fix this one. Thanks. Wilson44691 (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The link breakage is sorted out within a week or so, depending on backlog, by the commonsdelinker bot which goes through all links from the old file name and replaces those instances with the new file name. This process can be avoided all together by proper formatting and inclusion of taxon names in the file names when first uploaded.--Kevmin (talk) 03:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to that problem being sorted out very soon. Wilson44691 (talk) 03:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

If the admin does it right then links should not be broken. --MGA73 (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh the admin was me :-D Ok we do two things to avoid "broken links". We leave a redirect and we tell CommonsDelinker to replace the file. CommonsDelinker has had some problems for a few weeks. When it works fine it normally only takes a few minutes to change the link. If it takes longer or link for some reason could not be fixed (if in some sort om template or id page is protected) then the redirect should work. Sometimes "the system" has to update before it works. --MGA73 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Echinosphaerites.JPG

Thanks, Karl, for help with that image. I must have made a mistake a long time ago with a transfer or update to Commons. All I want is for the newest version, the one with the scale bar, to be the one used. That seems to be the case now. BTW, did you get my response to your earlier question? It is on my talk page. Best, Wilson44691 (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mark, it was not a problem, and I ahve added the superseded template to the older version so that it is noted which version is preferable. --Kevmin (talk) 22:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

File:2003-08-19 Petrified tree at Yellowstone.jpg

Hi

I have seen that you have reverted my edit of this file: File:2003-08-19 Petrified tree at Yellowstone.jpg. I don't agree with that. I guess it will be extremely hard if not possible to identify the specimen and therefor that media would be forever in the category Category:Unidentified plants and this category is permanently overpopulated. It would anyhow belong to Category:Unidentified trees --Amada44 (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Appreciation for your work...

I have over 250 images of different beetles in Baltic amber. I wish to put them on Commons, if all that photos is in one category, there will be so many that it will be pointless because of the confusion in the category – the scientific aspect and the seriousness will get lost. It is important that all that photos is among extinct insects and not in a category whit the living spices – it will confuse and destroy the science in both categories! I appreciation for your insane amount of work on categorization of images of extinct animals here. Baltic-amber-beetle 22:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Filemover permission

Hi Kevmin, Thankyou for your hard work requesting renames to make our filenames consistent with correct binomial names. I've just added filemover permission to your userrights. This way you can do the move yourself. Let me know if you don't want this permission.  :-) --99of9 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Kevmin (talk) 07:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

File mover

The functionality of the template {{Rename}} has recently changed. You might need to clear your cache to see the changes. If successful you should then be able to use the new "Quick adding" link in the template to instruct CommonsDelinker to replace the old name with the new name in all wikis. Please use that every time you rename a file. If further questions arise, feel free to write on my talk page --DieBuche (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your editions to my images

Dear Karl:

Thank you for (re)categorizing my recently added images of fossils.

I have also discovered that you removed a link that was included in every image as Additional Information, under the "accusation" of self promotion. If you visited the link (http://sites.google.com/site/patagonianfossils), you may have noticed that it is a fully open, noncommercial site, where even my name is not mentioned. So, the claim of self promotion is hardly justifiable. On the other hand, the site includes information related to the fossil images that the user of Wikimedia interested in my photographs may find interesting. Its purpose is purely educational and, as a scientist (http://fisica.cab.cnea.gov.ar/estadistica/zanette/), I can guarantee the quality of the informative contents provided there.

I would thank you to undo your changes to my contributions, or to explain better under which titles you maintain them. Otherwise, I will ask for the mediation of a Wikimedia administrator.

Your fossil images in Wikimedia are wonderful. Yours,

Damián Zanette Dhzanette (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Paralejurus

Hi Kevmin. this is not a Paralejurus species. But it could be in fact a genus of Scutelluinae... --Micha (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)