User talk:Gnomingstuff

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Gnomingstuff!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Placing warnings on IP talk pages[edit]

You placed the {{Test}} warning on User talk:174.251.224.2. The IP only made one nonsense edit. In such a case you should not create a talk page and add a warning as it is unlikely to be read anyway. Especially as the edit was one month ago. GPSLeo (talk) 06:13, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi -- I was specifically told to leave warnings when I applied for rollback. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The warning is only useful for users they are still active and if there is a probability for new problematic edits. As for the most people the IP address changes frequently the message only makes sense on the same day. If the IP only made one edit it is very unlikely that more problematic edits will follow. GPSLeo (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reconciled Structured Data[edit]

Hello. As regards this and this your edits:

  • Please do not revert edits without check why they were made and whether they are correct or wrong. Even if the edit is done from an IP address.
  • Do not restore deleted Structured Data that were removed as a reconciliaton of a discrepancy.
  • After you have edited (reverted) any page, always check whether you have not triggered any warning message in the page.
  • Please notice the bug report phab:T313638 and discussion here. In the last 2 years, there is some unresolved bug which makes impossible to reconcile coordinates (at least in Firefox). In the search for a solution, MPF discovered that the error can be bypassed by opening the page in a private (anonymous) window. I haven't yet tested whether the error would show up if the user logged in the anonymous window - anyway, it would make the process disproportionately complicated. Tt is therefore likely that such edits will be carried out from anonymous IP addresses (subsequently after correcting or removing the {{Location}} template or its equivalents).

Thank You. ŠJů (talk) 18:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

andrew jeffcoat[edit]

you are wrong if you think he is not the best backstroker in New Zealand. You are jealous. He broke the 50 record twice in one evening. Who are you, Daniel Bell? Innocuous and objective description removed by yet another power hungry Wikipedia mod. Woe your life must be. 192.231.122.84 00:16, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick note re: Speedy tagging[edit]

Hi!

Thank you for taking the time to tag files for speedy deletion. Just as a note, when tagging an item for speedy deletion on Commons, please be sure to notify its creator so that they can be aware of the speedy deletion nomination. This can be done manually with {{Speedynote}}, if you'd like. Otherwise, ti you'd like some help with a tool that does this sort of thing with the push of one button/with one click, I would encourage you to take a look at VisualFileChange or AjaxQuickDelete.

Cheers! — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nice work[edit]

, thanks Herby talk thyme 11:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh that's good... ;! Herby talk thyme 15:42, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please slow down. Not all these logos are advertisements even if they are uploaded by the company/representative itself, many might be out of scope but COM:CSD doesn't apply in that case. Look for obvious ones, with promotional texts in the image, description, caption, title... Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 16:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it -- in general I am only tagging if something is part of a large batch of uploads, all promotional. I wasn't doing that previously, but I noticed that someone was going behind me and tagging the ones that I had omitted, so I took that as a signal that I should also be doing so, apologies. Gnomingstuff (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes - just to agree with Viraj's comment - some are simply logos. They may not be of any use but they aren't explicitly promotional. I was being selective with the ones I was deleting. Herby talk thyme 06:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it, went through the other day and shunted some of the more borderline cases to regular deletion requests. That being said I said this elsewhere but wanted to reiterate: believe it or not, this is the conservative version, and there are just as many or more files that show up in searches that I haven't tagged. Anything I am tagging is without a shadow of a doubt spam, based on clues such as username, huge wodge of press-kit assets uploaded in one sitting with no other activity, SEO keyword in description, inclusion of slogans, use in attempted AfC spam, etc. Just a matter of how obvious and/or verbose they are about it. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You sound bored. To be truthful. 212.169.206.44 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am indeed bored as shit Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed 212.169.206.44 07:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Exactly. 212.169.206.44 07:47, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, and a suggestion[edit]

Thank you for helping clean up unused logos on Commons. We get an unreasonable number of "drive-by" uploads of logos for newly launched companies and projects that are unlikely to ever be used on any Wikimedia project; your efforts to help stem the tide are appreciated. :)

Along those lines: how would you feel about taking a pass through some of the cryptocurrency-related logo categories like Category:Logos of cryptocurrencies? There's a ton of promotional logos and graphics for coins/tokens/exchanges that got pumped and dumped ages ago - I've already been taking a swing at some of these, but there's plenty more.

Omphalographer (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, This was closed as Kept for being too simple, so do not reopen the DR with the same argument. Thanks, Yann (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it, in general I have not been re-opening anything with a prior deletion request unless either the request was for some other rationale (generally a copyvio argument from years ago) or closed as Delete but not actually deleted. Gnomingstuff (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Gnomingstuff, all these images should not be deleted. They're all legitimate and are associated with legitimate businesses. Vmnjee01 (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thanks for nominating files like this. In future, if you come accross multiple files uploaded by one user please nominate them under one DR. This can be done manually or with the VFC tool. It makes admin's jobs easier as they only have to close one DR instead of many. Thanks Gbawden (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi -- When I tried doing this it messed up the deletion listings for the day and nothing I did could fix it. I'm not sure the tool offers this capability. Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Under preferences go to Gadgets. Install AjaxQuickDelete and Visual File Change. Once installed, if you click on a users contributions, click perform batch task then you can select all the files you want to nominate for deletion, or tag or or. Hope this helps Gbawden (talk) 07:42, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

speedy deletion[edit]

Please reread com:speedy deletion as an admin should not delete a file being used.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst Hi -- I have indeed read that and am not sure why you assumed I didn't. I'm also not sure what you're seeing. Nothing shows up on either file as use -- indeed there is no "File usage on other wikis" section at all, nor "File usage on Commons" -- and the users in question have no global contributions outside their own userspace and/or talk pages asking why their content (most likely promotional) was deleted. I don't nominate any files where this is not the case.
A file being "longheld" is not an excuse to keep it, by that logic we also should not revert undetected vandalism since it has been around a while. In fact the criterion works the opposite way. F10 doesn't apply to new files (as the users may stick around to become contributors), but if someone's personal and/or (usually "and") promotional image has been around some time and the user has made no related contributions since, then F10 would apply. There was a Village Pump discussion about this just last week. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I denied a speedy, nothing nore, nothing less. The follow-up process when a file is declined for speedy deletion is to take it a deletion request, as the summary would have said. I don't know which one it was and it doesn't matter, I dealt with hundreds last night, and obviously when I saw that one, I saw links, and thought a note to you was worthwhile. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:29, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please double check usage of files on wikis prior to requesting deletion. The usage needs to resolved prior to processing here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst Once again, I am checking usage of files every time, on every single global wiki where a user has edits. As I have repeatedly explained, COM:INUSE does not apply to user pages or talk pages. Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those communities determine their user pages, not Commons. As I said, please resolve the issue at the wiki in question, and then we can delete it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, COM:USE clearly states otherwise: "If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." What part of this is unclear to you? Gnomingstuff (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Direct Line logo (speedy deletion)[edit]

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flexingflex1224 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize in case it is a violation of rights, I did not see that intention.

I have considered that they do not violate rights, why did they do it?

If so, I apologize for unintentionally uploading something.

have a good day.

Flexingflex1224 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read the comment. I have explained everything there is to explain. Gnomingstuff (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]