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]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Big banner.png edit

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]