Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Zhuyifei1999


This is a Wikimedia Commons user talk page.

This is not an article, file or the talk page of an article or file. If you find this page on any site other than the Wikimedia Commons you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself. The original page is located at

This is the user talk page of Zhuyifei1999, where you can send messages and comments to Zhuyifei1999.
  • Please sign and date your entries by clicking on the appropriate button or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end.
  • Put new text under old text.
  • New to Wikimedia Commons? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers as soon as possible.
  • Click here to start a new topic.

বাংলা | български | čeština | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | español | français | italiano | 한국어 | മലയാളം | português | русский | sicilianu | +/−

  • Be polite.
  • Be friendly.
  • Assume good faith.
  • No personal attacks.

Technical problemsEdit

I read the page you suggested about clearing the problems. I'm still not technical, but the solution I came up with was to install a clean copy of a different browser (in this case Safari) and found that everything was working. I will use Safari from now on to do Commons work. I still have no idea why the Firefox was failing, but as I don't understand any of it; and changing browsers solved the problem, I wish to thank you for trying to help and tell you it's all fixed. The only remaining problem now is to become fluid in my workflow with the new browser. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:40, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ellin Beltz: Oh hi. I personally like Firefox the best (and I use it all the time). Sad to see it not work :/ but glad that you got everything working anyways :) Btw: Have you tried the "new way to install VFC" I posted to COM:VP/P? It might solve the issue but I can't guarantee that. (Race conditions are weird) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
I totally prefer Firefox. If you can figure out the problem from File:JavaScreenShotAsRequested.jpg, maybe I can keep using it. Even to my ignorant eye, "mw.util is undefined" seems like it might be the problem. That seems to cause everything else after it to be in pink. Thanks so much! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: That shares the same symptom as the race condition I mentioned on COM:VP/P last section. The fix would be: 1. get rid of that mw.util.addPortletLink in User:Ellin_Beltz/common.js 2. follow Help:VisualFileChange.js#Step_0:_How_to_Install. It worked for MichaelMaggs so hopefully it will work for you as well (if my guess on the cause is right). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Followed those instructions, no change. Still do not have "no permissions," "no source", "copyright violation" and/or "batch task" in Firefox. Also, are you aware that where it says "click here to autoinstall" doesn't do anything but reopen the same window? Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: You missed step 1 "get rid of that mw.util.addPortletLink in User:Ellin_Beltz/common.js" :P See COM:VP/P "Enabling the gadget does not automatically resolve all the issues in common.js if you don't remove the original lines in common.js." Regarding the autoinstall link, it is built on the assumption that you don't have a JS error, as it is MediaWiki:ActivateGadget.js doing all the magic. So you need to do step 1 :P --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
You're probably going to think that I'm really stupid, but, says "Step 1: Insert contributor..." The batch task thing has to work first in order to get there. But I'm trying to understand what you're saying, and wonder if wiping out the entire *.js file first and then running the auto installer is what you're trying to say? I am really sorry, but your explanations are probably 100% perfect for someone who already knows what you're talking about; but for me, I am totally lost and just banging around trying to fix something. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
UPDATE: I got stupid/smart and just copied your *.js page. Now everything works (I hope) and I have a pile more buttons than I used to have... but the ones which vanished have returned. I hope that's ok with you? Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: Yeah, wiping it out (the real thing is just to comment out / remove that mw.util.addPortletLink line) and run the autoinstall is one way. I have a ton of junk inside my common.js, and would prefer if you don't copy it. Though if you really like it that's fine. Btw:, that floater is from importScript( 'User:Rillke/gallery-sort.js' );. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Please check now? I don't think there's anything remaining which is exactly identical except for whatever the installer generated (if it's the same). I've tried to mark the "paragraphs" as to what they do. Thanks. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:00, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ellin Beltz: The installer is basically activating the gadget by editing your user preferences (MediaWiki:ActivateGadget.js, I haven't read through it yet). However, changing the text like 'vFCProfil' or 'catALotEnd' may break MediaWiki:Gadget-SettingsManager.js when cat-a-lot or vfc tries to save your gadget preferences. I'm not 100% sure since I'm not Rillke the genius, but I suggest you to change them back (i.e. for cat-a-lot preferences this is //**** Cat-A-Lot user preferences ////////// => //catALot///////////////////////////////////////, //////////////////////////////////// => ////////////////////////////////////catALotEnd//) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk)

@Zhuyifei, probably there should be sent a mass message to all users which have installed VFC in old style, with the suggestion to switch to gadget and/or as an alternative - an explanation how to fix possible issues with the VFC userscript. XXN, 14:05, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I probably won't have time next week though :/ --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Romería del Santo Cristo de Charcales, 2017.jpgEdit

Hi. Thank you for running Embedded Data Bot. Would it make sense, in cases like the subject file, for the bot to revdel the version which contains embedded data? Note, the name has changed since the bot took action.   — Jeff G. ツ 15:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Those files that the bot decided to reupload should be usually harmless (they just seem to contain embedded JPEG with yet unknown reason, though these may contain steganography-coded data), but those the bot delete immediately are 100% (idk a counter example yet) abusive files (they contain embedded archive), and those that are tagged is when the bot is unsure. Though, revdel may be implemented soon, see phab:Z567. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-20Edit

21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Visual File ChangeEdit

I thought the Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Make VFC installation a Gadget concluded that VFC was not to be advertised to non-autopatrolled users. Yet User:Moyanbrenn was able to create an account and use VFC withing ten minute to nominate 900 files for deletion. Possibly this user has more famililarity with Commons than their new account status might imply, or received help. @Revent: also. Surely we need to (a) check it is hidden (b) figure out a way to prevent automated edits with this tool being made by new users, whether hidden or not. -- Colin (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Colin, this is Moyan. sorry, i don't know how to edit a page to add my comment correctly. To make the mass deletion (they were all my pictures), i found the instruction page with a simple button to mark the necessary images. I simply followed the instructions found at this page linked below called "just trying it without installing it", where there is simple button to press to do it. Very sorry if i created a problem. Hope my explanation helped you Thank you Moyan moyanbrenn (moyanbrenn)

@Colin: FYI: MediaWiki_talk:VisualFileChange.js#Disable_for_non-autoconfirmed_users --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer the problem. It is clear we give enough instructions that hiding it didn't achieve much. I don't personally see why automated tools are given to any user who hasn't first gone through some at least minimal community endorsement. -- Colin (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
There is no way a client side (browser) tool can prevent anyone from using the it. Even if we were to implement such a requirement in VFC, it is unbelievably simple to circumvent the requirement. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: As Zhuyifei alluded to, since VFC is simply a script that uses the API to edit, there is no way (really) to actually prevent it from working without asking the developers to lock down the API itself. Circumventing any requirement added to the script itself would be extremely trivial. Tools such as en:User:Joeytje50/JWB have the exact same vulnerability... it's extremely obvious at first glance how to make it not look at the check page, even if you don't know JS. - Reventtalk 08:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Revent you guys assume too much skill. Not only would basic scripting ability be required but knowledge of how to create a modified copy of the script and get your account to use it. While someone with malevolent intent could do this if they are relatively familiar with coding (even if they don't know JS), it would not be something they consider lightly. People without web coding skills would be extremely unlikely to knock up their own VFC minus-the-safety-check. Plus, our help page even gives guidance on how to use it if you are not auto-confirmed, which is saying "Even if you're so new to Commons you have no clue about our rules and policies, here's a tool that lets you automate any bright ideas you may have, and leave them running while you go out to work/off to bed. -- Colin (talk) 09:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
@Colin: The point is that the change implemented after the recent discussion (making it a gadget) made no difference at all to the ability of people to misuse the tool, and the caveats about 'not advertising' it were just about who sees the gadget in preferences. If you think the help page should be changed to not mention how else the tool can be enabled, feel free to make the change (or start a discussion about it). Similarly, you can ask someone (since Rillke is apparently no longer around) to implement a permissions check, but such a thing would be completely ineffective as a security measure and probably not worth the effort.
I'm not saying that you are wrong about it being, theoretically, a good idea to not tell people how to use it unless they can enable it as a gadget. I have seen no indication of any kind of widespread problem, though, and it's not what the specific discussion was about. The change Zhuyifei made as a result of that discussion did not make abusing it any easier for anyone who is not autopatrolled.
As far as 'assuming too much skill', I don't quite know how to explain just how simple it would be without giving instructions. Suffice it to say that I am not a java programmer, have never looked at the code of the JWB script before today, and could disable the check in a minute or two without making any edits to the wiki to do so. - Reventtalk 13:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Looking at embedded dataEdit

Do you know any software for reviewing embedded data? For example, your bot is finding embedded data in what appear to be valid images like HK 維多利亞公園游泳池 Victoria Park Swimming Pool 第六屆全港運動會 The 6th Sport Games May 2017 IX1 15.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Uh, cut the file at the specified offset and look at the part after the offset. This one is probably random junk data after the offset where file happen to think that random junk data is MPEG (and I still don't understand why so many JPEGs has random junk data appended, see related discussion on phab:Z567). I'm outside right now, but I'll check that file when I get back. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
The data after the offset looks similar to JPEG tags, but by JPEG specification anything after an EOI tag is invalid and useless. After truncation the image looks intact and nothing seems lost (not even EXIF), so I overwrote it with the truncated file. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Coming from AN out of idle curiosity. I don’t know how the data are actually stored, but Photoshop can add to JPEGs some items, such as colour profiles and clipping paths (vector masks), that may not be proper to the JPEG format. (The latter have no effect on most viewers, but layout applications like InDesign can make use of them when placing the images.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Could you upload a photoshop-ed image of either of the two mentioned files with my truncation (i.e. upload a photoshop-ed version of the truncated file)? I don't have Photoshop (I use GIMP when necessary), so I can't be sure whether Photoshop is the cause. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
OK; maybe I’ll try adding a clipping path, just so you can see what that looks like. Colour profiles don’t seem to be relevant here: I downloaded both versions of the image linked above, and since Photoshop sees an sRGB profile in both, that can’t have been in the truncated part. I don’t see any difference between them once opened. Another possible type of extra data I didn’t think of before would be preview, thumbnail, or icon images; I’ll also try altering a couple of those options. But I have another project to finish first …—Odysseus1479 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


Hello! May I ask one question? I’ve uploaded some Flickr files (this one for example) and they all got a reviewed-pass-change which I can’t understand. For me it looks like they all have the exact license shown on Flickr which would return a reviewed-pass. How can that be? --Clemens Stockner (talk) 23:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It did not see the license prior to reviewing --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. Now I know how it works :) --Clemens Stockner (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Technical Barnstar
Thanks for solving the problem with the user scripts in Daphne Lantier's account. I appreciate your willingness to share your skills. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


Hello Zhuyifei! I noticed that video2commons allows the upload of files from Youtube even if the videos are standard license and/or no license is given when uploading. Could you fix both issues? I noticed that we are getting more and more videos w/o licenses. Thanks for your time!   --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hedwig in Washington: Hi. That's three issues:
  • Videos are transferred even if they are under "Standard YouTube License" at YouTube.
    I don't think it's wise to disallow that, because:
    • As far as I am aware, there are some YouTubers that mark the license in the video description, instead of in the YouTube's license field thing (I'm not exactly sure as I don't upload videos to YouTube). Reasons for this may include the uploader wanting to use a license other than cc-by (such as cc-by-sa), or historical reasons. Or the video is inherently PD without even the need to mark it so (such as videos by US government). Or some video make have their rights released via OTRS. These videos should be okay to be transferred to Commons, but if the tool has to disallow that, such transfer process may turn very complex, and I personally don't like that.
    • There are many other sites v2c support (or attempt to support), for example, Vimeo, Flickr, Dailymotion, or even direct links to video files. Not every single one of those information extractors has license-finder built-in. And adding such requirement to only YouTube videos would be very unfair.
    • I don't see a high deletion rate in last 500 uploads of v2c (I actually don't see a single one). If abusing the tool to transfer copyvios is a serious issue we could add anti-abuse measures, but it doesn't really make sense to do so for a non-issue. The more anti-abuse measures you have, the less the usability.
  • Files are uploaded with no license provided during uploading.
    Well, do you have a good way of determining if a license is provided? The tool currently gives the use the freedom to put any arbitrary text as the file description page, but it is usually prefilled with information from the extractor.
  • More and more videos without license.
    Might be the Morocco WP0 abuse? As far as I am aware they don't use my tool (unlike the Bangladesh case).
--Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Right. I didn't think that through to the very end. Should had have more coffee before sending.   Thanks for your comprehensive reply! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  Арсений1 (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-21Edit

22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Zhuyifei1999".