User talk:Zhuyifei1999/Archive 27

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

Visual File Change

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. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:VisualFileChange.js 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)

Reviewed-pass-change?

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!

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)

Looking at embedded data

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)

video2commons

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! C(_) --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. C(_) Thanks for your comprehensive reply! --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

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

22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Help!

Please fix the typos, change 聯係 into 聯絡, thx. -- By LNDDYL. (Talk) 14:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Unpatrolled, can't mark as patrolled

Hi, Zhuyifei1999. I think you're the best person to reply on this: Commons talk:Patrol#Unpatrolled, can't mark as patrolled. //  Gikü  said  done  Wednesday, 24 May 2017 22:29 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with ow the patrol system work for new uploads. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

12:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Please don't touch my file or don't delet it please
Aammama (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Your bot

can You help me please becase your bot delets my file and my picture please help me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aammama (talk • contribs) 15:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

What do you expect? "vsdfkjfdsfgkjfsdkjfgk"? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Wrong cat

Hi Zhuyifei, your bot added for a series of uploads a maintaince category which is not correct.[4]. If i am right, could you please remove it? --Arnd (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done removed all those with filenames starting with "ETH". This is just more false positives from db queries due to the template transclution updates being lagged behind, and I still have no clue on how to workaround it. :/ (The bot is supposed to periodically recheck and remove from the cat though) --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

No notification

Seems that not all VFC users were notified with the suggestion to switch to gadget use; example: script, proof. --XXN, 20:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Directly importing the script should be still working AFAICT, but not recommended. CC @Steinsplitter: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
You are right. Just to be sure, tested it one more time now in this style of installation, and seems to work fine. It's ok then, notification wasn't really needed in such case(s). Sorry for bothering you:) --XXN, 12:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

19:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Is your bot handle double SVG file extensions? If not will be good idea to extend it. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Um no. It only handles double extensions like "*.svg.svg", not "* svg.svg". The script also relies on User:Dispenser/Double_extension for the list of files with double extensions, so if that task shall be extended this report page has to be extended first. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

United States [of America]

Is seems that this edit by your bot may have caused (or at least enabled) the problem I raised at Commons:Village pump#This user is from the United States. Suggestions for how best to fix the problem? - dcljr (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Earth 2017 - Danke, und wie geht es weiter?

Hallo Zhuyifei1999,

vielen Dank für Deine Teilnahme am Fotowettbewerb Wiki Loves Earth Deutschland. Damit hast Du ein Stück Natur in Deiner Region dokumentiert und Wikipedia geholfen, andere darüber zu informieren.

Dieses Jahr wurden 24.000 Fotos eingereicht, im vorigen Jahr waren es noch 18.000. Bei der Teilnehmerzahl (1063) wurde der Rekord vom Vorjahr nur knapp verpasst.

Um die große Zahl von Bildern angemessen zu bewältigen, suchen wir weitere Helfer für die Vorjury, zum Kategorisieren oder zum Einfügen der Bilder in die Artikel und Listen der Wikipedia.

Eine Jury wird Anfang Juli auf einer Sitzung in Fulda die besten Bilder auswählen. Nach dem Zeitplan sollen die Top100 am 15. Juli 2017 veröffentlicht werden. Kurz danach werden die Gewinner benachrichtigt.

Wir möchten auf Wiki Loves Earth Biosphere Reserves hinweisen. Bei diesem Wettbewerb können bis Ende Juni Bilder von Biosphärenreservaten aus aller Welt eingereicht werden. Selbstverständlich darf man das ganze Jahr über Bilder zu beliebigen Themen bei Wikimedia Commons hochladen, nicht nur wenn ein Wettbewerb läuft...

Freundliche Grüße.

--Blech (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

de-0 --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Embedded data bot false positive

Hi, your bot has flagged my upload for speedy deletion here, however I can assure you there is no embedded data in that FLAC file (aside from standard audio metadata). The file was created with a freshly-installed copy of Audacity on vanilla Ubuntu 16.04, and other files I've uploaded with this setup haven't had any issue. Please check the bot, and, if possible, remove the Speedy Deletion template. Thanks! --MahmoudHashemi (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done The flac format is a pain to do the detections accurately --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:41, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Embedded data bot false positive

Hello, your bot has flagged my nice upload for speedy deletion here, however I can assure you there is no embedded data in that jpg file (aside from standard file metadata). The file was created with a younes ghandouri in france at 12:55 AM , and other files I've uploaded with this setup haven't had any issue. Please check the bot, and, if possible, remove the Speedy Deletion template. Thanks! and please ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compte7 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

LMAO --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

what do you mean ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Compte7 (talk • contribs) 10:24, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

15:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)