User talk:Zhuyifei1999

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:FlickreviewR 2)
Jump to: navigation, search

{{#useliquidthreads:1}}

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 Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than the Wikimedia Commons itself.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 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zhuyifei1999.

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.

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

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


Untitled[edit]

Ok. Please, let then the images uploaded,

E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egargo (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

New Template[edit]

Hello Zhuyifei1999, I have created this template for your FlickreviewR_2 bot. So, it is better to use this template when your bot is review the images from Flickr. MLC4U 10:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not a fan of duplication. How about modifying the original template so that all reviews after 11:00, 22 March 2014 as reviewed by my bot? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:40, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't understand what are you saying?MLC4U 10:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

There's a parameter in User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass that records when an image was reviewed. I'm thinking of motifying that temnplate so that it checks that parameter and whenever it's later than 11:00, 22 March 2014 it's marked as being reviewed as my bot instead of the original bot. How about that? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 11:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: This is a sock of LTA sockmaster Jhoni jhoni ha ji. Disregard his nonsense. He likes to waste admin time by coming up with all manner of nonsense. I'll take care of the sock here and make sure he gets dealt with over at en.wiki. lNeverCry 07:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm.. I don't know this sock master well enough to recognize him. The complaint is actually still valid, though --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-48[edit]

21:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

YiFeiBot removed {{delete}}[edit]

Please have a look at diff. Thanks! --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Undetected edit conflict? I'm not sure --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the timestamp between the edits, it seems like it. I do not know how the bot works, but it looks a bit like the bot retrieved the page, edited it in-memory, then my edit happened, then the bot overwrite its version. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but pywikibot is supposed to check the edit timestamp or something similar internally to halt my save. Something clearly went wrong with that --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 10:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Signieren[edit]

Das Tilden setzen funktioniert nicht. Das klicken auf das Signierungstool auch nicht. Im Wikipedia signiere ich immer mit 4 Tilden und es geht, aber hier werden solche Dinger ̴̃ angezeigt, wenn ich auf die selben Tasten drücke. Sorry, es liegt nicht an mir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo-Science-International (talk • contribs) 00:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Steinsplitter: could you help him with this? I don't understand his problem. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Tech News: 2016-49[edit]

18:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your remark on User talk:Colin[edit]

@とある白い猫: Just noting that from my perspective you're quite involved as well. Being ignored & reverted can induce annoyance / anger (perhaps there's a better word, but I can't think of it right now). --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I am not annoyed or angered. I am however confused.
  • As an uninvolved third party I simply received an automated notice (probably over the bulk addition of text).
  • About one day later I went to the thread and simply asked a ten words or fewer summary because the section header was unacceptable and more importantly uninformative.
  • About one day later I simply came to the users talk page to give a helpful nudge. I do this all time time, not everyone follows every thread. I certainly don't myself. Here I observed that one other user mentioned the section header problem before me which the user removed so I asked him why he removed that.
  • About one day later I came back to see my question to the user was also removed. So I published my observations from the above experience to a public thread on the ongoing discussion that seemed most relevant since it involved the user that warned before me (Revent) and also this user. The user removed that observation.
  • Based only on this interaction I decided the user was being disruptive so I enacted a block asking the user to cease this conduct but also explain what is going on.
I still do not know why this user is acting in this manner where he removes other peoples remarks and warnings, closes threads he is an involved party and also refuses to explain himself.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 13:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@とある白い猫: Well, yeah, nether "annoyed" nor "angered" is the best way to describe it; I don't think "confused" is, either. However, I see removing a person's comments as an interaction (possibly offensive). Colin may be blocked, but not by the person who was the subject of such interaction; in that case such block may be, well, a block by an involved admin. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
What Colin did is not removing とある白い猫's comment; he just undo his action, restoring the closure he made. He well sated that とある白い猫 can restore his comment as a separate section. Hope とある白い猫 learned a lesson now or will see the exit door, soon. Jee 14:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: Your statement is in contradiction with itself. You state that he did not remove my comment and yet he has willingly done so based on his own edit summary which you acknowledge. I will reflect on my conduct but not here. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 14:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jkadavoor: It could be interpreted as both, for the last case. However, I cannot think of any interpretation to find the other cases of ignorance not offensive, especially the "I have absolutely no intention..." part. In fact, I had the inclination to ask Colin to shorten his "wall of text" in the first post, had White Cat not ask him so. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't find the diff now; but there is a recent heated argument between White Cat and Colin recently. That may be reason why Colin didn't reply to White Cat there (ANB). For talk page, it is up to user's interest whether or not to reply. Whatever is the reason, a user is not obliged to reply to other. The Fae vs Colin conflict started very long since a FPC nomination. If White Cat don't know the history better, stay away as no one can spoon-feed him all information. That banned user's play on Revent's talk and Revent's attempt to consider it amusing is also related. I can easily understand what is going on. Colin is achieving community support day by day and he has a wonderful talent to inspire the sportsman spirit of the community. Some people are higly disturbed and playing all wicked tricks. White Cat may be an innocent victim of it as he don't know the early incidents happened when he was in a break. Jee 14:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the last part of this one of your summary perfectly explains my feeling reading ^. I don't think I'm among the former, but the latter. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes; and Yann's closing note too. We need a "good attempt to bring the gap between parties". Some food for thoughts. (Editing here is slowing down my recovery from cold and fever. So shutting down. Good night.) Jee 15:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jkadavoor: So I am involved because of some past discussion (a discussion I cannot remember for the life of me) but Yann is not (with a past unblock)? By your logic, everyone who has had a disagreement (even once) must not use admin tools against each other. Can you list users who you think is uninvolved in regards to Colin?
Also, you almost make it sound like Colin is forming a cult with that inspiring charismatic sportsman spirit. Hmm, then again there are people mindlessly supporting him. Fair enough. How does that make him exempt from policy? How do you explain the 8 minute time difference between Colin demanding an unblock and him receiving it? How do you explain the same unblocking admin closing the thread on Colin's conduct, preventing any discussion.
-- とある白い猫 ちぃ? 10:22, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Briefmarke LindauerHuette 6S.jpg[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Briefmarke LindauerHuette 6S.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Storkk (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)