User talk:Danny B.

Common.css
Please see this question about your recent edit to common.css. Cheers --HappyDog 04:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Feature requests tagging
IIRC you proposed creating a Phabricator tag for the information which was conveyed by "severity: enhancement" in bugzilla, but I can't find where due to the broken Phabricator search. Given #worktype-newfunctionality exists, as an experiment I tried adding it to 280 reports (job 394). Let's see what happens and judge whether the overlap in meaning is good or not. --Nemo 10:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Preferences and options and settings
Pro: Talk:Requests_for_comment/Redesign_user_preferences (A Serenade to Settings)

Con: Just make it a user preference

(-: –Quiddity (talk) 20:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Tracking bugs priority
Please don't change the priority of tracking tasks. --Nemo 08:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Project additions
It helps to explain your project additions to reports. You can use the comment area with the "Add action" dropdown. Nemo 06:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Merging to closed tasks
When you merge open tasks to closed ones, it's a good idea to consider whether some real todo would be forgotten and how to best keep track of it. Nemo 06:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

— Danny B. 10:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's also a good idea to check the history (1, 2, 3, 4) before turning to incorrect person...

Tasks without component
Please don't remove tags in a way that makes a task component-less. Nemo 20:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC) — Danny B. 20:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC) — Danny B. 11:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Closed tracking tasks replaced by tags are invalid and as such must not be tagged with anything else than #Tracking and replacement tag. (Not even speaking about that invalid tasks are mostly supposed to be tagged with #Trash..
 * I'm not interested in your made-up rules. Tasks need to have a component and that's very clear. Nemo 09:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in your made-up rules. Tasks need to have at least one tag (unless trash) to not be unfindable orphans and that's very clear.

Tracking tracking
Please don't remove (active) tracking tasks from the blockers of the tracking tracker. Nemo 20:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC) — Danny B. 20:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC) — Danny B. 11:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * As clearly seen, the task has been declined almost a year ago. Not even speaking of the fact that it is the main cause of not showing the task graphs.
 * Irrelevant. Please refrain from disrupting the people's work. --Nemo 08:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * (Un)breaking of Phabricator features is of course relevant. Please provide examples of how exactly is removing of meta-of-meta task disrupting somebody's work.

Enabling workboards
Please don't enable workboards which were previously disabled, without consulting the project's members/users. Nemo 08:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC) — Danny B. 11:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC) — Danny B. 10:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC) — Danny B. 14:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless you provide valid reason for not having them enabled, stop disabling them when there are users who use them.
 * I didn't disable any workboard in use. I insist that you stop edit warring with project members. Nemo 10:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide an evidence that the workboard is not used. And unless you provide valid reason for not having them enabled, stop disabling them mentioned earlier still applies.
 * I refuse to prove that the sky is blue. You know very well the problems of workboards, since you are aware of T105865. I opened T142935. Nemo 14:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * There are no problems with workboards. Only you have those problems. Please stop intentionally worsen working conditions of other Phabricator users. Thank you.
 * Too bad reality doesn't agree with you. You reverted or ignored multiple users, with your blind enabling of workboards on dozens or hundreds of projects. It's sad that you didn't even stop to think about what you were doing, and you didn't even notice. Nemo 15:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Commit addition
Did someone ask you to do T17017? It seems unnecessarily spammy to me, and surely best handled by a bot. Nemo 13:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC) — Danny B. 16:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't know I have to be asked to link up Diffusion commits which I felt to be relevant to the task (please link me to the policy which requires that, thank you), fortiori if there is - to my knowledge - actually no existing bot which would be doing that. If such bot exists, please let me know its name or the relevant project and I'll file a task that it probably didn't work properly as this task was unliked to relevant Diffusion commits. Thank you.

Open/close reverts
Please don't reinstate without explanations closures that nobody but you has expressed agreement with. As on the wikis, unexplained rollbacks may be considered vandalism. --Nemo 15:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC) — Danny B. 16:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If nobody but you was true, someone else involved would obviously speak up already. Declining was based on solid foundation and was clearly justified and in fact it was you who did not provide objective reasons for reopening.
 * Relying on the fact that someone would speak up doesn't work well when closing a report, because it's easy for a closed report to just be forgotten. (Also, in the Phabricator component many users just stopped hoping for improvements; this was also addressed by comments in a related report.) Writing down a tentative conclusion and making a last call before changing a task's status is a common practice, good if you do that. Nemo 06:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Unassuming advice
"Please read the project description page" is not helpful advice, because it comes with assumptions on what I did or did not do. (Assumptions that happened to be incorrect, by the way.) Nemo 06:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)