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#An Ode to Options, A Paean to 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)

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

Tasks without component

Please don't remove tags in a way that makes a task component-less. Nemo 20:02, 24 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..
— Danny B. 20:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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.
— Danny B. 11:37, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Tracking tracking

Please don't remove (active) tracking tasks from the blockers of the tracking tracker. Nemo 20:06, 24 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.
— Danny B. 20:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

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.
— Danny B. 11:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

Unless you provide valid reason for not having them enabled, stop disabling them when there are users who use them.
— Danny B. 11:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

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.
— Danny B. 10:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I refuse to prove that the sky is blue. You know very well the problems of workboards, since you are aware of phabricator:T105865. I opened phabricator: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.
— Danny B. 14:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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 phabricator:T17017#2551725? It seems unnecessarily spammy to me, and surely best handled by a bot. Nemo 13:54, 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.
— Danny B. 16:44, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

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.
— Danny B. 16:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

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)

Fine, then fortiori I don't see a reason why you reopened the task, so please don't continue in such reopenings. Thank you.
And about (incorrect) assumptions - it's more well-founded assumption than your one about workboards being unused...
— Danny B. 11:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't assume anything, I measure. Nemo 17:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

COI actions

Please don't alter settings of tasks where you're clearly involved. Nemo 17:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Stalling after unsubscription

Can you clarify how phabricator:T140335#2464031 fits the shared definition of stalled task? --Nemo 10:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Khowar Wikipedia Wp/khw

On behalf of the Khowar language community, I'm requesting the creation of Wikipedia Khowar. The details are enclosed herewith for your information.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Khowar

Language code: khw

Site URL: khw.wikipedia.org

Project name: ویکیپیڈیا

Project namespace: ویکیپیڈیا

Project talk namespace: تبادلہ خیال ویکیپیڈیا

Project logo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-khw.svg

Timezone: UTC

Local file uploads: disabled

Additional namespaces: Portal => باب, Portal talk => تبادلہ خیال باب

Thank you.

--Rehmat Aziz Chitrali 14:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)