 |
|
|
There is also a long standing bug that has affected a few authors where downloads for one article were being counted towards a different article. We are still finalising the corrections to ensure accuracy since we don't want to do this twice. Once we're confident we have all the dots joined together we will run a full rep recalc.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to post VB.NET related topic in Arabic Language here. Is this Language welcome here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
please help me with this 2 loops, to remove duplicates[^]
While I agree that the original question was vague, it was his first, and he did well in understanding what his problem was once it was explained and he was given alternatives. I understood it, at least enough to give an initial answer, and he now has his solution, a fair amount of education and is a happy bunny! I thought we were supposed to support these beginners, not make it harder for them! 
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The solution I posted at[^]: was pre-qualified by a comment to the OP asking him to clarify if he was using WinForms (which he did not respond to), and the solution I proposed was then further clarified by the OP's response to my comment in terms of the exact spec of the "image involved."
I then made a clear statement that the solution I presented only involved use of a PictureBox in WinForms. And, I posted tested code, that I tried out out an image I manufactured myself precisely to the spec described by the OP. Not only the code, but the link to the image were provided to the OP.
I also took the trouble to round out the answer by considering under what circumstances the technique shown might not be optimal, or relevant, or might be used in other ways. I'd say I spent a minimum of half-an-hour on this answer.
I find a first vote of of -16 quite puzzling, but it does fit in with regular -16 votes any time I post anything on the Lounge that is originally creative.
I guess I have to "eat my words" now that I once boasted, here, that "I never looked at reputation" 
thanks, Bill
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm puzzled that you reported your own message as Abusive...
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
....although, I've sadly done that to myself... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: I'm puzzled that you reported your own message as Abusive...
Hi Chris,
I never voted down, flagged, or reported as abuse the original question which was quite appropriate: why has the OP now been punished ?
I guess I interpreted the facility to report "abuse" as also appropriate to use to report a message ... in this case my solution ... "being abused," and I believe I indicated why I reported the message in the brief text message that you can add to the report. If that was inappropriate, or I did not clearly indicate the reason: sorry about that !
So, the only way to raise the issue of an "odd" down-vote, is to report it here ?
If that's the case, I can live with that: I'm certainly a strong believer that being abusive to oneself is not constructive
However, the original post was not abusive, and my comments to get the OP to clarify the question were appropriate. And my answer is appropriate.
So, I strongly suggest your reverse the draconian solution that has been carried out here, and re-open both the original post, my comments on the original post, and my answer.
Meanwhile I will write a personal message of apology to the OP that a quite possibly legitimate question has been evidently closed because of my mistake.
The OP acted in "good faith," and his question was more specific than most, and he did reply quickly to a clarifying comment from me. Please, let's not "take it out" on him !
best, Bill
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Richard Feynman
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BillWoodruff wrote: I'd say I spent a minimum of half-an-hour on this answer.
There in lies your problem. The OP most likely didn't even spend 10 minutes trying to solve their own problem and you spent 3 times that solving theirs.
As for the down-vote, you will get these and hundreds of them for no real reason at all (and none will be given either). We have all said this before but you really have to get used to it.
"the meat from that butcher is just the dogs danglies, absolutely amazing cuts of beef." - DaveAuld (2011)
"No, that is just the earthly manifestation of the Great God Retardon." - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
"It is the celestial scrotum of good luck!" - Nagy Vilmos (2011)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It could be that the person who replied to the spam message removed their own message.
I've removed the spam.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought that if a message had been replied too it couldn't be removed?
See Here[^]
No problems at all, just for clarification.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
modified 2 days ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you sure you meant to link to that message?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oops
Thanks Pete, I will edit.
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
when no child messages are present, a message can be deleted, i.e. taken away without leaving a trace.
when child messages are present, a message can't be deleted; the "delete" widget then replaces message body and subject line by a "message removed" sentence, which is a bit silly, as there still is a message. "original message content removed by author" would be more appropriate.
Luc Pattyn [My Articles] Nil Volentibus Arduum
Fed up by FireFox memory leaks I switched to Opera and now CP doesn't perform its paste magic, so links will not be offered. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Luc.
Enlightenment at lunchtime!
------------------------------------
I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
CCC Link[ ^]
Trolls[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello ,
I found that dreams13 and shwetadreams are accounts created by same user
see the Q/A link
sql server not working[^]
Hope this helps , If yes the accept the answer and vote it otherwise revert back with your queries
--Rahul D.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No, Both are same user. OP changed the user id. Take a look at the profile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To avoid the issue of pretentious, erm, members, whinging about univoters :
Rather than a 1-5 have a like/dislike option (yes, probably facebook-esque but its a far cleaner model)
Lets face it, the voting is almost always either 1 or 5 anyway.
People seem to think that if someone 1-votes their post they are somehow being vindictive, especially if not giving a reason - but rarely worry about if a reason is given for a 5 vote.
While the difference is a subtle one, merely clicking a 'don't like' post may seem (to those whose lives revolve around their rep points, and frequently denying same) less abusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So instead of people complaining about a downvote, people will complain about a "don't like"?
I'm not sure what we've gained here.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
The Code Project | Co-founder
Microsoft C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
as I said, it's a perception thing - you're not 'downvoting' just saying "I didn't like your post"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same difference... I do use the intermittent votes in Q&A... for example, if an answer is correct but the solution fails to point out a caveat.
One I tend to nitpick personally is WaitForSingleObject() with INFINITE wait times (C/C++ through WinAPI), although that's a personal thing, I've had arguments with people in here about that one, but in that case, I'd vote a 4 instead of a 5. The solution is correct, but telling a user to use INFINITE waits instead of error handling is not good (IMO of course).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a thread just started in the Soapbox[^] that got me thinking. How about if it isn't obvious who downvoted, then in order to downvote, you lose the same points as your "victim". Persistant univoters would soon run out of authority to do any serious damage...just a thought! 
Ideological Purity is no substitute for being able to stick your thumb down a pipe to stop the water
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Rant 
Admin