|
I lost mine only once this year - Did you change your profile settings after Jan 1st?
The scariest moment is always just before the Start - Stephen King
Die Frauen warten auf die Liebe, und die Männer warten auf die Frauen - Wolf Wondratschek
|
|
|
|
|
I doubt it. Anything's possible after a couple of reds, though...
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Just tried it out - searching there is probably lost time.
The scariest moment is always just before the Start - Stephen King
Die Frauen warten auf die Liebe, und die Männer warten auf die Frauen - Wolf Wondratschek
|
|
|
|
|
Can it get lost if you are composing a messages, accidentally click "Click to edit signature" and somehow remove it? I lost my sig at some point a few months ago and I figured that is what my fat fingers had done while using my phone.
[BTW, I am testing that thought with this post]
[EDIT]
I guess not, it looks like the sig is there when I go to post a new message.
Nothing to see here. Move along. 
[/EDIT]
Soren Madsen
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: ...and look at that! No sig. OK, looks like a regression. Will fix.)
The task list shows this bug as "Unable to repro", yet I just repro'd it[^] a few seconds ago.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
I re-added my sig to my profile (Forums tab). The sig now shows up in the message editor but only when I add some content. Previously, the preview always displayed the signature. IMHO, that's a bug not a feature.
Also, the disappearance of my sig (and some aspect of my professional profile - which caused me to lose my Professional icon - is also a bug).
Thanks,
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
The message preview only starts when you start adding content. Your sig isn't content.
The loss of Profeessional status is on the TODO list[^].
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
If the original poster decided to delete their question, I don't think anything can be done about that (?), but if someone else deleted this QA question: [^], then I protest.
The post may have been a re-post of this by the same poster: [^].
The OP asked a reasonable question about drawing a graph-paper like background. There was already one pretty good answer posted showing how to this with the GDI+ and the Paint Event in Win Forms, a response I had upvoted.
And, I spent fifteen-minutes writing up a detailed answer showing how to use freely available public-domain grid-pattern files to quickly construct 24-bit .png files with transparency that are very small in size, and use those as background images.
Now, I can't find my answer to archive it for my files. 
“The best hope is that one of these days the Ground will get disgusted enough just to walk away ~ leaving people with nothing more to stand ON than what they have so bloody well stood FOR up to now.” Kenneth Patchen, Poet
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you on this - Spam and *very* poor gimme codez posts should be cleaned [talking about one or three line questions, without existing code posted] - All others shall stay where they are. Even then I think *deleting* is the wrong way, can't we just close it [content is still displayed, but no comments and answers can be posted].
The scariest moment is always just before the Start - Stephen King
Die Frauen warten auf die Liebe, und die Männer warten auf die Frauen - Wolf Wondratschek
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree, so +5!
However, there is a way to get back an answer to a deleted question:
- You have a link. Is it a link to a question? Go to step 2. Is it a link to an answer? Go to step 5.
- Find the question ID of the question. It's the number in the URL.
- Go to
/script/Articles/ListAlternatives.aspx?aid=<question ID> - Choose your answer. You'll go to a page that shows "Sorry, the item you requested could not be found."
- Now, find the answer ID. It will be the number in the URL in the address bar.
- Go to
/script/Articles/ListVersions.aspx?aid=<answer ID>. There are all revisions of your answer listed. - Go to the latest revision and there you'll see your answer.
So, for you, your answer is here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for this ! yours, Bill
“The best hope is that one of these days the Ground will get disgusted enough just to walk away ~ leaving people with nothing more to stand ON than what they have so bloody well stood FOR up to now.” Kenneth Patchen, Poet
|
|
|
|
|
I feel for you and agree it is a problem, but don't forget that spammers sometimes post a Question and then post spammy Answers to that question. 
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
How do we provide a mechanism to let members clean out the spam that also prevents them from deleting questions that some feel should not be deleted?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
today i was checking my reputation list and what i found that it shows page 1 of 70 but when i clicked on last page there was nothing.
then i move to one page previous still nothing ...
now i click on page 10 it shows me data and page number upto 14 .
now i click on page 14 there is nothing..but if i click on page 13 it shows some data..with page no upto 17 but no data after page number 13.
may be you guys have removed old data and archived that but page number still shows the same number of count which i think should be rectify.
Ravi Khoda
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh okay. great. 
Ravi Khoda
|
|
|
|
|
...is very useful, but...could we use a different symbol (or better, a combination of symbols)
SQL Parameters are often prefixed by an atsign, and this question[^] just accidentally emailed six members... 
How about !OriginalGriff! or similar? A lot less likely to be used accidentally.
Those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it. --- George Santayana (December 16, 1863 – September 26, 1952)
Those who fail to clear history are doomed to explain it. --- OriginalGriff (February 24, 1959 – ∞)
|
|
|
|
|
7 members in fact.
To be fair nobody's going to remember any other convention.
And it's a good addition to the site, changing it's useage will just make it unused and that won't be a good thing.
Maybe a warning to say 'so-and-so' will be notified will be better.
|
|
|
|
|
Blue Waffle wrote: Maybe a warning to say 'so-and-so' will be notified will be better.
Because users read and pay attention to warning messages, right? 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
What are we talking about here.
Sometimes somebody somewhere might get an e-mail notification that wasn't meant for them. It's not really a big problem is it?
The original solution was to inconvenience everybody who wants to notify somebody in a post by trying to remember an alien convention.
My solution was to provide a warning. If a user ignores it, who cares?? The worst thing that is going to happen is somebody gets a wrong e-mail notification.
|
|
|
|
|
As I see it, there are two problems:
- The user receives a notification that's nothing to do with them, and could be seen as spam. Users with shorter usernames (eg: P[^]) are likely to get inundated with spurious notifications.
- The notification reveals the email address of the user posting the message, which is unlike any other notification sent from the site.
Even when you know about the feature, you can still get caught out, as OG did in the thread he linked to.
I'd be interested to see how often this feature has been used intentionally.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: I'd be interested to see how often this feature has been used intentionally
Although I don't know the answer to that, I used it intentionally and successfully in this thread[^]
Soren Madsen
"When you don't know what you're doing it's best to do it quickly" - Jase #DuckDynasty
|
|
|
|
|
If the SQL code is wrapped in PRE or CODE tags there won't be a conversion. I've gone ahead and edited the post to wrap in PRE tags.
|
|
|
|
|
According to my reputation history, at the time of writing this post[^] had 1 x 0pts spam/abusive report and 3 x 24pts upvotes. However the actual message doesn't show the upvotes (or indeed appear green) Is this because the earlier 'abuse' report ensured that the future upvotes weren't displayed on the message?
|
|
|
|
|
The post's rating is 3.86, and (AFAIK) you need >= 4.0 to see green.
I am not sure why someone spam/abuse voted that message, though.
<voice type="Ebeneezer Scrooge"> Bah. dumb bugs </voice>
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
