Page 5 of 18
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:42 am
by Crissa
Okay, set and ...oh,. it's set.
Hmm. Also, only one phantom post. I wonder if anyone deleted a post earlier?
-Crissa
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:43 am
by Crissa
One last test
-Crissa
Bah.
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:43 am
by Crissa
Okaaaay... :P
-Crissa
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 3:44 am
by Crissa
Okay, when I use quick reply, my setting isn't noted, but at least it's checked at the bottom if I use the full-reply option now.
It was not before.
-Crissa
Posted: Fri Dec 19, 2008 4:55 am
by Cynic
Crissa wrote:Okay, when I use quick reply, my setting isn't noted, but at least it's checked at the bottom if I use the full-reply option now.
It was not before.
-Crissa
I rarely use quick reply so I don't know what would happen in that case
SO let's try doing this post as a quick reply and see if the above smileys show up. If they don't then we know that the mod just has some limitations built into it that only work when the specific disable smiley check box is checked in the post window. Quick Reply probably doesn't have that option.
EDIT UPDATE: So it seems as though the "disable smiley" option doesn't work in quick reply. Not the end of the world but it's good to know.
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 12:38 am
by Zherog
Crissa wrote:You say that, but I did.
Why do you say I did not?
I say you didn't because if I click on "edit" for your post, the "disable smilies in this post" option is not checked.
At least it's been narrowed down to quick reply. So it seems if you want to use quick reply and insist on turning off smilies, you'll need to make your post, then edit it to check the box for disabling smilies.
*
Frankly, Crissa, the attitude you gave Neil and I makes it very difficult to
want to help you. Just sayin'...
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:22 am
by Crissa
Frankly, the attitude you gave me was rude. You didn't lift a finger to even understand that even given the not-quick post reply option, no smilies was not checked autmatically.
In fact, it wasn't letting me check the damn box. Which was annoying.
-Crissa
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:39 am
by fbmf
[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Both of you drop it. Now.
[/TGFBS]
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 1:22 am
by TarkisFlux
The URL tag/parser bug has popped up a few times now, but hasn't yet been reported. So here ya go:
Links without parentheses, like
Test or
www.fakelink.com work just fine.
Code: Select all
[url=www.fakelink.com]Test[/url]
www.fakelink.com
Links with parentheses, like
Test or
www.fakelink.com/test_(2009).asp fail when they hit the first ( character.
Code: Select all
[url=www.fakelink.com/test_(2009).asp]Test[/url]
www.fakelink.com/test_(2009).asp
.... Although apparently they work in Code boxes... I did not know that until I previewed this.
Anyway, just wanted to point it out.
Posted: Sat Feb 28, 2009 3:58 am
by Heath Robinson
And if you encase them in URL tags, your posts disappears.
Like so
www.fakelink.com/test_(2009).asp
Posted: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:53 am
by Maj
That's pretty cool.
Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:01 pm
by Judging__Eagle
I got an e-mail on March 29 from TGD automated mailer saying that I have a new message sent to me via the GD PM system.
However, I don't have any new mail, and I'm well under max capacity for my inbox (16% in use right now).
I'm not even sure who sent it, so I don't know what to tell the person who messaged me.
Posted: Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:16 am
by Bigode
Was me, about your misreading on the light/dark thread. Guess I intended to tell you to edit a post so that I deleted my reply; don't recall the exact details, as I deleted it once you replied on the thread (and thus I couldn't delete anything). So, no longer relevant. But my Inbox was even close to full at one point or another, and hasn't had any problem for months ...
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:17 pm
by Zherog
Bigode, did you delete the PM? That's certainly a possible explanation - if you deleted it after the e-mail but before JE read it.
Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:47 pm
by Bigode
I'm sure it was at least 24 hours after I sent, possibly 2 or more days, but yeah, I did, and sure, that's a possible explanation if he didn't log in meanwhile.
That said, I find it hilarious that the sender might have control of the message even
after sending.
Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:56 am
by Crissa
That's how email and usenet worked, back when there were few enough nodes to have authoritative servers in the network.
-Crissa
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:34 pm
by Zherog
Bigode wrote:That said, I find it hilarious that the sender might have control of the message even
after sending.
The sender has control up until it's been read. At least, I'm pretty sure. If you'd like, send me a PM; I'll post when I get the e-mail but won't actually read the PM. Then you can go delete it and we'll see what happens.
Posted: Wed Apr 08, 2009 2:46 pm
by Heath Robinson
Bigode wrote:That said, I find it hilarious that the sender might have control of the message even
after sending.
It's a good feature implementation based on user feedback. You can send a PM then realise "crap, I typoed" and edit the typo out before they read it. Clearly, however, the ability to edit it after they've read it is bad because PMs get read once, and once only. Updates to the information in the PM are lost after they read it, so the system may as well remove the bad option and force you to send a correction PM.
They can also delete PMs you've received, and letting you edit a PM that has been "deleted" means that your edit falls into a black pit whilst making you think that your correction has made it through to the other user.
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 7:09 pm
by zeruslord
Threads have mysteriously switched from being marked as new until I read them to being marked as read when I stop browsing, whether or not I've actually visited them. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate change or not, but it is a pain in the ass.
Posted: Fri Jun 05, 2009 8:36 pm
by Heath Robinson
zeruslord wrote:Threads have mysteriously switched from being marked as new until I read them to being marked as read when I stop browsing, whether or not I've actually visited them. I'm not sure if this is a deliberate change or not, but it is a pain in the ass.
That's been a standard behaviour of PHPbb for quite a while now.
Posted: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:11 pm
by Crissa
For me, whether this browsing mark happens or not means that some things remain new while in this session despite having read it.
-Crissa
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 1:07 pm
by Zherog
Yep. I also get to see the same post as new numerous times. For example, there's a good chance that if somebody else posts in this thread after me, clicking on the "New Post" link will take me to zeruslord's posts.
This is among the reasons I'd like to (someday) upgrade to 3.0. In my experience, these problems don't come up in 3.0.
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:52 pm
by Cynic
TarkisFlux wrote:The URL tag/parser bug has popped up a few times now, but hasn't yet been reported. So here ya go:
Links without parentheses, like
Test or
www.fakelink.com work just fine.
Code: Select all
[url=www.fakelink.com]Test[/url]
www.fakelink.com
Links with parentheses, like
Test or
www.fakelink.com/test_(2009).asp fail when they hit the first ( character.
Code: Select all
[url=www.fakelink.com/test_(2009).asp]Test[/url]
www.fakelink.com/test_(2009).asp
.... Although apparently they work in Code boxes... I did not know that until I previewed this.
Anyway, just wanted to point it out.
I tried this just an hour ago with a link to a wikipedia article for about 30 minutes before almost punching a hole through the wall.
So after realizing I get angry for futile shiite. Let's try this in a different manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_(comics)
The Boys
Both are probably not going to work.
Code: Select all
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_(comics)
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boys_(comics)] The boys. [/url]
If this shite works. I'm going to give into my futile shiite and punch a whole in the internets.
Fixed tags so I could read the post --Z
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 7:48 pm
by Zherog
And with A_C's post, I was indeed taken to zeruslord's post.
Posted: Sun Jun 07, 2009 8:36 pm
by Cynic
EDIT: mods, please delete. double post. i thought we could delete our own posts but apparently that's turned off.
Edit2: Why the fvck am I able to delete other posts made by me but not this one????