|
This does not seem to be working.
I first noticed it on WPF Controls Tester[^] and tried on one other which also didn't work.
I tried on a published article and it worked fine.
So:
Is code no longer available for articles waiting approval?
Is it broken?
Is it me?
It's probably me, it usually is. 
Henry Minute
Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?"
“I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
I wouldn't let CG touch my Abacus!
When you're wrestling a gorilla, you don't stop when you're tired, you stop when the gorilla is.
Cogito ergo thumb - Sucking my thumb helps me to think.
modified 30-Jan-12 7:49am.
|
|
|
|
|
It's not just you. Not this time anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely seems to be broken.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
To avoid unnecessary banning and the subsequent Lazarus-like revivals, couldn't we have move this to the SoapBox button for posts deemed inappropriate by the group. This seems less harsh than mark as abuse button.
|
|
|
|
|
I really like this idea. I would add a number of votes (maybe 5) from the community would move a post?
Just along for the ride.
"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)
|
|
|
|
|
Something like that, for example the same criteria as the vote to remove.
|
|
|
|
|
We already have "vote to remove", which should be enough, and allows Chris to decide if any further action is required.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: We already have "vote to remove", which should be enough,
IMHO, it is not enough. Some posts don't need to be removed, they should just be moved to an appropriate forum. I think the community should handle stuff like this and not just Chris.
Just along for the ride.
"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)
|
|
|
|
|
Slacker007 wrote: Some posts don't need to be removed
But that's just a matter of the reader's opinion. I might see a message that I think is more appropriate to a different forum, whereas others may think it should be removed completely. How many option buttons are we going to need?
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: How many option buttons are we going to need?
Only two. Move and remove should be the only ones. I feel they should have been there from the get go. Parts of this site should be completely self moderating in my opinion, and should not be moderated by one person alone.
If the majority feel that it should be removed, then it will be. However, if the majority of the community feel that it should be in the Soapbox or a programming forum then so be it.
Just along for the ride.
"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)
|
|
|
|
|
As long as the "remove message" is unhooked from "remove user" then I'd agree. MM has been banned twice simply for using the language of the snooker hall in the lounge, whereas moving it to the SoapBox would have been enough.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and Chris has explained what happened and why. I don't think it was a big deal then, nor is it likely to be in the future. The systems in place at the moment seem to work for nearly all situations, which, given how much we have to pay to use this site, is pretty d****d good.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: The systems in place at the moment seem to work for nearly all situations,
which, given how much we have to pay to use this site, is pretty d****d
good.
There's no need to bring that up here. Different websites have different business models. Google and Facebook are free for use too (apparently). Just because CP does not have a paid subscription does not mean members should shut up about problematic site features. If that were so, Chris wouldn't even have this forum here.
|
|
|
|
|
Nishant Sivakumar wrote: There's no need to bring that up here.
Why? I was merely making a comment on the previous discussion and it seems quite relevant to me.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: Why? I was merely making a comment on the previous discussion and it seems quite
relevant to me.
Okay, I may have missed the previous discussion where the subscription model was discussed.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard MacCutchan wrote: The systems in place at the moment seem to work for nearly all situations, which, given how much we have to pay to use this site, is pretty d****d good.
My suggestion was just that: a suggestion, not a criticism. I thought I'd suggest something that I think could help.
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: My suggestion was just that: a suggestion, not a criticism.
So was mine.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: My suggestion was just that: a suggestion, not a criticism.
Just thought I'd point out that Chris has never ever stated that criticism is not welcome here. Most (or even all) of the criticism here has been constructive. Two of the site's biggest critics are Hans and Luc - and I can't imagine either of them worrying about how their suggestions/feedback will be taken.
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: MM has been banned twice
Twice? I thought yesterday was the first and only time.
|
|
|
|
|
He was banned twice yesterday. He's now had more resurrections than Dracula.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: He was banned twice yesterday. He's now had more resurrections than Dracula.
Wow, ok. The first was for that Sharapova thread. Which was the other? 
|
|
|
|
|
Same thread. People REALLY took exception to it.
|
|
|
|
|
Pete O'Hanlon wrote: Same thread. People REALLY took exception to it.
Ok, thanks Pete.
|
|
|
|
|
If the "remove message" functionality is kept separate to the "remove user", I'd agree. But given what has happened to MM, then I think it could have been better handled for a "Move to SoapBox" option. As Pete mentioned, his crime was to use the language of the snooker hall, he wasn't trolling and he wasn't abusive.
|
|
|
|
|
Keith Barrow wrote: If the "remove message" functionality is kept separate to the "remove user", I'd agree.
It is, as Chris explained. What happened was a temporary aberration that should not be repeated.
Unrequited desire is character building. OriginalGriff
I'm sitting here giving you a standing ovation - Len Goodman
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
