How do I remove quotes?

[Black Tiger]

I really dislike this working without bbcodes and having to use the editor.

Now have a look at this post:

Now something went wrong with one or more quote signs I made in there. Yes I just type the quote and /quote bbcodes, works faster for me.

But when posting, it dus not say for example [/qoute] if I made a typo, it just quotes the complete post including my responses. So then I want to go back and fix the code. But it looks as this can't be done anymore.

On my own forums I'm admin and using the source code editor to fix this. How can I do this on a forum like this as a user? Fix wrong quote codes so the post looks correct again?

 

 

[opentype]

1 hour ago, Black Tiger said:

But when posting, it dus not say for example [/qoute] if I made a typo, it just quotes the complete post including my responses. So then I want to go back and fix the code. But it looks as this can't be done anymore.

Yet another reason not to use BB code to begin with. 

[Black Tiger]

2 hours ago, opentype said:

Yet another reason not to use BB code to begin with. 

Bit of a non argument. If it's not correctable it's rather a reason to improve editing options. Loads of us are still using bbcode since we're used to that for years. It takes time to change old habits which are used for many years.

Especially the older guys like us who started with bbs and msdos and to console server management are used to typing and not using windows kind click and play stuff.

[tonyv]

Yes, I never know how to remove a quote from the editor after it's there. I place my cursor after the quote block and hit delete, but nothing happens. I keep messing around until somehow it goes away, but I can never remember how I did it for future use. I think I usually hit the source option which shows all the code and start deleting/backspacing, but often there's so much code in there with paragraph and line breaks (whatever they're called) I lose my nerve, because I'm afraid I'll make a terrible mess on a post I've been working on for a while. Someone please tell me, how do I remove a quote block from within the editor? I can't backspace/delete, and I can't highlight and delete it ...

[opentype]

8 hours ago, Black Tiger said:

Bit of a non argument.

Of course it’s an argument. You are using an antiquated technology, which causes problems, and not using it would not cause those problem. It’s simple logic, a syllogism and as such, by definition an argument. 

7 hours ago, tonyv said:

Yes, I never know how to remove a quote from the editor after it's there.

Hover over the quote, click on the move symbol or the title line. Hit the delete button. 
Using keyboard selection like in any text editor works as well, e.g. press shift and then the cursor keys to create a selection that covers the quote. Then hit delete. 
 

[Day_]

It is troubling how so many people struggle to clear quotes, one of my many suggestions over the years was for a trash can icon in the toolbar that clears the editor. 

Personally just hitting the delete key has always worked on Apple devices, but those running inferior Android and Windows devices must not find it so easy.

Clearly there needs to be a more obvious solution for members to clear the editor be it a trash can or clear editor text link somewhere.

[tonyv]

28 minutes ago, day_ said:

...but those running inferior Windows devices...

[Black Tiger]

8 hours ago, opentype said:

Of course it’s an argument. You are using an antiquated technology, which causes problems

Oke I will define this one as your opinion then. Click and play is a windows kind of user thing. When the editor has a bug, you're out of options. BBcode may be old, but still very present in any forum software I know. Notepad and Wordpad are ancient too, but it's still widely used, as is bbcode. So that's why I think your first reply is not really an argument.
This really reminds me of Windows sysadmins who use the modern way and then are at a stop and don't know what to do when they have to fix things via commandline.

Old (or antique) is not per definition obsolete.

Even stronger, a free software like SMF even has a automatic correction for this, which checks if there are correct closing characters.

8 hours ago, opentype said:

Hover over the quote, click on the move symbol or the title line. Hit the delete button. 

Thank you. This works when I'm typing. I tried this though on the other post, so when already posted. I edited the post, held the ctrl button, did it without, click on that little move cross, but nothing happened.

But I will try it again next time. Thank you for this tip!

2 hours ago, day_ said:

Clearly there needs to be a more obvious solution for members to clear the editor be it a trash can or clear editor text link somewhere.

No because I know how to clear a message, but then I had to type it all over again, I just wanted to change 1 quote. By the way... I hit the delete button, nothing happened.

As for your Apple statement. LoL.😄

[Day_]

19 minutes ago, Black Tiger said:

No because I know how to clear a message, but then I had to type it all over again, I just wanted to change 1 quote. By the way... I hit the delete button, nothing happened.

As for your Apple statement. LoL.😄

Ahh sorry.

Here we go, this would be perfect, tell me it's not a great idea. (Probably one of my better ones)

Trash can = get rid of, no translation needed. User friendliness achieved, one click, gone.

 

[Black Tiger]

Thanks, it worked now, tested on my own forum.

You really have to have the mouse correctly over the move cross. I don't mind, won't forget it anymore. I worked with various forums for many years.

14 minutes ago, day_ said:

tell me it's not a great idea.

However, for the avarage users, it would be a lot more clear (even with correct made quotes) how to delete them when a trashcan popups up when hovered anywhere over the quote. So no, I can't tell you it's not a great idea. As for user friendlyness it seems one of the best to me. 😉

 

[Joel R]

4 hours ago, day_ said:

It is troubling how so many people struggle to clear quotes, one of my many suggestions over the years was for a trash can icon in the toolbar that clears the editor. 

Just in case you weren't aware, there's a Ckeditor plugin for "New Page." 

It clears the editor.  

[Day_]

39 minutes ago, Joel R said:

Just in case you weren't aware, there's a Ckeditor plugin for "New Page." 

It clears the editor.  

Yeah, I keep meaning to get around to installing it again but replacing the page icon with a trash can, just think something should built in as standard though. 

3 years later and we’re still kinda here with the same issues when removing quotes.

 I don’t know how far along the boffins are with 5.x but would nice to see it addressed in the next generation of the community suite. 🤞

[opentype]

5 hours ago, Black Tiger said:

Oke I will define this one as your opinion then.

Which would make you wrong. You yourself told us your problem with manually typing out BB code quotes and breaking the post just because of typos in the BB code. When I state that it’s a specific problem caused by the use of this (old) technique and not by the modern replacement (using the buttons), it’s a FACT, not an opinion. 

 

5 hours ago, Black Tiger said:

Click and play is a windows kind of user thing.

Which is also wrong. Computer user interface buttons existed long before there was even Windows. And those buttons are just a virtual replacement for the physical buttons of earlier electronic devices, which in turn where based on levers of earlier physical machines. It’s really an universal input mechanism. So your attempts to discredit buttons as user input are really weird. Especially in the context of forum posts. You keep going back to examples like the command line, but this is not comparable at all. 

 

5 hours ago, Black Tiger said:

Old (or antique) is not per definition obsolete.

Sure. And I didn’t claim it’s outdated merely because it’s old did I? BB code is outdated, because it was specifically created to overcome the limit’s of the 1990s way of storing forum posts text-only without any styling or structure markup. We do not have those old limitations anymore, so we also don’t need the old solution anymore. We now have rich-text content and fitting rich-text editors as a default. Trying to shoehorn the old technique in there is messy. Trying to run two modes side by side is messy. That’s why it’s going to die and it’s trivial to understand that this change is started by someone. So pointing out that other forum makers still have BB code support means nothing. It certainly does not mean that IPS needs to reintroduce full BB code support, just as Apple didn’t need to reintroduce floppy drives just because they were the first to drop them.  

And I can’t even imagine how you would type out quotes in BB code, especially compared to the useful functionality of the button function with author, time and back link. The waste of time alone for this is enough reason to drop this method instantly. If you quote the entire post, it’s just one click. If you select the part to quote first you already use a mouse/trackpad and get an inline button to create a proper quote. Also just one click while you are already use the mouse and so there is no reason not to click that button and type something out instead. Or do you even type out the quote itself? Either way, in every case it’s a waste of time. 

“We always did it this way …” is not a proper argument, since it doesn’t explain why it’s beneficial to use or keep using a certain method. 

[Black Tiger]

1 hour ago, opentype said:

When I state that it’s a specific problem caused by the use of this (old) technique and not by the modern replacement (using the buttons), it’s a FACT, not an opinion. 

Oke, I agree with you on that about the error maybe not occured when using click buttons. Unless the editor has a bug. They do... recently even 2, at least one fixed in 4.4.2. Modern technique is not always everything.

I do not agree with you on your second explanation of buttons. Sure there were user interface buttons before Windows. But Windows created the explosion of the GUI so average users did not even know about the DOS running below it anymore. So you're wrong in this case. Windows and Apple created the big click and play GUI. Before almost everyting was done via console.

1 hour ago, opentype said:

So your attempts to discredit buttons as user input are really weird. Especially in the context of forum posts. You keep going back to examples like the command line, but this is not comparable at all. 

That's really a matter of opinion. I used the example of the commandline for a totally different reason. Namely to prove that using buttons is not always better. And I do not keep going back, I used it once. I did point to console for servers, because that also prooved that ancient things are not obslulete and not a special reason to use something else.

It was not a matter of comparing dos to a wysiwig editor. Which we had in DOS too by the way, if you want to go that way. Wordperfect for example. So lets drop this.
It's my good right to dislike "click and play" kind of stuff because of the arguments I gave about it. One does not have to agree to dislike it.

 

1 hour ago, opentype said:

BB code is outdated, because it was specifically created to overcome the limit’s of the 1990s way of storing forum posts text-only without any styling or structure markup.

Wat forums? In the 1990's there were not even forums, at least not in Europe. We had 2400 baud modems and BBS systems in those days. I had one myself. Forums are something which started when internet started here in Europe which was rather for forum use end of the 90's.

1 hour ago, opentype said:

We do not have those old limitations anymore, so we also don’t need the old solution anymore. We now have rich-text content and fitting rich-text editors as a default.

We already had rich-text editors a long time ago, alrady in vB 3.x we had those, so it's not a question of "now". Rich-text editing is also ancient.

1 hour ago, opentype said:

Trying to shoehorn the old technique in there is messy. Trying to run two modes side by side is messy. That’s why it’s going to die and it’s trivial to understand that this change is started by someone. So pointing out that other forum makers still have BB code support means nothing. It certainly does not mean that IPS needs to reintroduce full BB code support, just as Apple didn’t need to reintroduce floppy drives just because they were the first to drop them.  

That it's messy it's your opinion and depends on how it's programmed and integretad. As stated in my previous line, those 2 modes are already next to each other for many years. And pointing out that not other but most forums are still have BBcode support prooves that it's still widely used and not antique. If bbcode is, then so are wysiwig editors.

However, I never said that IPS should reintroduce full BBcode support, no need for that, and I did not request it. And I also know that things change and modernize and that bbcode will be gone in a couple of years. That's the way of live, we don't have to argue about that. Stronger. Forums as such will probably be gone within a decade or 2.

This however does not mean that I have to like it. When using bbcode for 19 years, and then suddenly this year running into issues, because IPS has it's own thoughts about it, will take some getting used to and not only by me. There will be more who convert from other forums that will have to get used to it. IPS may be the first to stop with it, but does not play "the cool forum" because they stopped it first. It does not have to be the greatest thing to stop using it.

I don't mind if IPS stops it first, but just don't pretend doing so is the best thing around and now bbcodes should not be used anymore.
 

Quote

So pointing out that other forum makers still have BB code support means nothing.

Wooooo.....Well that's kind of a bad attitude to customers of other professional forums, because SMF as free forum is really not the only one. Other professional forums are supporting it too, even in new versions, so there must be some very good reason for it. The ony I can think of is that customers want it.  And customers are the paying people.
Stating that this means nothing is rather blunt. A professional forum always has to keep the competition in mind. This does not mean they have to follow them, but making such statement as you did is unprofessional. Microsoft also had to back in their decision that tiles where best to use. So that IPS does something first, does not mean or prove it's the best thing to do.
Keep in mind that customers also often make buying decisions on these kind of statements. You don't work for IPS, but with your experience you should not better then making such statements.

Example. The -only- reason that a friend of mine chose this forum software and not another one, is because with IPS they could just move multiple images at once into the editor.
So this kind of small can be the reason of making a decision between IPS and another professional forum maker. Certain statements can also push customers to the competition.

However, that's another kind of discussion.

As said, old habits die hard so it's very logical that we still use bbcode which works faster (at least for me) then using that editor. If people do not want to understand and accept this FACT and don't give answers to the questions but give a meaningless comment which is not asked for and don't answer the question, you can expect more of these kind of discussions.

 

[opentype]

1 hour ago, Black Tiger said:

I do not agree with you on your second explanation of buttons. Sure there were user interface buttons before Windows. But Windows created the explosion of the GUI so average users did not even know about the DOS running below it anymore. So you're wrong in this case. Windows and Apple created the big click and play GUI. Before almost everyting was done via console.

Just stop this dishonest style of arguing. You made a very specific claim: “Click and play is a windows kind of user thing”. I quoted it and explained why this claim is factually, i.e. objective wrong and you really have the nerve to reply and claim I am wrong? How does Apple come into play suddenly? That was clearly never part of your original claim. The first GUI as we understand it today goes back at least to the Xerox Alto of 1973. Nineteenseventythree! Later (and before Windows) came mainstream computers like Apple and Amiga just among the most famous ones. So no, you are wrong in claiming it’s a Windows thing. And don’t use the dishonest tactic called “shifting the goalpost” when you suddenly add Apple to the mix and don’t poison the well by adding non-objective, meaningless phrases like “explosion of GUI”. That won’t save you. 

I’m not even going to address all the many problems in the rest of your post. It’s a huge, almost offensive parade of twisting my words, but I’m not going to waste my time with this any longer, since correcting how often you misrepresent what I say or claim that I’m wrong when I am not would turn every reply into an essay. 

[Black Tiger]

27 minutes ago, opentype said:

Just stop this dishonest style of arguing. You made a very specific claim: “Click and play is a windows kind of user thing”. I quoted it and explained why this claim is factually, i.e. objective wrong and you really have the nerve to reply and claim I am wrong? How does Apple come into play suddenly? That was clearly never part of your original claim.

OMG... I just made a statement not a claim. Yes I included Apple now, but you're really wining now or how is it called? We call it "muggeziften" in my language. What's the difference if I include Apple or not? It's just making a point. I'm not native English so apologize if wining is not the correct word or saying in English.

It does not matter 1 thing. If you want I take it back, totally no problem there. Because it is indeed a Windows thing, because it was indeed Windows who created the click and play explosion. If you can't agree to that fact, then that's your problem. I never said or stated that there was no click stuff before Windows.

So yes, I quote it and say you are wrong, with the same argument. Something which exists before, does not mean it's kind of a user thing at that time already. It certainly isn't.

So this is not a dishonest style of arguing. You're looking for arguments against me where there are none.

 

I know that Xerox had the first GUI, you don't need to tell me, I've lived that period. So yes I have the nerve to claim that you are wrong if you say that I am wrong in my statement. Because I was not stating that there was no gui or click and play before Windows. But you seem to not understand that.

If you read my "essay" I clearly explained that users before did almost everhyting by commandline (even if there were some gui's available)!!

So no I'm NOT wrong. You're trying to win your argument on dishonest ways. Xerox has nothing to do with it... yes 1973, only Xerox, a printer company!! Totally not widely used (hence they kind of gave it away, they did not see anything in it). As I say and what is a fact, is that the GUI click and play explosion was caused by Windows, so it's a Windows user kind of thing. Not even Quickmenu in DOS took care of that.

You're only pointing to when there was a Gui sometime. That has nothing to do with what made click and play big. That was years later.

 

You know what I think? That we both are talking about something totally different and we both don't understand eachother with the meaning of our arguments. I'm correct with my statement and you're correct that there was click and gui before Windows. But the problem is that this does not matter.

27 minutes ago, opentype said:

almost offensive parade of twisting my words, but I’m not going to waste my time with this any longer, since correcting how often you misrepresent what I say or claim that I’m wrong when I am not would turn every reply into an essay. 

Great, because this works 2 ways. You misinterpret my words too and claiming things I did not say.

Fact is that your first reply was senseless. That is not offensive, that is a fact. If you don't want to answer a question, then keep senseless reply's to yourself as they are not appreciated.

So lets agree to disagree and stop this indeed.

 

[opentype]

15 hours ago, Black Tiger said:

OMG... I just made a statement not a claim.

Haha! You can’t be serious. Do I now need to explain to you how language works? Do you really want to go down that road just to double-down on your false claims about reality and me? 
Your so-called statement contained a claim. Those terms aren’t mutually exclusive, so the defense of calling it a statement now makes no sense at all. 
Logical example of what you are doing: 

• Person A: The sky is green!
• Person B: You’re claim is untrue! It’s not green.
• Person A: Oh, wait! I did not claim the sky is green. I just made a statement. 

See how silly that is?

Quote

Yes I included Apple now, but you're really wining now or how is it called?

Yes, of course I am. Because as I have explained before, this is the dishonest tactic of moving the goalposts. A common tactic used by people who loose an argument. You realize that can’t keep up the original claim, so you change it quickly in order to not admit that you are wrong. Logical example of what you are doing:

• Person A: Billy won the race.
• Person B: Actually, no! Paul did. 
• Person A: Oh, wait. Of course I always meant Billy and Paul won the race. 

This is what you do by adding Apple to the mix later. And calling an “GUI explosion” also doesn’t help you in any way. What part of that “explosion” did a mass-sold pre-Windows GUI Apple or Amiga did not have? Everyone was using command line before on that GUI Apple or Amiga before Windows came around. Really? Twist your argument all you want. I won’t be in line with reality. 

And I give you another example of you dishonest discussion style: I said “pointing out that other forum makers still have BB code support means nothing”. This sentence is embedded into an entire paragraph explaining WHY it “means nothing”, with reasoning and examples. Yet, you do not address my reasoning at all. You quote-mine this one sentence and then judge it with a completely different narrative that has nothing do do with my reasoning and you even end up calling it “unprofessional” as a conclusion of your fake narrative, not based on what the paragraph actually said. Again, extremely misleading and dishonest. 

If I claim something, I can demonstrate it to be correct or I wouldn’t say it to begin with. Example: When I claim, that BB code goes back to the forums of the 1990s, I am factually correct, because BB code was introduced in 1998 and “Early web-based forums date back as far as 1994 …” (Quoted from Wikipedia). So my claims are in line with reality and yours are not when you say “Wat forums? In the 1990's there were not even forums …”. So I do not agree that we conclude with “agree to disagree”. And as regular users of this forum know, I will not “keep my replies to myself” just because they are “not appreciated”. You don’t like that I demonstrate that you make false claims? Then do not make false claims. It’s very simple. 

15 hours ago, Black Tiger said:

Fact is that your first reply was senseless. That is not offensive, that is a fact.

Nope. Wrong again. That’s the Argument from Personal Incredulity. Just because you do not (want to) see my point, doesn’t make it “fact” that there is none. 

[Black Tiger]

6 hours ago, opentype said:

Just because you do not (want to) see see my point, doesn’t make it “fact” that there is none. 

I asked a question, you gave a reply which was not an answer, so it's  senseless repsonse. You can't deny that's a fact. If you do, then that says more about you then over me.

For the rest, you don't want to see my point either and totally don't understand what I mean with my statement and why I said it, in spite of my big explanations. You're only looking at your own statement and accusing me of things because you don't see my point of view. Same as I can't see your point of view because imho that has nothig to do with it.

Your statement about dishonest is bull, because as explained it changed 0 about my opinion that click and play is a Windows user kind fo thing, if apple or who else had a gui before windows. It is and stays a Windows user kind of thing becaue at that time the term "windows user" came up, and you still don't understand what I mean with that. I don't know why, probably because you did not experience that time and what was going on then and statements we made about windows users.

As for me, like I said, we're talking along each other instead of to each other. That is totally no use so as said before, Let's agree to disagree.

I don't "loose" a discusstion because people are talking along each other and don't understand each other, but I do stop a discussion if this keeps going on. But if you like to think so, go ahead, that's on you.

The language response you gave is an insult. I know the difference between a claim and a statement. And my STATEMENT about a Windows user kind of thing is a statement, not a claim, because it's not something which is a fact but it's my opinion. It is a fact that the click and play became great by windows (as explained), but that was a claim I later made after your response about buttons on machines which had nothting to do what my statement.

So it now even seems I have to explain you in your own langauge the difference between claim and statement, as non-English languaged user? Hahaha, who is laughing now?

Quote

I will not “keep my replies to myself” just because they are “not appreciated”. You don’t like that I demonstrate that you make false claims? Then do not make false claims. It’s very simple.

I did not make false claims. And if you again think you have to not-answer with stupid comments, then explect me to be more blunt next time.

I experience those kind of crap answers the same as "lmgtfy" which is not done by decent folks, it's childish on support forums. And I don't accept that from anybody as admin for 20 years who was always very user friendly and helpfull on forums to get reply's like that and then also having the nerve to claim they make statemens by those non-answers and have the right to do that. It only prooves you lack user friendlyness.
If you don't have an answer, then don't answer or expect a blunt reaction in the future.

As for editor issue, I couldn't even put text above the first quote. What a great thing. NOT!
 

[Black Tiger]

P.s. you are the one take things out of context by quoting me incorrectly, taking only part of the sentence.

Quote

“Wat forums? In the 1990's there were not even forums …”. 

but I said:

Quote

In the 1990's there were not even forums, at least not in Europe.

That's a complete difference! And in the rest of my explanation it says that it was later on in the 1990. Who is taking things out of context now and prooves losing an argument?

[Eric BXL]

On 8/10/2019 at 2:51 PM, Black Tiger said:

In the 1990's there were not even forums, at least not in Europe.

Wrong, there were some, let it be in late '98, early '99. - But I admit I started mine in Canada in 1999.

One thing is for sure, by using buttons in topic/posts/messages it became easier for the users, but they won't have the knowledge like people (probably you/me for sure!) who had to learn how things worked in the past and had to learn the ms-dos commands/command line for apple macOS and/or ASM etc. etc.

Sure, it's not necessary anymore these days, but I'm glad I had the experience to -and sometimes still- use it.

Out of this context: I had fun in the early 80s using my very slow 1200/2400 and later U.S. Robotics 19,200 baud modem to connect from Europe to my friend's BBS in the States.

[Black Tiger]

12 hours ago, Eric BXL said:

Wrong, there were some, let it be in late '98, early '99

I don't want to start up this discussion again, but if you read my earlier reply's you can read that I said that there were forums end of the 90's.

in Europe which was rather for forum use end of the 90's.

As for the rest, what you say is exactly what I ment. When buttons and clicking went real popular (caused by Windows popularity) most users only clicked and did not have knowledge of the underlying system. So I'm glad we agree on that.

Anyway, as said, I don't want to post in this disscussion anymore,