How do you edit an icon in one of the Windows system DLLs?

Mayayana,

#! is used in dynamic AJAX page loads.
....
So if you switch the URL you get the page after it's
been assembled.

Well, thats than certainly a "trick" I'd like to remember. :-)

Thanks.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Mayayana,

[quote=me]
Although I can't remember I've already encountered any of those or know if I
will ever visit GG again (it doesn't seem to offer anything over what Usenet
already does), I've saved your email in my "worth to know" folder.
[quote]

Whatdayaknow, I just encountered such a link as a redirect after clicking a
google search result, and the replacement worked like a charm. :-)

I'll probably try whip up some GreaseMonkey script (FF v52) to catch the
redirect and automate the replacement.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

"R.Wieser" wrote

| [quote=me]
| Although I can't remember I've already encountered any of those or know if
I
| will ever visit GG again (it doesn't seem to offer anything over what
Usenet
| already does), I've saved your email in my "worth to know" folder.
| [quote]
|

I'm marking this day as the day you were pleased with my
answer to a question I mostly see #! at GG, but once in awhile
at other places. I also would never use GG, but sometimes
it comes up in a search, and it's nice to be able to read the
linked posts without having to allow google to run script.

Mayayana,

I also would never use GG, but sometimes it comes
up in a search, and it's nice to be able to read the
linked posts without having to allow google to run
script.

My sentiments exactly.

By the way, the google searchpage link and the resulting redirect link look
to be largely the same. Just some basic search-and-replace needed, nothing
fancy.

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

Rudy Wieser always proves my point for me that he has never even once in
his entire life posted with purposefully helpful intent to add value to
_any_ thread topic.

All Rudy _can_ do, is complain that he can't click on a simple link.
o And he complains that he can't even follow a step-by-step tutorial

Notice, Rudy Wieser's so called "input" is always worthless such that I
ignore anything he posts elsewhere (i.e., not in threads that I care come
to an answer).

Unfortunately, Rudy Wieser even infests threads where we're trying to add
value, following me around Usenet like a lost puppy sniffing my ass crack
always constantly complaining that the value added isn't good enough...

And yet... Rudy himself proved me right that he's utterly worthless!
a) *Rudy Wieser can't even _click_ on a link properly, and, worse*
b) *Rudy Wieser cant' even follow a step-by-step cut-and-paste tutorial!*

No wonder he's well characterized as a worthless piece of ****.
o He has _never_ added value to _any_ thread, in his entire life.

As for Mayayana, I'm not sure he & Rudy apparently confuse a simple link
with the concept of "google groups", but I do agree that most people are
"confused" because Google seems to archive "google groups" and "Usenet"
similarly.

I'm sure most people here are familiar with the history of that, where we
used to refer to dejanews links, until Google took it over.

Now we refer to "tinyurl" or "google" or "narkive" links
o But even so, they're simply links to these Usenet threads.

Nothing more; nothing less - they're simply a URL that you click on.
o For example...

r.p.d
o http://tinyurl.com/rec-photo-digital
o http://rec.photo.digital.narkive.com

a.c.f
o http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-freeware
o http://alt.comp.freeware.narkive.com

a.c.o.w-10
o http://tinyurl.com/alt-comp-os-windows-10
o http:/alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com
etc.
--
There are only 2 kinds of people on Usenet - those who add value - and
those who never have (i.e., they can't). Rudy Wieser is of the latter type.

Arlen,

Rudy Wieser always proves my point for me that he has never
even once in his entire life posted with purposefully helpful intent
to add value to _any_ thread topic.

Why don't you try to prove that ? Just find /all/ my messages and
describe, for each and every one of them how it was not helpful to the
intended recipient of that post. Good luck. :-)

Kiddo, don't you realise by now that "never", "always", "noone", "everyone"
and other indications like those are rather easy to break ? Just a
*single one* opposing it, and you fall flat on your face.

As for such a "single one" ? You already got one of them in this thread,
and a few others in others of your threads. That you categorically refuse
to take any of my (or any one elses) help is not any of my doing, now is it
?

Unfortunately, Rudy Wieser even infests threads where we're
trying to add value,

Who is that "we" you keep using ? You sure ain't no royalty, and all others
are just data suppliers to you, whom you discard as soom as they have done
what you needed them for.

following me around Usenet like a lost puppy sniffing my ass
crack

Why would I need to follow you ? You keep crapping in /lots/ of
newsgroups, some of which I happen to frequent.

always constantly complaining that the value added isn't
good enough...

Do you think it is ?

From your list posted here at Wed, 17 Jun 2020 01:01:08 -0000 (UTC)

o *Tutorial for modifying icons inside common Windows system DLLs*
Is a lie.

o *Tutorial with details to properly set {batch,shortcut,target} icons*
Lands at a thread named " Shutdown or Restart Windows without bickering"
IN THE ALT.MSDOS.BATCH NEWSGROUP, rambling about all kinds if things.

There is /so much/ crap in there. Like claiming that shortcuts to batch
files are somehow special. All I do is to rightclick-and-hold, move the
mouse to a bit different spot and than release.- after which I'm asked if I
would want to make a shortcut. I do, and thats it. Than again, it might
be different on W10 ... (see what I did there? Sneaky, ain't I ?)

As for your trick #4 thru #6 ? They do not even contain any suggestions to
try, so certainy no tricks either.

o *Tutorial to find all icons hidden inside common Windows executables &
DLLs*
I'm not sure what it does, but there is not more in there than a listing of
DLLs that should contain icons.

As for how to look inside them ? Just create a shortcut from some file,
rightclick - properties - click "change icon" and than select any
executable, dll or any of the several other types of files you want to take
a peek in. Whooo! I just made /another/ tutorial ! Two fricking lines
and I'm /again/ king of the world, just like you !

But seriously, besides throwing batch examples in there - which have zero to
do with anything - you already go flat on your face in the first step "001
Create test.bat & test to ensure it works". I do not see any contents
defined for that batchfile, so *I guess* it stays empty. But if that is so,
what is there to test ? Fail.

Than "002 Copy test.bat to test.exe (which can be deleted later, if
desired)" Whut? why ? What goed does that do ? Remember, you have
named that a TUTORIAL, not a "blindly follow what I say list". So, where is
your tutoring ? What is the reader supposed to /learn/ there ?

Need I go on ? I don't think so.

o *Where to find thousands of free open source mobile device related icons*
Not a tutorial. Just a "look here for icons for IOS link"

o *The unintuitive syntax to set a shortcut TARGET line to multiple
commands*
This is a funny one: It links to the question to how to do it, cause you
could not get the "&" to work. Not quite a tutorial, wouldn't you agree ?

I think I can go thru pretty-much all of them in the above way, but I think
I've made my point.

And yet... Rudy himself proved me right that he's utterly worthless!

Ofcourse.

a) *Rudy Wieser can't even _click_ on a link properly, and, worse*

:-) You where able to read what my problem with (your) GG links was/is, and
you try to twist it into /that/ ? Come on, you can do better than that.

b) *Rudy Wieser cant' even follow a step-by-step cut-and-paste tutorial!*

Well, why don't you show me one of those tutorials of yours ? 'Cause
currently I can't say that I have seen any. Not in the list I referred to
in the above, nor anywhere else in the newsgroups I frequent. But, I'm
sure you have posted in other newsgroups too (like where you have that
"team" of yours), so there still is a chance.

o He has _never_ added value to _any_ thread, in his entire life.

I /think/ I already said something about that ... Yeah, I'm quite certain
about it.

As for Mayayana, I'm not sure he & Rudy apparently confuse
a simple link with the concept of "google groups",

Well duh! /Ofcourse/ I mix those up, just like everyone else. Like I also
never have gotten the hang of what the difference between an orange and
aluminium is. They are /so easy/ to mix up, don't you agree? Or dogs and
chesnut trees. Never figured that out either.

Kiddo, you really are a piece of work. Keep fantasizing, 'cause that is
the only thing you seem to be good at. Hey, maybe you could earn good money
by becoming a fantasy book writer ?

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 23:34:35 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

Why don't you try to prove that ?

Hi Rudy,

It's trivial to prove you can't ever add value to the thread topic.
o What on-topic _value_ did you add to _this_ icon-editing thread, Rudy?

HINT: None.
--
Only 2 kinds of people are on Usenet: Those adding value & those who can't.

On 2020-06-19 10:17 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 23:34:35 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

Why don't you try to prove that ?

Hi Rudy,

It's trivial to prove you can't ever add value to the thread topic.

And yet, you didn't.

o What on-topic _value_ did you add to _this_ icon-editing thread, Rudy?

HINT: None.

Arlen,

It's trivial to prove you can't ever add value to the thread topic.
o What on-topic _value_ did you add to _this_ icon-editing thread, Rudy?

Lol. Thats really all you are, isn't it ? Making empty claims you have no
chance of proving, and when you are called out on them trying to restate
them, but than demanding that the other, me, provides all the proof - which
no doubt, you will be the only judge over.

But I'l bite.

In my previous post I've pointed out a number of flaws in your definition of
the word "tutorial" as well as in those "tutorials" themselves.
Complemented by showing you how easy some stuff is (like creating a link and
changing its icon) when you do not overthink it. Some people might recognise
that as "trying to help", even though I've done it with gloves off.

IOW, the answer is right under your nose. And no, that you refuse to see
or accept it as such doesn't matter one way or the other.

And as always nice how you always try to make any answer to be in your own
benefit. :-)

But as long as I'm on a roll, here are a couple of "purposely helpfull
suggestions" :

1) Rename your current thread to "How do you edit an icon", 'cause, as
you've been told, writing into systemfiles is prohibited (at least under
W10). Currently its just clickbait.

2) Keep a tutorial on a single subject. Like "How do you edit an icon".
"Recreating an icon from a screenshot", "extracting an icon from a DLL,
executable or alike" , etc. should be in their own tutorials.
In short: do /not/ mix up multiple subjects. The end result will most
always be a mess, especially for a writer with little actual experience.

3) When targetting several versions of an OS (or multiple of them) be sure
to mention which OS version you tested the tutorial on. Nothing is as
irritating as to grab a tutorial which halfway down uses stuff that simply
isn't available to the person trying to follow it. And who knows, maybe
someone will offer you some test results on other OS versions, allowing you
to add descriptions of any encountered differences.

4) Do not crosspost whatever you have into newsgroups just because part of
their names are the same as what you think you are working at. It would be
(is) a clbuttic mistake (if you have never heard of that word, google it).
(I stil have no idea what this threads has to with "rec.photo.digital").

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

R.Wieser wrote:
[...]

4) Do not crosspost whatever you have into newsgroups just because part of
their names are the same as what you think you are working at. It would be
(is) a clbuttic mistake (if you have never heard of that word, google it).
(I stil have no idea what this threads has to with "rec.photo.digital").

Sigh! There you go again, adding value to the thread! Can you please
stop doing that!

On 20 Jun 2020 10:40:30 GMT, Frank Slootweg wrote:

Sigh! There you go again, adding value to the thread! Can you please
stop doing that!

Frank,

Can you, Frank Slootweg, post ADDED value to the thread topic, or not?

This thread is classic, in that it followed a classic Q&A path:
1. The OP ran tests, and asked specific well-documented questions
2. The OP followed through on all viable suggestions by adults
3. The OP posted a SOLUTION that works for everyone

All that took hours of effort, but which added tribal knowledge & value.

Now that the hard work is done, you trolls have infested this thread.
1. People like Rudy do zero work (they can't even click on the links!)
2. They complain about tutorials where they can't even cut and paste!
3. Worthless pieces of ****, like you Frank, begin to infest the thread.

You and I go way back where, unlike Rudy or Alan Baker, at times I've seen
you actually add value on Usenet (e.g., you found pcbanter for us, as I
recall, and you helped a lot about SMTP Android server port 445 issues).

And yet, the main types of people you communicate best with, Frank...
o Are worthless pieces of **** trolls like Rudy Wieser and Alan Baker

Think about that Frank - as you _identify_ with people like Rudy & Alan.
o And yet, the fact remains you still added _zero_ value to this thread.

In your _next_ post, Frank, please see if you "can" add adult on-topic
technical value to this thread topic, Frank.

The real question for you to ponder, Frank, is...
o Are you adult enough to do something as simple as that, Frank?

Given the OP clearly spent hours, and you clearly spent mere seconds...
o Can you, Frank Slootweg, post ADDED value to the thread topic, or not?
--
Trolls come out in force to infest a thread AFTER the hard work is done.

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 10:40:44 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

Thats really all you are, isn't it ?

Hi Rudy,

The evidence is rampant you're a worthless piece of ****, Rudy Wieser.

You complain about helpful step-by-step tested-&-checked tutorials, right?
o *How many tutorials have you written, Rudy, for the benefit of the team?*

Hint: none
--
Those who can't add value, like Rudy, can only complain about those who do.

Arlen,

The evidence is rampant you're a worthless piece of ****, Rudy Wieser.

If you say so. So, where is that rampant evidence ? If its that
rampant, there should be some in at least my last few replies to you. So,
quote some. I dare you.

Face it kiddo, you are a blow-hard. Claiming all kinds of things, but zero
follow-thru when rebutted.

Those who can't add value, like Rudy, ...

:-) I think I've given ample proof of the contrary.

... can only complain about those who do.

I think I've disproven that too.

But as so often you simply act as if nothing of either kind has happened.
All the while claiming that other stuff, which you cannot even quote, /has/
happened. Thats quite pathetic.


Kiddo, grow up. You are /not/ any kind of tutorial writer. You have
absolutily /no/ idea how you should write one. And as "step-by-step" list
they do not do much better, if at all. But /still/ you refuse to even
accept a "purposely helpfull suggestion" as to look at how other people
write theirs, let alone accept more direct ones.

The bottom line of that is that you will /never/ improve. Is that what you
want ? To keep turning out junk that most noone can use ? Really ?

Many people here could help you with suggestions to how to write a decent
one. If you allow yourself to be helped. Which I don't think you can.

But I could be wrong ...

Regards,
Rudy Wieser

P.s.
Have you ever had anyone you trust proofread one of your tutorials ? It
would be a good start.

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:35:14 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

So, where is that rampant evidence ?

Hi Rudy,

This isn't for you, since you're incapable of ever adding value.
o To any thread topic

This is for the _adults_ on this newsgroup, and for the permanent record.
o Providing further evidence Rudy Wieser, is a worthless piece of ****.

While it's clear the OP spent a lot of time annotating detailed screenshot
o For example... https://i.postimg.cc/NFhjn4cd/icon04.jpg

*How many screenshots did you post to add value to this thread, Rudy?*

Hint: none
--
Rudy Wieser _still_ can't, after more than a half dozen posts, add a
_single_ iota of added on-topic technical value to this thread topic.

On 2020-06-20 3:18 p.m., Arlen Holder wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:35:14 +0200, R.Wieser wrote:

So, where is that rampant evidence ?

Hi Rudy,

This isn't for you, since you're incapable of ever adding value.
o To any thread topic

That's not an appropriate use for a bullet...

....because you only have a single item to "list".


This is for the _adults_ on this newsgroup, and for the permanent record.
o Providing further evidence Rudy Wieser, is a worthless piece of ****.

Another incorrect usage of bullet points.


While it's clear the OP spent a lot of time annotating detailed screenshot
o For example... https://i.postimg.cc/NFhjn4cd/icon04.jpg

*How many screenshots did you post to add value to this thread, Rudy?*

Hint: none


So the only way to add value to a thread is to post a screenshot?