I Put A Spell On You Text

[Shameka Roessler]

Forthe 2nd issue I don't think it's a matter of word wrap. I usually do not use word wrap (I don't want to increase the width of the rows). When I want to copy-paste the content into a PowerPoint slide for example, I never had this problem before even without word wrap. Now if I select the text and copy-paste it into the PPT slide, it looks like the attached capture. This never happened since I started using Smartsheet back in 2016. There must be a setting...

I opened a support ticket, but I can't close this pop-up no matter what I click or what browser I use and I'm wondering if anyone has any insight. I'm LOCKED OUT of my work because of some stupid UI refresh alert. ?

I am a designer and often use placeholder text until I have the required text I need from the copywriter. Sometimes I then have some text to replace it but not always the entire placeholder text in other places within the document. I then need to export and issue a pdf to my manager(s) as a draft proof but it can be fairly frustrating when I have to 'ignore all' each time while spell checking in InDesign for every bit of placeholder text. Are you able to create an option to 'Turn off checking placeholder text'? Thank you

If you select the placeholder text and set the language to none, don't you have to do that each and every time you use placeholder text, Bob? Creating the placeholder.txt file with real words is a one-time thing. Kayleigh says she does this often.

Maybe this exists, I'm not sure. I looked and I can't find any way to turn off the red lines that appear on text because of spell check. I want to turn off the spell check red lines so I can actually view my image WYSIWYG. The red lines are very annoying when you are trying to view the image and work in a WYSIWYG environment. I checked in the options and I don't see anything related to this. Thanks.

Sorry, this was suppose to go in Affinity Photo but I made a mistake and can't seem to delete my post.

If you set your default value to 'false' (simply remove all reference to spell checking in all your preferences - user or syntax specific - user preference files to allow the preferences - default of false to apply everywhere) and toggle spell checking to OFF using F6 then you should no longer see those red spell check markers anywhere.

I'd suggest removing the changes you made to "dictionary": and "spelling_selector": since you don't understand what they are for and they won't do what you want (as your own experiments have proven). I assume you made the changes you listed in your preferences - user and possibly syntax specific - user preference files so just delete them and let the preferences - default settings apply as originally set for you.

I have just checked with purposely inserted wrong spelling and it works fine for me across Spanish, Portuguese & Spanish.

Have you tried downloading dictionaries ?

I presume when you press F7 you have a pop-up with mail to be checked inserted.

What I have outlined above is that my new text, typed on a new line between paragraphs of quoted text is not checked. There is no wavy red line but when I right click on an obvious spelling mistake, the spell check dialogue appears with possible alternative spellings.

Thanks @micksulley - this ( running the hunspell-en-gb installer from command line terminal: sudo apt-get install hunspell-en-gb ) worked for me too running Libre Office Writer on Trisquel 8.0 LTS Flidas GNU/Linux and wishing for English(UK) spell check. When I exited and restarted Libre Office spell check was working correctly with propah UK English.

Check out Tools - language settings - Languages and check that a language has been selected as default language for your documents, and make sure that the language listed there is actually installed. Also check that a language has been set in the Default paragraph style (and that language has to be installed of course). Note, thanks to Radish: you can select the language for text on the Font tab of the paragraph style dialog box.

I'm getting the following Spell check dialog in my text boxes in Power BI that is making it unusable. I need to be able to disable these senseless popups. Does anyone know how to disable these? They appeared mid-day today and I have no clue what happened.

When adding a text box to a report, spellcheck automatically analyzes the contents and highlights words not in it's dictionary with the familiar red squiggle. There is no way to dismiss this squiggle, meaning that the highlighting is always present. There is no way to disable spellcheck via options either.

It's not ideal, but if you're grabbing screenshots of your reporting, it will remove it temporarily. I use a compilation of static pics in an image box on file open to highlight or explain new features of my dashboard, and it works for this purpose.

Hi! Not sure if this is helpful, but I found this on another page:

Found a solution: Just go to another page and back anytime the line occurs.

(If you click on the text box again to do edits, the line reappears. But you can just click to another page and back again and it will dissapear)

Agreed it's an absolute joke, as is forced American English, which I'm sick to death of requesting with all Microsoft. Honestly if an AI can write you a paper in the style of the King James Bible it really shouldn't be that hard to develop a sensible spell checker...at least give us a disable On/Off button Microsoft!

Please prioritize this feature. Spell check is useless is large documents (and many are copy and pasting text supplied by other teams). Having to click into each individual text area is impractical and many spelling errors make it through to final specs.

As written in the release notes, it works a little different in macOS.

Obsidian uses the system-wide spell checker. You can change the System Preferences, click Keyboard, then click Text. By default, it should automatically detect the language. Works fine with me, switching between German and English.

One common motivation for assuming that there must be a distinction between "ignorable fluff" and the "real rules" is familiarity with game designs that deliberately create such a distinction. That is an idea that isn't part of most editions of D&D, including what we've seen of 5e's core. Such a separation is a prominent feature of 4e, and that might lead one to believe that it naturally exists in all D&Ds or even all RPGs, but separation of game text into "fluff" and "crunch" isn't the default in RPG design, and is particular to the RPGs that feature it.

It's plain that no such distinction exists overtly in 5e spell descriptions: they have no separate "flavour text" or any other distinguishable separation between required and optional parts that can be pointed to and agreed upon, without making an arbitrary decision. All of the descriptions are in terms of what happens, freely mixing mechanical and the fictional effects with no demarcation to say that this is a rule but that can be disregarded. Expecting such a separation, taking it as a given, will motivate one to look for one, but expecting something to be true doesn't make it so.

It has been suggested that the first sentence is the fluff and the rest of the spell crunch. This argument could be discarded swiftly by pointing out that there is nothing in 5e that ever suggests this, and it's invalid to try to interpret 5e based on the conventions and structures of some other game; but this dismissal has more support than that. Looking at three spells chosen randomly, it becomes evident that this proposed division doesn't exist: astral projection has rules for targets and duration in its first sentence; resistance specifies a hard condition for its target ("willing") similarly; ice storm's first sentence is the only place its area of effect is given. Indeed, the first sentence of burning hands is the only place where its area of effect is described as a two-dimensional cone rather than a three-dimensional one, a small but substantial rule that could mean the difference between life and death for friend or foe alike. This proposed line between the first sentence and the rest of the spell description as being the fluff/crunch divide has no merits to raise it above any other arbitrary dividing line, and actually has severe drawbacks for being able to use many spells.

An argument could be marshalled that D&D's recent editions establishes a weight of historical precedent for a fluff/crunch divide that 5e is natural heir to. But if that was a reasonable analysis of 5e's text, it would be present unambiguously in the text. That it is difficult to read such a division into the text despite that prominent heritage is a very strong argument that it doesn't exist in 5e. Further, there is actually a much longer history of the indivisible fusion of fiction and mechanics in D&D. This is the heritage that the designers of 5e have been explicit about drawing from in its design, which makes the argument that a division doesn't exist stronger by establishing the likelihood that it's a deliberate design choice. It's hardly something they could have intended to include, but forgot.

TL;DR: Spell descriptions are rules in D&D 5e, and you can tell that's the case because the alternative of selectively ignoring parts of spell descriptions is not supported anywhere in the text, and because attempting to apply the concept to the game anyway breaks most spells.

There is no overarching statements about flavor text, but several spells have open opportunities for "flavorful" interpretation. Planar Ally, for example, leaves wide open to DM and player negotiation/interpretation exactly who can be summoned and the form of payment. The fact that such example exist suggest that the game designers want DMs to feel free to flesh out spell details to get the tone they want in their game. The fact that such examples are rare suggest that they want DMs to be judicious in doing so, perhaps because flavor text can sometimes be exploited by creative players to create unbalanced effects.

3a8082e126