Moderation requests & discussion thereof

19:36 / 19.01.05

In the films forum there's currently two Aviators threads, of which this one has been locked. Could a forum mod delete it please? Unnecessary double threads make baby Jesus cry.

Yeah, okay.

I'm going to have to disagree that one, I'm afraid. The two threads are both on the same subject, but there are different posts in each - deleting one would completely wipe those posts from the board. Same goes for the second Power of Nightmares thread. They're locked - I don't see what the problem is or why they need deleting.

22:44 / 19.01.05

Well, we could transfer the post from the locked thread, copying and pasting, or suggest doing so to the admiral.

Spatula Clarke

23:50 / 19.01.05

I'm not massively keen on cutting and pasting other people's posts for them - it's a little ugly, but it can also make skim reading a thread confusing.

Main reason I've left it as is, without asking the admiral to repost in the original thread, is because I wasn't sure if it'd require a substantial rewrite to fit in with an ongoing discussion, having skipped the majority of the post out of spoiler fear.

18:12 / 20.01.05

Hey, could some Switchboard mod move the "future city" topic into the Laboratory?

It has the whiff of the FUTURE about it, rather than current events.

Bed Head

20:14 / 20.01.05

Blimey, that thread, in summary: ‘woah, mega-city’, ‘wow, stilts’, and ‘scouse = twats’.

What are the chances of just deleting it altogether? Triplets or whoever can always start another one once they’ve actually got something to say. Alternatively, punt it into Conversation. As it is, I don’t really think it belongs in either Switchboard or Lab, and the topic starter provides pretty much *nothing*.

01:16 / 21.01.05

Enh, it won't kill anyone to have it over in the lab. If it sinks, it sinks.

Ariadne

07:08 / 21.01.05

There are requests, in Books, to delete some poems from a thread because the poster wants to remove some 'influences' from their suit. It won't particularly muck up the thread, as it's simply one poem after another, but at the same time it seems a shame, and rather pointless.
I'm just flagging up that I've emailed the suit asking for their reasons and suggesting they just leave it as it is.

Olulabelle

08:53 / 21.01.05

Yes, and the posts are from 2002! I refused the request and then PM'd the person explaining why, then PM'd the BOOKS moderators to let them know and basically to find out what the protocol is.

What is the party line for three year old post deletion requests?

Personally I think they should be left. Deleting posts you made three years ago is a bit like trying to unring a bell.

12:16 / 21.01.05

I suspect that this is the same person who occasionally asks for their three year old posts in threads to be deleted from the Conversation. As for dealing with it, it would have to depend really on whether it would derail the thread or whether it would matter in the grand scheme if it did derail the thread.

15:01 / 21.01.05

Maybe, maybe not -- I know of two suits who keep deleting old stuff.

04:36 / 22.01.05

Deleting posts you made three years ago is a bit like trying to unring a bell.

I agree. Just as a pleading request to people who make requests to have ancient posts deleted- please, please, please, would you put a reason? Something more than, "delete please"? An honest reason is really helpful, and alleviates a lot of confusion- at least for me- as to whether or not the request should go through, as opposed to sitting and trying to analyze all the motivations within this ancient thread that could be factors in said deletion.

This may sound psychotically anal, but I really do take these requests seriously, and I don't think I'm alone. We don't just click agree or disagree willy nilly, and the more information you give the mods about the reason for your request, the better off we all are. Or hell, maybe I am psychotically anal. I just don't want to see potentially interesting old threads moth eaten by deletions to the point that they're incomprehensible.

07:23 / 22.01.05

I'm following this up here.

Spatula Clarke

11:38 / 22.01.05

Just as a pleading request to people who make requests to have ancient posts deleted- please, please, please, would you put a reason? Something more than, "delete please"?

Maybe it's just me, but I'd be vetoing that sort of request as a matter of course. Simply saying "delete please" is as bad as leaving the reason box empty. Especially if it's the same one or two people asking for their old posts to be deleted and failing to provide decent reasons for those requests - it suggests whiffy motives.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

14:53 / 28.01.05

The end of the URL in the link over here needs to be tidied up. The /br%20 part.

23:44 / 28.01.05

Can someone change the title of the Battlestar Galactica thread in FTV? Not only does it transpire that quite a lot of people (myself included) actually LIKE the programme, but it's gonna make searching a bitch once it's off the front page.

Spatula Clarke

01:32 / 29.01.05

It comes up when checking for 'Battlestar Galactica' with the search function, Stoats - nearest match, innit.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

02:19 / 29.01.05

Ah. The empirical method. I forgot that one.
I'd still say a change could be appropriate, though, but that could just be me.

04:28 / 29.01.05

As one indifferent to battlestar galactica, I've requested a change to the summary so that it's "battlestar galactica" and not just "battlestar," but have left the title alone. That way, if there's a more reliable board search function in the future (not that I'm criticizing, I can't do better), and google ceases to be the preferred option, the summary should allow it to be caught by the search.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

11:35 / 29.01.05

Can a comic mod delete one of Bobossboy's doubleposts from this thread?

Oh my God, what am I doing?

sleazenation

23:11 / 29.01.05

Can someone delete the duplicate of the HIV stigma thread in the switchboard?

23:52 / 29.01.05

Your wish is my command.

Tryphena Absent

10:23 / 31.01.05

Can someone edit this in Switchboard. I know it's anal but it really gets on my nerves that her name isn't in the title. I mean, they're meant to be searchable right?

Madwoman is new education secretary in Britain.
Member of shady Vatican group in British Government.

Surely it should read something like:
Ruth Kelly is new education secretary in Britain.
Member of Vatican group, Opus Dei, is the newest cabinet minister.

sleazenation

13:11 / 31.01.05

I was just about to ask for pretty much the same thing for pretty much the same reason - even just repeating the topic abstract would be an improvement.

As it stands the title of the thread makers the whole board appear ignorant and foolish as opposed to just the person who typed those lines...

Less searchable M0rd4nt

16:29 / 31.01.05

Oh, thank God you guys said that. It's been making my eyes bleed for aeons.

Jack Vincennes

20:02 / 04.02.05

There's an unclosed link in the opening post of this thread in the Switchboard... no big deal, but thought I'd say since this thread's here!

13:31 / 18.02.05

Could a Head Shop mod move this thread to the Temple please?

Bed Head

21:55 / 27.02.05

Well, okay. Could a passing Creation mod delete this duplicate sometime, and might a F&TV mod possibly lock this thread, if they feel like it? Please.

Grey Area

06:19 / 28.02.05

The Creation thread was put up for deletion by myself at around 21:00 last night, following a request by the thread starter to modify the topic abstract of one of the duplicates, which I took to be in error based on the accompanying reason.

18:44 / 01.03.05

Comic Book mods! the first link here isn't right.

and I want to put it in the wiki.

15:00 / 01.04.05

Could a Film TV mod delete this thread as it's just trolling. It doesn't stop someone who wants to genuinely discuss the film starting their own thread later on...

Smoothly

17:26 / 01.04.05

Ummmm, I don't see why that thread should be deleted if not this one or this one or, for that matter, this one. The last of which demonstrates that threads with seemingly vanishingly little potential can turn into something at least halfway worthwhile (and from which beautiful friendships can develop).
The worst that can be said of those threads is that they evidence that Båmbling isn't quite as Bæutiful a little Uniqueørn as ze might think, but testimony to that fact isn't entirely without value. As far as I can tell the person who'd most benefit from the deletion would be hir. But YMMV. Either way, like you say, it doesn't stop anyone who does want to discuss the film from doing so.

18:42 / 01.04.05

I didn't notice those threads, but I'd argue that they probably should be deleted also. On the other hand, it's only a couple of threads and doesn't really matter that much.