Why was my posting deleted?

both posts were deleted ... for fairness !
And "...that it is better to inform yourself before writing such stuff" is a bit aggressive, isn't it ?
About "staying anonymous", that's not a choice, but moderator actions and the reasons for them aren't
tagged (see https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...s-and-moderation-guidelines.37565/post-544495 ), but I try to remember it next time and add my name to the comment.
 
thanks for the answer, I don"t want to go in an endless discussion, but please read posting in front:

"So please stop repeating unsupported claims that fly in the face of the evidence and either quote us supporting sources or leave off altogether."

Don"t you think, this is a bit aggrasive as well?
 
Correct, edited, sorry for not seeing it earlier.
 
Your post in the thread Nuclear escorts was deleted. Reason: link to a dead image and following discussion has no sense
13 minutes ago
Click to expand...
Not sure if this call was a good one (image link was dead but that is not normally grounds on its own for deleting it, not to mention the two posts that were discussing it?).

Posts affected were 193085, 193159, and 193550.
 
Do you really think keeping this alive has any sense?

1665854595140.png
 

Attachments

  • jalal_al-din_rumi_maulana_-_townspeople_who_have_never_seen_an_elephant_examine_its_appearance...jpg
    jalal_al-din_rumi_maulana_-_townspeople_who_have_never_seen_an_elephant_examine_its_appearance...jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 19
As the Naval Section Mod I agree that dead links and discussions about lost images have no purpose.
Just to add to the mix I will be merging the nuclear escorts thread with the Soviet cruisers thread.

I'd say if members find an important image that must be saved for posterity then embed the image properly as an attachment.
Pretty pics linked from Reddit and Twitter are generally expendable and most likely at some point will die - I've seen some of Grey Havoc's Tankporn image links that have come up dead within a few hours of him posting them.
 
Yep, linked images will generally eventually die. Given the forum is coming up to 17 years old, how long do hosting sites live? Important images ought to be attached.

It is sometimes possible to recover the image via e.g. Wayback Machine, but mostly not.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Yep, linked images will generally eventually die. Given the forum is coming up to 17 years old, how long do hosting sites live? Important images ought to be attached.

It is sometimes possible to recover the image via e.g. Wayback Machine, but mostly not.
Click to expand...
It really sucks too. Photobucket used to be awesome, and the platform I used. Even Youtube links get broken when software changes. If I see links of mine broken I try to fix them either by just uploading the pictures (when I can figure out which should be there) or relinking the youtube video but it's not always possible.
 
Hood said:
As the Naval Section Mod I agree that dead links and discussions about lost images have no purpose.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, if someone then later finds a new source for a lost image, or else a similar/related one, then a previous discussion on the image before it was lost won't be around to provide any context for it.

Regarding the posts that started this tangent off, they were relating to a Soviet missile cruiser design seemingly from the 1980s of which a drawing had originally emerged on the sadly now long lost MilitaryPhotos.net.
 
Grey Havoc said:
if someone then later finds a new source for a lost image,
Click to expand...
They can post it in a new post and properly attach it so that it doesn't get lost again.
Judging by a lot of posts I'm not sure people scroll up the page to check whether their latest "find" has already been posted or not anyway.

Abraham Gubler and Madurai's comments don't inspire me with confidence that it was necessarily a real design anyway.
 
Just had a post deleted in the "California bullet train" thread because it was "offensive, up to racist." Which is weird because race was not mentioned or in any way involved in the thing... it was a cell phone video of a probably drugged-up whacko going whacko on a train, providing valid justification for why people might not wish to ride on the train.

If the claim was that it's inappropriate to show crazy people... well, it's be a silly thing to be triggered and offended by, but it would be somewhat sensible. But to claim "racism" means that the problem is that someone doesn't want to see a crazy person of a specific race going buggo, and thus in order to *not* be racist, the video would have to be specificially selected *for* specific races. Thus in order to not be racist, it would have to be *explicitly* racist.

Welcome to 2022.
 
Orionblamblam said:
Just had a post deleted in the "California bullet train" thread because it was "offensive, up to racist." Which is weird because race was not mentioned or in any way involved in the thing... it was a cell phone video of a probably drugged-up whacko going whacko on a train, providing valid justification for why people might not wish to ride on the train.

If the claim was that it's inappropriate to show crazy people... well, it's be a silly thing to be triggered and offended by, but it would be somewhat sensible. But to claim "racism" means that the problem is that someone doesn't want to see a crazy person of a specific race going buggo, and thus in order to *not* be racist, the video would have to be specificially selected *for* specific races. Thus in order to not be racist, it would have to be *explicitly* racist.

Welcome to 2022.
Click to expand...
Nobody ever accused the woke of being thoughtful. You see them complaining about showing what a criminal looks like, or their religion, and they don't realize that what they're REALLY saying is that they think brown/black people are the only ones who commit crimes. That's pretty much the definition of a racist a-hole.
 
My mildly amusing post in B21 thread removed - but multiple posts of the same announcement left in?

Yet pop over to the B52 re-engining thread, and dimly amusing posts of possible names for the upgraded B52 kept in?

Are we now under a full apartheid regime? Are only those who have published works worthy of being kept for posterity?
 
Fluff said:
My mildly amusing post in B21 thread removed - but multiple posts of the same announcement left in?

Yet pop over to the B52 re-engining thread, and dimly amusing posts of possible names for the upgraded B52 kept in?

Are we now under a full apartheid regime? Are only those who have published works worthy of being kept for posterity?
Click to expand...

Little info for you: I haven't published works. Except for this. https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4085/1
 
Fluff said:
My mildly amusing post in B21 thread removed - but multiple posts of the same announcement left in?
Click to expand...
You mean TheAviationist reposting of NG announcement? We had original NG twit posted here a day before.
Can you explain me the reason I'd keep it and show me "multiple posts of the same announcement left in"?
 
flateric said:
Fluff said:
My mildly amusing post in B21 thread removed - but multiple posts of the same announcement left in?
Click to expand...
You mean TheAviationist reposting of NG announcement? We had original NG twit posted here a day before.
Can you explain me the reason I'd keep it and show me "multiple posts of the same announcement left in"?
Click to expand...

aonestudio posted the same, but that's not really my point, if my post wasn't worth keeping, how are funny names for B52 worth keeping? Follow up, if 'serious' threads are only going to be kept factual, then we can save ourselves a lot of time (by not posting our amusing fripperies), and mods gain the same time saving. But that loops back to the B52 point. But I also re-iterate that the B21 'unveiling' could potentially be far from the close-up smoke and hangar doors episode that everyone seems to be expecting. So I'd hate to be right, but to have been denied the historical enjoyment of 'I told you so'.​

 
Funny names stuff moved to B-52 offtopic thread.
 
Fluff said:
flateric said:
Fluff said:
My mildly amusing post in B21 thread removed - but multiple posts of the same announcement left in?
Click to expand...
You mean TheAviationist reposting of NG announcement? We had original NG twit posted here a day before.
Can you explain me the reason I'd keep it and show me "multiple posts of the same announcement left in"?
Click to expand...

aonestudio posted the same​

Click to expand...
He was the first who has posted link to original NG twit with roll-out date to SPF. I just can't understand what is wrong?
 
flateric said:
Fluff said:
flateric said:
Fluff said:
My mildly amusing post in B21 thread removed - but multiple posts of the same announcement left in?
Click to expand...
You mean TheAviationist reposting of NG announcement? We had original NG twit posted here a day before.
Can you explain me the reason I'd keep it and show me "multiple posts of the same announcement left in"?
Click to expand...

aonestudio posted the same​

Click to expand...
He was the first who has posted link to original NG twit with roll-out date to SPF. I just can't understand what is wrong?
Click to expand...
Please dont worry about that, I assumed I'd been rounded up in some mass deletion, as All I can recall was the same picture multiple times, but it could be people replying and including the full post.
 
Didn't think the fate of California's economy after the death of most of its aerospace and defense industry (as exemplified by the closure of the C-17 line) would be off-topic?
 
Grey Havoc said:
Didn't think the fate of California's economy after the death of most of its aerospace and defense industry (as exemplified by the closure of the C-17 line) would be off-topic?
Click to expand...
The video you posted had nothing to do with the C-17 and hardly even mentioned the aerospace industry. It was more about other economic issues and thus off-topic.
 
Indeed! It might be something that could form its OWN topic (we could still debate its relevance to the forum) but it certainly didn't belong on the C-17 topic.
 
What happened to the thread on the Przewodow incident? It doesn't seem to have been deleted, at least not via the normal process?
 
I would like to request that the notification "your post in thread xxx has been deleted" should include a quote of the censored post and date it was posted.

I just got a notification that a post of mine has beeen deleted in the "Swarming Aerial Drones" thread, but I have no idea which it was, or why it was deleted. "Reason: inappropriate post" is not particularly informative or helpful...

Worse, I suspect that it was an old post that a mod suddenly took exception to, because I don't remember posting in that thread very recently.

I'd appreciate it in the moderator who did it could enlighten me by PM.
And it would be good that the notif systematically includes such info in the future.
 
Last edited:
Moderators do try to give details though please note that in some cases it is difficult to provide full details. To explain, the following is the window a Moderator has to work with when deleting:

Image 28-12-2022 at 3.08 am.jpg

As you can see, there is not a lot of room for detailed explanations especially if dealing with long posts, sometimes with nested quotes etc. It is also the case that sometimes multiple posts in a thread are deleted, especially when two or more members decide to engage in a slanging match.

That said, providing a date for the original post is probably possible.
 
Yes, there is no mechanism to include a link to the post - that would be a manual process which makes moderation a bit onerous.

Sometimes historic off-topic messages are deleted if they aren't worthy of splitting to a new topic during tidyup. This is no reflection on the user concerned.
 
"Your post in the thread Northorp Grumman B021A Raider (LRS-B) was deleted. Reason: obvious BS data/offtopic posts deleted (hidden in fact)"

?
 
Just an observation but one of the posts that caught my eye was by one "Member Deleted". Just wondering what this was about seeing as the post was earlier this year. Just an observation.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom