Forum Moderators: open
you can't mention <deleted> or any variation of <deleted> here. If you do, the name will probably be <deleted>
<p>
WebmasterWorld has been trialing <del datetime="1969-12-31T00:00:00Z"
title="Removed due to [snip].">an algorithmic [deleted]</del> in it's popular Foo Forum. Comments, to date, have been humourously accepting and appreciative.
<ins datetime="1969-12-31T00:00:00Z"
title="Changed as a result of [snip].">
Furthermore, the latest [snip] from the <del datetime="1969-12-31T00:00:00Z"
title="Removed as contrary to [snip].">[deleted]</del> suggest that [snip].
</ins>
<p>
AlexK: the tools you are looking for are in the tool shed - the one with the honey-do list on the door. Mistaking tool shed for tool site is a common sign of webmaster fatigue.
<added> Testing...
What the <deleted> is happening here? <deleted> must be up to something?
[edited by: <deleted> at 14:55 pm (utc) on Mar. 20, 2006]
[edit reason] See TOS [/edit]
<edit> is a time limited "get my foot out of my mouth" recovery function for general member use. Note to admins: I could use a more powerful tool.
<snip> is a moderator function. The rest of us are not to be trusted with scissors. Quite right.
<deleted> is one of:
1. a recently added algorithmic function similar to the!@#$% censor. I have yet to see a press release so perhaps not.
2. a recently added administrator and/or moderator function. An eraser being a 'safe' alternative for those not allowed sharp objects.
Who votes for algorithm?
Who votes for safe alternative?
There is a <deleted> part where Yosarian was, for a time, employed in the censor <deletedd>. He got completely <del> with having to censor utterly <delet> letters home from the <del> and, to try to increase his interest, started to remove words at random from the <delet>. This grew into a passion for him until, shortly before he was <delet> from the <delet>, he censored one letter by <delete> <del> <de> except for the <delete> <> the <deletedd> <delet>.
<deleted>! < <de> <de> <de> < <d> the <delete> <delet> <> <de> <d> <> <del> <de> a <de>, <d> <delet> <delete> <del> <> <de>. <de> <> <de> <del> <de> <d> <de> (<> <> <del> <d> a <d> <del> <dele> books <> <del> <del> of <dele>-media <delete> to exist).
Yes, if only.