You are not authorised to read this forum

[MOF]

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/view ... 76#p786976

I received a notification to the link above that another person had responded but received this message “You are not authorised to read this forum” when I clicked on the link.

[zenguitar]

The thread has been temporarily removed from the public forums while the mods look into something. Once our checks are completed your link should work again.

Andy

[MOF]

Thanks Zenguitar.

[OneWorld]

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/view ... 76#p786976

I received a notification to the link above that another person had responded but received this message “You are not authorised to read this forum” when I clicked on the link.

I got this message once when I started using a VPN which was an Opera browser extension which gave my IP address as somewhere in Sweden. I turned the VPN off and things went back to normal

[MOF]

The topic has been removed, obviously something not quite right with it.

[zenguitar]

It's been edited with the links updated. You can find it here....

https://www.soundonsound.com/forum/view ... hp?t=80108

Andy

[Hugh Robjohns]

The OP posted a generic YT link and when challenged replied with what appeared to be an abusive term.

As it was late at night and to avoid letting the thread get out of hand I removed the thread from public view and temporarily banned the OP pending a proper investigation.

This morning when I had time to check, it turned out that the dubious response was actually the name of the track that was supposed to be in the YT link, and the OP had actually requoted himself with the correct YT link just before I moved the thread.

So... the thread has been tidied up with now-irrelevant posts removed, reinstated in the Mixing form, and the OP has been unbanned. I've exchanged PMs with the OP to explain what happened and why, and all is now good. Nothing to see here... Moderation in action... move along please...

[MOF]

[N i g e l]

It would be courteous when the mods alter posts for them to inform the authors that they have done so.

[Forum Admin]

It would be courteous when the mods alter posts for them to inform the authors that they have done so.

We usually do - unless it's a quick moderation made on a mobile phone for a topic/post judged necessary to get immediately out of public view until it can be fully considered and a final judgement made.

[N i g e l]

the op included a link to youtu.be rather than their intended target of Goldfrapp's "Eat Yourself".
Also "youtu.be" looked like phising to me, which I now know isn't.
Overall, not exactly a nuclear event.

[Hugh Robjohns]

It would be courteous when the mods alter posts for them to inform the authors that they have done so.

I'm intrigued; what makes you think we don't?

As a general rule, I don't contact the author if I'm correcting a simple one-off formatting issue like a quote, but I would if I noticed a consistent pattern of posting errors.

And I don't contact permanently banned spammers or abusers.

But any other intervention -- which is relatively rare -- would result in direct contact with the author, possibly after a discussion with the mod team.

[N i g e l]

because I didnt receive any notice that my post was deleted, the one about invalid youtube link and possible phishing, the one that is missing from this thread !

maybe I didnt hit "submit" after "preview" ? Nope, the post was in the thread and duly appeared in the NewPost sidebar whilst I was still on the forum.

[Hugh Robjohns]

Ah, I see. Yes, fair cop.

I removed it because it became irrelevant and without context, so would have looked foolish and nonsensical.

You're quite right, I should have -- and would normally have -- let you know. Please accept my apologies. It's no excuse, but I had little time available to correct and restore that thread so it was done in a rush.

[N i g e l]

Thanks Hugh, fair enough,
I get anxious when the matrix glitches