MetaTalk

The 'Creepy Dutch TV Host' thread is fast becoming a train-wreck, for various reasons. Context seems to be one issue; possible acts of paedophilia seems to be the other. [more inside]
posted by Effigy2000 on Apr 23, 2008 - 151 comments

This comment links to a video of a real life suicide without warning (other than "I'm a terrible person"). Normally I'd flag this and move on, but this is possibly the worst thing I've ever seen on metafilter and I'd like to see it deleted as quickly as possible.
posted by null terminated on Apr 28, 2007 - 57 comments

Can we please stop pandering to idiots. [more inside]
posted by y6y6y6 on Jan 26, 2006 - 131 comments

The first link on this thread The Seven Dwarfs of Auschwitz is to a Nazi site, pushing a holocaust denial agenda. Can the FPP be edited to flag this up, so people know what they're clicking on? It turned out that the poster had a good reason for giving that link, but I would have preferred to have had that explanation up front. The lack of explanation led to a derail on the thread. In general, I think it would be courteous to flag up links to neo-nazi sites, so people can make an informed decision about whether to visit them.
posted by Flitcraft on Mar 18, 2005 - 64 comments

Crafting Good Posts Part XXMCIV: labelling. Things to note when making a post: [QuickTime] = "this link has quicktime movie content," [NSFW] = "you may want to view this discretely," [NYT] = "this link requires a New York Times registration..."

What else do you wanna know up front? Let's go over it for our neoFites.
posted by scarabic on Nov 30, 2004 - 43 comments

Can someone flag the link in RavinDave's comment in this thread NSFW? I understand it is art, but many people can't make that distinction. (like, say, the two women sitting to my left and right in this computer lab)
posted by slhack3r on Sep 27, 2004 - 5 comments

Interesting use of language in feed description. Well yes I laughed and went straight to the article for an explaination. It is a great link. I have no problem with the use of colourful language under normal circumstances and I don't want to sound like a prude, but I was just worried about site image. Also aren't there going to be issues in some workplaces with filters and that sort of thing?
posted by feelinglistless on May 22, 2004 - 4 comments

Question in regards to WolfDaddy posting a link labelled not safe for work or people who haven't seen Queer as Folk. Shouldn't that have read "not safe for people who don't want to see gay porn?" I'm pretty sure what I saw, but I don't want to double-check. Just let me know if that was fair warning or I should sue for temporary blindness.
posted by son_of_minya on Nov 20, 2002 - 93 comments