@rene If I understand that search correctly, there isn't anything particularly suspicious: Bernhard Reimann did plenty of cool stuff and it's unsurprising that there are several physics and math questions about his work, some of which will include bad keywords or something
the Riemann hypothesis seems to be particularly problematic in attracting all kinds of cranks; I don't have any insight into the mathematics but to many of us here, anything which begins with "Riem..." is clearly spam
which is to say, if it was reported here, it is not unlikely that it was dismissed as spam simply because it's a fairly common recurrence in spam
I suspect because a formal proof has never been made a lot of the questions are probably cranks too and probably too broad even if they are half-decent
@rene chair is saying that the fact that "riemann" appears in the spam, it is not in itself the spam part, and saying that "riemann" is spam could be far-fetched
The Reimann hypothesis doesn't have a good proof (it's even one of the Millenium prize problems), so it'll attract several people trying to push their own proofs, but I think that's not a good qualifier for spam because there are a huge number of legitimate questions too
Anyways, did meta.stackexchange.com/questions/317997 really need deletion? I think it would be legitimate for the author to ask why that was against site rules. Based on the search results from MS, they don't appear to be a spammer.
user351417
I'm not sure if they understood that thing about it being appropriate for math SE meta
(profile → questions, probably on the other end of the screen → recent deleted waaaaay to the bottom, must scroll a bit, and the text of this link is very little)
@iBug you said on Sep 23 you had a proof of the Riemann hypothesis, too
user351417
@tripleee It may be more convenient if we have enough 10k users here... they'd need to see the previous conversation to know why it was deleted (there have been several reimann trolls in the past)
There was a lot of talk about Atiyah's supposed proof of the Reimann Hypothesis. I don't know the whole story, but apparently it provoked some insensitive comments about mental illnesses.
Yeah, it's not actively harmful, though it is off-topic. It should be given a bit of attention so that the author gets to the right place. Their proof may be a crank one, but I don't think they're trying to be a spammer or something: they managed to find out that meta is a place to ask about moderation decisions, though they ended up on the wrong meta.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url in title, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in title, blacklisted website in body, blacklisted website in title, +9 more (988): evaherbalist.com/keto-ultra/ by jemaratif on wordpress.SE
@SmokeDetector While this does contain undisclosed affiliation, and thus is spam by the definitions that SE uses, the question is asking for tools to do what the website claims to do. Thus, I'd argue that a comment asking the user to disclose the affiliation would be more appropriate (if you're familiar with the site).
@Makyen It really depends on the frequency of the FP. If it's just going to be like 4-5 FP a week, then it would be worth it. 4-5 a day, then a more conservative approach would be a better outcome.
@K.Dᴀᴠɪs That pattern looks like it's already caught by Toxic answer detected, Offensive body detected, Toxic body detected, and Offensive answer detected; append -force if you really want to do that.
I am not sure if I can ask this here. Anyway, where should I ask (theoretical) questions on distributed algorithms and computing (e.g., Paxos, broadcasts, multi-cast, etc)?
@WELZ Yes. An ? is an "optional" modifier, i.e. "match the previous character or group either zero or one times". A non-capturing group is the opposite of a capturing group, which takes whatever matches that group and returns it as a result
@K.Dᴀᴠɪs That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@EriktheOutgolfer That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
@EriktheOutgolfer That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body; append -force if you really want to do that.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching product name in title, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, +1 more (396): how to use male diet supplement? by Starkstoren on communitybuilding.SE
@bertieb maybe you want to relax for a few minutes and try again; if you still can't work, maybe relax for a few hours, take a good night's sleep, or just engage with something else; this is what I do
@SmokeDetector "To buy vpn, you can visit our site. The benefits we have for our users. Our accounts are the lowest price among all vendors. Dual-user and high-speed accounts. Support via WhatsApp is complete."
@EriktheOutgolfer That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially problematic ns configuration in body and Potentially problematic ns configuration in answer; append -force if you really want to do that.
@Undo @ArtOfCode @ThomasWard @iBug @NobodyNada @Henders @angussidney MS is reporting that all SD instances have not pinged in at least 17 minutes. Looks like some things are quite broken and needs to be kicked, probably all instances.
