I didn't have CHQ open in a tab, didn't realize it wasn't already reported, nuked it, then realized it wasn't reported (around this time, you reported it), came here, reported it, (around this time, Adrian Mole reported it, creating a duplicate report), and then, finally, I unlocked and re-nuked it.
@CodyGray That pattern appears to be homoglyph obfuscated. It's better to use the non-obfuscated number. Perhaps try: !!/number +1 901.464.2033 In order for a "number" to make an exact match, the pattern must begin with a digit or up to two of +,(,[, or { immediately followed by a digit. Append -force to the command if you really want to add the pattern you entered.
That pattern may be a North American number. If it is, please use a format which starts with an optional `1` followed by possible separator text and has the main number in the format `983-711-5157` where `-` could be a single alpha character or any `[\W_]*+`. Alternately, you can add the comment `(?#IS NorAm)` to the end of the pattern to force also using the alternate normalized form, or `(?#NO NorAm)` if it's not a North American phone number and it's incorrectly recognized as one. Perhaps try
@CodyGray That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in answer and Potentially bad keyword in body Append -force to the command if you really want to add the pattern you entered.
@SmokeDetector This is improperly formatted code. While close to a copy of what's in the question, it's a bit different. It's unclear if the author actually meant this as an attempt to answer or mistakenly submitted the "answer".
@SmokeDetector Hmmmm... It did have more detection reasons on the new version. so reporting it again was correct for the code as it currently stands. However, I'm not sure that's going to be all that helpful in vandalism cases like this. In addition, there are going to be issues with rollback wars where there's, potentially, a report per rollback. We'll (I'll) need to look at a good way to prevent that and/or see if it becomes a problem in the real world. Something which might help resolve the issue is to store multiple versions in the recently recently scanned posts list. That's something I've considered, but did not include, as it needed more investigation and would have added some development time at the point it became clear it could be useful. At that point, there was pressure to get the baseline functionality released rapidly.
@SmokeDetector fp- question is seeking recommendations, and I can't find any affiliation. The linked website has been spammed before, but has also appeared in legit answers.
@SmokeDetector Only 4 hits on MS, but has appeared as part of a campaign that's blacklistable.
@SmokeDetector @ZoestandswithUkraine I'm not sure why you declined my custom flag on this (I'm assuming it was you based on the timing of the edit). I linked to an MS domain that clearly shows the user having spammed their website before, which is a pattern. Should I have been clearer about that in my flag? Anyway, editing the answer is sufficient, I don't want it spam nuked, I just wanted an annotation on the profile, so the outcome is fine, I'm just curious about the flag decline reason.
Regardless of the flag on the site, for feedback to SD, since the post contained undisclosed affiliation, it's tp, even if the result is to just edit out the link.
@cigien They have one post on SO linking to it from 2013. That doesn't require mod intervention. The domain having been spammed before does not automatically make it spam. There's also only one instance on Magento. I fail to see the problem; they need a reminder about self-promotion rules, not spam destruction
Given the website has been spammed before, and the answer has been around for a long time, there's a not unreasonable chance that the user has posted links to this before, which have either been edited out (like here), or have been deleted (which I can't even search for). I assume you looked and couldn't find any other instances on SO? Perhaps I should have been clearer in my flag that I wanted further investigation, rather than the particular answer being spam-nuked.
Ok, thanks for checking the history. It just seemed like something I shouldn't sweep under the rug, hence the report to SD, and the flag. Thanks for the clarification. BTW, the feedback should still be tp.
@Ollie That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answer Append -force to the command if you really want to add the pattern you entered.
Maybe a silly question, but how does one install FIRE Extra Functionality...? I don't see an install link in the repo, nor installation directions, so I'm a bit confused as I'm used to just clicking a link for userscript installation...
@Ollie I get "Failed to get information from GraphQL with error 403. Make sure you are logged into Metasmoke before trying again". Yes, I'm signed into Metasmoke
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Potentially bad asn for hostname in answer, potentially bad ip for hostname in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer, potentially problematic ns configuration in answer (5): Auto-update views.py by Andrew Crisp on stackoverflow.com
The quota_remaining property was not in the API response. Error: Violation of backoff parameter at 18:19:09 UTC. Backing off on requests for the next 12 seconds. Previous URL: https://api.stackexchange.com/2.2/questions
The quota_remaining property was not in the API response. Error: Violation of backoff parameter at 18:19:24 UTC. Backing off on requests for the next 12 seconds. Previous URL: https://api.stackexchange.com/2.2/questions
The quota_remaining property was not in the API response. Error: Violation of backoff parameter at 18:19:40 UTC. Backing off on requests for the next 12 seconds. Previous URL: https://api.stackexchange.com/2.2/questions
The quota_remaining property was not in the API response. Error: Violation of backoff parameter at 18:19:54 UTC. Backing off on requests for the next 12 seconds. Previous URL: https://api.stackexchange.com/2.2/questions
The quota_remaining property was not in the API response. Error: Violation of backoff parameter at 18:20:09 UTC. Backing off on requests for the next 12 seconds. Previous URL: https://api.stackexchange.com/2.2/questions
### UnboundLocalError on teward/Osiris at 2022-05-20T19:17:23Z: local variable 'problem_text' referenced before assignment File "/home/smokey/SmokeDetector/chatcommunicate.py", line 483, in __call__ result = self.__func__(*processed_args, alias_used=alias_used) File "/home/smokey/SmokeDetector/chatcommands.py", line 991, in stat return problem_text
### HTTPError on teward/Osiris at 2022-05-20T11:21:10Z: 404 Client Error: Not Found for url: https://chat.stackexchange.com/users/435118 File "/home/smokey/SmokeDetector/datahandling.py", line 618, in get_user_names_on_notification_list
@ThomasWard [:61179719] Potentially bad keyword in body - Position 977-1143: a> that supposedly replaces Challenger series A, but it has two steel hooks on the sides which my breaker doesn't have.</p><p>Can someone tell me what breaker to buy
My proposal is that when applying the 1 question/40 minutes limit, the reputation allowing you to bypass it should be the weighted max reputation on your profile. (I am proposing a weight of 1/2 for all other sites and 1 for the site on which you are asking the question)
In other words, the 40 mi...
