@RyanM Yeah, seems ok. They should have flagged their previous answer for undeletion after making the edit, but that's hard to figure out. Also, their blog is watched, so if they post again, we'll see it.
@SmokeDetector This is substantially off-topic, but I don't see any promotion here. It could be a spam seed or intended to have spam edited into it later. It seems like it's plagiarized, but I'm not finding a source.
@SmokeDetector fp- Yes, there's no clear evidence that this is spam. Adjusting feedback for now. I vaguely recall seeing this username on similar posts that were spam (i.e. walls of text, without even an actual question), but I'm not seeing anything on MS, so I'm probably misremembering.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with a link in answer, link at end of answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer, username similar to website in answer (212): Set post comments open function by scrapmycarsg on wordpress.SE
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad ip for hostname in body, bad keyword in link text in body, blacklisted website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad keyword in body (269): Best interior designing in Noida by interior designing on superuser.com (@Ollie)
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad ip for hostname in body, bad ns for domain in body, bad keyword in body, bad keyword in link text in body, blacklisted website in body, +2 more (459): Types of Ethical hacker by Maithili Sharma on askubuntu.com
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad keyword in body, potentially bad keyword in username (101): Best Cat foods in Noida by Doonpet Shop on superuser.com (@Ollie)
@Makyen 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 word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@metasmoke IMO, this is quite likely undisclosed affiliation. The username of "PGD" matches all three of the initials of the optometrist at the linked page. So, while this does appear to address the question and the linked page appears relevant to the question, I'm going with TP.
@JeffSchaller A normalized version, {{'18189344296', '8189344296'}}, of that pattern is already on the number watchlist and the pattern you provided is not an exact match to an existing entry on the number watchlist. You can use !!/bisect-number 18189344296 to determine which entries on the number lists match that pattern, which would tell you: Matched by 1818-934-4296 on line 2986 of watched_numbers.txt: 18189344296 found normalized
