[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, bad keyword in link text in answer, blacklisted website in answer, pattern-matching website in answer, potentially bad ip for hostname in answer, +1 more (342): Fix for the network search pagination by Nezuko on stackapps.com
Possibly because the mod felt it was a reasonable spam flag to raise. But you'd have to ask the mod. It was Machavity (I presume, given they deleted the post), if you want to ping them.
@Jesse 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 word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@cigien Yeah, that was caught by the support number spam wave. I'm considering turning it off, as while we still see a notable number of support number spam, it hasn't been all that many for some time now. However, it's difficult to get a good picture of its overall performance at the moment, due to MS no longer supporting URLs that are long enough such that a search-equivalent can be run. That limitation also makes it difficult to test potential updates to that spam wave definition.
@Jesse The regex contains an unescaped ".", which should be "\." in most cases. Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@Jesse That pattern looks like it's already caught by Bad keyword in body and Bad keyword in answer Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@Jesse That pattern looks like it's already caught by Potentially bad keyword in body and Potentially bad keyword in answerThe regex contains an unescaped ".", which should be "\." in most cases. Append -force to the command word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@Jesse 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 word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@Jesse 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 word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword with email in answer, potentially bad asn for hostname in answer, username similar to website in answer (158): Impact of each site by World Of One Piece on meta.SE (@Ollie @Ethan)
@Cow 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 word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@cigien 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 word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
@Cow I wouldn't use the standard comment here. As I commented earlier, disclosure is not required for mentioning a product that is already mentioned in the question. So if you want to leave a comment, it really should be more subtle than just linking to the "how not to be a spammer" help page. The user is not breaking any rules currently, and linking to a page that implies the user is breaking some pretty important rules isn't a good approach.
That being said, are you sure the user is even affiliated? The only online hits I'm seeing for "svgator" and "omnitech" are this same user's github page, where they appear to have forked some svgator repos.
@SmokeDetector The question specifically mentions that they are using SVGator, so disclosure when linking to official documentation isn't required here. Thus, this is FP.
@cigien The answer is almost identical to the one that was posted this morning, so I would think so, but oh well, I see the comment from Makyen now also, so I'll just leave it
@Jesse Generally, no, unless there are reasons to believe that it might become a pattern. In a large number of cases, the issue of a single case of undisclosed affiliation can be resolved with a courteous comment. However, that's commonly not the case when the content is more promotional in nature.
@Makyen 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 word(s) if you really want to add the pattern you provided.
