I think all the comments here from the third one down, or perhaps all of them, are no longer needed.
There are many no-longer-needed comments about accepting answers, and those comments are examples of that, but also worse than usual (from both sides). I can imagine myself in either of the commenters positions and while I can't speak for anybody I'd personally love to have a comment conversation like that deleted especially if I'd participated in it.
If you're not sure what I mean, take a look at the last parts of this comment and that reply. I assume it's from one or both of those that another user ended up posting this unfortunate thing.
The main reason to flag the comments is that they're irrelevant to the interest of anybody reading the post and have no value. I'm mentioning my reasoning because, for some reason, the whole thing seems to have been looked at by high rep users before, but the comments are still there.
I don't mean to make a big deal of it. I just noticed it when I was flagging the recent NAA post.
@EliahKagan I actually think this is an answer of sorts so my edit to it is pretty superficial. Do you think it helped, or is further/different editing needed, or should the post still be deleted?
and I guess that means the question it's posted on is a dupe as well ^ (as suggested by @karel)
should this question be closed as a dupe of one of the posts we have about fixing the error /usr/bin/sudo must be owned by UID 0 and have the setuid bit set or should we be voting unclear and/or asking for further details?
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, body starts with title and ends in url, link at end of body, pattern-matching product name in body, pattern-matching website in body, +2 more (491): Your body will get in a perfect shape by williefarmer on askubuntu.com
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Url-only title, blacklisted website in body, link inside deeply nested blockquotes, potentially bad ns for domain in body, potentially bad ns for domain in title, +2 more (299): confidentpedia.com/velofel-south-africa/ by JohnGlase on askubuntu.com
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in body, blacklisted website in body, pattern-matching product name in body, pattern-matching website in body, potentially bad ns for domain in body, +1 more (393): interactive prompt internal error by Ulfatbos64 on askubuntu.com
They replied to my comment seeming to agree that the link is not to where they said it is to, but saying they're not a spammer and just found it through Google. I don't know why they don't delete the post, then, but maybe they don't know how. Or maybe they are a spammer (though they have a bit of other SE activity) or it's a hacked account.
I think it's reasonable to vote to delete the post rather than wait for it to be deleted by spam flags... also, this might be a situation where the VLQ flag is actually appropriate (if you're not comfortable flagging as spam).
The "official website" part is enough for me not to retract my spam flag, at least for how. But I've also voted to delete it, which is sort of a way of giving the post author the benefit of the doubt. Sort of.
Assuming the problem is that Sentinel is not fully working, the feedback can just be given when it works again. I've had feedback not do anything, though never for this long a time. The feedback is in the chat log so little is lost.
So anyway, as seen above, Natty doesn't respond to manual reports either. I think something's down with the infrastructure. If it persists we should probably say something.
I mean the answerer tried to cover all the concerns, but most of them are generic suggestions and tips on good practices. In their defence that's the most one can do as the question has almost no technical details.
