Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Every now and then some spam gets through the filters on the forum. Toby and I can remove it from public view (it stays in the database so if it turns out that it wasn't spam it can easily be deleted). Also, I can set the user account which was used to "banned" to prevent it being used again. Other useful information, such as IPs and email addresses, is also logged. But to keep the place clean, we need to be aware of the spam occurring. I, in particular, don't read every post made here on the forum. So if you spot some spam, please alert someone. Use this discussion if you like.
Andrew wrote in part:
it stays in the database so if it turns out that it wasn't spam it can easily be deleted
I suppose that the last word should be ‘undeleted’. So far, I've only deleted/hidden something while also explaining what it was, to prevent any nasty surprises.
The two recent comments on homotopy colimits on this forum is spam. I do not have access to delete it, so can someone who has such do so.
Done.
Forum spam at thread Stanford Enc, of Philosphy; quantum mechanics.
And at Schur functors
Deleted. (And I deleted your comment as well since it was no longer relevant and potentially confusing.)
I’m starting to wonder if allowing anonymous comments is worth it. We haven’t had any genuine anonymous comments for some time, and since the reCaptcha broke there’s no obvious barrier to spammers. It doesn’t do them any good, though, since guest comments are fully escaped so there are no backlinks created (which is what they want, I believe).
Forum spam at entry ’N=4 D=4 super Yang-Mills theory’.
Forum spam at Goodwillie Calculus
I’m tempted to disable the anonymous posting facility.
… and at (http://nforum.mathforge.org/discussion/840/microlocal-analysis-dmodules-crystals/#Item_9)
Looks similar.
And some more at the thread “Stanford Enc, of Philosphy; quantum mechanics”
I’ve deleted those (and the posts saying “Please delete the above spam”). I’ve also turned off the anonymous commenting stuff for the time being. I’ll turn it back on if I can think of an unobtrusive spam splatter.
It looks as if the forum has been spammed by ericafinger!
Splat that spam!
Forum Spam ahoy! Look at Schur functors and also Goodwillie calculusThe first has clear spam from obd2work and that same source has made a strange comment in the second of those.
… and Happy New Year everyone.
Deleted and banned.
(I also deleted a comment by Zoran that was pointing out the spam on the Schur functors discussion. I do this when the following comment refers back to the spam comment since when I delete the spam comment then it appears to refer to a different comment, so long as the following comment contains nothing of significance. Zoran did ask a question there: in answer, all that’s needed to get an account here is to have an active email address. Thus far, we haven’t needed anything more stringent than that.)
Andrew: look at the forum entry at Goodwillie calculus #34. It looks as if mister clever-clever has tried again!
Thanks Tim.
There is new activity from obd2life. Look at children’s drawing and sheafification. (in the forum)
Thought I’d banned that little whatsit. Anyway, banned now.
Little whatsit is at it again.
More spam on the forum here.
Dealt with.
Thank you, Andrew!
Tim: greetings from your neighborhood, from Swansea (leaving in a couple of days).
There’s spam on the Forum from Tina168.
At torsion theory, quotient category. Is there any other place with similar Spam?
(Later: Yes: at Wirthmüller context, Grothendieck context and at Homotopy Type Theory – Univalent Foundations of Mathematics .)
It looks not to be there (now). It was also a Tina168 spam with similar content. (I do not understand where it could have gone!)
Some nForum spam. It seems not on the nLab.
Can delete later, and block the user. At least the spam is not visible unless one is signed in.
[ wrong thread, sorry ]
I have deleted the spam now, from the database as well (I kept the recent discussions on this in mind, but here it is clearly uncontroversial). Have also deleted the user (blocking would be trivial to circumvent). I could block the IP address, but this is easy to circumnavigate as well, so I think we can just see how it goes, it might just have been a one off.
For future record, the UserID was 1756.
Someone using a name Aly Chiman has put a spam message on both the Forum and the Lab. In both cases the name of the thread / page has also been changed. The page was called contact manifold or similar as that is the subject matter. This has effectvely deleted the content. I will roll back and rename, but this ’contributor’ needs blocking. (I think he has spammed before.) Later: this is proving harder than I expected and my efforts may need ‘cleaning up’ by Richard!
A quick search found a page on the web listing forum spam attacks, with the foillowing:
alychidesigns.com appears in our database 147 times
Thanks Tim! I have now cleared up this and the other attack a couple of days later that Urs tidied up.
You are correct that we had an attack by ’Aly Chiman’ in March. More generally, we have had a series of attacks following the same pattern. Unfortunately, these spammers seem somewhat sophisticated. They vary their IP address, so I cannot block them. I did add something to the spam filter previously to try to prevent future attacks, but, worryingly, it seems that they figured out how to get around it; if that is not a coincidence, I can only assume that they checked the codebase, in which case even the spam filter will not help. But I have added a few more things to the spam filter now to try to help.
In the long run, I think that either some machine learning algorithm or some log-in/signing mechanism, or both, is the only robust way to tighten things up.
I suspect that some of the recent activity by Rita Slade on the Forum may in fact be spam.
Thanks! Am on holiday and cannot delete just now, will try to remember to do so next week.
Yes, Rita Slade here.
More forum spam at contact instanton.
I have finally now removed the spam mentioned in #38 and #40, and banned the user; and have removed the page that led to the nForum spam mentioned in #41, as well as the nForum spam itself. (Creation of pages are outside of the ’new’ spam filter; the new spam filter appears to be successfully stopping this kind of spam on page edits. Unfortunately the same algorithm cannot work on page creation, but there are a couple of other things we could try when I get a chance).
Actually I just checked the logs and the new spam filter is blocking quite a lot of spam on page edits, more than last time I checked; there were several examples just in the last month.
That link just goes around in a circle getting me back here (because of the empty bracket pair at the address part of the post?), but there is spam at https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/10774
Removed now, and user banned.
Removed some forum spam at https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/10777/, and the account that posted it.
There is some Spam today. trying to push some certificate. Can Richard (or whoever) block the user and permanently remove this spam?
Done :-).
The ’Hello Guys’ in the entry ’Is the nLab down?’ looks spamish to me. Perhaps this should be deleted so as not to encourage ‘wiseguys’.
I agree, I’ve deleted it now.
Yet another bit of doubtful comment at gravity - contents in the Forum.
Deleted now.
The spam has been added again to that discussion, I will deal with it later.
Deleted again, and banned the user.
New spam on Forum: here
Deleted now, and banned the user, removing some spam from the user account details as well.
Richard maybe you are watching this thread, but we have someone who has posted two threads recently, on IEDs and the universe being a simulation.
Apologies for the slow response, will handle this as soon as I can.
Deleted those threads and banned the user now.
I got this banned in my personal lab by spam filtering!
U urni se nalaze 3 crne, 2 bijele i 4 zelene špekule. Iz urne nasumce izvlačimo špekule jednu po jednu bez vraćanja u urnu. Koja je vjerojatnost da ćemo prvu crnu špekulu izvući prije nego izvućemo prvu zelenu špekulu ?
Rješenje: odluka će pasti u prvom koraku u kojemu izvućemo crnu ili zelenu špekulu, izvlačenje bijele samo produljava neizvjesnost. Kako su u urni 2 bijele špekule, najkasnije u trećem izvlačenju odluka će pasti.
Vjerojatnost da u prvom izvlačenju odmah izvučemo crnu špekulu je 3 crne od 9 špekula je P(1C)=3/9.
Vjerojatnost da odluka padne tek u drugom izvlačenju je vjeorjatnost da u prvom izvlačenju izvučemo neodlučnu bijelu špekulu, dakle P(1B)= 2/9. Ako se to desi uvjetna vjerojatnost da u drugom izvlačenju dobijemo crnu špekulu je P(2C|1B) = 3/8 jer je ostalo samo 8 špekula. Dakle vjerojatnost da je odluka u drugom izvlačenju i to crna špekula je P(1B2C) = P(1B)P(2C|1B) = (2/9)(3/8) = 6/72 = 1/12.
Na kraju, vjerojatnost da je odluka tek u trećem krugu je P(1B2B) = (2/9)(1/8) = 2/72 = 1/36. U tom slučaju uvjetna vjerojatnost da će onda biti crna je P(3C|1B2B) = 3/7, dakle vjerojatnost P(1B2B3C) = (1/36)(3/7)=1/84.
Ukupna vjerojatnost je zbroj vjerojatnosti za ta tri disjunktna događaja (koja se ne mogu istovremeno desiti).
P = P(1C)+P(1B2C)+P(1B2B2C) = 3/9+1/12+1/84 = 3/7
P = 0.428517… = 42.85%
Drugo rješenje: kako bijele špekule ne utječu na poredak, izvlačenja u kojima su bijele špekule možemo ne brojiti, zanima nas samo odlučan korak. Kako znamo da je odlučan korak odlučan, tada je to uvjetna vjerojatnost
P(C|odlučan) = 3/7
jer cijeli svijet su sad samo odlučne špekule (zelene i crne, ukuno 7), a povoljne su crne, njih 3.
Na rubu stola su 3 čaše, koje je Marta kupila za 8, 6 i 13 kuna. Marta slučajno lupi o stol i sve tri čaše padnu sa stola. Čaše nisu jednako otporne na pad. Ona za 13 kuna se najlakše razbije i vjerojatnost razbijanja kod pada s te visine je P(raz13)=0.6, dok je P(raz8)= 0.5 i P(raz6)=0.4.
a) Ako znamo da se razbila točno jedna čaša, koja je vjerojatnost da je to ona od 13 kuna ?
b) Ako znamo da se barem jedna čaša razbila, koja je vjerojatnost da je čaša od 13 kuna jedna od njih ?
Rješenje: a) Kako su razbijanja različitih čaša nezavisni događaji i znamo da se samo jedna čaša razbila to je vjerojatnost da se čaša od 13 razbila, a ostale dvije nisu. Ako nam oznake raz13, raz8, raz6 označavaju da su se te čaše razbile, a ne13,ne8,ne6 suprotni događaji da se nisu, tada je P(ne8)= 1-P(raz8), dakle
P(raz13 ne8 ne6) = P(raz13)(1-P(raz8))(1-P(raz6))
P = 0.6 puta (1-0.5) puta (1-0.4) = 0.18 = 18%
b) Označimo događaj da se razbila barem jedna s B. Ovdje se traži uvjetna vjerojatnost i kako iz toga što se razbila slijedi da se razbila barem jedna , to je i . Obratno,
po principu uključenja-isključenja (vjerojatnost da se razbije ili .
Dakle imamo Bayesovu formulu
Brojnik je 0.6, a nazivnik je zbroj vjerojatnosti dva disjunktna događaja: jedan je da se razbila 13, a drugi da se nije, ali se razbila barem jedna druga čaša. Uvrštavamo,
%
Even this gets blocked
Na rubu stola su 3 čaše, koje je Marta kupila za 8, 6 i 13 kuna. Marta slučajno lupi o stol i sve tri čaše padnu sa stola. Čaše nisu jednako otporne na pad.
Once you have reduced the problem to a small snippet as in#62 you are close to having isolated the problem: Try removing further bits of text until the spam filter lets it through. There is probably one little piece of string that triggers it.
For example, elsewhere recently we couldn’t get “Moshe-Tangora” past the spam filter, and the reason turned out to be that “tango” was regarded as spam for some reason. (Richard has fixed this since.)
In your case maybe “stola” is what triggers the spam filter? (Just guessing here. I just checked and the Sandbox allows me to write “stola”, but that need not mean it’s not filtered elsewhere or for other authors, I suppose.)
Oh, wait, try removing “otporne”! :-)
That must be it. As a workaround for the moment, you could code it as
otpo$\,\!$rne
Or even without the “ot-” and “-e”. Bit of a red flag…
Yes, this is Instiki’s/Rails’ built-in spam filter kicking in due to the mentioned words, rather than the one I wrote in addition. I will look into disabling it for your web, Zoran, when I have a chance.
Re. #63, I was the one who added ’tango’ to the spam keyword list, due to spam about a telco using that word (which, IIRC, might have been what #47 was about). It would be helpful if the underlying spam filtering code checked for word boundaries, which it apparently doesn’t; if it did, ’Moshe-Tangora’ wouldn’t have been an issue, although of course there would still be ways for spammers to work around that. (There always are.)
I figured it out it some time in the night, doing precisely the tactics of 63, thanks for the response, sorry I was too much in a hurry and tired and did not report back immediately.
I thank especially for Urs#64 with
$\,\!$
which is a good hack for future. I should have come up with that, but I was not at all thinking for solutions in terms of LaTeX at the time.
Lab is a really great community! The level and effectivity of solutions are impressive.
Otpor means a resistance in Croatian, and this is an adjective, female plural.
There are about 14 entries here, which consist of ‘rmpG’ and that is basically all.
Thanks very much for letting me know, I would have missed it otherwise. Now deleted.
There seems to be new forum spam at ‘HomePage’ spammed by someone called dgroyals1.
I have dealt with and other recent occurrences of spam on the forum. Thanks Tim!
Ta! Diolch!
Croeso!
Spam here!
Deleted now (this was actually an nLab page creation announcement; I have deleted the nLab page as well).
Apologies for not replying to your emails yet by the way Tim; I have not forgotten, just extremely busy!
Someone has put an entry in the nLab, at Quantum supramacy and also in the Forum under the same title. This is the same as was deleted by Urs at ‘empty 207’, earlier.
There is, to me, suspect material in the forum at ‘duality in physics’, no. 87.
That’s not spam but crackpottery, a common phenomenon in physics.
I identified it as ’crackpottery’ in my own mind, but felt that ’suspect material’ was a possible better way of describing it!
Re #77 and #80: I have now addressed these, thanks very much!
I deleted the empty page mentioned in #77, because I wish to avoid leaving spam in the history. I would actually like to do the same for all previous ’empty’ pages; there is some dodgy stuff there that I would like to expunge from our history. I’m just checking here before I do, in case anybody thinks there is a chance that there is anything of value in one of these histories; I don’t remember anything, but maybe somebody else does.
I like good wishes, but there is some Spam masquerading as wishes that has apeared in the Forum. (Under the heading Home Page as well)
1 to 82 of 82