This is by design, as described here. You are entitled to 30 votes; further, the first 10 votes on questions might not count against your 30, so the maximum possible number of votes is 40. More specifically, the 10 free question votes will be available until you start getting warnings about having limited votes remaining; once the first warning appears, you ...
You posted that answer as a self-answer to a (now-deleted) "question" that you posted yourself "on behalf of" this OP. (The answer was later merged in to the original question by a moderator.) So it is a self-answer.
The question is protected. As you seem to know what that means, you are probably thinking to yourself it doesn't look protected, there is usually a notice. You would be correct, but somebody broke something ...
Protection banner missing when I don't have enough rep to answer; closed and locked banners appear in wrong spot
A human reading your answer can easily judge that it is not spam. The spam filter, however, isn't human. The SE team has looked into the behavior and told the spam filter to be less aggressive in cases like these.
Getting feedback about false positives is hard, so thank you for mentioning it. I am sorry your introduction to AC.SE wasn't more pleasant.
The reason is that there are two accounts with the same display name and they both commented under your question. It might be the same user who created two accounts (maybe they lost the credentials of the first account): it's not forbidden.
I added a comment suggesting the possibility to merge the accounts, if they wish.
This is SE-network-wide behavior. It has been brought up on MSE and is by design. The answer to why is "performance reasons" (specifically, to deal with a denial of service attack):
Requests from anonymous users to some of these routes were causing an unacceptably large performance hit a few days ago, potentially hurting the experience for many other ...
The answer in question was posted on this question, which is a hot network question with 2k views as of now.
The answer’s full content was:
Am I putting undue weight on this [...]?
At the time it was posted, there were two other answers in the same direction (but with explanation). At the time it was deleted, it had +17|−4 ...
That question would have gotten closed on Stack Overflow.
It is a bad question - OP is asking people to do his work for him and would have gotten shot down rather quickly.
That is orthogonal to your question though - there are up to 5 slots for migration on every Stack Exchange site - sites still in beta only have a migration path to their child-meta (for ...
The duck never accesses your microphone, even if you say that you have one.
Think about it: If it could access your microphone without a browser-site confirmation, so could every other website, which would be a privacy nightmare.
Further reading on Meta.
If look closely at the logo for the site associated with the badge, you will notice that it is grey, and thus does not refer to Academia, but to Academia Meta:
This is also reflected on your meta profile.
So apparently, your account on Meta was only “woke up” yesterday, but since its reputation and creation date is taken from your main account, you became ...
As much as I love short answers—and I really do love short answers both here and in real life—, I think that the deleted answer was way too laconic in that it failed to explain the reason for which the below highlighted part of the question is presumably wrong:
Am I putting undue weight on this, or am I right to think that, if I'm going to devote an ...
I don't have the issue exactly as you describe it, but I do see the problem in the alt text on the "add comment" link:
I'll report this to the SE admins and they can take a look. Thanks!
EDIT: It appears they already know about this issue and it's already been fixed. The fix may take some time to propogate to all sites, so you may not see the changes ...
This is by-design. From the SE meta:
The review indicator in the top-bar is not calculated on a per-user basis, but on a per-site basis. The counts in the review queue itself are calculated on a per-user basis.
So, when there are reviews that you've already acted on but still need action from more users, they'll still show in the indicator bar.
According to a comment on a main Meta.SE bug report, it's been fixed:
Rolled back to the previous build, then double, triple and quadruple checking the view. Still looking at what happened, but basically, it's a banner that isn't always shown, so I didn't see it and it doesn't always show for everyone. Sorry about that! – Michael Stum♦ 1 hour ago
This happened to me when I wasn't using the default rendering size. In Chrome, make sure that there isn't the little magnifying glass in the URL bar suggesting that you're not viewing at the default zoom level.