Template talk:Shared IP/Archive 1

Archive 1

Possible vandalism

There will invariably be some stupid chav who wants to vandalise Wikipedia at public IPs such as universities and schools, you will never be able to stop all students everywhere from vandalising and being stupid, so the solution is to either block them or deal with the damage.

A possible solution could be to block unregistered users that are on public IPs, but enable them to make an account and then be able to post.

This idea is also a good one: Maybe there should be a team defining these ip's and a permanent message that cannot be removed by the user of the IP (this template can, unfortunately)

--195.194.75.204 14:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC) (West Kent College)

If we can get this in widespread use, the "WHAT?! This isn't my IP!" messages may finally come to an end! But to use it, you have to know who owns the address block. --Ardonik.talk()^* 23:48, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

I know. I happen to be on AOL, so I can slap it on some pages before I log on. The rest we'll have to look up when we see a vandal at that address. Try [1] to look up the owner, that's all we'll need. — El Chico! ^Talk 00:00, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Also, try www.dnsstuff.com. Use the IPWHOIS Lookup. — El Chico! ^Talk 12:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal - it proposes this. You can also add your comments. --Hughcharlesparker 10:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Confusion over use

I want to use this on my schools IP address talk page but my school does not own the IP address it uses. Is it OK to use this template? --Tomwalden 18:07, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Probably. No one actually owns an IP, they just register them. This should actually be called Template:Sharedip. By the way, what is your school's IP? I could look up its correct owner. — El Chico! ^Talk 20:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I've moved it to {{sharedip}} and I changed the wording so that it can be used for organizations that use IPs but don't own them. We'll have to keep the redirect at {{ownedip}}for a while though, at least until we can fix the pages that already link there. — El Chico! ^Talk 20:33, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have already looked up my schools IP address, and it is owned by Band-X Limited, a company that sells bandwidth.--Tomwalden 19:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay. Go ahead and use it then. I see you've added it to 213.232.79.240. good work. El Chico! ^Talk 19:31, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A note to the anon. concerned

I've added the following text:

If you are the unregistered user concerned, note that this need not necessarily be the IP address of your machine. In many cases, it turns out to be the IP address of a proxy server that communicates between your browser and the Wikimedia servers. Such proxies are shared among a huge number of users compared to the number of persons using your particular machine. If you are frustrated by such irrelevant comments, consider that you could avoid them by creating an account for yourself.

to the template, in the hope that this would reduce the no. of "this is not my IP!" comments. Note that what the template said until now only helped sysops make decisions of whether to block & didn't explain much to the anon. who actually would complain about the wrong IP address. -- Paddu 20:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added an "Attention:" line to hopefully get anons to read the notice before reading the other comments on the page. It may be too strong, but I'm not sure. - Evil saltine 08:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't seem strong. In fact it took me too long to notice it :). -- Paddu 19:48, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comast...

This template has been used for Comcast addresses. Yes, it is a dynamic IP, but only when you restart your modem (and only when it's off for a really long time). I don't know anyone who does this often (In the year I've had Comcast, I have only used 2 IPs). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 04:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Seconding. I usually use Comcast and the only time I've had an IP change is when the MAC address of the machine directly connected to the Internet changes. I've managed to maintain my IP for several months. 12.75.98.103 18:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

TOC problems

I'm not sure if this is a bug related to the recent upfgrade, or not. I think the heading markup <H3>Attention:</H3> is causing problems. Notice how there is now an [edit] link displayed in the template, as if it were a section in an article. I think this <H3>...</H3> markup is being translated into section heading markup. The result is that pages with a lot of sections have the TOC embedded in this template. Also, the various [edit] links do not point ot the correct sections. This also affects {{AOL}} which is based on this template. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Also see Wikipedia:MediaWiki 1.5 bugs#h1-h4 codes are generating tocs. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've changed the heading so it uses the '''...''' markup instead. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Shared IP confusion

Maybe there should be a team defining these ip's, and "locking" the user talk pages so a giant pile of irrelevant messages don't gum up the works for newbies without an account, and a permanent message - "You are using an shared ip address, if you are a new wikipedian, click HERE" and have it link to an intro message?

How to use this template

This should be the first section on the Talk page!

I presume you just go to a whois service and copy the name of the company? pfctdayelise 01:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

hmm? i thought they said anons couldnt edit? 24.254.92.184 01:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. There should be a "how to use" section. I'm guessing the same, that you use a whois service, but the page that lead me here shows a different company. I guess this means that it's changed since the last edit. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional links

Suggest linking something in "will attempt to contact {{{1}}} and report this as network abuse" to WP:ISPS. 12.75.98.103 18:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Consistency

Can someone change the attention notice on this template to be consistant with the one on {{ISP}}? I would do it myself, but the template is protected :\ --Mark Yen 19:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll do that (unless someone beats me to the punch while I type this). I thought they were closer after I made a minor change to {{ISP}} yesterday. :-/ — Kbh3^rdtalk 19:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Great idea

Just placed this tag on User talk:62.236.76.8... How about a system where the IP could be banned, but a possibility to open a new account would remain? IMO that would keep the most vandals out, but let the "honest" people to contribute to Wikipedia. --Appelshine 12:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Banning an IP doesn't prevent someone on that IP from opening an account or reading Wikipedia. —Kenyon (t·c) 01:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A point of style

This template is appropriate for static IP's and small pools of IP's (e.g. a pool of 3-8 IP's). If the IP address is part of a large and dynamic pool, please use Template:DynamicIP. -- 71.141.230.44 20:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have both? 81.244.252.19 18:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Placement?

Where is this template supposed to be placed? It is listed under user namespace templates, but now that I've looked at this talk page, I get the feeling that I'm about to have to go move a whole lot of templates... -Mulder416 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've answered my own question. I am moving this and {{isp}} to the user talk namespace templates page, where consensus has agreed that they be placed. -Mulder416 21:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Redirecting to a single page

Any reason we don't redirect all of an ISPs pages to a single page? 81.244.252.19 18:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

category

you sure adding the category and thus removing the possibility of links is good? I've put in lots of these, and I almost always put a link in the parameter. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

This does seem to be a pretty common thing. I've added an optional, secondary parameter where a link can be put ({{SharedIP|Name ISP/School/etc|Link}}), which means that there's both categories and links. As I'm going to, over the next few days, be going over these talk pages to fix up the currently redlinked categories and any broken categories, like this, it's pretty easy for me just to move the link to another part of the template. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 21:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Having rethought this, I've changed the optional secondary parameter to the category. For example, ({{SharedIP|Link|Category name}}), which means that there's both categories and links. This shouldn't break things as much as they currently are. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. The categories didn't make sense for a lot of the usages -- there would have suddenly been a zillion red categories with only one member.--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

my changes

I have added what I consider to be a vital piece of information to the template: However, you will still be unable to edit Wikipedia while the IP you are using is blocked. I've thought about adding another sentence referencing the Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal and/or bugzilla:550, but I hesitate to link to either because the former might attract vandals, and the latter might be too "technical"(or "esoteric"? maybe "relying-on-knowledge-of-the-concept-of-bugs-in-software"?) to be useful to most people who will need to read this template. Phoenix-forgotten 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. Phoenix-forgotten's change makes sense to me, but Paddu changed it to refer specifically to autoblocks. But creating an account won't help someone with a blocked IP no matter what kind of block it is, right? Does it matter whether it's an autoblock, or whether the IP has been manually blocked? --Allen 18:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"only block in case of extreme vandalism"

I think this notice is without consensus (and goes against actual practice). I'm going to remove it. If there are good reasons to reinstate it, please discuss first. --Nlu (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but it seems to have reappeared. It would seem to me that there is much less reason to have it now that the new blocking mechanism doesn't affect registered users as the collatoral damage is reduced. Kcordina ^Talk 11:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Blocking policy proposal

As a result of Tim Starling's recent work on MediaWiki Bug 550, it's now possible to soft block IP addresses. I've added the line " - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a soft block." to the end of the first paragraph. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 18:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Assume good faith

I think we should get rid of the line that says:

In the event of vandalism from this address, efforts will be made to contact {{{1}}} to report network abuse.

The whole point behind this template should be assume good faith — specifically here, avoiding guilt by association. Therefore it is inappropriate to shout warnings at people. The template already lists the organisation above, so people dealing with abuse will already know who to report it to.

Bear in mind that this template ought to be usable in cases where there is no abuse associated with a particular shared IP address but it is still useful to note that not all the contributions necessarily come from the same user. The more that the wording assumes likely abuse, the less useful the template becomes for that purpose.

Thanks. — Alan^✉ 14:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a person at times dealing with abuse, it's a useful line, both as a warning to users, and as a hint to people dealing with abuse that it should be done. Note that IP addresses will rarely check their own talk page just for fun it's mainly to respond to messages they've gotten. Unmodified talk pages are seen more often by people who want to talk to the IP user. Taking the liberty of removing {{editprotected}}. If you still don't agree, put it back, and a different admin will respond. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:25, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with AnonEMouse. Otherwise a Shared IPs becomes an open chequebook for immature vandals who think they can keep on getting away with it. As long as the notice doesn't directly accuse the editor of being a vandal, it's not a breach of assuming good faith in my honest opinion. --  Netsnipe  ►  04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Prefered method of usage

Is subst'ing this template preferred or only optional? If its preferred I could go through with AWB and subst them all. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 04:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Do not subst: this template. It makes changes in policy or rewording this template very difficult. --  Netsnipe  ►  05:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What other templates does this apply to? For example, {{SharedIPEDU}} ? --Geniac 18:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggested addition: address|phone|e-mail

I think it would be helpful for editors if the template provided for not only the name of the owner of the IP, but address, phone and e-mail contact address (for abuse). When anonymous users contemplate vandalizing, they will see that they are not so anonymous, being only one step away from being contacted personally. In some cases, this may be more effective than blocking. I can add all that info in now, but if it is part of the template, other editors will be prompted to fill in anything missing. Besides, there might be some useful text that could be added to clarify things. For example, "Serious vandalism or violation of Wikipedia policy will be reported to the following e-mail address." Any thoughts? Cbdorsett 16:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting putting the contact details of the internet service provider or the individual? If you mean the ISP, then that information isn't hard to find, and I doubt anyone would be impressed that we'd managed to track it down. If you mean the individual user then I don't think that's possible. From an IP address it's possible to find out the name of the internet service provider easily enough, but to then find out the name/address/phone/email of the individual user of that IP address isn't possible without the co-operation of the ISP. In Britain it would be illegal for the ISP to co-operate in that way except under certain circumstances involving law enforcement, and I suspect it's similar elsewhere in the world. Anyway, the whole point of this template is that it's applied to shared IPs: addresses used by several different people. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 22:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

That info for the ISP is already available via the WHOIS link at the bottom of IP-based users' talk pages (for instance at the bottom of User talk:127.0.0.2) courtesy of the nice folks at DNSStuff. While the addition of that info for the ISPs directly on those pages would probably increase the fear factor for our newbie IP vandals, unless we somehow masked the email addresses, I would imagine some ISPs would be up in arms about revealing their email addresses.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 04:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree that this would be of little benefit each time an editor visits an IP user talk page. However while we're on the topic of WhoIS, could there be an IP physical location variable included in the template. I used to use VandalIP template and put the WhoIS city in brackets next to the provider. It is a way of showing we know who vandals connect through and (usually) what city or country they are in. A reasonable deterrent for vandals without biting the newbies. --Bren ^talk 01:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge from VandalIP

I noticed all the VandalIP tags have now been merged here to SharedIP. I kinda liked the VandalIP template as it was only 2 paragraphs and to the point, without going into the technical stuff, so would fit on the top of an IP usertalk page without taking up too much space.^[2] I think for the average new user, the XFF, admin blocking, and IT guy paragraphs might be too overwhelming. Would others agree to make this template collapsible, say after the first 2 paras, and expand the rest only if a More button is clicked?

Also, on a minor note, VandalIP and ISP etc templates use the light blue background template. Whilst I don't know the official boilerplate policy for things like this, users with SharedIP have done nothing wrong on Wikipedia, so can this template change from orange to light blue? Thanks --Bren ^talk 02:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't catch the merge debate, but as the date on the diff you posted shows, that template's been longer than two lines for a while now.

I don't think the idea of making this template collapsible would be a good idea. All of the information (with the exception of one line to admins regarding blocking) is intended for the people editing from the IP. Hiding that information will just make it harder for them to use it. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 02:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The diff was from last October. There have been no updates to the template till end of May, when the merger and XFF groups made changes. Even then it was still 2 paras when it merged.

I just feel that SharedIP is overly long and does not assume good faith of the user as well as (I know the name is ironic) VandalIP. If a collapsible secion is not appropriate I'd love to hear some other ideas. Thanks. --Bren ^talk 15:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as assuming good or bad faith either way; it gives some pretty neutral information. This is an IP tag, not a welcome template. The only time a casual/new user is going to see it is if someone posts a message/warning to their IP's talk page. This tag explains why it might be the case that someone's getting messages/blocks caused by others' behavior and what they can do about it.

On the subject of welcome templates, I always post a welcome template such as {{Welcome-anon-vandal}} to IP pages (see User talk:151.199.194.147 for an example). I think more people should do this and also conform to the layout at WP:UW too.—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 17:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Attention?

Why is "attention" in bold red print? It might look better in smaller print. 68.49.208.76 04:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Wording and over-asumption of good faith

Why can't this template simply say:

"This IP is shared by many people/a company/a school and already has a history of nonconstructive edits to the Wikipedia project. Registration of a user name is required to edit from this IP address."

And then simply block non-logged in edits from the IP? Instead we allow it to persist on the hopes that more good edits will come from it than bad ones, yet IPs like this have a dark history of being little more than extra work for other editors. But we can't block it cause that would keep "potentially" good editors out. Does anyone else think smiling politely at the burglars will make them leave our stuff in the house? Or do you feel that keeping the window open is just letting more bugs in? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

External link

The hostname WHOIS EL appears to now require a subscription. I didn't want to fix it in case there is a guideline as to what service to use, but it will need switched. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Domain name hyperlink to dnsstuff broken

{{editprotected}} Please remove the hyperlink from the "host" parameter value to the corresponding link on dnsstuff.com. It now brings up a "Where are my DNSstuff results?" page with sales offers. -- Danorton (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done, switched to openrbl. Mr.Z-man 22:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Code efficiency, subst template identity tag

{{editprotected}} To eliminate unnecessary includeonly tags, and reposition the subst template identity tag, please replace the existing code with the following:

<div name="Attention notice" class="messagebox standard-talk" id="attention" style="padding: 5px 10px 5px 10px;">
<div style="font-size: 2em; color: red;">[[Image:Information_icon.svg|25px]] '''''Attention:'''''</div>

This {{ #if: {{{host|}}} | host, '''[http://www.robtex.com/dns/{{{host}}} {{{host}}}]''' | [[IP address]], <includeonly>'''{{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}}'''</includeonly><noinclude>''(IP address appears here)''</noinclude> }}, is registered to '''{{{1}}}''' and may be shared by multiple users. If the organization uses [[proxy server]]s or [[Firewall (networking)#Network address translation|firewalls]], this IP address may in fact represent many users at many physical computers.

For this reason, a message intended for one person may be received by another and a block may be shared by many. If you are editing from this address and are frustrated by irrelevant messages, you can avoid them by '''[[Special:Userlogin|creating an account]]''' for yourself. In some cases, you may temporarily be unable to create an account due to efforts to deal with [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]]; if so, please see [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?#Blocked?|here]].

If you are [[Wikipedia:Autoblock|autoblocked]] repeatedly, we encourage you to contact your [[Internet service provider]] or IT department and ask them to contact [[Wikimedia Foundation|Wikimedia's]] [[meta:XFF project|XFF project]] about enabling [[X-Forwarded-For]] HTTP headers on their [[proxy server]]s so that our editing blocks will affect only the intended user. Alternatively, you can list the IP at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs]].
----
<span style="font-size: 90%">Caution should be used when blocking this IP or reverting its contributions without checking - if a block is needed, administrators should consider using a [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Setting block options|soft block]] with the template <tt>{{[[Template:anonblock|anonblock]]|''optional comment''}}</tt> as the block reason.</span>
{| style="border:1px solid #A00; margin: auto auto 1em auto"
| style="text-align:center" |'''Note:''' In the event of [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalism]] from this address, [[WP:Abuse response|abuse reports]] may be sent to your network administrator for further investigation.
|}
<div style="text-align:center">{{RSS-Atom feed notice|1=IT staff who want to monitor vandalism from this IP address}}</div>
</div>
{{{{{subst|}}}#ifeq:{{{{{subst|}}}NAMESPACE}}|User talk|[[Category:Shared IP addresses|{{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}}]]}}<!-- Template:SharedIP --><noinclude>

{{documentation}}
<!-- Add cats and interwikis to the /doc subpage, not here! -->
</noinclude>

--Bsherr (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Done.--Commander Keane (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Code tweaks

I've made some minor tweaks to the template, removing unneeded whitespace and the name="Attention notice" declaration. the name attribute is usually used on HTML forms; to the best of my knowledge it confers no semantic value here. If anyone disagrees with this please ping me and I'll revert it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 17:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Upgrades to appearance

I put forward User:Bsherr/sandbox2 as a proposed change to this template. The code at this sandbox would use a new symbol and descriptive heading, adopt tmbox, make a few changes to text for conciseness only, and reorder information presented. I believe these changes will also make the code of this template friendlier for editors. Any comments? --Bsherr (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Since I think this is relatively uncontroversial, replace page with User:Bsherr/sandbox2 per WP:BRD. Let's see what happens. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, let's give it a spin. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

{{edit protected}} Updated wording of text for accuracy and conciseness, and included innovations incorporated into Shared IP edu. Replace with Template:SharedIP/Sandbox. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 updated — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Further consistency edits with other SharedIP templates, reducing margins around message boxes. Please replace with sandbox. --Bsherr (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:57, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible broken code in template parsing

Adding a (host=) parameter appears to result in displaying extraneous info, which looks like some sort of CGI code. Specific example: the template code

{{isp|Qwest Communications Company, LLC|host=LODESTAR NETWORKS LTD}}

generates the text

"This host, NETWORKS LTD&submit=Go! LODESTAR NETWORKS LTD (72.165.211.86 ), is registered to Qwest Communications Company, LLC, an Internet service provider..."

--Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yuck. Indeed. The problem is that a space in the host name breaks the hyperlink. I'm going to have to think on this one. Anyone got a ready solution? --Bsherr (talk) 04:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed [3]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, I had to fix that same issue on all of the shared IP templates: [4]. Perhaps we should combine these into a single template so we don't have so much duplicate code... Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:27, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Editprotected request involving this template

This message is to inform people monitoring this talk page that there is an "editprotected" request involving this and several other templates at Template talk:! cymru.lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Update

After closing this TfD, I have boldly updated the code to use the friendlier version as suggested. Please feel free to revert this change if it is controversial or causes a problem. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Static IPs

The documentation for Shared IP currently says "Where there is no indication of this, or where the IP appears to be static and used by only one person, the template should not be used." Does this imply to not use Shared IP but use a more appropriate template at Category:Shared IP header templates like {{Static IP}}, or does it mean static IPs used by one person should not use any IP templates?—Bagumba (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

In the absence of an original rationale, I will reword to suggest using {{Static IP}} instead.—Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please remove the following:

In response to vandalism from this IP address, [[Wikipedia:Abuse response|abuse reports]] may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.

The Abuse Response project has been marked as historical. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that should be left, but just unlinked. Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

RSS-Atom feed notice wording change

I have a suggestion for a wording change: The RSS-Atom feed notice would read better if "Network administrators, to monitor..." were changed to "Network administrators wishing to monitor..." Eric ^talk 14:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Eric ^talk 14:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Done I also added "or other parties" to make it clear people other than network administrators are allowed to do that. Jackmcbarn (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request - WHOIS service update

The WHOIS services linked to from within these templates are either offline (in the case of the old Toolserver service), only permit so many queries per day from a given IP (in the case of the domaintools.com one), or only provide a raw WHOIS response, which isn't exactly easy to read unless you're familiar with WHOIS (the dnstools.com one).

I've created a WHOIS query service on the new Tool Labs system, and propose that it is used over the current set. The sandbox for this template shows the appropriate changes - the only section which has changed is the third paragraph:

 Your {{ #if: {{{host|}}} |host, '''<code>[https://tools.wmflabs.org/splinetools/whois/domain/{{urlencode:{{{host}}}}} {{{host}}}]</code>''' ('''<code>[https://tools.wmflabs.org/splinetools/whois/ip/{{urlencode:{{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}}}} {{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}}]</code>''')|[[IP address]], <includeonly>'''<code>[https://tools.wmflabs.org/splinetools/whois/ip/{{urlencode:{{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}}}} {{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}}]</code>'''</includeonly><noinclude><code>''IP address''</code></noinclude>}}, <includeonly>{{#if:{{{1|}}}|</includeonly>is registered to '''{{{1}}}''' and <includeonly>}}</includeonly> may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. 

The same change can be applied to all the templates listed above, as they are almost identical. ^{(perhaps some factoring can be done here at some point...?)}

The related template {{Whois}} is a little different, so I've created a separate sandbox version for that one. – Reticulated Spline ^{(t • c)} 17:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: I completely support the goal of this edit requests, but there needs to be a few "tweaks" before it is ready for a WP:PER. First, I notice in the sandbox diff that you are forcing https:// - toollabs supports relative urls, and they should be used here. Also, since we have the internal wikilink of "toollabs" for stuff on labs, I'd suggest replacing those external links with:

• [[:toollabs:splinetools/whois/domain/{{urlencode:{{{host}}}}}|{{{host}}}]]
• [[:toollabs:splinetools/whois/ip/{{urlencode:{{{ip|{{{{{subst:|}}}PAGENAME}}}}}}}|{{urlencode:{{{ip|{{{{{subst:|}}}PAGENAME}}}}}}}]]

which avoids the issue altogether and results in wikimedia.org (spoofing "wikimedia.org" as the parameter passed) and 208.80.154.224 (spoofing "208.80.154.224" which is registered to "wikimedia.org" as the pagename/ip parameter assumed/passed). Also, I notice that the "Whois" template seems to have an "alternative" lookup, and the code for that is exactly the same as what it is for the IP and has no reason to be duplicated. Please remove. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the corrections, I had no idea we had an IW prefix for Tool Labs - templates duly amended to take advantage of it. The strange extra parameter from {{Whois}} has been consigned to the bit-bucket as well; hadn't noticed that existed. Just as an aside, why would forcing HTTPS have been a bad thing, seeing as we're not downloading assets to include in a page, but merely linking to a page? My understanding was that scheme-relative URLs were only really of use when including JS/CSS within a page (particularly ones served over HTTPS) - could be talking rubbish here though! – Reticulated Spline ^{(t • c)} 00:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think this request is ready to be reopened. The requested changes are: compare Template:Shared IP to 636545771. As for your other question, there are some browsers (that, yes, are ancient) that don't use https:// or it doesn't work as well, and in order to be fully accessible, it should use relative (using IWs resolves the issue itself). Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - one small thing, I removed the link to Wikipedia:Abuse Response as that project is defunct (and the link doesn't appear in the live copy of the template). – Reticulated Spline ^{(t • c)} 02:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done this template. Haven't got time to do the others yet ... — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:47, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• Martin, are you still working on these? I could probably do the ones on non-template editor protected templates if needed. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

One of the products of the WMF projects is a set of CCBYSA3.0 templates. The more portable these templates are the more use they are. I would therefore challenge the use of interwiki links in templates. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC).

• Interwiki links are usable in all WMF projects. Rich, challenging the use of interwiki links is something much more grand than this small series of templates, you'll have to bring it up at WP:Village pump (proposals) I'm guessing if you think templates in general shouldn't use interwiki links, as there are a LOT of projects with interwiki links scattered around the encyclopaedia. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 04:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Well not really. Attention can be drawn to a potential issue without having to make some kind of proposal about it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC).
    

 Done (Listed templates) Mlpearc (open channel) 06:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Somehow it seems these two were missed. I updated their sandboxes so it should be an easy copy and paste. Thanks. 134.134.139.74 (talk) 16:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 16:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 13 December 2014

Please replace the contents of this template with the changes outlined in this sandbox comparison to fix an issue where multiple similar such templates on a talk page can cause duplicate ids. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 05:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 April 2015

Hi Template editors! I am looking at IP templates, and I thought the icon in the image template could use some updating. What do you think of File:IP address icon.png as the new image for the IP template? Thanks!

CookieMonster755 (talk) 03:47, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 16 June 2015

Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs is now a soft-redirect to meta:XFF project, so having sentences linking to both are redundant. Please remove "Alternatively, you can list this IP address at Wikipedia:WikiProject on XFFs". Thanks. Kharkiv07 (T) 23:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 21 December 2015

Replace

<code>[[:toollabs:splinetools/whois/ip/{{urlencode:{{{ip|{{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}}}}}}}|{{{{{subst|}}}PAGENAME}}]]</code>

with

<code>{{PAGENAME}}</code>

as the link when clicked leads to a page saying "The URI you have requested, /splinetools/whois/ip/x.x.x.x, is not currently serviced. [...] That tool might not have a web interface, or it may currently be disabled." --McGeddon (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 21:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

McGeddon, can I point you at...

Xaosflux, can I jog your memory about...

• Template talk:Shared IP edu#Template-protected edit request on 2 December 2015. Regards, Bazj (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@Bazj: see note there, I synced the sandbox that day, but the work needs to be done {{sofixit}} is kinda at play there. If you are just asking that someone else do the work, ask on the talk page and maybe someone will do it - but don't open a template edit request template - those are for when edits are actually ready to go live. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I'm not asking. Neither request is mine. Nor would I need to raise a request. I'm just pointing out information. Bazj (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 15 November 2016

The Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. part needs to be wrapped in <span class="sysop-show">...</span> to hide that text for non-admins. Pppery 21:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The same edit also needs to be made to {{Shared IP address (public)}}. Pppery 22:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

And {{Shared IP corp}}. Pppery 22:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Appears done — Andy W. (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 January 2017

Please add {{subst:tfm|IPlocation}}, per a nomination by KATMAKROFAN. Pppery 18:25, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Done Primefac (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 10 February 2017

I would like the contents of this template's sandbox added to this template as per this discussion. Philroc^{My contribs} 13:57, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: I see that this template does not have any testcases. Are you sure that the template has been tested sufficiently? Izno (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Izno: Everything looks fine on the sandbox. Philroc^{My contribs} 21:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Philroc and Izno: Doesn't matter; still should be testcased, especially when noinclude tricks are used that mean that the "live" template is going to differ in deployment from the version that shows up as a demo at the template's own page. I did it myself at Template:Shared IP/testcases, and it checks out, but many template editors will disable requests that are not testcased. So, the request is now:
 Done.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)