Talk:IP address/Archive 1

message: Someone editing an article complained that people need to put a trailing "/" after domain names in URLs. Thus www.city.ac.uk/ would be correct and www.city.ac.uk would not be. Unfortunately the person didn't say why, and didn't leave a reference to where it might be explained to dimwits like me. Clearly it is non-straightforward in that whatever the problem is with missing the "/", it does not affect everyone all the time. Can someone please tell me what the scope and effect of this problem is, and whether it is already documented here somewhere? It is not mentioned in Wikipedia:How to edit a page as far as I can see. It sounds like if it is not explained, it perhaps should be, if it affects the usefulness of articles to readers? Thanks Nevilley 16:05 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
:Reference - it was this - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - Revision history -  11:52 Jan 26, 2003 . . 66.167.129.231 (/ after hostname in URLs, dammit) -  and the change they made, as you might expect, was http://www.peta.org to http://www.peta.org/. Nevilley
:It really doesn't matter; if the trailing slash is missing, your browser will spend an extra few bytes being chastized by the server and be automatically given the full URL with slash to visit. --Brion 16:27 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
::Actually, in some cases it might matter. By using mod_rewrite some servers refer subdirectories depending on whether a slash was appended. I have actually seen such URLs in the past. --Samuel 12:33 Aug 09, 2005 (UTC)
:I'm not fully sure, but I think the difference is like this: The URL http://www.host.domain/foo/bar refers to the file /foo/bar (as in the Unix directory tree) on the machine www.host.domain . But http://www.host.domain/foo/ refers to the folder /foo/ on www.host.domain (and by implication, the file /foo/index.html). Therefore, www.city.ac.uk/ would refer to the file /index.html on www.city.ac.uk while www.city.ac.uk wouldn't really refer to anything at all. Of course, most webservers are probably clever enough to deal with the request correctly anyway, but still leaving out the trailing / is incorrect. -- Arvindn 16:33 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
::Yes, here it is: webserver spend 1µs in order to redirect the user, and this µsecond, on a big webserver, is multiplicated by 10^6 a day, so this can affect a little bit the computer. But well, for the user, this is the same. I think Google could earn more money if only 70% of its visitors put a slash at the end of google.com, but this is a too geeky information to be said.
:::Another too geeky information to be said is that 1 microsecond multiplied by 10^6 is exactly one second. With this pace, it would take roughly 237 years to lose one full day due to those redirects. ;) --ZeroOne 20:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trailing "/" in URLs?

message: I've seen admins sometimes mention that two users frequently use the same IP address as evidence of sock puppetry.  How can I determine another user's ip address?  Is this only available to admins? - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 20:30, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)
:For privacy reasons, the IP address of logged in users is not generally available, not even to administrators. On Wikipedia, users sometimes let their IP address slip by editing when logged out, or by email or IRC. But to check if a user is a "sock puppet", it's usually necessary to ask someone with shell access. See m:developer for a list. I do it more often than anyone else. I don't usually give out the IP addresses themselves unless it is for a complaint to an ISP, I just say whether or not two identities share an IP address. -- Tim Starling 02:03, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
:Internet Relay Chat = IRC --TGC55 16:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP Address for detecting sock puppets 

message: This article seems to have unexplainable attractivity to spammers. Perhaps set of really useful and relevant links could be established here (I suppose spammers are not interested in talking) and then strictly enforced. If nothing, revert wars like the one with Weyes could be averted. Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 21:11, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You are funny (SqueakBox)! You think merely because you accuse me of vandalism and/or being a spammer that intelligent people will listen to your empty shouts? HA! You are just so funny ! 0waldo 00:47, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Well it's not the most obvious case of vandalism (sounds more like a edit war), but I do agree that the link in question is useless. It doesn't do anyting several of the oter linked sites doesn't alread do, and they do it better. This site completely failed to identify location, OS and browser, making it rather useless compared to the others. --Sherool 01:11, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Upon closer inspection I'm inclined to agree with you, I missed the fact that it was 0waldo's own site he kepd adding, that defenently sounds like linkspamming to me. --Sherool 01:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Read Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer, and it's not just SqueakBox, several editors have removed the link wich should give you a hint about how usefull they find the link in question. So far the only people who have agreed that the link is usefull seems to be the "family" (and other people who materialise out of nowhere just to comment here) of the author of the webpage itself. Even if you all are who you say you are it doesn't carry much weight unless pre-existing Wikipedians who have no afiliation with the site agree that it is usefull, and so far the consensus seems to be to remove it. --Sherool 21:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Buddy - you are some kind of a broken machine!  SqueakBox-what is your problem pal?  Has it ever occured to you that we may be waldo's friends? Duuuh? You don't have friends - that was stupid of me! GPugh 04:59, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: please read some religious salad mishmash and get your head straight. AtomSmazher 05:07, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: It is apparent that you have some major 'editor' issues here - I move that you be barred from this site! Wikipedia:Civility - eat, sleep and live it! I still say you go and waldo's link stays JoanThaBone 17:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links again 

message: If you look here you will see that he linked the same link into 4 different articles, and was reverted each time by different users. And, yes of course, if he really has had a million hits he is almost certainly sellking the info he is gathering, SqueakBox 13:13, August 28, 2005 (UTC)
Hey SqueakBox: I'm waldo's sister: get a life.  Get a "loving GOD" too - you need it.  I say the link to waldo's site stays - and you'r go. Mr. Delete it. JoanThaBone 17:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is apparent that you have some major 'editor' issues here - I move that you be barred from this site! Wikipedia:Civility - eat, sleep and live it! I still say you go and waldo's link stays JoanThaBone 17:44, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not just this article

message: In light of the protection and comments I have put the page on Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages#Frequent vandalism from many people, SqueakBox 23:46, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Can we try unprotecting this?  0waldo's sockpuppets have been blocked; if he tries to edit it he will be blocked - what other reason is there to protect the page? JesseW 07:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, hopefully they got the message and will behave. No new "friends" showed up on the talk page after the first batch got blocked, so hopefully they have tired of this game. --Sherool 09:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Protection

message: Either one of these could replace both http://www.ip-lookup.net/ and http://www.ip2location.com/ who are basicaly glorified WHOIS lookups. Well http://www.ip-lookup.net/ does support IPv6 wich is a pluss.
Anyway why not just use a plain old WHOIS tool? We already have a link that give people theyr IP, so they can paste in from there. That way people get to see exactly what info is available in raw form (ISP's snail-mail adress, contact info, phone number, company name, IP range, location etc), rather than some "slick" site pulling your location from the "hat" as it if was a major magic trick.
I found these after some Googeling:
*http://www.geektools.com/whois.php
Pros
*Completely free, non-commercial etc.
Cons
*Slooooow site
*No IPv6 support
*Have to manualy type in one of those verification images.
*http://www.whois-search.com/
Pros
*Much faster than the abowe.
Cons
*It is a commercial site (although they sell domain names, not proxies or other directly related stuff)
*No Ipv6 support
Give them a spin and see if they are worth adding. --Sherool 10:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not worth adding. 0waldo 16:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about these sites 

message: As a means of cutting down the fights about external links that seem to plague this article, it was suggested that we implement a policy of only having external links that provide information about IP addresses(like the RFC library link) rather than links that provide services (like ShowIP.org).  This can be justified based on WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not an web directory, and we  are an encyclopedia, so we provide information about subjects not ways to do things.  Has this been tried before(here or elsewhere)?  What sort of objections to people have to it?  Baring objections,  can we implement this in a week or so? JesseW 17:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: JesseW I object my friend, and here's why:  life is a learning experience, and when people come to Wiki, hopefully, they learn, moreover, if they come here to learn about an IP address and they see it with their own eyes ( and more related info. ) on a site provided by an external link on this page, it may spark a bit of curiosity and want to know/learn more.  They see their 'hostname' and subsequently wonder what it is and look it up on Wiki (or on the net).  I suppose some probably think that Wiki will eventually become the ‘internet’ instead of the internet itself - will we come to Wiki in two years as it will have become the 'master blob' of information and will have replaced all web sites entirely - scary thought; likened to Walmart eGadz (pun intended)?.  So, I vote no on your idea my friend. Now if you wish I can change getmypc.info to provide information about an IP address to echo this article? Or, alternatively, can have it expound on this article? That would make you happy? ;) Cheers! 0waldo 18:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring the parts of your reply not related to the proposal, I would reply as follows.  If people want services, such as seeing their IP address or WAN address, etc - they can get them very easily in a vast number of other places.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, whose aim is to present information, rather than to "spark a bit of curiosity".  Having a policy of only having links about IP addresses, rather than links that provide services, will cut down on the massive, unpleasent fights, like the one we just had.  (BTW, Wiki is the wrong name for Wikipedia - Wiki refers to the technology; Wikipedia referrs to this site, and this is not a vote, it's a discussion, so "I vote no" is technically inapplicable. (See meta:Voting is evil for details). Thanks for the discussion, though. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  JesseW :) OK, so I retract my 'vote'. My discussion is this; I don't think it's appropriate to remove the links - I personally would leave all that have nothing to sell, are not there for the purposes of advertising a product and ones that augment the article. I would especially leave GetMyPC.info ;) Have a great weekend!! 0waldo 21:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Hello my friend SqueakBox - so nice to hear from you!! I am quite puzzled as to why you would not agree with me because Sjakkalle, Dragons flight and Golbez seemed to agree with me to leave the links - why did JesseW even bring it up, anyhow? Everything is fine and a non-issue! Brainstorm here: leave everything, as is – the page and article are perfect! Just lock the page from further editing whatsoever! Greets to your brother ;)  0waldo 22:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: SqueakBox, I'm sorry about that type-oh! you :) I would tell you to have a nice labor day but you are opposite-earth! but have a 'nice-rest-of-the-weekend'!! 0waldo 22:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Is petrol expensive there where you are? How much per liter? 0waldo 22:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't support your support of the idea: Wikipedia is a new and special on-line information store that cannot be defined in such simplistic terms as 'not a web directory'; who said it was a web-directory? Because there are five or so external links pertaining to the article it has become a 'web-directory' - I think not. It is being dynamically defined as it moves into the future - e.g. it is what it is becoming thru people giving of themselves freely (external links included).  Nothing in the world is wrong with external links and I support them 100% as long as they are not used for ‘advertising’ or the ‘selling of product’ and pertain to the article in question. Now, what we should do if you feel that strongly is to remove them entirely from Wikipedia - every page, every article – see that one fly like the Hindenburg! 0waldo 17:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: great idea; modify that with leave all useful links that don't advertise and/or sell product. 0waldo 17:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: JesseW, my friend! :)  How do I explain what? removing the links? Simple - they are advertising and SqueakBox removed them too because he recognized this fact.  Have a nice day! 0waldo 12:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Only external links '''About''' IP addresses, not services

message: Maybe you should have your site (ipaddresslocation.org) working before adding it;) heck I could understand a bug or two but is this not pushing it just a bit?
.......
Before you point fingers to someone maybe you could first start to explain what does not works to you because not any problems occour in IE, FireFox, Opera or Netscape. I could understand reasonable removing. But removing the site http://www.ipaddresslocation.org that have valuable and unique information about TCP/IP, ports, DNS, ip address is not reasonable at all...
See below for why it has been removed. And it is not just yours, it is all of them, SqueakBox 22:13, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
.......
Sept 6 2005
Someone removed external link to

this leads to extraordinary maps of IP addresses
not found anywhere else.
Gallery
If others would agree to add these links it would
help many understand the topic.
.......
I removed external links by reverting to last edit of SqueakBox.  Please submit further commercial links to major search engines.  0waldo 12:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New external links 

message: In my opinion ip2location.com/ must be deleted.It is commercial site and they earn money from selling their product and i'm gonna to remove it.
getmypc.info/ does not provide any new info.I'm gonna to delete it too.
Wikipedia should accept and give space for link to free, informative and not commercial site and not to company who sell their product and earn money.
: please quit editing external links - they are fine; the five there are there because of a consensus. If you continue to remove them I will forced to report you as a vandal. Thanks 0waldo 14:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't be offended; You just need to stop editing external links on this article. Thanks 0waldo 15:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Look, I'm with you - I don't think sites advertising products should be listed either unless it  is some special circumstance.  The best thing to do is to suggest your site (or the site in question) to this page and see if it gets a consensus. Don't be offended. 0waldo 15:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commercial site need to be removed 

message: Only a comment:
"Depending on one's Internet connection the IP address can be the same every time one connects (called a static IP address), or different every time one connects, (called a dynamic IP address)."
This is not exactly true: dynamics ips can be the same in two diferent connexions, in fact, in a lot of cases, they are always the same. The difference with static ips is that the ip is assigned in the moment that the new device is connected to the network, and the IP can be asigned to another device when the first one is disconnected from the network. In a LAN, is usual that the computers with a dinamic IP have assigned always the same IP by the DHCP server. A device with a dinamic IP can get the same IP the next time that connect to the network, but it have not guarantees.
Im not goint to correct the article myself because my english is bad.
Regards.
this is a bit tricky. and no, your english isn't bad ;)
logically wht you are saying should be true. but one thing is that when the router reccognises the device it gives  reserved ip address. the router will always look for free, and unreserved ip addresses.
correct me if i am wrong as i have no evidendence on my opinion User:Wykis
-------
A router is not in charge of giving ips..
I think that the sentence in the article is not correct. The DHCP server is free to assign every address that is in his range and is not reserved. So, if some device have a dinamic IP address it could have a different one every time it connects but it is not necesarily in this way. Is very common that the ip doesnt change in a lot of time. 
Another critic (constructive i hope) to the article. It says:
"An IP address (Internet Protocol address) is a unique number that devices use in order to identify and communicate with each other on a network utilizing the Internet Protocol standard"
But after that, the article continue speaking as if the only network that use this protocol is Internet when, actually, practically every modern network use the IP protocol.
Well.. maybe I am too much strict..  regards
: Yes, a DHCP server can assign the same IP multiple times.  In fact, you can simulate static IPs by binding specific IPs to specific MAC addresses so that a given NIC is *always* assigned the same IP.  This is a good way to assign static IPs to dumb terminals or a computer booting from read-only medium (CD).
: And, actually, if your DHCP lease doesn't run out then you will be assigned the same IP if you reboot or something. Cburnett 05:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  dynamic IP are not always diferent... 

message: I have the suggestion for wikipedia, to not make public IP addresses of non-member users. At least to the regular public, main moderators should the only ones to see them.
: This comment doesn't belong on this page. Cburnett 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: the link has been there forever; read this entire page and realize it has been on here forever by vote.  Someone deleted it awhile back and I just noticed it and added it back.  Don't give me crap about it does not add to article because I wrote a good bit of this article and most of it came from the link page that has no advertising bla, bla, bla.
0waldo 02:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, actually, what I see is a lot of edit warring about the link being added, insults flying back and forth (mostly trolling from your quarter), hints that you were using sockpuppets, and general consensus that the link doesn't belong. Can you please point out where this vote is? Hbackman 02:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, looking at your edit history, I fail to see evidence that you "wrote a good bit of this article." Could you point me to the edits to which you were referring? Just confused. Thanks. :) Hbackman 02:13, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  external link 

message: Considering recent discussions on seemyip.info (and others), I'm putting forth a vote here to see where things stand on external links to show you your IP.  The closest thing I find in WP:EL is this:
:Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference.
All the information I found on these sites (sans your specific IP, of course) is contained on WP.  Which means these sites should only be used as a reference; however there are much more authoritative sources on IP and IP addresses.
Additionally:
:Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
remains in question.  Complete and utter fervor for ensuring the link is on WP doesn't pass the smell test.
Finally, to the voting/voicing-of-opinions:  should sites whose primary purpose is to display your IP be included on this page's external links? Cburnett 03:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vote is to form a consensus, nothing more and nothing less.  0waldo is causing his own problems by being uncivil, wholly uncooperative, unwilling to explain his side, and breaking WP policies.  I don't care if you're his sister or not, nothing changes his actions. Cburnett 18:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ...and harassing users who warn him not to post the link. —    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What personal attack! 0waldo 01:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: total collateral/blatherskite actions...  junior punk editors... your virtual stupidity... your stupid bla-bla and ya-ya... you bone-headed editors... you all think you are so intelligent, sorry pals, you lack severely... your junior editorial cannons/crap... your accidents and stupidity... -- and that's just picking out the most obvious of them. Please show respect for other editors. Thanks. Hbackman 01:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you reading what he's saying or are you taking his word for it? He is being extremely rude and insulting to everyone he interacts with, not to mention harassing another editor over non-WP channels and deliberately evading a block (which is bad faith editing). He's acting like a spoiled child who isn't getting his way. All this started over a single little link, which actually might have ended up being reinstated without a fuss if he hadn't immediately began being rude about it and alienated probably every editor on this article. His actions are indefensible. Hbackman 04:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote for "show your IP" pages 

message: * Adds little information and smells of link spamming. Cburnett 03:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Should not link

message: You need to go through the history section of this article and realize that the link was inadvertently dropped back a month or so; the need to vote to keep or delete shows a lack of research on the parts of the editors that are shallow enough to think it even needs a vote to keep or delete.  If you properly read the discussions as well as look at the link, you would see that it augments the article.  I am Walter’s sister and would politely ask that you stop giving him grief. Thank you, Joan. Jmunchovie 17:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vote is to form a consensus, nothing more and nothing less.  0waldo is causing his own problems by being uncivil, wholly uncooperative, unwilling to explain his side, and breaking WP policies.  I don't care if you're his sister or not, nothing changes his actions. Cburnett 18:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: ...and harassing users who warn him not to post the link. —    nathanrdotcom (T • C • W) 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: What personal attack! 0waldo 01:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: total collateral/blatherskite actions...  junior punk editors... your virtual stupidity... your stupid bla-bla and ya-ya... you bone-headed editors... you all think you are so intelligent, sorry pals, you lack severely... your junior editorial cannons/crap... your accidents and stupidity... -- and that's just picking out the most obvious of them. Please show respect for other editors. Thanks. Hbackman 01:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you reading what he's saying or are you taking his word for it? He is being extremely rude and insulting to everyone he interacts with, not to mention harassing another editor over non-WP channels and deliberately evading a block (which is bad faith editing). He's acting like a spoiled child who isn't getting his way. All this started over a single little link, which actually might have ended up being reinstated without a fuss if he hadn't immediately began being rude about it and alienated probably every editor on this article. His actions are indefensible. Hbackman 04:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: I would like to remove the opening text, down to the index box and replace it with this text:
------------------------
In computer networking, an IP address (internet protocol address) is a unique number that devices use in order to identify and communicate with each other on a network utilizing the Internet Protocol standard (IP).   Any participating network device — including routers, computers, time-servers, printers, internet fax machines, and some telephones — must have its own unique address.
Just like a cell phone, every device or computer that is attached to a network utilizing the TCP/IP protocol has a unique number assigned to it. Because of the uniqueness of the IP address, it plays an integral part in the distinct data communications with other devices on a network. The internet for example, allows you to access data stored on remote servers via your IP address.
Since the IP address is unique, it is then possible in many cases to track the detailed usage of a computer by technically qualified personnel. For example, as you search for certain subjects on the internet, a recorded log file is remotely maintained which may include the date and time of the search, the subjects you are searching for as well as your IP address.
A network lookup service, the [[Domain Name System], provides the ability to map domain names (e.g. www.wikipedia.org) to a specific IP address (207.142.131.248) for readability.
------------------------
I would like to replace the text as I do believe it would help the accuracy and readability as such. I invite others to refine the proposed text above and welcome your positive input! 0waldo 15:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That third paragraph about tracking is not needed and distracts from the explaination. I'd change the second paragraph to refer to simply "telephone" instead of "cell phone" and remove its last sentence. A few tweaks and it'd be ok. Perhaps mention the structure of IP addresses (network/host parts) and being simple to route. Imroy 16:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed on tracking (that can really be an article to itself).  Classless Inter-Domain Routing has a lot of the addressing structure, FWIW. Cburnett 00:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  proposed change 

message: I just want to clarify something I said to 0waldo.  I asked you to take it to the talk page because you simply just deleted text.  By no means was I asking this article go under some kind of quorum/committee/consensus to make changes.  That said, I think the lead section discussion we're having should stay since there's some good discussion happening. :) Cburnett 13:50, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I have two separate networks (even when connected via routers and using IP or something) then I can use the same MAC address on both networks without a problem.  The only time there's a problem is when both are on the same network (read: same common bus).  So MACs are unique but they are not globally unique.  I cannot, however, use 1.2.3.4 twice on the internet and expect both to work.  When ethernet and IP are combined, their respective addresses are not as unique as each other.  Ethernet is a shared bus and that address survives only on that bus.  Any routing that happens from there will happen but the relayer will use its MAC address to send it. Cburnett 03:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposing changes not necessary 

message: A MAC address is in fact a unique identifier of a network adapter, being as unique as an IP address. The difference between a MAC address and an IP address is the different protocol layer they are used in and the their structural difference: The IP address space is hierarchical whereas the MAC address space is flat. Thus, a MAC address is not at all like a mere house number. I suggest to change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.144.218.146 (talk • contribs) 18:10 6 April 2006 (UTC)
:If I have two separate networks (even when connected via routers and using IP or something) then I can use the same MAC address on both networks without a problem.  The only time there's a problem is when both are on the same network (read: same common bus).  So MACs are unique but they are not globally unique.  I cannot, however, use 1.2.3.4 twice on the internet and expect both to work.  When ethernet and IP are combined, their respective addresses are not as unique as each other.  Ethernet is a shared bus and that address survives only on that bus.  Any routing that happens from there will happen but the relayer will use its MAC address to send it. Cburnett 03:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MAC address comparison