Template talk:Whois

message: I suggest that a prominent note be made that the application of the template does not mean that anyone with the IP address has committed vandalism and that the template, or one like it, should be added to all IP addresses that edit Wikipedia. -- Kjkolb 17:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hold on. Are you seriously saying that this template:whois or similar should be added to the talk page of every single IP address that edits Wikipedia? That sounds like a lot of work. What are the benefits? Do the benefits of doing this outweigh that cost? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Note

message: I would like to suggest adding a host parameter similar to what Template:SharedIPEDU has.  --Smiller933 04:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 18 months later... who should one contact to get host= added to this template? - Frankie1969 (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for host= Parameter 

message: I think this template needs a Documentation section.  I have created a copy of this template at User:Smiller933/sandbox and added a documentation section.  I modeled the documentation section after the one for Template:SharedIPEdu.  Any comments or suggestions?  If nobody objects in a couple days, I'll be bold and apply this change to this template.  :-)  --Smiller933 05:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've applied this change.  --Smiller933 (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding a Documentation section 

message: It is not appropriate to post this template along with an IP address on a public web page. You're offering an annoying weapon to vindictive people, and potentially causing real-life problems for people who may or may not be innocent. 90.211.193.153 (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure how the use of this template is substantially different from the presence of the footer link set that provides the same information, but a bit more difficult to unearth.  If I do a Google search for one of the so-labeled IP User pages, it does not appear, which suggests that User and User talk pages are, as a class, excluded from the pages that are indexed by Google and, likely, a majority of other search engines (though not necessarily all).  If the page appeared in search engine results, I would argue that such should be blocked and would say that such appearance would provide a bit too much exposure to the information. As it is ... could you be more specific about your concerns? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irresponsible 

message: I had not noticed this before, but this template is misdirecting some URLs associated with the text-link "WHOIS report".  For instance, looking at User talk:59.167.193.74, the "WHOIS report" links to http://ws.arin.net/whois/?queryinput=59.167.193.74; however, this IP address is in the APNIC sphere, so the correct link would be http://wq.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl?searchtext=59.167.193.74.  I personally do not want to tinker with the template code, considering how many pages it is used on.  Could someone with more moxie than me take a look and see if a fix can be made — if in fact a fix is needed, as this might be simply a case that violates a majority-valid parsing rule.  Regards and thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed the same thing - IPs outside of ARIN are unsurprisingly reported by ARIN as "allocated to APNIC", or "allocated to RIPE", or whatever. The ARIN server doesn't do indirection. Try the link on User talk:81.159.7.181 (as suggested with a different IP by Ceyockey) and you're told, basically, "go ask RIPE". RIPE (at http://www.db.ripe.net/whois?searchtext=81.159.7.181 in this instance) replies with the details. Could I suggest the template should use http://samspade.org/whois/ instead of the current link to arin.net as samspade does the necessary redirection? Tonywalton Talk 19:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not linking to the correct Whois database 

message: The link to the block log in the template is broken - in particular, it escapes the "?" and "=" characters in the URL preventing the link from working.  This isn't part of the template itself, it seems to be caused by something else.  It's doesn't seem browser specific, since Firefox and Chrome behave similarly.  --Sigma 7 (talk) 04:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bump.--M4gnum0n (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:   -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken block log link 

message: I think we should add a new parimeter defining where the "here" link points to. for example:
.
This would be a mailto: link, providing users with emails the ability to contact the abuse manager of the network. If no parimeter was defined, the "here" link would retain its link to "Abuse reports". astatine-210  discovered elements, what am I? 21:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New parimeter 

message: As part of the  total revamp of the old Abuse Report system we have moved and renamed the project to Wikipedia:Abuse response. As part of the last stage of the rename the main page was recently moved. While there is a redirect from the old Wikipedia:Abuse report main page we are trying to change all the links we can. Since this high visibility template links to the abuse response system we were wondering if you could make the following change:
Replace:  here   
With:  here 
If for some reason you are hesitant to do this edit please feel free to contact me or any of the other contacts listed on Wikipedia:Abuse response. Jamesofur (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 09:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for edit to fix AR link 

message: Does anyone seriously think that your average IP is going to be in the least bit concerned about so-called "vandalism" on Wikipedia, that they are going to investigate the matter; stroll on! The only time they may be interested is if the "vandalism" is maybe linked to criminal activity. This template is just an unenforceable threat; it should be removed. Mister Flash (talk) 11:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the point of this template? 

message: It appears that the word "If" is missing from the start of the final paragraph. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar 

message: The last paragraph of text in the actual template is missing the word "If" at the start of the first sentence.  It should read "If you are the owner of this address..."
Also, I think the wording would be stronger if the end of the sentence in the second paragraph were changed to read "...who was making contributions from this address at any given time" instead of "at a given time".
—Darkwind (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tra (Talk) 08:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 12 March 2012 

message: I modified the template to have some info for the IP, not just the monitoring users. The updated copy is in the template sandbox. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 18:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 27 September 2012 

message: Please replace this:
In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact  to report abuse, which can be done here.
with this:
In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact  to report abuse.
Abuse Response has been marked historical. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 11 November 2013 

message: I sync'd the sandbox from the main template and then modified the sandbox to call Robtex WHOIS instead of the now-defunct toolserver.org. I tested the sandbox at User:127.0.0.1 (previewed/didn't save) and it works as expected. Would someone copy the sandbox to the main template?
—[AlanM1(talk)]— 17:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 20 July 2014 

message: Please apply the changes in the sandbox to remove the deprecated/obsolete HTML code and use our own whois instead of someone else's.  Thanks.
—  (e • t • c) 11:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done —cyberpower ChatOnline 18:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it is much better to use "our" tools but, the message on the  says  which I hope doesn't become a problem. (Maybe the WHOIS we use at ACC can be used in the interim) Mlpearc (open channel) 18:34, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 21 July 2014 

message: Replace two instances of:
//tools.wmflabs.org/whois//lookup
with:
http://whois.domaintools.com/
This is because the current WHOIS tool is in its nascent stages and most of the data is not yet being processed from the registries. Until, whym (the maintainer) fixes it, I guess we should use a service that works.
QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 11:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, change  to , so as to unlink the image. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oops, the code:  to  --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 13:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. There was a consensus to use the local WMF hosted whois, if you want that changed, you'll need to establish a consensus before requesting an edit be made. —  (e • t • c) 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, :File:Crystal Clear app ktip.svg is licensed CC BY-SA so must be linked for attribution. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The current WMF WHOIS service is experimental. It doesn't support AfriNIC and doesn't pull most data from its queries. I don't think that it's suitable for WHOIS purposes. I recede my edit request for the image based on what RedRose64 pointed out. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 12:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. So is the WMF1.25 version of the MediaWiki software that Wikipedia uses, that doesn't change the fact that you need to establish a consensus for this change before requesting the change be made. —  (e • t • c) 14:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why should I need consensus for something this obvious? It simply doesn't work. What I'm doing isn't controversial, it's fixing. For evidence, try 197.159.165.220. --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyway, thread opened at Village pump (technical). --QEDK ♠ T ♥ C 16:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 16 February 2015 

message: Please change "the owner of the IP" to "the owner of the IP address" for better consistency and correctness. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: "IP" and "address" are used together and separately throughout the text. Therefore, making this change would warrant changing all standalone "IP" and "address" text to "IP address", which I don't think is desired.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  If I'm not mistaken, both "IP address" and just "address" are used multiple times, but just "IP" is only used in this one instance. I have no objection to changing it to "address" if you prefer. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't prefer it, and no one else has for 12 years.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Interesting...  But I don't get how that takes away from my original reasoning. Changing this instance of "IP" to "IP address" or even just "address" makes the text more consistent. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 23:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's your original reasoning, that everything that's used once never be used? Regardless, it sounds better than saying "address" multiple times per sentence.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 25 January 2018 

message: Please replace creating an account! with creating an account!, so that "creating an account" links to the page to create an account.
Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Cabayi (talk) 07:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template-protected edit request on 12 April 2019 

message: I'm a little concerned about the wording of this template. For transparency, I was notified privately by an individual who had this placed on their IP's talk page and was upset about the "threat" implied by the "we'll contact your ISP if you keep going" tone of this template. Is that something we even can do, let alone actually do it? I guess the wording just seems excessive. Primefac (talk) 22:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording of the template 

message: Hello. We have the first if statement which determines whether it's a host or an IP address. It's fine. but the next if statement enclosed in includeonly tags to show "is registered to..." is suspicious. when the template is substituted in a page with an empty first parameter, there will be a semi-finished sentence stating "You IP address, IP address, ."
I think there should be something in that if statement to be shown between , and . when the first positional parameter is empty. No idea what can we put there. Jeeputer Talk 10:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This template should not be subst, so everything after  in your statement is somewhat moot. That being said, it seems like  is meant to be mandatory, so I could potentially see removing the #if requirement and forcing it to be such. I'd first prefer to see how many uses don't use it, though. Primefac (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: @Primefac: You are right, that was my mistake. I meant "transcluded" by that. However, there's no difference if it's being substituted or transcluded; we will have that incomplete wording if the first positional parameter is empty. I see in above section that @PerpetuityGrat mentioned the issue before. Jeeputer Talk 14:33, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Tracking category created. Primefac (talk) 14:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-finished first sentence 

message: The usage says:
but, for me at least, "institution" implies a school or a hospital or something along those lines. Would corporation be more applicable? Or maybe organization, though to me that implies the user is an employee.
Or how about owner, with a note to explain that the owner is often a corporation, but may be some other organization. IDK, this is my first time using this template so I don't know how it's normally used.
— W.andrea (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "institution" the right word?