Wikipedia talk:Autoblock

message: I was effected by collateral damage caused by an autoblock incident today, which led me to make two disturbing discoveries.
#Autoblock incorrectly blocks the IPs of proxy servers instead of user IPs
#The time out of 24 hours doesn't work, the IP of my proxy server remained blocked for more than 24 hours
These are very serious issues for wikipedia, the incorrect blocking of the proxy servers would likely prevented tens of thousands (or more) of Sydney wikipedians from making any edits.
What is the state of the code for the detection of user IP addresses? Aside from incorrectly interpreting proxy IPs as user IPs?
I have avoided putting this on the main page for WP:Autoblock as it is kinda embarassing. We need to sort this out ASAP. 
By comparison the time out of the autoblock seems minor.
Please advise me of what may be done.
BTW all users of the ISP tgp.com.au have no choice but to deal with the ISP's transparent proxy system, which works fine apart from when websites incorrectly detect the proxy IP as the user's public IP. This is a website's issue. Other websites have it correct http://whatismyipaddress.com/ for instance does a fine job detailing both the public IP and the proxy IP and the reverse DNS-lookup of the proxy server.
(I am writting this from a different Internet connection).
Dananimal 08:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Autoblock detects proxy server IPs rather than actual user public IPs

message: I was one of the lucky few to be invited to the beta of Google Web Accelerator during its launch. I've had no problems for almost a month... but, today, while trying to edit a page, I got a WikiMedia warning notice that my IP address was blocked from editing!
...except it's not my IP that was shown. The blocked IP was 72.14.194.19 ... I pay my ISP for a high-bandwidth high-availability DSL line with a static IP, and that certainly wasn't it. It, in fact, is one of the many IP addresses for the Google Web Accelerator cache proxies.
When you use GWA, the program "cheats" by keeping a web connection open the entire session instead of opening and closing per file like regular web accesses go. Typically, the first time you connect to a remote machine, it registers your ISP-assigned IP address as its incoming connection, but subsequent connections are provided through Google's proxy. Since your internet "pipe" is being used full time instead of constantly making and breaking connections, this speeds up many websites with little problem.
Of course, when someone else before you has vandalized a page and you happen to land on the same proxy as they just used for that session, you find yourself blocked as well.
There is a solution, however. Simply go to your Google Web Accelerator toolbar, click the "Accelerator" button, which brings up the GWA menu, and select "Don't accelerate this website." The latest versions of the software include this as a dialog box on the preferences page.  Add en.wikipedia.org to the box marked for "Sites that you do not want to use Google Web Accelerator".  You may want to do this for other sites that let you edit content and administer your account (such as DeviantART and MySpace).
See also:
:Google puts the brake on Web Accelerator (TheRegister.co.uk)
:The Google Web Accelerator: Problems And Issues
~Kylu (u|t)  03:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this info, Kylu.  Should any of this information be on the "IP Blocked" page template, since GWA seems to be picking up in popularity and there's nothing currently that helps to explain the problem?  The only reason I was able to navigate to get this info and learn that it was GWA that was giving me the odd IP (and subsequent IP block warnings/messages) was because someone else had put it on the user page of the person who handed out an IP block to a GWA proxy IP. ju66l3r 03:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Might be a good idea. I think I'd like to think about the best way to give helpful information to autoblocked users without helping out obvious vandals for a while. If nothing else, we could mention it to WP:Village Pump perhaps. Anyway! I'm glad to know at least one other person found this information useful! Made it worth my while to do it all. :D ~Kylu (u|t)  23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Web Accelerator 

message: Why do autoblocks look like this?:
"Admin" blocked #[number] (expires [time])(Autoblocked because your IP...)
What is the number for? It seems random, jumping (for example) from #147619 to the next autoblock #147624. Why?
--68.124.137.51 03:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a mask, to keep the IP addresses used by logged-in contributors private. If the message said "12.34.56.78 (Autoblocked...used by User:Foo" then it would be obvious what IP User:Foo was using; instead, it gives a mask #12345 that has no obvious connection to the IP address, but if unblocked, will be used by the software to unblock the correct address. It's a matter of privacy for contributors. Essjay Talk • Contact 05:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the numbers for? 

message: I want to check which autoblocks have been generated on the basis of blocks I have made, but can't find a way to filter the list (search filters on the blocked user not the blocking admin). Can anybody help? Cheers TigerShark 19:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interiot pointed in the direction of this tool, which was written by Pgk and does most of what I wanted. Thanks Interiot! Cheers TigerShark 00:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is there a way to filter Autoblocks by the blocking user?

message: Will you get frozen if a vandal with the same IP address gets frozen? ("frozen" means blocked in(de)finitely)
Frosty 20:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a rule, IPs don't get blocked indefinitely, only for 24 hours by autoblock. See the blocking policy for specifics. ~Kylu (u|t)  22:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: I have been autoblocked a number of times, and each time it was because the autoblock was intended for someone else. Your program is deeply flawed. I neither live in China nor do I use AOL, so the suggestions on how to deal with this annoyance are not applicable here. Clearly, your program is hindering the ability of editors who are not AOL users or living in China. Since your program affects so many different users in an adverse way, it is not unreasonable to suggest that it be scrapped or re-coded to remove this flaw. I appreciate the intent of the software, but the manner in which it executes it's task is unacceptable. Wandering Star 14:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seriously Annoying

message: Why when I try to edit different pages do I get different reasons and users who have been blocked, specfic to that page. Also is this new thing? I distinctly remember being assured I wouldn't be constantly blocked for being an AOL user after I created an account. It's a fairly pointless idea as anyone really that determined to vandalise wikipedia would find a way-if they are AOL users, open internet explorer and there ban is lifted for some other poor person to inherit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Clomb (talk • contribs) 
:I might actually suggest that in the majority of cases, the best solution is to create a user account and simply continue to edit. If, as in your case, you've created a user account and still find yourself hit with blocks, please contact any admin (I'm around often, for instance) and provide us with the block number (it may refer to block #16436 or similar) that's affecting you. In most cases, the autoblock can be removed and you can continue with your editing. AOL users hit with an autoblock may also wish to simply wait a minute and refresh the page: Chances are the problem that caused the block is gone and you'll be able to edit again. Lastly, if you visit your talkpage ("my talk" at the top of the page) and put  on that page, an attentive admin may remove a block also. Please note that not all of these suggestions will work in all situations, also you may wish to click on the "unblock" in curly-brackets (called an "unblock template) to see more details on how it works. :) ~Kylu (u|t)  04:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Queston about autoblock

message: One way to reduce the collateral damage of autoblocks might be to allow users who have registered an email address to bypass autoblocks, so long as the email address doesn't match the email address of the blocked user (or perhaps, of any blocked user).  It would be up to the blocking admin if a hard autoblock is used (the current behaviour), or a soft autoblock (the default, under this proposal), or no autoblock at all, as per the recently implemented option.  Regards, Ben Aveling, thinking out loud.  02:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point.  We would have to discount Mailinator addresses.  In fact, we would have to have a list of sites whose email addresses don't allow a user to pass a soft-block.  Ben Aveling 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry but I also don't see how this is useful. --WikiSlasher 07:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are times when a hard autoblock impacts too many other users, but not autoblocking allows a vandal to pick another username and keep going.  A soft autoblock would be less effective than a hard autoblock, but better than no autoblock, and it would impact less users than a hard autoblock would.  Regards, Ben Aveling 20:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Looking again, I'm not sure I've addressed your comment.  Do you mean not useful because you don't think people would use soft blocks, or because you don't think that soft blocks would stop any vandalism?  Regards, Ben Aveling 06:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean probably not useful because a) the majority of contributors probably don't have an email address supplied and b) Vandals would just add an email address while they were signing up to avoid autoblocks. (And I like my idea better :D) --WikiSlasher 08:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems unworkable because of the ease of availability of free email addresses. Sure we could spend our time gathering lists of those to exclude but I doubt it's very practical. Persoanally I have a fair number of gmail invites, I can create a dummy account elsewhere, send a gmail invite and create a new gmail account for myself. Are we going to exclude gmail from this scheme? --pgk 22:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems reasonable, but I don't think the request page is needed. If a user is caught by an autoblock and uses the unblock template it should just be a matter of course for the admin to "tick the box". --pgk 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I liked the non-vandal list idea, until I read Netsnipe's comment. I want all those puppeteers caught. Couldn't puppeteers lie and say they have an AOL account so no one would get suspicious of their repeated requests for unblocking? Jecowa 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checkuser could determine they were not using AOL. --WikiSlasher 23:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. This checkuser sounds great. I think the checkuser should be made into a bot that constantly checks people for sockpuppetting. Jecowa 23:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't be too helpful for checking shared/dynamic IP addresses though --WikiSlasher 00:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autoblock bypass proposal 

message: I think it would be nice to have a status (that any admin can edit) of not being affected by autoblocks. Let's face it if a user makes 500+ non-vandalism edits it is not likely for them to vandalise. Autoblocks are used to get rid of troublesome vandals and there's no point autoblocking a username that existed a few months before the vandalism ever took place. Sorry if this has been asked before but if it has that just means I have even more support. We could have a page like Wikipedia:Requests for autoblock immunity for editors to be quickly reviewed and then approved for autoblock immunity. --WikiSlasher 06:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable, but I don't think the request page is needed. If a user is caught by an autoblock and uses the unblock template it should just be a matter of course for the admin to "tick the box". --pgk 22:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I liked the non-vandal list idea, until I read Netsnipe's comment. I want all those puppeteers caught. Couldn't puppeteers lie and say they have an AOL account so no one would get suspicious of their repeated requests for unblocking? Jecowa 22:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checkuser could determine they were not using AOL. --WikiSlasher 23:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome. This checkuser sounds great. I think the checkuser should be made into a bot that constantly checks people for sockpuppetting. Jecowa 23:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wouldn't be too helpful for checking shared/dynamic IP addresses though --WikiSlasher 00:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Autoblock bypass policy proposal #2 (a feature request)

message: Why is it that when someone logs in from an autoblocked IP they can't edit or make a new account?  I remember autoblocks weren't as restrictive.  Wiki is Freaakky. 05:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Say for example someone makes an account to post abusive comments on someone's user page and is warned a couple of times and then blocked. Without autoblocking as soon as they were blocked they could do it again and again and again. It would also help defend from vandalbots (automated programs that vandalise). So basically it's to stop people vandalising thousands of times with tons of accounts. --WikiSlasher 14:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problem

message: There's someone who's added infinite crap to the articles, like fake pokemon evolutions and general vandalism, and I'd like them blocked. How do I request it? The person's address is 24.36.19.248. Crowstar 16:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: unfortunately, you can't block an IP forever since IPs have a tendency to change.  Also the information he put about pokemon were  good faith edits.--Antonio Lopez  (talk)  21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No idea how to block people 

message: What does this usually mean? When we don't autoblock IP when a user is block? I thouhgt we usually block IP when a user is block. When we encounter time when we won't block IP? --Freeway19 02:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That means the IP you were editing from didn't get automatically blocked when you yourself got blocked and if you tried to edit from anyother IP it wouldn't get blocked either. Most of the times this is not used and its probably because your an established user and it was a minor offence. 220.239.56.131 (talk) 11:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autoblock disable 

message: * The part at the bottom "...autoblocked user is often able to edit Talk:Foo" at the bottom is simply wrong.
* No information whether Wikipedia:IP block exemption helps against autoblocks (which seems to be the case, as I was told on IRC #mediawiki).
—AlexSm 18:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very outdated 

message: How often does an IP address get autoblocked? For example, User:A gets blocked with autoblock enabled, its IP is blocked for 1 day as usual. If that IP tries to edit after that 1 day is over, does it get autoblocked again for another 1 day? --90.196.43.118 (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If only one user is blocked registered to that IP with autoblock enabled, it is only for 1 day, but if 2 or more users registered to the same IP get blocked with it enabled, then it is for a little bit over a day, but that time varies for multiple accounts being blocked. If they try to edit after the autoblock has expired, then the IP address is allowed to edit. 71.94.158.203 (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duration/number of blocks 

message: Most mobile internet providers (cellphone operators which provides internet access to phone or to computer by tethering or dedicated modem) (actually every one of them, which i have encountered or heard about) uses CGN, which means, users gets dynamic natted addresses, which maps out to few external addresses. It looks like negative effects of autoblock will be even worse than in case of non-natted dynamic addresses. What to do if user have been autoblocked in this situation? -Yyy (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Carrier Grade NAT]]

message: Came up in a conversation with an autoblocked user today. Its not necessary to post the underlying IP but some users don't realise this, so I've added a note to be aware that it may be appropriate to Rev Del the information for privacy/security.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where user has posted IP address 

message: Could somebody tell me why unblocking a user does not (always? ever?) remove the autoblock on that user's IP? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unblocked users remaining autoblocked 

message: Autoblock totally sucks. I have just been caught by this monstrosity. If I was a newbie then I would be gone for good. Rethink this. HairyWombat 17:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to get rid of newbies 

message: most computers on a home network share the ip address of the router or modem. so the problem is that if one person in a house
is auto-blocked, then all others will be also. this gos for all sites with ip blocking --Jonstoner1993 (talk) 05:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  home networks 

message: Hi, have been recently IP-autoblocked for the 2nd time (details http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richiez#unblock.2C_shared_IP_behind_NAT) and could not find a better place to ask. Richiez (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where to request additions to MediaWiki:Autoblock whitelist ? 

message: Previous discussion above
ANI discussion
Based on the ANI discussion, Favonian autoblocked User:201.43.37.169. However, the entry in the autoblock list says Autoblock #3875649, not the IP's address. That means apparently a non-admin cannot tell that the IP is autoblocked, either by looking at the autoblock list or by looking at the IP's contribution list. Based on what Favonian says, it looks like an admin sees something a little different on the contribution list so they can tell. I'm having trouble understanding (1) in what circumstances an admin would use this "mask" (based on the earlier discussion on this talk page) rather than the IP's address; and (2) why the autoblock status is "hidden" from non-admins. What User:Essjay (now retired) says in the earlier discussion on this Talk page ("It's a matter of privacy for contributors.") doesn't make sense to me. Can someone illuminate any of this? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checking for autoblocks 

message: In May 2012 the bug 5445 "Remove autoblocks when a user is unblocked" was finally fixed. Looks like this page and MediaWiki:Unblocked need to be updated. — AlexSm 19:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autoblock is now removed when unblocking 

message: Hi. Could somebody please clarify an issue regarding Autoblock expiry after 24 hours, as WP:ABK is not clear on the issue. It states that:
 "There is an internal autoblock expiry time variable, which is set to 24 hours, meaning that autoblocks only last for 24 hours."
Does that mean that the autoblocking function will only be active for the original underlying IP for 24 hours, or does it mean that users who become autoblocked will only be blocked for 24 hours, or both?
In the following situation:
* Oct 1st - User:Bob is blocked indefinitely, with autoblock enabled
* Oct 8th - Bob creates a sockpuppet (User:Jane) using the same IP as he used on the 1st
Given that there was no activity from the IP address for a week, will User:Jane be autoblocked?
Any input would be appreciated. TigerShark (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autoblock automatic reset 

message: I was wondering if there is anything that can be done about IPs who "hop" from address to address, making it appear that they are editing from different parts of the globe. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 21:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There is now! Sam Walton (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of which, we should update this page to make mention of cookie blocks, updating the block message as necessary. Sam Walton (talk) 07:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there anything that can be done re: IP hopper vandals? 

message: If the user gets blocked and autoblocked, they can not edit. I noticed here that I may been doing something that the users can see. Well yes you can. If account creation is disabled, then it is part of the auto block. When they try to edit, then they see a message. I may not check that why there are lot of blocked users. Though it can seem to be a good idea for it and I haven't see admins unblocking users at all. --2601:205:C100:424D:650A:B59C:9FF0:CA5F (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autoblock 

message: Early history
M.V. LomonosovOne of the oldest Russian institutions of higher education, Moscow University was established in 1755. In 1940 it was named after Academician Mikhail Lomonosov (1711 - 1765), an outstanding Russian scientist, who greatly contributed to the establishment of the university in Moscow.
Mikhail Lomonosov was one of the intellectual titans of XVIII century. The great Russian poet Alexander Pushkin described him as a person of formidable willpower and keen scientific mind, whose lifelong passion was learning. Lomonosov's interests ranged from history, rhetoric, art and poetry to mechanics, chemistry, mineralogy. His activity is a manifestation of the enormous potential of the Russian scientific community whose representatives occupied the leading positions in the world at the time. Peter I reformed Russia, which allowed the country reach the standards of the contemporary European powers in many spheres. Great importance was placed on education. In 1724 the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, founded by Peter I, established a university and a grammar school to educate intellectuals and researchers the country needed; however, these educational establishments did not fulfill the task they took on. It was Michail Lomonosov who suggested, in his letter to Count Shuvalov, the idea of establishing a university in Moscow. An influential courtier and the favorite of Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, Count Shuvalov was a patron of the arts and science; he supported Lomonosov's plans for a new university and presented them to the Empress.
Elizaveta Petrovna signed the decree that a university should be founded in Moscow. The opening ceremony took place on 26 April, when Elizaveta Petrovna's coronation day was celebrated. Since 1755 25 January and 26 April are marked by special events and festivities at Moscow University; the annual conference where students present results of their research work is traditionally held in April.
According to Lomonosov's plan, there were originally three faculties. First all the students acquired a comprehensive knowledge in the field of science and humanities at the Faculty of Philosophy; then they could specialize and continue at the Faculty of Philosophy or join either the Law Faculty or The Faculty of Medicine. Lectures were delivered either in Latin, the language of educated people at the time, or in Russian. Unlike European Universities, Moscow University did not have the Faculty of Theology, since Russia had special theological education establishments.
Moscow university first buildingFrom the very beginning elitism was alien to the very spirit of the University community, which determined Moscow University's long-standing democratic tradition. The Decree Elizaveta Petrovna signed stated in its preamble that the university was to educate commoners; only serfs were not admitted. Lomonosov himself pointed out that in European universities it was the academic achievements of a student that mattered, not his social position or family background. In the late XVIII century there were only three noblemen among the 26 professors of Moscow University, most of the students were commoners too. The best students were sent to continue their education abroad, establishing the contacts with the international scientific community.
Originally tuition at Moscow University was free for all, later only poor students were exempt from tuition fees. The state funding did not cover all the University expenses; thus the administration had to find ways to raise additional funds. The University was partly funded by its patrons, such as the rich merchants of the Demidov and Stroganov families and some others, who donated laboratory equipment, books, various collections and established scholarships for University students. Many times University alumni supported their alma mater through hard times raising money by public subscriptions. To the University library professors traditionally bequeathed their private book collections, the largest among them were those collected by I.M.Snegirev, P.Ya.Petrov, T.N.Granovsky, S.M.Soloviev, F.I.Buslaev, N.K.Gudzy, I.G.Petrovsky and some others.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.210.206.33 (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The decree about Moscow universityIn 1755, on 25 January, St. Tatiana's Day according to the Russian Orthodox Church calendar, Empress AS Evalar Fortyu Latty 

message: Page contains numerous levels of arse-covering tripe. Someone who's the victim of a mistaken autoblock has every reason to be annoyed at both the policymakers/software writers responsible for autoblocking and the admin who left the box ticked. Blaming it on the software is a vile excuse; software is written by people, employed by people and used by people, and this isn't a bug but an intended feature. It'd be more honest to tell people their block is considered acceptable collateral damage (the fundamental rationale the page dances around admitting) than to play this kind of stupid PR game.
(In case someone thinks I have a personal stake in this: I've never been autoblocked, or blocked at all, to my knowledge.) Magic9mushroom (talk) 08:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page's tone is objectionable 

message: I was just suddenly blocked by Wikipedia for my IP address. My IP address is 59.153.238.59. Thanks. 222.109.223.177 (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not blocked, see Special:Contributions/59.153.238.59. Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:44, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help 

message: Why autoblocking IPv6 addresses subverts readily over a few hours? 2405:9800:BA31:F6:811F:BFCD:7B8D:8F4E (talk) 02:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autoblock to IPv6 address 

message: Not sure if this is appropriate but, hello, I'm desperately trying to get some help with getting back to editing but my account ids blocked I've email millions of people millions of times just to be ignored or dismissed. I've tried the UTRS system thing which seems to make no difference for reasons I don't know. Please bare in mind I'm another human being, all I'm asking for is your/someone's help not anyone's bank details. Please help me =[ 31.125.215.135 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: For anyone who comes across this. This is User:LouisPhilippeCharles. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet, still a human being, with those things called feelings. I highly doubt any of you would treat me with this level of disdain and disgust if we were face to face. I'm asking for help, not anyone's bank details. Please be decent, civilised humans. 31.125.215.135 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  In desperate need of someone's help 

message: I don't think the instructions for how an admin would remove an autoblock work anymore—as far as I can tell, searching for a username on Special:BlockList does not return the autoblock associated with the account block.
The interface has probably changed since that section was added 14 years ago.  Based on the screenshot that's used, I suspect the search on the old Special:BlockList/Special:IPBLockList just took you to that place in the list, rather than actually filtering the results the way it does now, so the autoblocks appeared right under the primary block.
Anyway, this page should probably say something about using Special:AutoblockList now, since I assume that's what people actually do. :-) —Emufarmers(T/C) 19:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation needs to be updated 

message: missed two instances while turning "Bort" into "Bob". Please rectify. 86.9.180.72 (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob and Bort 

message: {{subst:trim|1=
Welcome to WikLith. Today, above, we have some learning session for you. This is an request link.
: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 14:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023 

message: Despite this page having enough headings, there is no table of contents. It looks like this is caused by the use of , which itself contains headings. __FORCETOC__ kind of works, but causes those headings to show up in the TOC as well. Is there a way to fix this? Rummskartoffel 14:10, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of contents