Talk:IP address/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Trailing "/" in URLs?

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)

IP Address for detecting sock puppets

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)

External links

Why all those external links showing exactly the same trick? And why no link to a user friendly list or searchable catalog of IPs?

I've just been down several of the edternal links at the end of the article and they all give different addresses. The first 3 blocks are the same, but the last block has been .8 .013 .5 .16 .9 - can anyone explain what is happening (Access thru virgin.net broadband) -- SGBailey 23:01, 2005 Feb 8 (UTC)

You may be connected through a rotating proxy, as per AOL. Rich Farmbrough 13:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Why remove the external links? I have replaced them. Please leave and comment on why you want rid of them here, SqueakBox 14:46, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Please read Wikipedia:External links. --W(t) 16:58, 2005 Jun 8 (UTC)

Weyes, please don't remove the external links again. If it gets to the stage where we have dozens, then we'll need to start deleting, but at the moment, it's a manageable number. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:54, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand.I've posted free site (not commercial) with detailed IP info, IP range by Country, theory about IP Spoofing and discussion about IP Adress and guy from CHEZH REPUBLIC found that it does not fall into IP adress category.

What is wrong with you? You leave simple site that use simple coding variables (furthermore commercial!!!) to be listed without any theory behind it and free site that contribute more on this theme remove!?!?!I hope that you can explain me why you leave commercial site that show only IP Adress here and other FREE that show even more remove??? User:82.75.46.XXX

Why are you so attached to your particular site. The difference between free and not free is fuzzy on the net, and your link seemed to be trying to sell proxy IP's, SqueakBox 17:49, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Where did you see that site try to sell proxy IP or try to sell anything???The site list only free open proxy IP and give addition info's about IP address (IP range by Country, IP Spoofing and diverse IP test).Sorry but I still do not see any logic in your decision to remove site that was listed for about 2 months on topic IP Adress? User:82.75.46.XXX

It's not me trying to remove the link. But as I said, sites can make money indirectly, and you have certainly yet failed to convince that this is not a commercial site. Plenty of sites make money without charging, from Google downwards. Please can you say why it is this link is so important to you? as your motivation for putting it in the article is important, SqueakBox 18:09, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Probably you can explain me why is for example http://www.ip2location.com/ leaved that make money DIRECTLY (fully commercial site) and other sites too.All of them make money indiretly via advertenties (Google or other advertenties)?? Where is your logic in such a decision? If you remove one with decision behind about making money via advertenties then apply same decision to all other listed site.And 85% of them charge money directly or indirectly via advertenties. I'm member of site and found it very useful.It make me fiercely as neutral visitor that you does not apply same logic to all other links!? Furthermore as i said on site are excellent IP adress test, detailed list of ip range by country, theory about IP spoofing. (Please do not list my complete IP Adress by User:82.75.46.XXX)

Why don't you make an account if you don't want your IP address made public? I sent you the welcome with that in mind. I agree that all yourr edits to wikipedia have been putting this one link into various articles, in itself very suspicious of a purely commercially driven motivation. Complaining loudly is like to hinder your case not help it. I don't believe this link is appropriate for this article, SqueakBox 18:37, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I've account :) If free link that show ip address, ip range, explained ip spoofing is not appropriate for this article then is it ok.Your decision. I do not understand only why links that make money directly are leaved on this topic (wikipedia). If sites sell product (make money directly as site ip2location ) then wikipedia serve as free advertention place for commercial site. Furthermore commercial sites does not provide any definitoin, theory or additional informations about article but simple - charging money for product that they sell with very few words. Still do not understand it.

ip2location

I'm removing the ip2location link. A box with the text "Please wait...Running IP2Location" blocks all the useful content unless Javascript is enabled, leaving only advertising. It's also inaccurate, listing my IP address as Toronto even though a whois correctly shows "City: Ottawa". --Synchrite 20:15, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

This is an excellent IP locator that I regularly use in my work here, and which I found through this site, SqueakBox 21:49, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This is one of the few that gets my location correct. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:25, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Since we're all chiming in again, I agree that it should be removed, though not just because of the terrible interface but also because Wikipedia is not a web directory and Wikipedia:External links. --W(t) 23:10, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Weyes, can you please tell me where in Wikipedia:External links exactly it says this, as I am not sure exactly to what you are referring, SqueakBox 23:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

And why do you object to this particular link? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:36, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, the where does WP:EL say it shouldn't be linked is simple: It isn't in any of the Do link or Maybe link categories, but the underlying thought is from wikipedia is not a web directory: Wikipedia is supposed to an encylopædia, and external links are an extension of see also's: They are for further information on a matter, not for a directory of services related to the topic. --W(t) 00:02, 2005 Jun 25 (UTC)

So it's not that a wikipedia guideline says don't, it's just that it doesn't say do. This information is of value to the reader, and is very appropriate as see also. Once you give one IP locator you have to give several to remain neutral, otherwise it could be seen as spam for one company. I am not sure your logic justifies removing the BitTorrent search engines either, SqueakBox 01:11, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hidden texts comments

Please will people stop engaging in arguments by placing hidden text in the article. This is thje place for open discussion, and I will remove all hidden text arguments regardless of content, SqueakBox 18:05, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

External links again

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)

0waldo: I tried to put an external link to my site and for some reason I have been targeted as a "vandal" and "spammer" by some guy named SqueakBox. The link that I was placing in the article allows a user to see his WAN and/or LAN ip address and other very useful items concerning his computer. The site is 100% free as well as no advertising, directly relates to the article so what is the issue here? Nothing! Come on here: I'm advertising? Advertising what? I'm DONATING my server space and T1 pipe so people can see their IP address as well as other hidden things on their computer. I'm not making anything other than happiness by giving away something useful and I'm spamming because I want to put a link to a free, useful, applicable site? Get real!

• [http://getmypc.info/ GetMyPC.info] Shows WAN/LAN IP Address, ISP and other hidden info on your computer

Well I only sugested it was vandalism when you wouldn't stop in spite of having been reverted by 2 other users. I tried it. It gave me my IP but failed to identify my location, my and my webbrowser. What does it offer that other links don't. The fact that it is a non commercial website makes no difference as it is your website. You need to thoroughly study wikipedia rules instead. He has just sent me th8is email:

I fully intend to contact the contributions department Monday morning. I don't appreciate people like you throwing your weight around, acting arrogant and deleting useful content; you are not appointed to be a judge and I don't appreciate you calling me a vandal. Frankly, I’m not quite sure what your agenda or purpose in life is but I hope your compass zeroes in on some happiness my friend.

which merely confirms that he is a spammer and rude. His incivility is also clear forom his edit summaries so I oppose his link being added. SqueakBox 19:56, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

0waldo SqueakBox: You win: I'm giving up on your sick agenda - forget the link and please forget that I ever tried to add it! I promise that I am going to try and forget. Forgive me for being (according to your accusations) such a vandalizing, free-advertising, rude, spamming individual. I reiterate what I said to you earlier: "I’m not quite sure what your agenda or purpose in life is but I hope your compass zeroes in on some happiness my friend.". Waldo. P.S. Please take a course in typing and/or spelling as appropriate.

Typing course???? You are full of insults today. Perhaps you don't rate that high in the happinness stakes yourself? My purpose in life is none of your business. You should have brought the issue to the talk page when you wetre first reverted by Jesse, instead of which you insulted me on various occasions see here and threatened to contact the fundraising people to demand the reinsertion of your link as if wikipedia were an organisation accepting advertising. Charming, SqueakBox 21:42, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox: Yes, typing course: you should be more careful about your personal habits - you insist on 'perfection' on such trivia as a link on a page while constantly misspelling words, over and over. Yes, I am going to contact the fundraising people at Wiki and speak to them about you - it's my promise to you that I am going to do that. You call yourself a "deletionist" in your profile - I could not agree with you more! You delete this and you delete that, here and there, removing useful information on this site which was designed, with people in mind, to participate. When those people do participate, you simply turn 'deletionist' and wack their ideas and/or contributions, summarily and at your sole will! You keep telling me that various things are not my "business". I don't care about your "business": what I do care about are your "deletionist" actions that borderline “dictator”. I will, out of courtesy, to others that may read this in the future, close now and say to you (again): "I’m not quite sure what your agenda or purpose in life is but I hope your compass zeroes in on some happiness my friend.". 0waldo.

Sigh. People have so much trouble with how Wikipedia works. Everyone is an editor; the basic rule is that if there is disagreement, take it to the talk page. This is better, slightly, that fighting over the actual page. As far as I can see, 0waldo seems good intentioned - but seems to be misunderstanding a lot of how Wikipedia works. If you have not read Wikipedia:Spam yet, it will (hopefully) explain a lot of the basis for this misunderstanding(which I continue to believe is what is going on here.) JesseW 20:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

0waldo: Jesse, I would just like to say that this place (and the world) needs more people, just like you, that have an even-keel and a level-head. Yes, I am guilty about not knowing more about posting here - 100% accurate. I was just trying to add what I felt to be a useful link. I'm out of here. Waldo from Pedro - you know where that is ;)

I take it all back: I'm adding the useful link back. 0waldo 00:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

In spite of being told about 3RR. In spite of warnings about being blocked if you do. You'll end up being blacklisted, and this link will never remain on this page, SqueakBox 00:36, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Pot calling the kettle black here? Me 3R's? What about you Mr. Chainsaw? Get a life!0waldo 00:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism doesn't come under the 3RR rule. Stop insulting me, SqueakBox 00:40, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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)

So that 3 people who all oppose you are all thick are we. I know wikipedia will support me on this one, and your site will probably be blacklisted as aspam site. You have been warned here. Why not take the hint, SqueakBox 00:50, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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)

Well if it isn't vandalism perhaps tghe page needs removing from Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages#Frequent vandalism from many people where it was specifically put to counter spamming vandals. Given that this is 0waldo's site, and that he may be building it up in order to make it commercial, it seems to me to clearly fall under that category, SqueakBox 01:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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)

I went over to owaldo site - it looks totally fine and what is the big deal about not including it? After reading this page it seems like SqueakBox does not like owaldo for some reason. I say include the site at a link because it is a good link!

the User 0waldo should be able to pu the link in! I think that the link for getmypc.info should be included on this page. I like the site and it applies to the subjact matter. What is the deal with Squeakbox anyhow? AtomSmazher 02:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Attention SqueakBox: please get over your whatever for the owaldo guy. the link should be added to the page. Give me one valid reason it should not be added! Add the link to the page already and quit pulling it off! Add it getmypc.info. GinaMomma 02:49, 28 August 2005 (UTC) Write me if you have issues ok? I want to hear them!

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)

Oh yea! oWaldo is REALLY a spammer here. Mr. SqueakBox: I agree with waldo- you need to get a life or something; go back and read your childish whining comments!!! He's really a spammer - putting a free site out there! Like the Eagles say: get over it - quit deleting his link. I'm with GinaMomma - let me hear from YOU! MeGarWill 03:03, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey guys - let the guy add the link - I totally fail to see an issue here from keeping it off! I say 100% let OWaldo add the link. If no one clicks it after a month then just pull it. BigBlueSteel.

The anon is from the same town as 0waldo. The other 4 users have none of them ever edited before, SqueakBox 04:52, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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) I suppose we cannot post becase we are "new"?

Please read Wikipedia:Civility and wikipedia:Sockpuppet. If we believed you wikipedia would quickly be overrun by spammers and other vandals. On the other hand if you all really are his friends it provides evidence that a concerted effort by a group of people (a business?) are attempting to spam wikipedia, which is the sort of evidence needed to ensure inclusion in the spam blacklist referred to in the incidents page, SqueakBox 05:04, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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

hey SqueakBox - so we are not allowed to POST here and you are? You discriminating against us newbies? We like waldo - how come you dont? MeGarWill 05:15, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I second that to SqueezeBox: get a life and leave us alone. So because we are new to wiki we cannot give them donations and post? We have to elevate to your status of honor and then we can post? You are one trip dude! I'm waldo's friend and I want his link on the page!!! BigBlueSteel 05:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Off/ontopic note: "Registrant Name:Andrei Klotchkov" He lives in the states. But a website with a script named "lemmiein.cgi" that checks for netbios shares REEKS of data-harvesting to me. But that's personal opinion, and I have no offical position on this issue (though I hate linkspam). Also, the registrant info has [1] listed as an org, and the getmypc.info page is in the link sections. So nothing about that page looks out of order, minus the netbios share checking :-/ Gamera2 07:57, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

A link popularity gives this site 0 links, strongly suggesting a not very worthwhile site. And given that it fails to find location, browser, etc, and that it doesn't offer search for other IP addresses, I question it's value. Said Andrei Klotchkov lives in Montgomery County, Alabama, the same as 0waldo and his latest anon IP "friend" and has an email address at 0waldo.com, leading me to wonder if Klotchkov and 0waldo are the same person, though he claims to be Walter Muncaster. Having been communicaed to and writing back to said Muncaster several times yesterday I received a letter from the same address from a Walter Lancaster asking who I was. Curiouser and curiouser. 0waldo has admitted it is his site. This page was locked recently and placed on the most vandalised pages for persistent spam vandalism, and IMO should be locked again, partly because the latest 5 contributors look to me like the clearest case of sockpuppetry I have seen in my 10 months here. If we believed him that they are his friends (all sharing the same pathological hatred of me, and using similar phrasing such as "get a life" and belittling insults, then we would have to start believing all sockpuppets are just the friends of the user. We could all play that game when we don't get our way but most of us have the moral integrity not to, SqueakBox 12:25, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Not just this article

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)

Well you are hardly the first person to create an army of sockpuppets claiming they are friends and family. Note all your links were initially removed by other people, so stop giving me a hard time which is a violation of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Good faith, SqueakBox 17:24, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

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) (P.S. he told me to tell you he's calling Wiki monday)

Well good luck to him, perhaops they will give him his donation back. Perhaps I am a bigger donator than he is, though that would make no difference as wikipedia will not accept inducemnts, ie the only thing you get from donating to wikipedia is the satisfaction, SqueakBox 19:20, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Protection

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)

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)

How about these sites

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)

They are not worth adding. 0waldo 16:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

How about this site ?

• http://getmypc.info

What I would like to do is to suggest the site; I would like some fellow users of Wikipedia ( other than all previously engaged in this discussion ) to view it objectively and then give a thumb sign as to it's inclusion or no. I think that this is the 'democratic' way to handle it. That’s my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Concerning my reputation and all the false accusations purported by some around here: I invite any and all of you to privately email me so I can/may set you to the straight and level. 0waldo 16:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I just took a look and my conclusion is that it's not worth bothering. Take a look at the results (I blanked only my IP address and the hit counter):

B e | p a t i e n t : | I ' m | c h e c k i n g | y o u r | c o m p u t e r ' s | i n f o |
| ( | d o n ' t | w o r r y | t h i s | t e s t | i s | 1 0 0 % | s a f e . | )

y o u r | i p | a d d r e s s | i s | 2 0 0 . x x x . x x x . x x .
y o u r | h o s t | n a m e | i s | ? .
y o u r | I n t e r n e t | B r o w s e r | i s | ? .
y o u r | o p e r a t i n g | s y s t e m | i s | ? .
y o u r | n e t w o r k | c o u n t r y | i s | U . S .
y o u r | I . S . P . | i s | .
y o u r | c o n n e c t i o n | i s | D e d i c a t e d | N e t b l o c k | ( | o r | P P P | t u n n e l | ) .
t r y i n g | p i n g | t e s t
c h e c k i n g | N E T B I O S | s h a r e s :

System error 67 has occurred. The network name cannot be found.
N o | v i s i b l e | N E T B I O S | s h a r e s | f o u n d . .

C h e c k i n g | y o u r | d o w n l o a d | s p e e d .
i t | t o o k | 7 . 4 8 4 | s e c s . | t o | s e n d | y o u | 5 1 2 0 0 | b y t e s | t h a t ' s | 5 . 3 | K B P S |


T h i s | t e s t | t o o k | a | t o t a l | o f | 4 2 . 7 1 9 | s e c o n d s .


1 , x x x , x x x | p e o p l e | h a v e | s e e n | t h i s | p a g e | s i n c e | 0 7 - M a y - 2 0 0 4 | 1 1 : 5 9 : 0 4 | U T C

h a v e | a | n i c e | d a y | f r o m | w a l d o !

It's no wonder it does not find a hostname (my IP is missing the reverse DNS), but it not being able to find out the browser (readily available from the HTTP request and from Javascript, with no anonymizing proxy to munge it), not being able to find the operating system (the browser user-agent string tells which it is), and even worse, thinking I'm on the U.S. (the IP address belongs to LACNIC; how can it possibly be in the US?) shows it's not very useful. There are better places to find out my own IP address (http://hostip.info is my favorite) and test my connection speed (which is higher than shown, btw). --cesarb 16:58, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

please email me your IP address; I want to see for myself please - thanks waldo. 24.214.30.98 17:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I forgot to log in first 0waldo 17:34, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello cesarb - thank you for your information and forgive my lapse of reason - I had your IP address already on my server so I tested with that. I did find a small problem in the program which has been corrected - please try again and let me know. 0waldo 20:00, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Well it is better now. Got Browser and OS right, still miss the location though. It thinks I'm in the Netherlands, and indeed so do some WHOIS tools, but if you dig a little deeper you'll find that this particular IP range have been resold/subleased to a Norwegian ISP, wich is where I am. Compare the results for for example 217.196.51.255 (last adress in my ISP's range, not mine) with one of the WHOIS links I posted abowe to see what I mean. --Sherool 20:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

0waldo, I am glad you have stopped just reverting, and taken to the talk page. Thanks. As for the site(I have just tried it), it seems pleansent, but not better than the sites already listed, so I think it should not be included. As for having CesarB try it again, while this is of course up to eim, I do not feel that Wikipedia is a place for you to tune your site, and so I would not encourage him to "try again". I would really appreciate it if you would let me know your thoughts after reading Wikipedia:Spam - not that you are a spammer, but, you are adding a link to a site you own, and so that page is relavent. JesseW 20:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks JesseW - I'm happy you are glad - that means you are just like me ;) CeaserB can try it or not, that is his choice and/or option - I was just being polite because he was nice enough to bring the error to my attention (Hard to be on the other side of the globe and stateside at the same time). Concerning reading the spam: please define to me the actual meaning of "link to a site you own" - does that mean I am the legal owner of the site/hardware/domain name/code or what? Thanks for your politeness - it goes way before you! 0waldo 21:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear JesseW (and others reading this): Since I was referred to read again Wikipedia:Spam ( which I just did ) I found an interesting guideline there:

"What should not be linked to Wikipedia disapproves strongly of links that are added for advertising purposes. Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead. Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions. See also External link spamming. "

Since all the external links on the page here ( and others ) point to for-profit entities and that the pages of these external links are strewn with advertising links (and/or products for sale) then it is only logical that one must assume that the links are placed here for the purpose of free advertising. Since the proposed site GetMyPC.info has zero advertisements, is not-for-profit, provides more useful information that applies to the article then one should agree that it should be placed here as an external link. Cheers my friends 0waldo 22:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Good that you have now read Wikipedia:Spam. Regarding link to a site you own, it means, a site you consider to be "my site". To quote you above: "0waldo: I tried to put an external link to my site". As for the quote from WP:SPAM, the most relevent quotes is "Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged" and "Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism". You , by your own admission, are doing both, and you have not provided any explanation of why. Other people have suggested that you may be attempting to make your site popular, then put ads on it. While I don't know if this is true or not, it is the only explantion for your persistance that has been offered. That question (of your odd level of persistance) is, IMO, the most critical question . I look forward to your response. JesseW 22:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello JesseW ;) Please do a whois on the domain and you will clearly see that someone else owns it. If I regress in my mind back to when this all started I wanted to add the site because it was very appropriate to do so, it was free, no advertising, no motive other than embellishment of the article. I am continuing in my quest to put the link on because it truly believe that others will benefit (over a million other people have) from the site. It totally applies to the topic and there is no reason whatsoever from keeping it off – it even has a link back to Wiki so others can get to know it as we all have here. The people that don’t want the link put on the page are the ones that have a personal problem with me and that’s the real skinny of the matter. Cheers! 0waldo 23:53, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is not credible. At the bottom of the site, it says, "have a nice day from waldo" - this is not you? Earlier on this talk page, you say "0waldo: I tried to put an external link to my site" - "my site" is not your site? You also said "I'm DONATING my server space and T1 pipe so people can see their IP address as well as other hidden things on their computer." - now it is not your server space? In an edit summary, you said "quit deleting my link". The original link you added was: [http://getmypc.info/ GetMyPC.info] Shows WAN/LAN IP Address, ISP and other hidden info on your computer by Walter Muncaster ([[user:0waldo]]). I direct you to "by Walter Muncaster (user:0waldo)". You are either having a great deal of trouble remembering these things, or you are not being honest with me, which I am rather upset by, since, as you have said above "Thanks for your politeness - it goes way before you!", I have treated you with good faith this whole way through. Please, if you can, explain the quotes I've provided above. I am saddened. JesseW 19:45, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

JesseW: You obviously did not read what I wrote and you ignored what I did write:

Please allow me to dissect your latest blurb:

1. “At the bottom of the site, it says, "have a nice day from waldo" - this is not you?”

Yes JesseW, this is me. Soon I will come out to my home in L.A. we can meet and then you can shake my hand just to be sure ;) It’s me, Waldo all day long! ;)

2. "I tried to put an external link to my site" - "my site" is not your site?

Yes my boy! You are right: legally I don’t own the site. So yes, legally speaking (I can smell a lawsuit here folks - bigger than the late trial of Jacko brewing!) You are correct; it is, in fact, and as an absolute matter of law, “not my site” your honor. Now for the record, I would like to stipulate to the esteemed State Prosecutor, Esquire SqueakBox that I do obviously have a measure of control over the site since I wrote every bit of code that runs it – that is, I think? You know, I seem to be “having a great deal of trouble remembering these things” and I’m not sure if I really have been a programmer analyst for thirty two years or not but I will stipulate that as factual, I think ;) An instant afterthought: I wonder if I really am a Spammer-at-heart or a Spammer-wannaB – Gadz! What if SqueakBox was right??

3. "I'm DONATING my server space and T1 pipe so people can see their IP address as well as other hidden things on their computer." Now it is not your server space?

Well, JesseW: it really reflects back to item 1. I will add this right now: actually it’s totally irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the external link should be added. Do I ask you about whose car you drive, your underwear size, about your assets, etc.? I did not think that I did, however, to humor you and the jury of my sock-puppet-peers, I am willing to stipulate, under oath, and under the penalties of perjury, that yes, you caught me red-handed with pants-on-fire that it is, indeed, my server space – but now we must define “server space”. Similar to President Clinton and his definition of defining words - was that in Alice in Wonderland originally? Mmmmmm – can’t remember.

4. JesseW, you are obviously not reading what I wrote to you: I am assuming that you did not do a “whois” on the domain because you seem to be blending the legal owner and myself into the dubious and accused “my” character. It’s so true!! I obviously do have a measure of control of the site – I can do anything I want with it as long as I get permission (I have to ask someone but I may just be asking myself so watch it, it may be another ‘trick’). As far as the possessive “my” (mine) I cannot legally claim ownership of it – the “server space” that is. Now, you have to come up with something way better than this about not adding the happy little external link <wiki>GetMyPC.info</wiki>. The question is not “me/mine/his/I/you” – and let me tell you why: You go back, just like you told me to do, and re-read and study the same thing you told me to do. If you do, then you will see that: 1. the use of one’s own site is NOT prohibited. And 2, that external links that are placed for advertising ARE prohibited.

Now, if you like, I can see about changing the wording on the site from “have a nice day from Waldo” to “have a nice day from Pete, George, Jimmy or JoeBob” . Heck I’ll even change it to your name! “Have a nice day from Jesse!”.

JesseW, I like you. On the surface you seem like a nice young man with your entire future in front of you and I like how you even threw the digs to me about the politeness, but I still mean that. I will say it again: you have always been very polite in your communication with me and I appreciate that. I remember that when I was about your age an older computer technician from DEC would pressure me about becoming a programmer and he would hit me with all these questions trying to see if I really was studying my “introduction to programming” guide like I promised him I would. I now reflect that I was young and immature and wound up with harsh feelings for him because I felt like he was picking on me all the time. The fact of the matter was that he cared about me as a young lad and wanted to put the pressure on me to make me a better programmer by forcing me to really do my homework. He would yell at me and say: “Waldo, you have to learn how to function under pressure” and you know he was right but at the time I just could not see it. So JesseW, remember that story in your future when you are under pressure at your job, or studying or working on an endless project that: you are just “honing your character” by not giving up.

I will close my sermon ;) with a quote from a very close personal friend of mine Calvin Coolidge (1872): “Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated failures. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent”. (source not verified by waldo)

So, there’s your answer about why I am so “persistent”. 0waldo 22:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I cannot identify, from your long reply, your answer to the question. So I will ask again - hopefully eliciting a one word answer. Do you agree that getmypc.info is, in the sense of the quotes("Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged", etc.) from Wikipedia:Spam, your site? I will respond further after you have answered this with a short answer. ;-) JesseW 07:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello JesseW :) No, I don't legally own the site so therefore it's not my 'own'. Think of this appropriate analogy: a trustee of a trust has control of the trust but does not own the trust. I don't own the site but I do have a measure of control over it. But I cannot say, of a truth, that I own the site because I do not, at all own it. Have a happy day! 0waldo 13:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Everything you say confirms it is your site, and therefore spamming it in anywhere on wikipedia persistently is considered vandalism. Please desist. In the meantime you have not found one person who agrees to keep your site in place. Calling me a vandal at Talk:Hostname is not the kind of persistence that will reach your goal, but it may result in further action being taken against you, SqueakBox 16:03, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

You are a VANDAL - You have proven it by your actions - they are documented. Back at you VANDAL: Calling me a vandal at Talk:Hostname is not the kind of persistence that will reach your goal, but it may result in further action being taken against you. Eat your own bowl of smelly soup you expect others to eat. 0waldo 16:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Attention JesseW and SqueakBox: I just ran GetMyPC.info and it says: "h a v e | a | n i c e | d a y | f r o m | J e s s e W a n d | S q u e a k B o x !"

When did you two hack my site and make this change - you know that this is a Federal offense and you could be arraigned on felony charges.

Don’t worry! I have the solution: I could step up to the plate and tell the Sock-Puppet-Prosecutors at Wiki that you two were at my place drinking Margaritas all night and that way you two would have an air-tight alibi! But it will cost you: you have to let me add the DREAD link to Yawl’s site GetMyPC.info - yes, as in you own it, (your names are on it so it must be yours) on the pages from now on as appropriate. I mean since it's your site and all it would only be 'fair'. You can’t argue with fair can you? 0waldo 17:36, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Making stupid legal threats will get you into a lot of trouble. Now is the time to stop, ie remove both our names from your site and withdraw your comments asap. The police would probably consider it a case of blackmail, SqueakBox 17:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

0waldo emailed me saying the legal threat was a joke which I fully accept, SqueakBox 18:15, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

After the radioactive cloud left

Greets to SqueakBox, JesseW, Sherool, cesarb, Dragons flight and Golbez: My friends - I just wanted to tell you all that I hope I have not angered you guys too much because of my persistance (SqueakBox, I must tell you that I think you may have even more of the stuff than I). I am offering this token to you all as a 'peace offering' and that I hope we can be better people by this experience. I know that I will because I now feel that SqueakBox is more forgiving of my initial ignorance while adding external links. I indeed claim initial ignorance and/or stupidity as well as subsequent stubbornness which obviously clashed with the determined SqueakBox to keep the spammers at bay on this article. I honestly was just thinking about the link for useful purposes and further enhancement to the article. Cheers! 0waldo 22:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

File:0waldo.peaceoffering.gif

This is tiresome. I still don't understand why 0waldo is being disingenuous with the plain meaning of Wikipedia:Spam - Don't add links to sites you have an affiliation with, as most of the people who do that are not doing it for good reasons. The site still has not demonstrated to anyone(AFAIK) other than 0waldo that it is worthwhile, and it should not be here. Pranks and hyperbole, by anyone, are irrelevant. If I have missed where a "compromise" was worked out, please point me to it. I'm getting pretty tired of this. JesseW 23:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I added the link just to get this petty fight over with. Yes, 0waldo spammed it, and his conduct has been far, far below what we expect of a wikipedian. On the other hand, it is somewhat useful, and so far as I can tell, supplies no revenue to him (and actually backlinks to Wikipedia). I figured, I'd add it, that way it wouldn't be seen as 0waldo spam, and let's see if it survives the test of time. --Golbez 00:08, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Golbez's answer above) Correction - on User_talk:SqueakBox, Golbez says "Would it be okay if I added the link to the end of the list (It is useful, it mentions us, and it has no ads, after all - and it's gotta be useful to some people (It got the right country for me, at least)?". So now one editor besides 0waldo things it is useful. After relooking at the site, and comparing it with the other ones, I will grant that it is worth keeping, at least until something better comes along. We don't have a whois linker(except iplocation, and we ought to have an add free version of that. However, with the greatest respect for Golbez, I disagree with much of his reasoning. "It mentions us" - Irrelevant; it is not a mirror, and Wikipedia does not do link exchanges. "it has no ads" - A minor but significant point in it's favor. "it's gotta be useful to some people" - Wikipedia is not a web directory - useful to some people is too low a standard, esspecially on such a spammer prone article as this. Hope this can finish the issue(at least until the next spammer comes along ;-)). JesseW 00:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not a web directory. Perhaps we should remove them all, and just include links ABOUT IP addresses, rather than those that HELP with IP addresses. That was probably tried a few times. My cordial mood from yesterday has deteriorated, when I remembered that I got involved in this initially because of the LEGAL THREATS which I utterly abhor. And now he's been congratulated for his persistence? Meh, sometimes I dislike my decisions. :P But I stand by it for now, let's leave it; for now, there's no reason to single this link out. The IP is being a vandal, not helpful. --Golbez 15:28, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hm. That idea of including only links ABOUT IP addresses does sound interesting. In a spirit of "lets let this cool down for a bit" I think we should wait a week or so and discuss till then, but then, baring objections, it sounds good to me... I've started a discussion place below. JesseW 17:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Gadz! I just realized that I duplicated the user Sherool and inadvertently left of the esteemed (I know that it seems odd that I would call him that after everything I said prior) SqueakBox! So greets to SqueakBox and you were definitely included in my above apology/truce! 0waldo 00:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

84.9.203.30: please stop removing the external link. Let me know if you want to discuss it as I've had plenty of recent practice. 0waldo 13:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Only external links About IP addresses, not services

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think Jesse's idea is a good one, and would support doing so in the light of the ugly edit wars, SqueakBox 21:58, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

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)

We can't lock the page! Which brother is that? SqueakBox 22:15, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

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)

We celebrate "Labor" day in the UK the first Monday in May. But Honduras' independence day is coming up very soon! SqueakBox 22:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

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

I'd support the idea, as per the argument that wikipedia is not a web directory, if the readers want ways to find out their IP address then they can use google to find any number of services for that. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:56, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

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)

I think it should be left as it is with the external links, after all if someone comes here to learn about IP addresses then there should be a link which tells them what their internet IP address is. Maybe just one link to a site like the showip.org

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

Ok, and here we have another attack of the external links, and it's another glorified whois service. 0waldo, and you are removing it - how do you explain this? It does have advertisements - but if we limited it to actually informative sites, rather than service sites, it would cut this problem off at the knees. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

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) BTW, I just reverted the external links for you that way you won't have to 'cut this problem off at the knees' it is offically now a 'non-problem'. 0waldo

New external links

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

[http://mapoftheinternet.com/]

this leads to extraordinary maps of IP addresses not found anywhere else.

[http://idl.net/IMAP/igallery.shtml 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)

Commercial site need to be removed

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)

Interesting.You think that commercial site need to use this place as free advertisement!?What consensus?? You gonna to report me as vandal because of free and healthly mind.Do not start to act childish!!! Commercial site need to be removed.If they sell product and earn money they need to be removd immediatly. And i would like to hear what other thinks about it.

Please don't be offended; You just need to stop editing external links on this article. Thanks 0waldo 15:06, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Please can you explain me your logic behind decision that commercial site (in this case ip2location.com/) needs to remain untouched and use wikipedia as free advertisement place?Is wikipedia place that commercial sites could use it for FREE and earn money? You help them directly to earn money.Quote from their site:

DB1 YES $49 [ Order ] DB2 YES YES $199 [ Order ] DB3 YES YES $199 [ Order ] DB4 YES YES YES $349 [ Order ] DB5 YES YES YES $349 [ Order ] DB6 YES YES YES YES $499 [ Order ] DB7 YES YES YES YES $499 [ Order ] DB8 YES YES YES YES YES $649 [ Order ] DB9 YES YES YES YES $499 [ Order ] DB10 YES YES YES YES YES YES $799

And free site that provide same or even better service are deleted!?

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)

Maybe it looks that i have something agains site in question.But i'm here more for opinion to not support any site that sell their product for money. AdSense or overture or any other kind of advertisement on the sites are not problem but any site that sell directly products need to be removed.That;s is something that i call commercial. I would like to heard what other thinks about it.If other agree i think that the site in question need to be removed.Jusus Christ look at to the price above.Unbelievable. How much they did donate to wikipedia? 100 dollar, 1000 dollar or nothing?

External links 2

I will remove every single link that doesn't pertain to the technology of IP addresses unless this fight stops now. When I'm done, all that will remain are the RFC and a random non-revenue site that tells you your IP address - which one will be determined by coin flips. I really think the commercial site (20 free lookups!) should be removed anyway. Make your choice. --Golbez 21:40, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

See the proposal above. It is a good and simple idea. Lets do it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:48, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe we should keep IP2 location or another site that gives good quality info about other people's IP addresses. Just having a site that tells one one's own IP address is pretty pointless, SqueakBox 22:14, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Well, well, I can see who my friends are, and conversely, are not. I’m also getting much clearer vision with respect to the “the clumping together” of various users and their pre-fab sock puppets to invoke a ‘scene’ where heretofore one did not exist. I think the whole crux is, quite simply this: JesseW, the juggling janitor and SqueakBox: you two have ganged up on me from the start and have continually tried to axe the external link GetMyPC.info. It is a non-profit, no-advertising, non-commercial external link that is related to the article at hand and supplements it nicely. I therefore hope that you two will stop your hatchet campaign against me and the link and just drop the ‘non-issue’ once again. Peace my "brothers". 0waldo 22:59, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I can live with your site 0waldo, and am not now removing it, as I agreed not to. I would like the IP2 location site to remain because it is a good site. I found it here, and chose it out of the list (which was larger then), choosing it because it was the best after testing all of them. It is endlessly useful to me as a wikipedia editor, otherwise not so. I don't believe it should go and sites that offer less info or are not as good as it should stay, as I would like to see other wikipedia editors have the same experience as I did. I have no links to the IP2 site, commercial or otherwise. I suspect finding a stable solution is going to be extremely difficult in the longer run, SqueakBox 23:09, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

For review by any outside viewers, in regards to 0waldo's claims about "ganged up on me from the start", I would recomend reviewing Talk:IP_address#External_links, Talk:IP_address#External_links_again, as well as reviewing the the history of the IP address. I think those references provide quite sufficient evidence to demonstrate either ignorance or bad faith (I assume it was ignorance, as per Wikipedia:Assume good faith ;-) ) on the part of 0waldo with regards to Wikipedia's policies and customs regarding external links. This is, however, irrelevent to the actual issue, which is, how shall external links be handled on this article. For my opinion on that, I would point to the only informational links" above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but i do not understand.It seems that every single one of editors here have his own site about IP address and protocols and that we all make fight about it. I couldnt understand and i think that nobody else can how commercial site that sell products for 1000 dollar could stay on wikipedia except as one of editor is not webmaster of such a site. Now can someone explain what is wrong with ipaddresslocation.org and ipchicken.com??? And why they couldnt be here on wikipedia?Both are non commercial. One have excellent info regarding ip address and protocols, very well designed and very fast. Another is simple and effective and well known. Please.I still do not understand logic behind some decision taken from some editors.

IMO the commerciality of a site is only relevant if people connected to that site are linkspamming it onto wikipedia. While we should not support linkspamming, otherwise it is the usefulness, and not the commerciality (potential or actualised), of a site that counts, SqueakBox 14:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

No idea why the 2 P addreses I put at the bottom have disappeared as they remain in the text and the diff shows they have not been deleted. Strange, SqueakBox 15:13, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Graciella's claim that every single one of editors here have his own site about IP address and protocols and that we all make fight about it is simply not true, as several of us have no links to any of the sites, SqueakBox 15:15, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Looking from my side it seems that SqueakBox is only one who would to see and also defend commercial site who earn money through free advertisement from wikipedia (did they donated to wikipedia?I can understand only if they did donated to wikipedia).I'm not only one who think that this site and any other commercial site need to be removed (look above). It seems that you are one against all or at least many of us.I didnt see nobody else who support your idea about commerciality from one side and free wikipedia mind from other side. I couldnt call this kind of decision in any form as democracy but more as autocracy.

We absolutely cannot manipulate wikipedia based on people's donastions. It would completely destroy the ethos of wikipedia. If you remove the IP2 location site I will remove all the sites, and we can stick to Jesse's suggestion, which I have supported, to only have sites that talk about IP addresses. People promoting their own site persistently has been defined as vandalism on wikipedia, SqueakBox 21:52, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I have no connection to any of the sites. Can you say the same, Graciella? Or are you here, like 0waldo, to essentially promote your own site? SqueakBox 21:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I hope that you realized that you are only one who defend commercial site in question.Wonder why? It is not only me but look above and tell me how many thought that site in question and any other commercial site need to be removed.And how many disagree or better to say WHO disagree? Take a look Autocracy

Well how about you looking at Wikipedia:Good faith. You didn't answer my question about your personal connection to any of the sites. I said I liked the IP2 because it works, and my only interest in IP location is as a wikipedia editor. Anyway they are all gone now, and replaced by articles about IP address, following Jesse's suggestion, SqueakBox 22:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

To answer your question.I have well connection but not personal.For example i like simplicity, effectivity and design of ipchicken.com or the site that have beauty design and provide fundamental info and more test as ipaddresslocation.org or for example hostip.info. Excellent site with free script, tools and forum. Actually i'm glad that you dropped commercial site in question but it wasnt necessery to remove other free and non-commercial site.They are many free site that are well designed, fast and useful. The problem is only Ego which apparently show every time his superiority regarding rationality .

Golbez removed most of the sites. I only removed the one he left, following Jesse's suggestion. Unfortunately 0waldo thinks his site is an exception. I also want to say i am not convinced that any of the sites don't have a commercial impetus, as aluded to by someone else above, SqueakBox 22:43, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Greets SqueakBox: wow! what happened around here, anyhow? All the links got axed - what gives? 0waldo 22:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

It was Golbez who removed most of the links, including yours. I promised him not to remove your link, but that ended when he removed it himself, SqueakBox 22:48, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm tired of this fucking bickering over whose link is best. WP:NOT. WP is not a link farm. If you want a site that tells you your damned IP ADDRESS (what AMAZING technology that is), fucking google for it. This is a goddamned encyclopedia, not a place to find out your ip address. --Golbez 22:52, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Amen Bro :) I give up ;) good bye to all my friends 0waldo 23:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

If it's not obvious, I'm in a bad mood. Will it change? Who knows. But this is a good time to try out stuff that is rash. --Golbez 23:02, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Golbez. As I've said above, I support removing all sites that provide services, not information. Good for doing it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely! Bravo, bravo and let me fire up the marching band! Nothing like withholding knowledge from people seeking it I always say! 0waldo 17:57, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

seeyourip.info

A different site (also created and added by 0waldo). This one includes text, rather than just being a service. This is better. Now, lets see if the text provides information that is not available already in the article, as that is the criteria for inclusion of an external link. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

JesseW ! Out of my pocket I donate my time (and money) to provide information for the ignorant. I provide free, useful and applicable info. which supplements the article (not just here at different places) and you summarily delete it! SPAM you call it! - it's the evil 0Waldo and his evil SPAM again; quick! delete it before people get educated for free, with no advertising in their face, no products to sell and no links to click! This is SPAM? Have a nice day from waldo (I think). 0waldo 13:03, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, 0waldo, you just used the last of your capital. Yes, he summarily removed it - and he put it back 18 minutes later after looking at it. Amazing what can be done on Wikipedia! So maybe you should stop being a martyr, stop thinking that your money means ANYTHING here, and stop your incessant whining that you think your pet projects don't get enough free advertising on Wikipedia. We're tired of it, and your last comment exhibits an obvious disconnect with reality. Not only did he put it back, but the comment you responded to SUPPORTS IT! "This is better", he says! If I read the timestamps correctly, he wrote this minutes after removing it and minutes before readding it - isn't analysis a good thing? Long story short, 0waldo, you are severely wearing our your welcome with comments like these. Have a nice day. --Golbez 16:17, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Comments like what my friend? The comments I made about the reality of the issue? The fact that I get whacked anytime I do anything here! I have to beg like a dog just to get a link inserted to something useful? My reference was to the 'instant whacking' of anything I do here! I can read. He whacked my link then did a “take back”. Why not just stop hammering the hell out of me (and my ‘pet projects’) and let me put something positive here! Next I'll get banned because I don't fit into the 'subliminal political club' of which I’m not privy too around here. I can read: "this is better" No duuuh!!! My point was for J.C.'s sake! Give me a chance around here without getting summarily executed on every edit I make! Concerning money, if it did not matter than why was there a HUGE fund raising campaign? Concerning capital: you know better than to say something like that my friend: all I have ever asked you to do is to help my in my plight and all I have ever done to you is be courteous. I have never used profane language with you nor will I ever. Peace already! truce! give me a chance: it's only fair! 0waldo 17:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow. I just came over here from Talk:Internet and I am appalled at how crazy this discussion has become. An admin should ban user 0waldo permanently, and as for you, 0waldo, I advise you to seek the services of a mental health professional immediately. Just from the bizarre tone of your postings, I suspect you may have at least one or more personality disorders! --Coolcaesar 03:08, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow: Coolcaesar - you are so cool! Thanks for the free and accurate mental diagnosis of me :) Don't be too "appalled" though events just like this spark creativity in people! And, by the way, you are so right: I absolutely should be banned not only here but world-wide for exuding competence. 0waldo 14:15, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Competence!?! SqueakBox 14:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

SqueakBox My dear friend :) Hello! I would like to say thank you for your recent onslaught of kindness to me - it is indeed, well taken and appreciated! 0waldo 17:40, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I find 0waldo's additions to Screensaver to be helpful and useful. As for his additions of external links on IP address, and related articles, I have been acting according to Wikipedia:Spam(not saying it is spam, but that's the name of the page with guidelines about adding external links). I have been surprised before, and I continue to be surprised, that 0waldo is so persistant in his attempts to "provide free, useful and applicable info." after being so strongly, and mostly politely, refused. If I tried to do someone a favor, and they responded the way people have responded to 0waldo, I would stop trying to do them that favor. I might privately think they were foolish to refuse my favor, but I wouldn't keep trying and trying to do it. There are so many places where useful work can be done. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

JesseW, the juggling janitor How kind of you to tell me something positive only to reduce it ashes with your closing statements :) I like you however so I will savor the positive comment you made about the screensaver contributions: “thank you”; I do embrace it and will simply let the other fall to the floor with the other dirt particles which take residence there. Here is the situation as I perceive around here at Wikipedia: I’m not an expert here by any manner of means, you however, it seems, and others around here, have been doing this ‘trick’ for awhile. Although I read what you and other people are saying to me ( as in figuratively: ‘get screwed’ and go away ), I ignore it from a clinical standpoint - I’m going to do this place a ‘favor’ by contributing in a positive manner as long as I feel like it. If the Admins want to ban me ‘ad infinitum’ for wanting to share and contribute well so be it – if they do then what the heck, everything will go on, business as usual. Now, back to the same bowl of vomit: in retrospect I will say this, that when I first added the link ‘GetMyPC.info’ I was ignorant about the ‘textbook’ process of adding links. The ‘protocol’ if you will. I will even admit my fault in doing so, ‘off-the-cuff’. I will also give you credit for handing the situation way better than SqueakBox (maybe he has been plagued by spammers and it has hardened him or something) regardless, I don’t harbor ill feelings for you, him or others. ( I had added external links like this twice before in other articles and they were left there, no problem!) When this event happened, as it did, it was very odd to me. I added the external link here, on IP Address, and put my name on it (yes, I was proud but did not know better) and then instantly I was beaten up by the ‘anti-spammer’ team (which later degraded into the ‘anti-0waldo’ team). Well, being the x-boxer that I am started fighting back, trying to scream out – hey wait, it’s not spam! Well, the rest was history and here we are, right here, right now in the ‘ring’. As far as I’m concerned, this fight is over: my jaw hurts. Maybe you guys have got it bad too, I don’t know. But all I would like to do is get a fair chance to contribute without being left-hooked and branded as some kind of ‘super-spammer’ for simply wishing to contribute. I hope I have not been too hard on you or others – if I have then “please accept my apologies” to all parties as applicable. 0waldo 22:52, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

The fight is over? But your (most recent) link is here, right now. In the metaphorical sense of a fight, you are winning. It seems an odd time to annouce that "the fight is over". Do you mean if the link was removed you would not re-add it, or argue about it? Or do you mean something else? I am confused. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

JesseW :) I like your take on my last comment - you posses the “wit of youth” and as such, I recommend you to be knighted and enlisted into the “Honor of the Royal Order of the Ages of the Enlightened Native Californians, Et. Al.” (A heretofore previously undisclosed/unknown 401-C3 organization) or any other applicable royal order as indicated and appropriate that will take you under their wing. As far as the point, yes, you did get me on that one ;) 0waldo 23:51, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Er. With the best of intentions, all I can make out of the above is that it is either random humour, or further evidence of Coolcaesar's view. I'll assume it was humour. A clear, non-humouorous answer would be appreciated. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

JesseW: OK, OK: I want to appear 'normal' around here contrary to what you, LLCoolJ, and all the others think so I am going to do better, right here, right now: things will be different from now on. With all that said, here is your "clear, non-Humouorous answer": yes, no and/or maybe and possibly even absolutely! Did you know that you misspelled “Humouorous” the correct spelling is “humorous”. In any event please let me address your closing statement of above: "I am confused". Ouch! That's telling. 0waldo 12:22, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Humourous is another correct spelling, SqueakBox 14:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Not according to Merriam-Webster my friend ;) 0waldo 17:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

You could just log out and do this --~~~~ --220.238.2.146 09:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please draw a conclusion from all of this? Do we link to 0waldo's seeyourip.info or not? So far he keeps adding it, and I hate revert wars. Haakon 17:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Some of the stuff going on, allegations of sockpuppetry, repeated edits. 0waldo claims the site isn't his (he can't claim it is because it's not registered to him), but he seems dedicated to keeping it. Reeks of spam. I'd call for a vote on it if I had such power, possibly banning/investigating 0waldo as well. IMHO, he's a spammer, this is spam, kill the link just because he wants it so bad. - gamera2Gamera2

Here is a quarter for you both: split it and go buy some more brains. After that go back to the page and see how long the link as been on there, realize it was left there by consensus and add it back, otherwise, I’ll check back later and add it back later.

Why the heck is it needed? There must be a million ways of finding out what your IP address is! Your really don't need a website to tell you, even if you are running through a NATed gateway. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu (mmmmm.. I wonder).... It happens to be a text based page concerning ip addresses not providing an ip address. Read it? Most of this page was done from information on that page 0waldo 01:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Happy new year.

dynamic IP are not always diferent...

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)

identification

how do you find out your ip address? dxdiag does not seem to help. mastodon 23:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You could try http://whatismyip.com

Or you could just type in ipconfig /all via a Windows 2000, Windows XP or Windows NT 4 system's command prompt. On a Windows 98 or Windows Me system type in winipcfg, then select your interface. On a Linux system, type in ifconfig. I think BSD systems use some sort of netstat command - I suggest you check the man page if that's what you are using (though if you need to, then you maybe should consider something other than BSD...). HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, incidently, possibly the easiest way is to edit Wikipedia:Sandbox, then look at the history. This will most definitely tell you what your IP address is. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Or you could log out, post on here, typing 4 tildes ~~~~ for your sign-off.Skittle 11:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

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)

Dispute re IPs per square metre

I've removed the following text and rebuttal from the article. Anyone, feel free to recompute and repost, but don't forget to include the impact of IPv6.

If all of these [IPv4 addresses] were used, that would be around one IP address per 21.3 square meters, or 70 square feet, of land.

This math appears invalid. The available land surface area of the earth is roughly 170,000,000,000,000 square metres leaving about 40,000 square metres per IP or about 10 acres. Furthermore, assuming some other calculation, 21.3 square metres is 229.3 square feet. I suspect the typical math errancy of simply dividing a square unit by the 2d conversion ratio. 21.3 non-square metres is roughly 70 non-square feet.

Atlant 17:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see what we got here:

• Earth says there is 148,939,063.133 km² of surface area (land and water) or (148,939,063,133,000 m²)
• 2^32 = 4,294,967,296

Thus 148,939,063,133,000 / 4,294,967,296 = 34,677.57793 m² per IP. Taking the lazy route and using google shows that's equivalent to 373,266.342 ft².

Anyone care to confirm my math? Cburnett 23:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

external link

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)

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)

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)

Vote for "show your IP" pages

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)

Should not link

• Adds little information and smells of link spamming. Cburnett 03:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Link spamming. - File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 05:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
• Sites that are mere services should generally not be listed in EL. "See your IP" pages adds nothing useful to this article. Haakon 10:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Other

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)

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)

...and harassing users who warn him not to post the link. — File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here I am: 0Waldo with my 'OTHER' response to your total collateral/blatherskite actions. If you other junior punk editors would have done your research prior to intimidating me with your virtual stupidity then you would have taken note that the link which has been on there forever mysteriously evaporated on 10:55, 22 February 2006 by “”Timpailthorpe”” due to actions of “”Agent007bond”” on 01:59, 22 February 2006. All I did was add the link back and try to ignore your stupid bla-bla and ya-ya by adding it back. I'm getting sick of having to deal with the jack-legged intellect that you bone-headed editors suffer from so liberally – GADZ; you all think you are so intelligent, sorry pals, you lack severely, doctorates and all. My Advice: do your research and “”then”” come back and ask me a question or do your edit thing – quit screaming at me with all your junior editorial cannons/crap about “3R”, “Civil” and the like – here is my advice: TAKE AN ANTI-STUPID-EDITOR-PILL all of you. You revert this and you revert that and then do your research and realize your actions were premature and then have to stick with your accidents and stupidity and lie to the cops here subsequently blaming your stupid actions on me. I submit this “”Civilly and sincerely”” to all applicable. 0waldo 15:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• There is no excuses to make personal attacks on Wikipedia. Do not make them. Comment on content, not the contributor. See WP:NPA. — File:Ottawa flag.png nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 01:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack! 0waldo 01:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

I sincerely wish you all would stop torturing my brother! Jmunchovie 04:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

some changes

I think we need to make some changes in the article. I think that if a person pulls up an article about IP address and does not know what it is, then protocol-level descriptions are probably way too confusing. I like the technical description presented but feel that it is a "bit much". Maybe we can put in something like the following or something a little less complex:

---

An IP address is analogous to a person’s distinct cell phone number. Just like the cell phone, every device or computer that is attached to a network utilizing the TCP/IP protocol has a unique number assigned to it. This IP address plays an integral part in 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 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.

---

Any comments? 0waldo 18:15, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

First things first: what exactly are you proposing to do with those two paragraphs? Replace something? Insert it somewhere? What?

If you're proposing a switch then I don't see the need to switch from mailing address to cell phone. Geographic location is probably the most well known form of unique addressing. Phone numbers are not unique unless you include the country code, and most people probably couldn't even name the country code for a given country. I'd definitely wager that more people know a country than its country code.

Ultimately, I think the article is fairly balanced on technical and laymen explanation (perhaps biased to technical, but it is a technical subject). Cburnett 18:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the postal address analogy is that it is fixed to a location. Whereas a telephone number (whether fixed-line or mobile/cell) can be taken to different premises. I think many people already understand that phone numbers are not fixed to a location and can e.g be reassigned to a different person. I see telephone numbers as a better analogy to IP addresses. I also don't see why MAC addresses have to be brought into the analogy. That whole section of the introduction is poorly worded. Imroy 12:09, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

You know, that does make a lot of sense, 0waldo. — nathanrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 22:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is what I was thinking about changes that were needed:

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. This IP address plays an integral part in 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 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 readibility.

---

End of proposed changes - comments follow:

I think that my main point is that the idea should be, to present the reader, a very simple idea of just what the IP address is - all done in a very succinct manner; Reader’s Digest style if you will. Now, it is not necessary to institute MY changes, rather we should utilize anyone's changes which improve the flow of idea exchange in the article. As I read the article (in it's current form) it causes too much thinking, resursion, to come into play rather than desired auto assimilation via a smooth flow of ideas.

0waldo 21:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

proposed change

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)

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)

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)

Proposing changes not necessary

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)

MAC address comparison

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)