Talk:Invision Community

Bias

This page seems biased - it does not define facts. It talks about the 'AdminCP' as if it assumes the reader knows what that means - I almost never use WikiPedia for anything other then looking up information, so I don't know the exact problem or how to go about fixing it, but I do know biased articles are against policy here.

That has nothing to do with bias; the article is too technical. Paul Cyr 20:31, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I cleared up the part about AdminCP. -- Kevin 68.61.255.12

Paul, it's a message board article. Of course it will appear technical. 68.168.82.226

I think this article is totally bias, "that it would maintain." Says by who you know what the developers are thinking.

In History Section "software developers originally maintained that it would remain a free package" --Ramu50 (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence from article

Shortly thereafter, on November 12, 2004, a version of the software was released (with restrictions on code and limits on usage) again as a trial, only for the purpose of letting people preview the software.

Can anyone substantiate this claim? « alerante ✆ ✉ » 21:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Updated the information

I added the fact that the only way to use IPB now is to sign up for a demo account on IPS's website, and removed the part about technical evaluation, etc. I think the article is not all that technical, so does it need a cleanup, but I decided to leave the messages there in case it's inappropriate to remove them.

Removed vBulletin Link

Link to Transverse Styles was added by 65.33.171.38 to this article. This isn't about vBulletin. Checking the vBulletin page notes that this IP address put in the same links on that page and they were removed. It may bear watching. Ipstenu 18:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Links?

This isn't a link repositry. Should we have so many? I moved the French ones to the French wiki page as best I could (my French sucks) becuase it seemed more appropriate. - Ipstenu 16:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You're right. I'll link to the official resource list. --Phatmonkey 19:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop removing links Phatmonkey The official resource list has not been updated in some while and contain old links. And some links are not on the resource list but still are relevant to IPB.

I really don't think we should have a huge list of resource sites here though - surely it should only be limited to sites about the product itself? I'm sure there's a guideline on this somewhere... --Phatmonkey^Talk 21:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Just saying there are some good resource sites out there, that are not on the resource list that support the product IPB.

Maybe we should make a comprehensive list of IPB resource sites somewhere. IPB wiki time? --Phatmonkey^Talk 21:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean an article for "ipb resources"?

An external list of some sort I guess. Maybe an unofficial IPB wiki for tutorials, mods and all that. The offical IPBeyond or whatever isn't very good. --Phatmonkey^Talk 22:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not to good with wiki management, but if I can help out I will. Maybe instead of the current resource list this link would be better http://www.ipsbeyond.com/forums/index.php?autocom=links&CODE=02&cat=1 ? Has a lot more active resource sites there.

I feel Transverse Styles should be removed from the external links since it is a commercial skin website. I also question the reliability of InvisionFuse as a resource site which has relatively few downloads all of which require registration. I also wonder if Invisionize should be included in the external links section since it is most likely the largest modiciation resource. However, registration is also required on this site. Any thoughts? -- Scohoust 12:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's very silly having a large list of resource sites here. I've added a polite comment above the links asking people to discuss any resource site additions here. A better solution needs to be found, a IPB wiki for information (including a list of resource sites) might be interesting! --Phatmonkey^Talk 19:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be helpful if IPS kept their resource list up to date. However, with the appearance of IPSBeyond, I doubt they'll be too willing to support other resource sites. --Scot^t 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to Scohoust 12:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC) - I've readded InvisionFuse becuase I believe it's a relevant externel link for IPB, I may be new to wiki but we all have our opinions, and if I don't agree with a part of wiki I just don't remove it I add my opinion, in regards to IPB, IPB is not some private club where only the big resource sites are accepted. (This attitude is unhealthy for IPB, if there were only a few IPB resource sites, competition would be minimal and in the end the users of IPB would suffer.) It's a community forum, and you just can't delete links or infomation on IPB because you think it's to small or views of the minoirty. Instead of moving and adding and deleting infomation, I suggest you contact the administration of this service to sought it out.

I added InvisionFuse is the first place becuase I belive it fits the position of externel link as it's related primary to Invision Power Board of which this article is about. An example of this private club mentality is here as well http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/phpBB_entry_dispute "reverting any inclusion of any links to well known, well established and usfull "unofficial" resources"

I was involved in the dispute on phpBB; we came to an agreement that official and unofficial links should be separated, and that particularly contentious links should be discussed and a consensus arrived at. We need to be careful that the "External links" section doesn't turn into just another directory of links. æle ✆ 21:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm all for discussion, which is what I started with InvisionFuse. I was (and remain) interested in whether people considered this to be a link which is useful to an IPB user. While I agree it relates directly to IPB, there are a lot of other sites which do so also. How do we define which should be listed here and which shouldn't? Looking at the VBulletin page, they have done exactly as æle suggested, with the focus being mainly official links. The InvisionCube link seems to have made its way in as well - a site as far as I can see "exists to sell products or services." WP:EL Comments? --Scot^t 21:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Any unofficial commercial add-on, etc. sites should go. æle ✆ 22:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I've rearranged the the links using VBulletin page as a template. That might clear it up a bit. And removed InvisionCube, was not aware of commerical addon restrictions. Is there some guidelines on external links that we can use? --Crangic 22:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

That looks better, good job. The external Links guidelines suggest that links to sites which sell products or services should be avoided. --Scot^t 23:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Updated demo timeframe

I registered for a demo recently and found out that the timeframe is now reduced to 24 hours,so I updated the information. If anyone can give a specific date of when the change took place, please edit again. 202.156.6.54 04:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Secruity Issues

I think something needs to be mentioned about how many people are still using the 1.3 Final forums when many many serious secruity issues have been found with it.

--85.210.56.145 17:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

And many people use Win95 with the same ish ;) Okay, something should be mentioned. -- Ipstenu 18:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

InvisionFuse / Links 2.0

Bringing this over from my talk page since there's more to the world that just me. User:143.238.106.149 has asked me why I keep removing the link, to which I pointed back here. There was no clear decision that I could see about the site, and a couple people were wary since it requires payment for certain aspects of the site. It was re-added and I removed it, since the page asks us to talk first and the only talk was an older talk. Does anyone have an opinion? Frankly I can't tell you the 'worth' of the site since you have to sign up first and I've got no reason to do so. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 11:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I doubt whether the very few available downloads count it as a resource site. The fact that the site now offers many commercial services and products suggests it shouldn't be included as per WP:EL. This was the basis used above to remove Transverse Styles, so I think the same should apply here.

While we're here, D-Scripting seems to have crept onto the list without being discussed. I can't really find anything on that site which relates to IPB (except the forum). Any opinions on that one? --Scot^t 15:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

D-scripting used to have a shit-load of IPB stuff. Looks like it's been redone. I think they both should go, but since the anon-user was all but accusing me of having a vendetta against InvisionFuse, I thought it better to put the matter here and let common-law have it's say :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed D-scripting and I'll keep an eye out for any further Invision Fuse additions. --Scot^t 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Invision Fuse can't be allowed I do believe it follows the link guidelines. The site primary exist as a free open site much like Wiki. And I don't see any guidelines that disallows it, as well as DScripting inclusion. I've seen a lot of beating around the bush here, no one has actually stated a rule in which the inclusion of Invision Fuse is breaking the guidelines, yes reverting multiple links including other resource sites. I suggest you list any guidelines that you think the inclusion of Invision Fuse does not meet. So we can discuss this and solve any problems you have. At the moment, I've only been made aware of one problem, that I belive there is confusion over. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services: I suggest you visit the site in question, you'll see that only a small part of the site I'd say less than 5% exist only to support the site costs, much like Wiki donation drive held here, I instead choose to sell a few mods to cover hosting costs, I'm sure anyone can agree with my descision if they have a large hosting bill ;) On another note, what happen here? ipbhelpers was added without a discussion on the talk page, is that allowed? --60.228.128.197 06:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree that only 5% of Invision Fuse exists to sell products. Of the links at the top, 3 of them (Support, Products and Services) all relate to paying customers. The downloads section, which does relate to IPB, contains only 6 downloads, hardly anywhere near those of Invisionize or IPSBeyond which are both linked to in this article. The other area of Invision Fuse which relates to IPB is the forum, however it too is much smaller than those of resource sites included in the article. Wikipedia is not a repository of links, and I feel that including a site such as Invision Fuse doesn't add anything to the article. Perhaps I'm in a minority, and hopefully other editors will express their opinion on this matter. --Scot^t 09:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you removed IPBHelpers, and that's fine. It too is a site that you have to pay for full access, which hits the squidgy line between pay-for and free. Free means no one has to pay. A donation drive (and no, I didn't donate here) is different since you still get full access to the site if you don't pay. Why don't we just draw the line 'if they ask for money, then no.' My caveat there is the IPB officiall links. IPSBeyond would be an exception, since if you've bought IPB, you have automagic access to the site, and since IPB is not a free product ... Right. Moochers can suffer ;) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Still think the guidelines here are to restrictive, but only the Official Homepage is now displayed. In response to Scot, I don't know how many pages the site Invision Fuse has, but I'm sure the number of paid content, is defaintly much lower than what free content is offered. The % in the navigation is hardly an accurate measurement. But I can agree to monitor the article to ensure no other links are added. --138.130.100.235 04:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly one way to solve the problem, but I do feel that there are other sites which could be included in this article, but Invision Fuse isn't one of them. IPSBeyond should at very least be included, Invisionize probably should too. These are just my 2 cents, leaving it as it is certainly removes the problem. --Scot^t 10:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone else restored the links. I deleted IBP wiki, since it's pay to use (and yes, so is IPB, but this article is ABOUT IPB so that makes sense). I also added the following comment to the Other Links section Please do not add any new sites without the consensus of the talk page. Note: ALL sites which require donations and/or payment for full access will be removed. - I think that should cover most concerns. Yes? Please note the use of 'require'. If you can go to a site and download all the hacks etc without payment, then it's fine. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

IpbWiki

You said you deleted the link to IpbWiki? Because I see it again...I personally agree. This article is about IPB. IpbWiki is one of many modifications for IPB. It shouldn't get any special attention just because it links IPB to wiki software. Invisionize, which is free, should be there, but anything that is paid doesn't belong there. Compguy11 10:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

IPBWiki points to the Wikipedia article on the related topic. That's why it's under 'See Also' and not external links. IkonBoard is also listed, even though it's not really related to IPB, but it's sort of a cousin. The line got squidgy. Frankly, IPBWiki is the only one of it's kind that I'm aware of, offering a good bridge between Wiki and IPB. I'm honestly not sure if it should stay or go (and in fact, I'd missed that it came back). In this case, since it's really closely integrated with IPB, even though it's pay, I'm ... leaning to leaving it be. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I see where you are coming with that..it is a close call. Compguy11 06:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I dont think the link should be there. What has IPB got in connection with a Wiki? Nothing. So what if a bridge is available, the article is about Invision Power Board default install without modifications / skins / other modules connecting the software to another software application. Having the link there is singling out this, from all other bridges out there. Hence why the link for IZE / IPSBeyond is there. Those sites deal not with one mod or bridge - but with many enchancments to IPB aswel as providing support. Its not singling out any such mod or bridge. The site "generalises" it. Wiki needs to be removed, its not fair on other bridges and besides that, its not really related to the articles theme. Just my opinion though, dont shoot me for it! 194.46.176.4 23:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I did a similar edit to the article Invision Power Services. I will do the same to this article and remove the ipbwiki link. Again, it may be relevant because this is a wiki and it bridges between a wiki and the forum software, but like said above, it is about the default installation. There are hundreds of free or paid products for IPB, and most of them are on Invisionize. Giving one more credit than the other is stupid. We either list all the products associated to IPB or none of them. I'll assume people agree, if not..speak now! Compguy11 07:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your removal from the Invision Power Services page, it should not be on that page, but for this page the link is relevant, especially since it connects to another software product on which Wikipedia is based. Link restored. Francinne 08:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Compared to other IP-based products, however, this one is significantly different. This isn't a mod, at least not how most mods work (tweaking IPB), since it bridges between IPB and Wiki. Which is something a little different. Semantics, I know. We should vote on it, though, before we delve into a revert war. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not going to keep reverting or editing for this. It's really not that big of a deal to me. My viewpoint is that there are lots of mods..this is one of them...and we should either list them all or none...but I also see the point of view that it is related to wikipedia...whatever you guys think is best...i just dont want random people coming in and messing with the link without discussing it on the talk page. Compguy11 19:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It links back and forth to the related Wikipedia article, just as it links back and forth from that page to the related Mediawiki Wikipedia article. Francinne 15:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, I never noticed that before...that's a good point. Anyway, I think the discussion on this is pretty much done unless somebody else has something to say. Compguy11 07:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I put in a comment to leave it on the page per this discussion. Hopefully people will read :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've generalized the comment so that the comment explains what the See Also section is about, this way people who don't visit Wikipedia on a frequent basis will know that the See Also section is for links to other Wikipedia articles and not for external links. Francinne 16:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Much nicer than my version :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Paid Modification Sites

The Whole of IPB is paid, why allow that if your so strict on not allowing paid modification sites. All the official links are no use to anyone that doesnt want to pay. Can anyone say hypocrite

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.7.190.131 (talk • contribs)

If the site brings something that is value added content (and which can be interesting) to the reader of the Invision Power Board article, then why not? Whether the site is interesting enough to be added to the article is a subjective matter of course and will have to be decided on a site per site basis.

But if the site provides a content that's just an incarnation of Invisionize I'd rather not see it listed. And yes IpsBeyond is also an incarnation of Invisionize, but it IS the official resource site. Francinne 06:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

PF = Pre Final

At least as far as I can remember. It was IPB's version of Release Candidate. Not sure how best to put this into the article, or if it's even relevent at all. --Scot^t 16:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I made it a foot note. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 17:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Screenshot

That screenshot is not of a default installation of IPB; in fact, Invision Power Services edited the default template to add the IPS Job Openings announcement at the top. This needs to be edited, or replaced by a screenshot of an actual default installation.--68.108.222.137 20:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a screenshot, of a default install, but I don't know if this "looks better". Decide for yourself and link to it if you like it. File:Invisionpowerboarddefaultinstall.jpg Francinne 08:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that's fine. Go ahead and replace :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Perfect.--68.108.222.137 00:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

InvisionFree

Someone wanted to add the following link:

• http://www. invisionfree.com/ InvisonFree - Free IPB boards (using version 1.3)

I can't access it from work (blocked site, woo). It looks free and I think it's okay to add, though since we asked people not to add links without a consensus, I reverted it and brought it up here. Oh, and the anon-user put it under official links. Which it aint. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 14:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

InvisionFree is already listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_Invision_Power_Board_Hosts (which is linked to from under the see also section)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.82.234.7 (talk • contribs)

Good point! -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Updates to External Links

Minor changes to the external links. Just updated the wording to be more precise. Nothing new, just changed wording a bit. Hopefuly nobody will get offended by such minor changes. Nice article btw. 194.46.176.4

2.2

I have added infomation in the "releases" area regarding the 2.2 private beta. It was listed in depth, but totally ignored on the list at the top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.163.178 (talk)

Except that it hasn't been 'released' yet :) Released means that it's out and available and supported. 2.2 is in beta, so it's not there yet. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not 'free' so let's delete the page

Some words before you read, Wikipedia is free, as no longer is IPB. So why do Wikipedia should offer support to a commercial enterprise? This whole entry should be deleted. My two cents. Gabricis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.114.228.2 (talk • contribs)

Microsoft isn't free. Free is not a requirement to be included on Wikipedia. Accurate information about IPB, stating that it's proprietary software, is included on this page. No 'support' is given for or against IPB. This article simply explains what IPB is and how to get it. Also, please sign your posts with ~~~~ :) -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 13:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See also - added link to Category Free Invision Power Board hosting

I've readded the link to Category:Free Invision Power Board hosts as it can be usefull to people visiting this article. Francinne 10:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

External Link Request - The Admin Zone

I would like to request inclusion of The Admin Zone, a resource site for forum owners and administrators with articles, interviews, tutorials, and discussions covering all aspects of online forums. In regards to IPB, we have thousands of members who manage IPB forums, 8 original interviews with key IPB personnel including Matt Mecham, countless discussions directly and indirectly relating to IPB, and a moderator for our IPB forum who is also an IPB developer (Brandon Farber). The Admin Zone has an Alexa Rating of 6,942, 31,567 threads, 233,976 posts, 15,729 members, and 3,121 "active" members.TAZ Sandman 19:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matches to ipb closely enough to have it included on this page, it's a general admin site of which only a small section relates to ipb... And it's already on the Invision Power Services page (too be honest I don't know if the interviews with the people from Ips are enough for that either, but anyway...). Just my 2 cents. Francinne 22:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with this. Although the site has some information relating to IPB, it just doesn't contribute anything to the article. Wikipedia also doesn't add links to places based on how many posts they have. You also used the pronoun "our", which implies you are from The Admin Zone. It is not exactly NPOV for somebody related to this site request for its inclusion. (and you also added the link without our consensus, which the comment clearly says not to do) Compguy11 06:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Francinne and Compguy11, it's just not IPB specific. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Expanding article

I see there's an expand article box at top of the article, should we resplit version 2.0 and 2.1, since there was a fair bit of information before the merge? I think for the rest most of the things which need to be mentioned in this article are mentioned already really... Francinne 12:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

A furor of fan pissiness

I've tried to edit that weird addition into something that sounds a little less fanboy 'they are teh eviiiiil!', and removed the unverified claim that IPB code lifted from phpMyAdmin code - Folks, Forums are not reliable sources. They're a great example that people were upset, and can remain as a ref for that, but everything else needs a good, reliable, article. Find a good source for the phpMyAdmin stuff and then add it back in. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Add link request

I would like to add a couple of lines to this article about the duplicate content issues with this software and also add a link to a website that attempts to deal with this (www.seoipb.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.162.49 (talk)

Please don't forget to sign your comments. I went to the site you noted here, and all I found was a website that says IPB doesn't have good SEO. Regardless if that is true or not, every software has issues, but it doesn't mean we can link to every person who attempts to fix it. Simply put, it is more like advertising than actually adding information people want to know. Compguy11 04:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean?! It is a multipage site that has many sections describing techniques to optimise the software for search engines and it a consolidation of information that people often ask about the software. Did you actually click on any of the links? How can you describe it as advertising, there aren't even any adverts on the site that I can see... nothing, not even a paypal donate button.172.188.162.49

It's advertising, becuase it's a site for a 'how to mod IPB' site, rather than a 'how to get help, use, or otherwise support' one. Which is a fine line, I know :P In addition, a search on 'IPB SEO', 'Invsision SEO' or 'Invision Board search engine' doesn't show your site at all. I'm inclined to call it not notable. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 19:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ipstenu's standpoint. Francinne 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Add link for skin resources

I would like to add a link to an IPB skin resource [IPBSkinworks.com] as many users are unable to find reputable and high quality skins for this forum software.

This is not needed, as Invision Power Services has their own "IPS Resources" for skins, mods, etc. In my opinion, this looks to be nothing more than a ploy for free advertising. Uniquely Fabricated (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Invision Power Board 1.3.1

The Version 1.3 section says "The last free full version is Invision Power Board 1.3.1, which is not as widespread as 1.3 because of the short available time before 2.0 replaced it." I'm fairly certain that IPB 1.3.1 had the same license as the earliest 2.0 release, which stated that you were welcome to use the software for free for trial purposes only. this topic seems to agree with my memory, so either 2.0 is free and also the last free full version of IPB or 1.3.1 isn't. I don't really know if free for evaluation purposes would mean the same as free for all purpose use in the context of this article, which is why I want to discuss this before editing.--Comrade Kesha (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Version 1.3.1 was seen as an update to 1.3, fixing some features and security issues. It "borrowed" from 2.0's license, however, as it was a 1.x release, was released for free. 2.0 was released free for about a week after it was released, and then was removed and replaced by a demo version, which the article states. This leads me to believe that 2.0, was free during that single week, and then went to paid. 207.7.162.118 (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

1.3.1 was only free if you got it as an update for 1.3. Because they changed the license with 1.3.1 and made it a trial version, instead of free. You can see that by looking in the footer of the board. --88.79.241.166 (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I updated the page with clarification on the nature of 1.3.1 being "free." I don't think the source is great, but I'm not sure if a more reliable source on this information exists anymore, so if anyone can find a better source, that'd be great. However, it's still a better citation that the previous information, which had no source at all. Comrade Kesha 21:09, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Remote killswitch?

Not sure how accurate this is, but I knew someone online who ran an Invision board. One day he went to log in and found himself locked out. When he'd gotten to the bottom of it, it turned out that someone had asked how to get a game that was no longer in print, and the admin suggested he search eMule, and the Invision people took offense. Now, I'm sure suggesting pirating an out-of-print game is in the darker realms of a gray area, but that they were able to get in and lock him out is pretty hard to believe, him being a paying customer and all. If they have a back door, certainly others can use it as well? I didn't know how to verify this, so I didn't post it in the article, but maybe somebody who cares can look into it. This was also a couple of years ago, so maybe they stopped doing that. 155.130.107.20 (talk) 08:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

As a PHP developer that has written applications for Invision Power Board for the past five years, I'm pretty confident that no such kill switch exists. There is something called "ipscheck" which allows the staff of Invision Power Services to check to see if the board is licensed, but even that is now outdated since IPS changed the way they primarily validate licensed boards. If such kill switch exists, I can't find one in the code and have never heard of anything similar happening to anyone else. Although I'm sure your story is true, there is no way of knowing what happened and the incident is way too isolated to post on the WP page. Plus, we would be accusing IPS of essentially hacking people's forums. Maybe the host or ISP did something. Regardless, I cannot verify this. Anybody else have any thoughts? Compguy11 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I am a developer with IPS (Invision Power Services, Inc - the makers of IP.Board) and I can confirm we have no remote kill switch in the software. Whether downloaded directly from us, or pirated, we have no "automated" way to shut off a forum (or lock out access, or modify it in any way). We follow normal proper DMCA procedures when a forum has violated our terms of service (and in a case like the one described above, we would not do anything - they have not violated our terms of service). (Brandon Farber)

Honestly i wouldn't be surprised. As for example UBB is know to have a kill switch, or at least a backdoor for the developers. --88.79.241.166 (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If such a kill-switch were in place, it would be marginally trivial to find within the software code. The code is Visible Source, so anyone who has purchased the software can go easily through it and verify that the only callbacks made to IPS Servers are for hosted features (Spam Service, Chat, etc.) and to verify the license key is accurate and active / inactive. Rashbrook (talk) 19:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Invision Power Board. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080127015420/http://www.ibforen.de:80/index.php?ind=downloads&op=entry_view&iden=45 to http://www.ibforen.de/index.php?ind=downloads&op=entry_view&iden=45

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Invision Community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081010134120/http://www.adminfusion.com/forums/64-invision-power-board/8227-invision-power-board-license-explanation-1-3-1-3-1-2-0-2-1-a.html to http://www.adminfusion.com/forums/64-invision-power-board/8227-invision-power-board-license-explanation-1-3-1-3-1-2-0-2-1-a.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Fwae5ION?url=http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/176769-new-demo-accounts/ to http://forums.invisionpower.com/index.php?showtopic=176769

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Invision Community. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080617093730/http://forums.invisionpower.com/index.php?showtopic=235197 to http://forums.invisionpower.com/index.php?showtopic=235197
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090829222643/http://forums.invisionpower.com/topic/286168-invision-power-board-3-0-0-and-applications-released/ to http://forums.invisionpower.com/topic/286168-invision-power-board-3-0-0-and-applications-released/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819193909/http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/311959-ipboard-310-and-applications-released/ to http://community.invisionpower.com/topic/311959-ipboard-310-and-applications-released/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing Version List

I would suggest removing the extensive list of version details in the article (which I don't want to do unilaterally) or put the versioning in a list or box ; then concentrating on the Lead and "the what" of the subject matter. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Changed the Lead to be more concise and hopefully more understandable. The versioning, if retained, might be best suited for a table. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2022 (UTC)