MediaWiki talk:Anontalkpagetext
RDNS goes to a page parking system. Is now defunct and needs replacing. I've removed it as defunct. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
There are a few features that I have removed because they don't work for one reason of the other. For a couple, we need to get on the horn with Krimpet... the others... I'm sure there are replacements. Unless someone does this before I do, I'll look into it later. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- We could use [1] for the TOR check, and [2] for traceroute, [3] for the RDNS lookup. I'll go ahead and add those, if it's okay with you. Oysterguitarist 18:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, go ahead! :o) NonvocalScream (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, I added the links. The RDNS lookup will have to be run by hand, until I find a different one. Oysterguitarist 18:40, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, go ahead! :o) NonvocalScream (talk) 18:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
- We could use [1] for the TOR check, and [2] for traceroute, [3] for the RDNS lookup. I'll go ahead and add those, if it's okay with you. Oysterguitarist 18:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Gender-inclusive language?
[change source]"We have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her." Can this be rewritten to use non-binary inclusive gender-neutral language, like en:MediaWiki:Anontalkpagetext? Thanks, Jamie7687 (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think it can certainly be rewritten. The problem I see though: There is alomst no gain in rewriting it. This is a small community, and our target is those having difficulties with English, or those learning it as an additional lanuage. So when rewritringing it, we need to be bvery carful that tohse people still understand it. TO my knowledge we have only have fw "language nerds"/radical feminists. SO the question really is: I Given our existing community & target audience, should we spend time introducing complexity, that may not be needed? --Eptalon (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the message should stay easy to understand. What about simply replacing "him/her" with something like "this user", "these users", or "them"? Thanks, Jamie7687 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- It was changed to them. -DJSasso (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Djsasso, Jamie7687, and Eptalon: I obviously wasn't here last year... but it seems that it hasn't changed. See Special:Contributions/141.226.10.218 and it still says
- "We have to use the numerical IP address to identify him/her. An IP address can be shared by many people. If you feel that things said here are not about you, you can create an account or log in to stop it from happening again." SHB2000 (talk) 12:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
- That would be because that is a different one, this one was for a talk page. But that one is updated now too. -Djsasso (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks :-) SHB2000 (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- That would be because that is a different one, this one was for a talk page. But that one is updated now too. -Djsasso (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- It was changed to them. -DJSasso (talk) 11:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- I agree that the message should stay easy to understand. What about simply replacing "him/her" with something like "this user", "these users", or "them"? Thanks, Jamie7687 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- I think it can certainly be rewritten. The problem I see though: There is alomst no gain in rewriting it. This is a small community, and our target is those having difficulties with English, or those learning it as an additional lanuage. So when rewritringing it, we need to be bvery carful that tohse people still understand it. TO my knowledge we have only have fw "language nerds"/radical feminists. SO the question really is: I Given our existing community & target audience, should we spend time introducing complexity, that may not be needed? --Eptalon (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)