Timeline for What in the world is a "code block"?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:53 | comment | added | Amicable | No one should need to know your internal addresses anyway. (If you're typoing them in wrong you should be proof checking your work before posting a SU question) | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 12:20 | comment | added | user104237 | Oliver: Not for certain types of writing such as those dealing with network hardware that may have many references to internal device URLs. The links aren't "broken" anyway. People reading this type of article will know it isn't a general link to the internet, but a device address accessed though a browser interface. Anyway, for me, the system wasn't broken before. I almost gave up on fixing my post, even though it had a major error which would frustrate anyone following it. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:44 | comment | added | Oliver Salzburg Mod | @Plan9FOS: If the author could turn it off, it would be pointless. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:30 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:31 | |||||
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:24 | comment | added | user104237 | Thanks for the answers. Maybe they can give a writer the option to turn that type of check off since it isn't needed for this type of article. | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:13 | comment | added | Bob | @Plan9FOS It's likely the filter/warning was only added in the almost-a-year since the original answer. The Stack Exchange engine is being constantly updated! | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 11:09 | comment | added | user104237 | So since the whole article is full of private IPs, do I need to put the whole thing inside the braces? Why is it doing this now? When I wrote the original, it didn't complain? | |
| Aug 14, 2012 at 10:59 | history | answered | Amicable | CC BY-SA 3.0 |