Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 October 7

Welcome to the Wikipedia Help Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current Help Desk pages.

October 7

Who edited what?

Hello, I am wondering if there is a way to find which Wiki member edited a certain line of text on an article. I have a specific definition I am searching for, and there is an excellent one on Wikipedia, and I would like to contact the user who wrote it and inquire as to their credentials. Thanks for your help! The URL for the page I'm asking about is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_justice and the specific line (connotative definition, granted) is "Criminal justice is the system of practices and institutions of governments directed at upholding social control, deterring and mitigating crime, and sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties and rehabilitation efforts." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.77.2 (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you select the "History" tab while viewing the article, you can see a complete history of every edit made to the article in question. Comparisons of these edits, called a diff in wikipedia speak, can be viewed by selecting the radio buttons next to any two edits and selecting "Compare selected revisions". --Jayron32 02:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Editors can edit each others writing and a sentence can have several contributors over a long period. I looked at the page history. The quote reached the current form with two small changes in April 2009.[1] A year before [2] it wasn't much different: "Criminal justice is the system of practices, and organizations, used by national and local governments, directed at maintaining social control, deter and controlling crime, and sanctioning those who violate laws with criminal penalties." Going through the page history to find each edit leading to the current formulation sounds tedious. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Going through the page history to find each edit leading to the current formulation is indeed tedious, but Wikiblame saves most of the effort. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Making Edit-protection permanent on highly controversial articles

At present, the article "Israel and the Apartheid Analogy" is under "Edit-Protection." This means that all editors must present their proposed textual contributions or changes on the "Talk" page for this article, and once consensus is reached, the agreed text is entered into the main article by an administrator. The reason for the "Edit-protection" was in the first instance (as far as I am aware) because of debate over a possible name-change to the article, but secondly was because of the constant edit-warring and reversions afflicting the article that have occurred down through the years. This has produced as a result a seriously problematic and unbalanced article that remains at the "start" rating. I have entered into the Talk page a proposed contribution to the main article, and it has been debated interminably for months by one editor alone (aside from a very few remarks from a second editor), who has thrown up one objection after another which have each been answered, mostly by showing even to his satisfaction that the objection is groundless according to Wikipedia guidelines and principles, but in a few cases by adjusting the text itself. We now have a version that is basically acceptable to both of us in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. But the editor in question, while granting this, still refuses to agree that we have a consensus, and has prevented an "edit-protection" request for an administrator to enter the contribution into the main article, because, he states explicitly, he wants to withhold the contribution until "edit-protection" is lifted, when he foreshadows that he will edit in yet other changes without further discussion, including breaking up the proposed contribution into bits that would go elsewhere in the article. This would of course seriously weaken the contribution, both substantially and logically. Important documentation of the argument would be removed, and its relevancy and logical force obscured (in my opinion). He has urged me to join him in a request to lift the "Edit-protection."

On reflecting on this, I think the opposite sort of request should be made to the responsible administrators, and that is why I post this inquiry here. I would like to know how one goes about making a request that this article be under permanent edit-protection.

I explained my reasons to my fellow-editor on the "Talk" page:

Unquestionably, the article is deeply flawed and biased, with extreme disproportion in length, style and substance between anti-Israel allegations and pro-Israel defenses against those allegations. However, opening it up to business as usual would perpetuate exactly that imbalance: the causes that brought on the edit protection have not gone away, as amongst other things discussion on this present proposed contribution very clearly show. A proper edit protection might enable a better and more NPOV article eventually to emerge. At least this is the only hope that it might. For it would mean that any proposed changes or reversions would always have to be brought to the "Talk" page first, and thrashed out and a responsible consensus reached in accordance with general Wikipedia principles, before the changes or reversions were put into the main article. This would prevent constant edit warring and irresponsible and arbitrary nastiness on the main article page, such has been so characteristic of this and allied articles in the past.

In fact, a proper edit protection may be the only assurance pro-Israel editors might have that their contributions will last in the main article without hostile editing and truncation or complete reversions. I would fully expect that even if and after consensus were reached on my proposed addition to the main article and it was placed in the article, as soon as edit protection were removed so would be my additions. That, I think, is highly probable.

So I would like to know how I should apply to request permanent edit-protection on this article, and to whom should I address this request? Thank you.Tempered (talk) 03:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Normally, WP:RFPP is the place to request protections. However, as a adminsitrator who does a fair amount of work there, I must say that VERY rarely is full edit protection ever applied permanently to an article. The whole point of protection is to allow dispute resolution and consensus-building to occur outside of the article space, and to combat things like edit warring. However, it is very rare that an article would be permanently fully protected, full protection is normally only applied for a limited term, under the hopes that people will work things out eventually. --Jayron32 03:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. However, with all due respect, it seems a bit self-refuting in its faith in open editing eliminating edit warring and building consensus. Just this open editing led to the edit warring that the edit-protection was instituted to stop. What evidence is there for the pious hope that in coming months "people will work things out eventually" regarding this topic considering the consistently discordant record going back years right through the Wikipedia universe? Why would it magically occur in the future in Wikipedia pages with no change to policies when it has failed in the past, and when it so notably is lacking in the real world on these matters? What, in the absence of a change in policy, will produce this? The endless contentiousness and revert wars have in fact produced the very unsatisfactory and POV article that presently exists, one that marks no consensus but merely the dominance of the mob. Opposing voices are silenced: that is not consensus. As pointed out, even the treatment of my own proposed contribution on the Talk page shows that the problem still continues as ever. And the uselessness of my making any effort on the Talk page is also illustrated by the likely total removal on my contribution anyway as soon as the edit protection is removed, no matter how well the contribution conforms to nominal Wikipedia policies concerning NPOV, etc., so if the edit protection is removed, there really is no point in trying to restore some balance to the main article at all. Still, thank you for your comments. I will turn to WP:RFPP and put my request before them. Tempered (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

mizabot question

hi, i've added mizabot to my user talk page to archive old material. i believe it should have created its first archive by now, but it hasn't. i believe i followed the setup instructions properly. was wondering if someone might be able to take a quick look for me and point me in the direction of the problem (if there is one). cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 03:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I note that User talk:WookieInHeat/Archive 1 is currently a redirect back to User talk:WookieInHeat. That might be confusing things. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

thanks for taking a look john; i've removed the redirect, just have to wait and see what happens now. WookieInHeat (talk) 13:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Editing on my laptop with 59.178.163.6

I am unable to register my signature on my inputs while editing on my lap top in my house. Even Wikicommons is also blocked. Every time I log on, my address does not get registered at the top of the page. Please let me know if my addrees 59.178.163.6 is blocked. Will you please rectify the situation since I am regular contributor to wikipedia with 260 DYKs and 19 GAs to my credit. I have posted i this from PC address where I am able to edit.-- N.V.V. Char ^Talk . 05:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There are no blocks for this IP address. It sounds like a problem with the browser settings on the laptop - read I get logged out just after logging in for suggestions. If that doesn't help, feel free to post here again. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It happened to me a few days ago. I eventually traced the problem to the system date on my pc being wrong - I have a nephew who has lost a few brownie points! Roger (talk) 12:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

URL in diffs not clickable if within cite template

Resolved

 – Thanks to Goodvac

I wonder if anyone knows who I might contact to request a small feature change in the Wikimedia software? I look at "diffs" a lot, and frequently want to access a url that's present within. If the url is just located between "ref" tags, with no "cite" template used, it's easy. You just hover your cursor over the url, and it's clickable. But if the url is embedded within a "cite news" or other cite template, the hover/click "target" becomes just the "cite news" template itself, which is not helpful at all. This makes it much harder than it has to be when, for example, you're trying to see whether a given statement or quotation added in an edit really is supported by the citation given. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 05:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bug reports and feature requests may be helpful. It says to "discuss issues at the Village pump before filing a bug on Wikimedia's Bugzilla". Goodvac (talk) 07:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Goodvac. Will take it to the Village pump. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Need help with article edit

Could someone with advanced Wikipedia knowledge check this article from the current revision to the last revision done by me (gollymolly1010) and see if this person has fair reason to delete everything he did. He claimed it was "promotional" but the stuff he removed was not promotional IMO. I want an unbiased opinion so I'm asking here. Also, the pictures he disputed, I thought I provided good rationale and they were used to illustrate the sections they were in, but the claim is that their wasn't enough "commentary" to necessitate a picture. Please, any advice would be helpful so we can fix it to look somewhat decent, right now it looks crummy. The article is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Lambert Gollymolly1010 (talk) 06:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gollymolly. I took ten minutes to look, and thought I'd offer a few of observations. First, you might have better success requesting a third opinion since the help desk isn't really the place to go for content disputes. Second, I see neither you or the user who cut a lot of what you added has used the article's talk page at all, and that should actually be your first recourse to try to resolve content disputes. Third, I know no one likes to see their work deleted, but it's a normal part of the process here. Specifically, it's part of the Bold-Revert-Discuss process, by which articles here are improved. You made some "bold" changes, someone else "reverted" them, now you two need to get together on the article's talk page and "discuss" the changes. If you post to the talk page about those changes, and get no response after a week or so, then you can try adding some of them back, with the edit summary, "please see talk page". But I have to agree (sorry) that the content you wanted to add was a bit too promotional. All our articles need to present (1) verifiable facts, (2) from reliable sources, (3) in a neutral tone. It takes a little bit of practice to hit all three of those points, especially the last one when you really like a performer. This is not to diparage your contributions at all, just to say that I do think that "neutral tone" part might need just a little work. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Buchenwald Concentration Camp at scrapbookpages.com

Dear Sirs,

I'm writing to complain about the inclusion of "Scrapbookpages.com", and its blog, "Furtherglory.wordpress.com." The author is a Holocaust "reviser" who has made numerous statements skirting the issue of Holocaust denial, which I have outlined on my site, "Paolosilv.wordpress.com."

http://paolosilv.wordpress.com/2010/07/12/furtherglory-aka-scrapbookpages-i-accuse-you-publicly-of-being-a-holocaust-denier-or-reviser/ http://paolosilv.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/is-furtherglory-also-scrapbookpages-coms-website-manager/

Thank you for considering removing his contributions and/or links to his site.

Yours, PaoloSilv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.239.209.92 (talk) 07:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I added a title to make your request stand out from the one above Rojomoke (talk) 08:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I can see no problem with the scrapbookpages.com site (Our purpose is to provide information to tourists about what to expect at places of historical interest which they are planning to visit, and to give virtual tours for armchair travelers.) - if you have specific pages which you consider to be a problem which are linked to from a Wikipedia article, then let us know. Furtherglory.wordpress.com is not linked to in any of the articles on Wikipedia that I can see. As such, I am not going to comment on your problems with that blog - that is between you and the blog. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

What an incredible answer!!! If you don't see the problem with this site, you must be blind! Read the website carefully, and you'll see the problem!!! Incredible! 78.251.245.128 (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Editing semi-protected article by a first time editor

Hi - how do I edit a semi-protected article. I understand that i need to wait 4 days and make 10 changes but how can I do that if I am not allowed to edit? DavidKremer (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You can make 10 edits anywhere; you could try fixing typos in other articles, for instance. (The majority of articles aren't semi-protected.) The requirement for 10 edits is mostly to make life difficult for vandals (who'd have to do it over and over again with every account they created to vandalise), whilst not being a large obstacle to ordinary editors; in normal contribution, where people edit a wide range of articles, it's common to get 10 edits pretty quickly. --ais523 08:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

To find typos efficiently you could use the searches at the Lists of common misspellings. -- John of Reading (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If you are not willing to make 9 more edits (as I type) and wait until 08:17 UTC 11 October, then you can go to the article's talk page, edit the page, adding at the bottom: {{Edit semi-protected}} followed by your proposed changes. The notes for that template say This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". I hope this helps -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you know RSS subcription

Hi,

I wanted to know if I can subscribe for Did you know RSS. I mean is there any way out for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.92.207.130 (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know&feed=atom&action=history which is a list of changes to the Did you know section of the mainpage. Unfortunately, it probably isn't really what you want; I don't know if there's a feed anywhere that just feeds the articles. --ais523 11:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Help with Greek Letter Alphabetization. (Multiple copies of a greek letter?)

On List of fraternities and sororities in the Philippines, there is a sortable table in the section on General Fraternities and sororities. The first column is Greek Name, which for most of the groups is two, three or four greek letters. If Alphabetized on this column, first come the ones with no Greek Name, then those where the first letter is in fact a Latin Alphabetic Character. After that, it alphabetizes by the Greek Letter itself, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc. However even there it is screwy as it alphabetizes in order (at one point): ΑΣ, then ΑΩΒ, then, ΑΦΕ, then ΑΣΕ, and then ΑΦΙΣ. Are there multiple Unicode characters that all look like a single greek letter (say sigma) which could have been copied in to different places that are fouling up the Alphabetical order? I can go through and redo all of them from the character subset area on the edit screen, but I'd like to understand the issue first.Naraht (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See Help:Sorting for how to control sort order. I have Firefox and don't see the sort order you describe. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Help:Sorting only touches lightly on sorting of characters outside the lower half of the ASCII table, and I'm curious, with FF, once you sort on Greek Name, what comes after ΑΣ?Naraht (talk) 14:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In my Firefox, after ΑΣ comes ΑΣΕ. ΑΩΒ is between ΑΨΩ and ΒrP. See meta:Help:Sorting#Sort modes. You can use sort keys described at Help:Sorting to control sort order regardless of browsers. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Richtext Editor

Hallo,

where can I get this Richtext Editor you have for my little wiki? Which one would you recommend?

Thanks alot. Manuel B. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.171.177.170 (talk) 13:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Help:Rich text editor redirects to User:Cacycle/wikEd. If you mean wikEd then see User:Cacycle/wikEd installation. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleted article: Administrator does not reply

Hello! An article I wrote for a local company was deleted under the charge that it was "blatant advertising". As per the deleted article guidelines, I contacted the administrator who deleted the article on his/her talk page, and signed my message. It has been a day shy of three weeks since I have done that, and no reply has been made. I am not trying to argue for the current state of the article; I genuinely want to bring the article into Wikipedia guidelines. But if the administrator doesn't reply do I go ahead and start a deletion review? The guidelines say only to do that if I am unsatisfied after discussion with the administrator. Well, I'm not satisfied, exactly, but I can't really say that this is "after discussion" either. Thanks! Jimkennel (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You could request userfication of the page at WP:UND to work on the page in your userspace and tidy it up to meet wikipedia's guidelines. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 14:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I have userfied it for you now. Please note that ®, ^SM, etc are not meant to be in articles! When it is userfied, please read the various policies and guidelines (especially the notability guidelines, the notability guidelines for companies, reliable sources, independent sources, etc. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact a quick Google search reveals that Jim Kennel is President of DMX Direct, so not only do we have notability and WP:SPAM issues, but also a pretty insurmountable conflict of interest. Perhaps WikiCompany would be a better outlet? – ukexpat (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it was insurmountable - if he follows the guidelines above (and those I linked to on his talk page), there is no reason why he can't create a neutral article with reliable independent sources - if the company is notable and meets the criteria for inclusion. I'll give him a chance to show this -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Object to a deletion closing

I object to a certain MFD being closed after only 9 hours. Is such a quick deletion reasonable? I certainly would have participated if It hadn't occurred so quickly while I was asleep. I'm talking about Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia is the Holocaust. Buddy431 (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

See the Snowball Clause. – ukexpat (talk) 15:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

changes removed from page, how do i cite the person a bio is about?

A few days ago I update my boss' bio. It has since been changed back to before I made the edits. I updated it again today, and cited our company website. will this prevent it from being changed again? The source for the info is his personal biography, which is not published. Our company website has a brief bio, but it is not exactly the same as what I've entered on his wiki page. Please let me know how to proceed so the changes I have made will stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.60.42 (talk) 14:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide a link so I could see the edits myself, that'd help me answer your question. Well, it might have been reverted because there were no reliable sources or something like that. Anyway, I'd be more helpful if I saw the edits myself. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 15:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to change content without citing a reliable source. You even note that the source of the information is unpublished. In short, this is not allowed. Information added to any article, especially the biography of a living person, but be able to be verified by reference to a reliable source.--SPhilbrickT 15:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

@ Darth One of the two edits is here--SPhilbrickT 15:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm too slow with my essays...

Robert Zimmerman (commentator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Information in Wikipedia needs to be backed up with references to reliable sources such as books, newspapers and such like, so that readers can verify for themselves that the information is accurate. To be trustworthy, the sources need to be independent of the person the article is about. For this reason, a company website is not considered a "reliable" source. Anyone can put up a website and use it to say just about anything they like about themselves.

Your edits to the article have removed several references, which have been put back; and you then added a paragraph about the person's degrees and referenced it with the web address of a page on the company website that did not actually mention his degrees at all. I have removed the paragraph.

Additionally, Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Experience has shown that it is extremely difficult to maintain this standard when writing about oneself, one's company, or, in your case, one's boss. The Wikipedia guidelines on conflict of interest strongly recommend that you should not edit the article yourself. Instead, please post suggestions, with their sources, on the article talk page so that they can be evaluated by uninvolved editors. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

made a mistake editing

forgot to put down citations for Rep. Robert Schenck (politician) and got error message fixed problem of citations but citation error msg is still showing —Preceding unsigned comment added by RealTruthFlorida (talk • contribs) 16:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it for you. Please read Help:Footnotes for more details on using "ref" tags to format your sources as footnotes - it can be tricky for new editors. -- John of Reading (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The user name and nature of the edits may lead one to assume, were one not assuming good faith, that the user is editing the article for political campaign purposes. – ukexpat (talk) 17:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Getting Started Toolkits on stopsuperbugs.com

Hi there,

We are trying to submit a link on Wikipedia to help controlling superbugs to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_bug_%28bacteria%29#External_links

Rather than fragment wikipedia by starting a new page,

we choose to contribute to an existing article.

Please help me understand why our link has been removed repeatedly?

It's my intention to post a link here to let the people themselves decide whether or not they find the Getting Started Toolkit helpful. At this point in time it appears to me that one person or a small group gets to decide what the rest of the world gets to see regarding this subject.
Safer Healthcare Now! and the Canadian Patient Safety Institute are government regulated initiatives that are trying to spread the knowledge of how to battle these superbugs on both a national and global level.
Having a link be displayed on this specific wikipedia page will help us get a step closer to achieving that goal.

The only link that helps battling the superbugs actually isn't working;

(The server at intranet.cc.nih.gov is taking too long to respond.)

Feel free to verify here: http://www.cc.nih.gov/hes/vre.html

Instead of only focussing on preventing new/ updated information from being posted,

would it be a good plan to also focus on keeping the external links up to date?

I will be more than happy to help take care of that for you.

Kind regards,

Marc van der Woerd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stopsuperbugs (talk • contribs) 16:53, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not the place of Wikipedia to advocate in any particular direction, nor is Wikipedia an appropriate venue for promoting this initiative. If the programme has received media coverage, and can be shown to be notable, then it might qualify for its own article, or at least a section under CPSI's article (if any). But the link appears to go to a web community, which is not an appropriate external link, no matter who sponsors the community. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I've commented out the deadlink you indicate, as I couldn't get it working either. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 17:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

User name reported as a spamname. – ukexpat (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party

As a TEA-PARTY adviser and member of the American Constitutional Law Society, We have been asked to study the proper procedure to have the So. Carolina officials "OATH of OFFICE" in effect and "The holders of office" be responsible and answerable to the state and to the people of S.C. when placing personal benefits or interests instead of the people or States interest. We require this in an effort to restrict their profiting at the expense of the people or the State.

As we read "The Act of 1867 by the 41st Congress we believe that once our Representatives establish residence in the District they become employees of the federal corporation and vacates all obligation to the Republic state of origin. Source the Congressional Record and internet

What effective criminal protection do the voters have at present and what penalties does the State apply for breach of their "Oath Of Office"?.

Thank you! Richard Young —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.216.136.70 (talk) 17:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over three million articles, and thought that we were directly affiliated in some way with that subject. Please note that you are at Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and this page is a help desk for asking questions related to using the encyclopedia. Thus, we have no inside track on the subject of your question. You can, however, search our vast catalogue of articles by typing a subject into the search field on the upper right side of your screen. If you cannot find what you are looking for, we have a reference desk, divided into various subject areas, where asking knowledge questions is welcome. Best of luck. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Beyond that, we can offer no legal advice on specific issues of jurisdiction, residence, or the like. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Article has gotten corrupted - Unisys OS 2200 Operating System

After I made several updates to the article "Unisys OS 2200 Operating System," the article became corrupted in a section I wasn't working on. A few lines after "Demand", the rest is garbled and seems to be a dump of internal text from some other article. However, the history of the article shows that it was intact after my latest update, and the "Demand" section that shows up on the Edit tab is correct. Do you have a way to correct that corruption?

Dr.glen (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Unisys OS 2200 operating system looks OK to me. Maybe there was a temporary problem with a transcluded template. If you still see a problem after bypassing your cache then post a quote from the bad text. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks okay now. I suspect it was a cache problem. Dr.glen (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)