Help desk
< May 28	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 30 >

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.

May 29

Userpage and {{Scroll box}}

On my userpage, how would I make the DYKs scroll box align right under the header, like under the "Articles created" subheader? Albacore (talk) 00:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a play, but without success. I suggest you post at Wikipedia:User page design center/Help and collaboration/Help requests. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Texting Larry

How can I text Larry the cable guy with a money making idea that I have? I can be reached by my e mail <email removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.76.246.9 (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 million articles and thought we were 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 for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about 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. —teb728 t c 02:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Alexandra Powers

Should the Category:American_atheists go in the article Alexandra_Powers becuase it says in her personal life: Powers does not adhere to any religion. Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so since atheists don't practice any form of religion. SwisterTwister (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not "adhering" to any particular religion is not in any way the same as being an atheist. Please remove the category. And, Neptunekh2, please read WP:BLPCAT, which deals with adding sexuality and religion categories to articles about living people. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with DC. Being an atheist is not the same as practicing no religion. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 19:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More than that: She say she prays when she feels sad; if she is an atheist, who do you think she pray to? —teb728 t c 21:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a deity. Not adhering to any religion does not mean she doesn't believe in a deity. So we don't have enough information to say she is an atheist. Also WP:BLPCAT, a section of the policy on living people, says "Categories regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question; and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." There is nothing in the article to say she has self-identified as an atheist nor is it relevant to her notable activities or public life. So it does not belong. GB fan (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Katharyn_Powers

Could someone fix the links on put on Screenwriter's article Katharyn_Powers? Neptunekh2 (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please look at the edit diffs to see how I did this so that you can do it for yourself in the future. Dismas|^(talk) 04:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See this diff Tiggerjay (talk) 07:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of English football transfers winter 2002–03

I have been heavily editing this page but when I went to save it, it took ages and came up with a Wikimedia Error. I have had to copy the table to Microsoft Word, in the hope that I could add all the references there and replace the table in the article, but it again takes a long time before producing an error. What can I do and why is this happening? The article probably has a couple of hundred references, but this isn't usually a problem in a long list. 03 md 04:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that wikipedia was having some performance issues and was totally down at some points. That might have been your problem. Otherwise, I recommend you update in sections instead of the entire article at a time. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Old style versus new style dates

I have a question regarding dates. In the Wikipedia articles, dates before about 1753 are given in which calendar? Are they given in the Old Style (Julian) calendar, or in the New Style (Gregorian) calendar? This question is pretty important. For example, in the article about Blaise Pascal, his year of birth is given as 1623. Is this date already converted to the New Style (Gregorian) calendar, or not?

Tandava9 (talk) 04:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"France changed from Julian to Gregorian Calendar on 9 December 1582 (O.S.) where the next day was 20 December 1582 (N.S.)." (from Old Style and New Style dates) "Dates of events in countries using the Gregorian calendar are given in the Gregorian calendar. This includes some of the Continent of Europe from 1582, the British Empire from 14 September 1752, and Russia from 14 February 1918" (from WP:MOSNUM#Calendars). Hans Adler 04:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Bank of Canada Fraud cover up With CIBC bank of canad

I have information about a fraud cover up where the royal bank has stone walled the repayment of funds there is information of a cover up and plan to make the client and company broke how can i get information of this act that happen at the RBC ROYAL BANK OF CANADA (Redacted)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.94.229 (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would write to the bank?

Or, if it hits newspapers, add it to their article with reliable sources.

Here, at the Wikipedia Help Desk, we can only help with questions about how to use Wikipedia - not any of the 3 zillion articles we have. Best, Chzz ► 05:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

market segmentation

How to use the santoor prouct in geographical concept? How to use the santoor prouct in psychographical concept? How to use the santoor prouct in demographical concept? How to use the santoor prouct in behavioural concept? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.57.21.234 (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your questions, unfortunately, lack sufficient context to be answered. You are at the English language Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia. We do have an article on the musical instrument, Santoor though I'm not sure how it could relate to your questions. Maybe you landed on an article and thought we were directly connected with the subject? If you are looking to ask a knowledge question, please visit the reference desk (this page is for questions about using the encyclopedia itself) but even there you will need to be far more focused and clear in your questions.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article needing to be expanded

The article List_of_The_Mummy_characters with The_Scorpion_King_2:_Rise_of_a_Warrior characters needs to be expanded. Can someone please do that? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 06:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the needed information, I would suggest that you make the needed changes. Otherwise, you might want to ask the film project team over at WP:FILM. Tiggerjay (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technical question for footnote experts

At List of postal entities#UPU members, a single footnote is used to source what will be 163 out of 191 entries (once the list is complete). Using the {{reflist}} system, this generates a rather long and ugly list of backlinks (a,b,c...aa,ab,...). Is there some way to suppress this or is there a more elegant method? Thanks, Sandstein 08:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could cheat; see [1] - hope that'll be self-explanatory, from the code. Obviously, it could be done 'neater' with a specific one-off template. But give me a shout otherwise. Chzz ► 08:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I tried it at List of postal entities#UPU members and interestingly it works while in section edit preview mode, but not after saving (the footnote links do not jump down to the reference). Do you know what I might have done wrong? Sandstein 09:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Need to 'group' the first one [2]. Chzz ► 09:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a fix for this— T25455. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 11:18, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It still doesn't seem to work correctly with groups, but I'll have to work around this. (The links now go to the ungrouped footnote rather than to the first footnote in the "UPU" group.) Sandstein 11:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm; the reference links are numbered, regardless of grouping - starting with zero.

If you look at User:Chzz/Sandstein1, notice if you hover your mouse over the first ref (or click it), it links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chzz/Sandstein1#cite_note-0 - and the second reference labelled ^{[mygroup 1]}, which just happens to be grouped, links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chzz/Sandstein1#cite_note-1

So, if you wanted those others to link to that, you'd need to use [[#cite_note-1]] (or, rather, <sup>[[#cite_note-1|Whatever you want displayed]]</sup>). See User:Chzz/Sandstein2.

I'm afraid the reference numbers (and thus the links) are out of our control, so if people add another ref above 'yours', that'll screw things up. I don't know of a way around that, unless... well, I suppose you could put in a manual anchor thingy using #tag, and link to that...but that'd make the code a bit more complex. Er. You can kinda see what I mean in User:Chzz/help/footnoteref?

You're work-around looks fine though. But if you need any further help, give me a shout. Cheers, Chzz ► 01:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HTH, Chzz ► 01:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the help, I'll try to wrap my head around that! Sandstein 06:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio images

I'm at work and have people working around me. That said, I'm apprehensive to check into the files that Fark333333 (talk · contribs) is uploading. I had a few minutes by myself which I used to tag one of their other image uploads as a copyvio (Flickr source says "all rights reserved") but they've uploaded several more. Could someone who doesn't have prying eyes around them check out this user's file uploads? I don't think any of them will be nude images but I'd rather not take the chance. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 09:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, another editor saw the other edits that this user was making. Thanks anyway, Dismas|^(talk) 09:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglia Building Society

I have an account from 1990 for the Anglia Building Society and have £29.94 left in there since 5 Oct 1990 my account no. is (Redacted). Name Sally Morris. Book in the name of Neil Morris and Sally Morris, am now divorced but would like to cash in this amount plus the interest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.136.101 (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect, based on your question, that you found one of our over 3.5 million articles and thought we were 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 for asking questions related to using or contributing to Wikipedia itself. Thus, we have no special knowledge about 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. GB fan (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-on, looking at the article, Anglia Building Society, it appears they merged and became Nationwide Building Society. You should probably try to contact them at http://www.nationwide.co.uk/contact_us/how_to_contact_us/default.htm GB fan (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Direct experience entry

Dear Wikipedia, I found an entry for the school I went to. It is a democratic school with a very unique philosophy on how children learn. As a past student, 1967 - 78, I now embody the outcome of this philosophy. How can I contribute my experience to the school entry? Thank you 16:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeesaMay (talk • contribs) 16:27, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to add to the article. Please remember to add reliable sources, and make the article Neutral CTJF83 16:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are free to contribute, just like anyone else. However, please note that personal stories are not usually appropriate for Wikipedia articles, unless they have been reported in reliable sources--SPhilbrick T 18:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling silver

i would like to know if sterling silver is worth anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.185.198.57 (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for Wikipedia questions. A simple Google search will give you the price. CTJF83 16:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signature limit too restrictive

Hi,

I'm trying to set the following as my signature, but Wikipedia won't let me, as it's above the 255-character limit:

<span style="font-family:Tahoma">&mdash;[[User:Tommyjb|<span style="color:blue">Tommyjb</span>]] [[User_talk:Tommyjb|<span style="color:orange">Talk!</span>]] <span style="font-size:x-small">({{CURRENTTIME}}, {{CURRENTDAY}} {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTYEAR}})</span>

Instead, I'm having to use the deprecated <font> tag:

<font face="Tahoma">—[[User:Tommyjb|<font color="blue">Tommyjb</font>]] [[User_talk:Tommyjb|<font color="orange">Talk!</font>]] <small>({{SUBST:CURRENTTIME}}, {{SUBST:CURRENTDAY}} {{SUBST:CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{SUBST:CURRENTYEAR}})</small></font>

My desired signature is 284 characters long. Would I be able to get an signature extention? I'd rather not have to use a depreciated HTML tag.

—Tommyjb Talk! (19:23, 29 May 2011)

What's wrong with a plain signature? Personally, I think the current limit is too lax. I'd like to see no custom sigs at all. DuncanHill (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of Wikipedian who will just chop off your signature on their talk pages if it takes up more than a given number of lines in an edit box, and others who are distinctly unimpressed with the ostentation of showy signatures. Your current one looks fine. Bielle (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature when used on a talk page is much shorter than the 255-character limit; it's just those magic words that make it too long for the preference box. You could experiment by putting the markup in a sub-page, User:Tommyjb/sig, and then configuring your signature as {{subst:User:Tommyjb/sig}}.

When you create the subpage you will have to replace each "subst:" with <includeonly>subst:</includeonly> so that the magic words are not lost when you save the subpage. -- John of Reading (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SIG#NoTemplates suggests using a template like that is forbidden. Rehevkor ✉ 20:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually is says that substitution is permissible but discouraged. From the sounds of the conversation above it appears that this would be one of the exceptions to why it is discouraged. It sounds like it would be shorter than the 255 character limit if it is substituted if I am reading right. GB fan (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many people object to long sigs due to their look when pages you have signed are being edited. Please keep your sig short enough so as not to be disruptive. 216.93.212.245 (talk) 20:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect putting the date in brackets like that could screw up bots recognising it as a signature too. Rehevkor ✉ 20:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't know much about Wikipedia bots. I wonder whether that will be a problem. —Tommyjb Talk! (20:38, 29 May 2011)

SineBot must have recognised the date/time in your first post in this thread, otherwise it would have added its {{undated}} comment. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As alluded to by John of Reading, my (post-processed) signature above is only 170 characters long, well below the 255-character limit. —Tommyjb Talk! (20:32, 29 May 2011)

You could also try using {{subst:#time:H:i, d F Y}} to get the current time and date. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3 things to discuss

1. Could some help imrove an article about an Inuit created called :Qallunaat!_Why_White_People_Are_Funny? I have sources for the article right here: http://www.beachwalkerfilms.com/prod_det.asp?id=28 http://www.onf-nfb.gc.ca/eng/collection/film/?id=52432 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1368135/combined

2. Should Alexandra Powers go under the category Category:American_atheists because it says in her personal life: "Powers does not adhere to any religion"?

3. Why was the Category:Wikipedians_of_British_descent deleted? Thanks! Neptunekh2 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as #2, you already asked this above and it is being discussed here, #Question about Alexandra Powers. GB fan (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For #3, see this, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_7#Category:Wikipedians_by_ethnic_or_national_descent_.28and_subcategories.29 GB fan (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your #1 was deleted as a test page. GB fan (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which looks like a mistake to me: whatever the deleted article was, it was clearly not a test page. (It even had a "Sources" section.) Anyway, I'd suggest taking a peek at WP:MOSFILM and then recreating the article, this time with a bit more context from the start so that it won't be deleted again. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You asked on my talkpage as well. You've been told to stop doing this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question - where to post

If someone puts in an article an external link to a video that I believe is a copyright violation, do I handle such a problem based on the instructions at WP:CP or WP:MCQ? The media noticeboard seems to be restricted to files, whereas the the copyright problem board seems to be restricted to possible textual violations. Mine is a link to something that is arguably unlawful. What's the right procedure?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it first, if it is readded talk to the user that readded it or on the talk page to try and discuss it. Other wise WP:ELN would be the place. CTJF83 21:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I removed it and have engaged in an extensive discussion with the editor who defends it. It hasn't yet been readded, but I wanted to know what to do if it is (I'm not going to edit war over it). Also, I was kind of curious anyway. What if the same link were used in the body of the article as opposed to external links? Then where would I go?--Bbb23 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't link to the actual website, I can only guess what the issue is, but possibly: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard or WP:CP like you linked before. CTJF83 21:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The video is on YouTube here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world is the context to link to that?! Point the user to WP:YOUTUBE and let them know it is a copyright violation to link to copyrighted videos. CTJF83 22:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's for the Goldie Hawn article. It's a collage of copyrighted film material plus a background audio of a copyrighted song, apparently put together by some user who then posted it to YouTube. To me, it's a clear copyright violation, but I suppose one could try to argue fair use. However, in my view, Wikipedia editors, in this kind of situation, should not be appointing themselves federal judges and making a fair use determination, which is difficult enough to do even for judges. In any event, I pointed all this out to the editor who wanted to insert it. If you want to read our extended discussion on the Hawn Talk page, feel free. I'm not continuing the discussion with him, and I told him so. I already went much further and spent more time on it than it deserved. However, the editor is experienced and civil (I'm a sucker for civility), so I kept going, hoping I would get through to him. The only good news is he hasn't tried to add it back in.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. CTJF83 00:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the editor added the link, along with a bizarre note on the Talk page about a fair use disclaimer. I guess I'll start by posting on WP:ELN.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shameless plug: WP:VIDEOLINK . There is zero precedent for fair use with YouTube videos but linking to them may be contributory infringement. The uploader's channel appears to be full of violations. We should not be mirroring it. Don't get the Foundation in legal trouble! Ask the editor why he needs the video in and seek alternatives to convey the information. Cptnono (talk) 01:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with "Tyler Reks" page

The page lists incorrect information under "Personal life" regarding a statement I purportedly made on Twitter. The article states that my wife's name is "Tyler", when in actuality it is "Priscilla". It also states that I states people would chant "Reks Wrecks", which I didn't. I've attempted to remove the false data on numerous occasions only to have it reappear a day later. The reference (#9) is to a blog with an incorrect quote from a Twitter response. The entire article in that section should be removed for incorrect information.

For verification please contact me via Direct Message on my verified Twitter Account, if necessary.

Thank you,

Gabe Tuft (AKA: Tyler Reks) 21:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.10.111 (talk)

I've removed the section as not supported by a reliable source.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

registering awareness ribbon colours

Hi i am working with a group of parents to raise awareness of global developmental delay and we was wondering how we can add our awareness colours to your list of awareness ribbons colour directory? We have already created awareness wristbands in the colours yellow band with black writing and once we have had a qoute for actual ribbons they will be yellow ribbons with black writing on them to saying GDD AWARENESS. many thanks Jan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.13.224.193 (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable sources claiming your ribbon is notable? CTJF83 21:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

original work

In the guidelines is written: "Wikipedia surveys must be existing human knowledge; it is not a place to publish new work." But what about stringtheory? It hasn't ever yet experimentally been proven. It is not existing human knowledge: It is a postulate, or maybe a quess!! So you give me a dammed good answer, why my new work on cosmology is removed!! Info <email removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.10.68.24 (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dozens of papers and books have been published on string theory. See for example the References, Further reading, and External links sections of String theory. Wikipedia does not publish previously unpublished material like your theory. (I removed your email address because we do not reply via email.) —teb728 t c 00:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Hidden" revisions of a page (offline) ??

Resolved

Hello,

Sorry to disturb you but I experiment a problem on the page Talk:Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case. I don't know how to resolve it ? I noticed that the discussions on this page seems to be "locked", and all contributions after May 26th are "hidden" to anonymous users (not connected). This is very strange.

I tried to purge cache with the parameter "?action=purge" but nothing appens. Then, I saw on mediawiki that some pages revisions can be "hidden" by using "RevisionDelete" or "Extension:Oversight". I am questionning myself, and maybe an user/admin add this page on "hide revisions/log" with malice ??

Could you help me, and explain to me why all contributions of this page after May 26th are hidden to offline users ?? Thanks a lot !

Nota : You must be "offline" to see the problems (not connected with your login/password)

Esthertree (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to hide comments from only users who are not logged in (other than something called 'pending changes', but we're not using that any more, and it was never used on talk pages).

Can you see, for example, this? That was added on 29th.

Could it be, perhaps, that your browser is struggling because of the sheer size of that talk page? It's quite a big one, at 391 kB.

Are you using quite an old web browser? Under certain environments, Firefox 2.0 and Internet Explorer 6 are known to have difficulty loading articles over about 400 KB.^[[3]]

If you think it might be browser-related, perhaps you could try updating it. Or, give us more details.

I assure you though, nothing is being hidden. If items are revision-deleted, then only admins can see them - it's just like deletion of an entire page. And if they're oversighted (or 'suppressed'), then only the oversight team can see them (not even admins).

But, there is no function that hides things only from anon users. Chzz ► 01:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Incidentally - I did log out, and check. The page looks identical, to me, whether I'm logged in or not) Chzz ► 01:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem occurs for me too, but I can fix it. My fix might work for you too. Try adding &limit=50 after the page title and before the 'history' part (so the full URL is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominique_Strauss-Kahn_sexual_assault_case&limit=50&action=history) I have no idea what causes this but I don't think it's possible that it's related to page hiding or oversight, because even then you'd at least see a line with the words crossed out. —Soap— 01:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What browser and version are you using, Soap? Chzz ► 02:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It happens on Chrome and IE, but not Firefox, when logged out. I dont think the page size should matter since it's just the history page that's being loaded.—Soap— 12:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right - yes, I tried it, and I see. In ie, the "latest" entry is 02:59, 26 May 2011, in firefox it's 15:47, 31 May 2011. How odd.

I've logged this as a bug, see https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=29220 Chzz ► 18:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed; apparently, some odd technical glitch with the Squid cache, which was resolved by the Wikimedia tech team. Chzz ► 03:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]