If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)

Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

odd uneditable wikipedia vandalism

blatantrereg · 2012-10-09 22:37:52

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makemake_%28dwarf_planet%29 Look at the 'Name' section. At the time of writing it is this: Click on edit tab. Navigate to that part. It appears correctly. Reload the page. The vandalism is still there. What's happening there...?

09-10-2012 10:37pm

#1

blatantrereg

Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2011

Posts: 2612

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makemake_%28dwarf_planet%29

Look at the 'Name' section. At the time of writing it is this:

The provisionapoooooopyl designation 2005 FY9 was given to Makemake when the discovery was made public. Before that, the discovery team used the codename "Easterbunny" for the object, because of its discovery shortly after Easter.[2]

Click on edit tab. Navigate to that part. It appears correctly.

Reload the page. The vandalism is still there.

What's happening there...?

0

Comments

#2 10-10-2012 2:26am

NeoRox

Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 606 ✭✭✭

Join Date: July 2003

Posts: 540

It was just the way the html link was edited. Just edit the link in the edit section and its normal. Just fixed it.

0
#3 10-10-2012 7:13am

blatantrereg

Closed Accounts Posts: 2,743 ✭✭✭

Join Date: November 2011

Posts: 2612

The way the markup looks in the history shows pooooopy in the word. Last night the markup was correct though while the article was showing poooopy. It was weird.

0