Wikipedia talk:Find or fix a stub/Work
I certify that the combined contents of the two preceding versions of this sub-page consist precisely of
- initial and final headings written by me,
- possible differences in white space,
- the markup text of the 16:37, 2005 Apr 17 revision of Wikipedia talk:Find or fix a stub, up to a point where it appears to begin repeating itself (appearing in the older of the two previous versions of this page), and
- the remander of that revision (appearing in the newer of the two previous versions of this page).
Thus the diffs output between those versions, which is accessible from
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Find_or_fix_a_stub/Work&action=history this sub-page's history] (although the diff's URL will be changed by this edit), confirms that nothing got lost in my deletion of the apparent "first copy" of the page's mostly duplicated content.
----
The diff for the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Find_or_fix_a_stub&diff=12435733&oldid=12435707 edit that preceded the doubling] shows that
- E=MC^2's first of two edits added the "== Stub legnth ==" section that bears their sig.
I interpret the next difference output as showing that the second edit attributed to E=MC^2 replaced, with a complete copy of the immediately preceding revision (which included both the 2-month-old "==Move to Wiktionary==" section by BozMo and the roughly-1-minute-old one by E=MC^2), either
- ; both of those sections: in the roughly-1-minute-old preceding revision by E=MC^2, or
- ; the final section (by BozMo): in the month-old revision by User:Docu.
I was checking this in response to my fear that my quick-fix of discarding the "first copy" might have discarded something that wasn't a duplicate, and documenting it for anyone who shared that fear. But FWIW this shakes up my belief that i understood what happens in a page-doubling: i expected the second copy to replace only the section the edit added, not the preceding section as well.
I now assume that the system screwed up the resolution of what it inferred was an ed conf of E with themself (while E was editing the final existing section, or was implicitly inferred to be doing so while using "post a comment").