RationalWiki's 2019 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2020.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $1050Goal: $3000

Talk:Put a Sock in It

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Do we have a style side-by-sides are suppose to be done in? I am pretty sure we have moved away from this style. - User \pi 21:00, 18 January 2009 (EST)

What type of style are you talking about?Z3ro 21:17, 18 January 2009 (EST)
I think he means the latest version, which is at the template. In that, each header "contains" its own complete two cell table, so when editing, 1. you can see what you are refuting, and 2. preview works properly. Older versions put headers inside table rows, making for a bit of a muck-up when editing sections. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:26, 18 January 2009 (EST)
I haven't the foggiest what you are talking about. Has the template really changed? Sterilerationalize 21:34, 18 January 2009 (EST)
Yes, it has. If you look at RationalWiki:Side-by-Side_Template, you'll see the difference. But by goat, what a lot of work to fix what you have made. Maybe some night I'll copy it all into a text file and do some huge search/replace work to modernize it? Otherwise, it's no big deal the way it is. We thank you for setting it up... ħumanUser talk:Human 01:22, 19 January 2009 (EST)
Oh, I see.... Interesting. I guess that's what happens when you are distracted by an election for a couple months. Sterilerationalize 07:28, 19 January 2009 (EST)
Neither are optimal, the new method you just don't have to think up rebuttal names. - User \pi 07:37, 19 January 2009 (EST)
Not really, see my comment above - the new method edits both sides at once, and previews properly. Although, I guess with really long sections to rebut like this one has, that fills up a lot of screens... ħumanUser talk:Human 14:36, 19 January 2009 (EST)

Incidentally, I've nominated the intelligent design entry for a cover article. So far only Human has commented (see the talk page). Please have a look & add your comments or make changes if needed. Thanks. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 09:43, 19 January 2009 (EST)


Hmmm... It appears as if UD has removed a link for this "comment policy" at least from its main page. (It seems to now be a sublink under a much more bland comment policy). It seems to been merged into a new, even longer and more overdone screed here. We might want to reconsider this.... Sterilerationalize 22:48, 5 February 2009 (EST) (Warning! Someone got overexcited with fonts and italics!)

blah. blah[edit]

How is this a response? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 00:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

blah. blah (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Table Flip 1.gif
αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Just illustrating how it's a response. ;) (talk) 01:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I apologize, my actions were rash.
Table Flip 2.gif
 :P Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 01:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
No worries, I always like a nice tableflip. ;) (talk) 01:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)