Template talk:PinkDiff

No thing

Why not set up a test platform of one instance of usage of the template right here? Then we can EC each other to death trying to test experiments to get that nowiki thing to work? ħuman 18:56, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

You mean like this?

I think we'll probably need the extension Jeeves mentioned, realistically... Pink_{(What ho! Jeeves)} 19:02, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

There is another small problem, also. If you look at the third "PinkDiff" here, you'll notice that there's a carriage return in the middle. When I tried to nowiki the whole thing earlier, I couldn't find any way of making the carriage return "active" -- so I think we might be forced to nowiki (and "un-nowiki" to deal with CRs) manually throughout the whole thing. Pink_(Gah!!) 19:05, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, I think the CR might be working (or my screen width just happens to make it so?), but, even worse, the extra indent on the second half of it isn't doing anything. Let me ponder a bit and see if anything useful intrudes upon my idle brain. I'll try to study up a bit on what you are parsing, too, maybe if the "raw" information was processed a bit it would be easier to work on? Your raw data is one huge word doc, right? ħuman 21:06, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Yeah. The CR is working at the moment, but it wouldn't if we automated the nowikis. Which we can't do anyway.

But, more importantly, at the top of my wishlist at the moment would be a bot that can process the whole history page and put the raw stuff into this template. After that it'll be much easier to make it pretty and so on. Pink_(Diff) 21:10, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

OK, here's an idea. Take the raw data you saved, and massage it in a text editor that incorporates a powerful search/replace function to clean up things we/you want cleaned up, and perhaps even add the functions your template provides (formatting, mostly, right?). Doing that depends on the data having workable repetitions that can be searched and replaced. When I did the chickenhawk/USAPATRIOT voting thing, that's what I did - pulled the raw data from the .gov sources, then beat on it to wikify it. I use "arachnophilia" (The last non-Java version) to do it, it's really an html editor, but it has awesome S/R functionality. Do you want to email me a .txt version of the raw data to look at? ħuman 21:20, 30 September 2008 (EDT)

Thing

(cur) (last) 22:14, 12 September 2008: Jpatt (Talk | Contribs) (542 bytes) (exposing the corrupt is noble)

In this day and age, scientists have their own agenda and have corrupted science. Just look at global warming or cloning or stem cells as proof. With that said, the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court. Unfortunately, scientists are bound to vast wealth and have the power to defend themselves vigorously. If ever a fund was set up to pay for a suit, I would contribute. It is a classic case whereby the truth be known, the truth will prevail. -- 14px jp 22:14, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

(cur) (last) 22:21, 12 September 2008: Aschlafly (Talk | Contribs) (802 bytes) (reply)

Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--Aschlafly 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)>

(cur) (last) 23:09, 12 September 2008: Drek (Talk | Contribs) (1,178 bytes) (<no comment given>)

Thanks, Jpatt. One additional beauty of the truth is that it remains the truth no how much some deny it. PNAS can deny its errors all it likes, but that doesn't change the fact they are errors.--Aschlafly 22:21, 12 September 2008 (EDT)

"...the only way to get the real truth is by suing in court." Which is why the Kitzmiller et al. vs. Dover Area School District et al. decision was so important. Science was able to vindicate itself against the claims of intelligent design creationism. As for PNAS: It's not like the reviewer isn't saying anything that commenters here hadn't told ASchlafly already. -Drek