'content'=>":Other New Comment [[User:JarJar|JarJar]] ([[User talk:JarJar|talk]]) $ts",
'full-section'=><<<TEXT
== Section 3 ==
Hai [[User:Bsitu|Bsitu]] ([[User talk:Bsitu|talk]]) $ts
:Other New Comment [[User:JarJar|JarJar]] ([[User talk:JarJar|talk]]) $ts
TEXT
],
],
],
[
'Bug T78424',
DiscussionParser::getMachineReadableDiff(
<<<TEXT
== Washington Post Reception Source ==
''The Boston Post'' source that was used in the reception section has a couple of problems. First, it's actually a repost of ''The Washington Post'', but ''The Washington Post'' doesn't allow the Internet Archive to preserve it. Should it still be sourced to Boston or to Washington? Second, it seems to be a lot of analysis that can't be summed up easily without trimming it out, and doesn't really fit with the reception section and should probably moved next to Wilson's testimony. Any suggestions? --[[User:RAN1|RAN1]] ([[User talk:RAN1|talk]]) 01:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
TEXT
,
<<<TEXT
== Washington Post Reception Source ==
''The Boston Post'' source that was used in the reception section has a couple of problems. First, it's actually a repost of ''The Washington Post'', but ''The Washington Post'' doesn't allow the Internet Archive to preserve it. Should it still be sourced to Boston or to Washington? Second, it seems to be a lot of analysis that can't be summed up easily without trimming it out, and doesn't really fit with the reception section and should probably moved next to Wilson's testimony. Any suggestions? --[[User:RAN1|RAN1]] ([[User talk:RAN1|talk]]) 01:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
== Grand jury no bill reception ==
{{u|Bob K31416}} has started a process of summarizing that section, in a manner that I believe it to be counter productive. We have expert opinions from legal, law enforcement, politicians, and media outlets all of which are notable and informative. [[WP:NOTPAPER|Wikipedia is not paper]] – If the section is too long, the correct process to avoid losing good content that is well sources, is to create a sub-article with all the detail, and summarize here per [[WP:SUMMARY]]. But deleting useful and well sourced material, is not acceptable. We are here to build an encyclopedia. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 16:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
TEXT
),
// User
'Cwobeel',
// Expected annotation
[
[
'type'=>'new-section-with-comment',
'content'=>'== Grand jury no bill reception ==
{{u|Bob K31416}} has started a process of summarizing that section, in a manner that I believe it to be counter productive. We have expert opinions from legal, law enforcement, politicians, and media outlets all of which are notable and informative. [[WP:NOTPAPER|Wikipedia is not paper]] – If the section is too long, the correct process to avoid losing good content that is well sources, is to create a sub-article with all the detail, and summarize here per [[WP:SUMMARY]]. But deleting useful and well sourced material, is not acceptable. We are here to build an encyclopedia. - [[User:Cwobeel|<span style="color:#339966">Cwobeel</span>]] [[User_talk:Cwobeel|<span style="font-size:80%">(talk)</span>]] 16:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)',
],
],
],
// when adding additional tests, make sure to add the non-anon users
// to DiscussionParserTest::$testusers - the DiscussionParser
// needs the users to exist, because it'll generate a comparison
// signature, which is different when the user is considered anon