User talk:Feredir28

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
New logo large.png Welcome to RationalWiki, Feredir28!

Please see our guide for newcomers and our community standards.

Tell us how you found RationalWiki here!

If you are interested in contributing:

Hi Wave.gif. Nice of you to join us. If you'd like to know a bit more about the site please have a look at our RationalWiki:Newcomers' guide. --BobSpring is sprung! 22:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I see you have been working on the Jesus article. I am sure you are aware of our copyright policy which basically says that whatever you write you should have written yourself. Some of your text has been lifted from here and some other parts seem to have come from Wikipedia. Do you think you could put the copied parts in your own words? Thanks.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
... I am not sure if this is the correct way to respond to your message, but I will let you know that I will correct my mistake as soon as I can. At first I just wanted to get more material onto the page quickly, but I shall do it properly as best I can for now on. Have a happy new year.
Sincerely,
Feredir28 — Unsigned, by: Feredir28 / talk / contribs
Also, please do not remove content without explanation like you did in this edit. Thanks.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
And please sign talk page entries using four tildes like this: ~~~~ or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png, on the toolbar above the edit panel. Thank you. -- Nx / talk 06:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and usually you should reply on the page where the conversation started, in order to avoid ping-pong conversations. I've copied your reply here. -- Nx / talk 06:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi glad you're still around. I should have explained a lot of the stuff above when you wrote on my talk page. I really would recommend that you read RationalWiki:Newcomers as it explains a lot of stuff. Cheers.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Question to all who read this[edit]

I have been creating several articles and expanded/edited many others. Something caught my attention, I am sure since we all keep a close eye on Conservapedia that many of us are familiar with a YouTube user named Shockofgod, and you may be familiar with his question he throws around: "What proof an evidence is there that atheism is accurate and correct." Of course I know all the problems with this question, and any atheist can debunk this crap while in a drug induced coma.

So my question is, are we going to answer it or are we just not feeding the troll? Thanks. Feredir28 (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. The burden of proof is on those who posit the existence of God.
  2. Yes, DFTT
Cheers :) ThunderkatzHo! 20:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Thunder. Yea, you cant prove an invisible gnome floating over my head does not exist. Okay, we are not feeding the troll, that's fine, I just keep coming up with ideas that I should try to address here on RW. Since I am on YouTube a lot (over 700 subs), this question just flies everywhere, but we have adapted to just simply ignore it too. Have a good one mate.Feredir28 (talk) 20:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's been well over three days...[edit]

time for a sysopping! Here's your guide. Cheeeers! Blue Talk 05:12, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

So...[edit]

Hey, so this might sound a little mean but... I'm not sure what web browser you use, but if it's Firefox or Safari, I know for a fact that there's a spell checker option, and I'm sure Chrome and Opera have one as well. Just as a point of courtesy to other users. ThunderkatzHo! 20:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Chrome and Opera do. Blue Talk 03:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Case For X" Series...[edit]

Hey there. What are your plans for those articles? Filling out all of those chapter summaries looks like a lot of work that might be better spent otherwise. Since all the books are from the same guy, maybe think about having each as a subsection of an article about him, as opposed to their own unnecessarily long page? P-Foster (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey there mate. My plan is to expand them. I will get the books, or rent them, and I will fill the articles out as soon as I can. I will at least write down each of his bogus points first, leaving others or myself to refute them later. I have time and I have the motivation, not just for Strobel, but also Ray Comfort. I sat through some of Way of the Master's episodes, such as Conscience, Lying, etc. and note down every detail and every fallacy, and wrote these new rebuttal articles on Iron Chariots [1]. Subsection? Perhaps, but I think these will get huge. I have tried to make subsections for other articles, but they get big enough for their own articles, such as the Rational Response squad debates way of the master. Feredir28 (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
You've created a slew of unfinished articles that are in the mainspace and getting linked from our Christianity categories and portal. I'll ask what you were previously asked again. What are your plans for them? Why are you creating yet more articles about these crummy books without having finished previous ones? As it is now, the majority of what you've done looks like a listing of chapter titles with some rambling ad hoc commentary that's not very clearly set off from the summaries of what these cranks' positions are. I'm inclined to decat and delink these article and move them into your userspace so you can finish them. Do you object to that? Regardless of whether anyone agrees that their subject matter is interesting or appropriate, I think they will agree that work that is so raw isn't ready for public consumption. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 23:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
What I do object to is when I create articles about Comfort and leave them unfinished it is bad, bad enough that I get a notice in less than 12 hours. On the other hand, it's fine when someone does the same thing with another book review (You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, but You Can't Make Him Think) that was made 2 years before I joined RW and to this day it's still not done, and it was on the "To Do List: Book Review" for a long time. RW keeps it open for anyone to add more and modify it. So what are my plans for the articles I made? As I told P-Foster, I plan to get them done. I rented Strobel's books, and finished an article, now I have to get another. I finished two articles about Comfort, including an entire debate with WOTM, and decided to move on. So Nutty, I just started, I only ask you give me time. The articles are open for anyone out there to help get it done, but so far I have been the only one writing them with everyone else just reconstructing them (which is fine). If you want me to finish the rest first, that's fine too. If you do not wish these articles to be found on your "Christianity" portals, then remove them and let them stay on the Review portal. Normally, when I write an article, I do not include categories, someone else places them in categories. With my most recent articles, I save them the effort and do it for them. If my articles include ad hocs, which I apologize since it was never my intention, then include it in the talk section and/or feel free to adjust it like everybody else does here. I just find it weird and unfair that somehow I am expected to finish them in a day perfectly, but RW allows other reviews to stay open unfinished for years. Feredir28 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Sheesh. Carry on. Way to not respond substantively. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svgUser:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Congrats[edit]

Cookie half.jpg For demonstrating exemplary goatery in the line of duty, Tyrannis
has awarded you a used pre-owned! and slightly stale cookie.
Ewwwwwww.
Cockroaches ate half of it.

Keep up the good work! ТyTalk. 17:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

What is this? Feredir28 (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It is a major award. I dunno, someone gave me one once, I give them to others. Something about a pat-on-the back society that gives out awards for people who do good work around the wiki. ТyTalk. 17:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I appreciate the support. You keep it up too. Cheers. Feredir28 (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

EvoWiki[edit]

How do we sign up for EvoWiki? I tried to sign is as myself, but it does not work. Do we sign in as new names, or are we given special access? Feredir28 (talk) 03:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Same deal a while ago. You can create accounts, but cannot edit. ТyTalk. 03:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Really? That blows. Can you at least add responses to places such as this? Feredir28 (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
No. Unfortunately. If I remember correctly one of the few people who can edit there is ADK. Try talking to them, ТyTalk. 03:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I know of a few counter-arguments for a few of them that may be very useful. Feredir28 (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Are you the same Feredir28 as the one on youtube? ТyTalk. 23:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope. I am Vogter. I am over 9,000. Just kidding, yes I'm the same Feredir. How did you find me on Youtube? Feredir28 (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Someone I subscribe to liked a video of yours. I cannot recall who. But I saw the name and remembered, that's that guy who writes all those book refutations.ТyTalk. 00:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Glad to hear someone likes my material, probably my Alucard video (just guessing since it is my most popular). On YouTube, I mainly do videos refuting creationism (and apologists like Lee Strobel) and biblical history. Please subscribe if you wish. I do more than book refutations, on another site called IronChariots.org I write episode refutations. If you go look up Ray Comfort on the site, scroll down and you will see dozens of episodes done by Ray Comfort and Way of the Master. I have done ten of the thirteen total reviews (yes, that many), and will be doing more soon. Please feel free to check them out. Feredir28 (talk) 00:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I shall watch them when I get some Youtube time in, likely later this week. Cheers. ТyTalk. 00:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Appreciate it. Be sure to check out my Lee Strobel FAIL videos with Trolling With Logic. They are the ones that got me somewhat well-known on YouTube (close to near 1,000 subs). Do you have a YouTube channel Ty? Feredir28 (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
No, though I have some scripts I wrote several years back, mostly about terrible, terrible horror movies. I am still in the metaphorical closet so to speak. ТyTalk. 00:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Horror movies? Interesting. Are we talking strictly horror movies, pseudoscience horror movies (like Paranormal Activity), or just so awful its scary? (kind like the critic reviewing Junior -WATCH THIS IF YOU DARE, its a clip from the movie where Arnold Schwarzenegger is pregnant. I'm totally not kidding). Check out the Nostalgia Critic, he can give you some good ideas. Feredir28 (talk) 01:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I love the NC, and the Cinema Snob. I own some 300 public domain films, so I can give a full film commentary. The problem is time. I hope to get at least one film up by the end of the summer though. ТyTalk. 01:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Sweet, another NC fan. I love the Snob, all this shit he has reviewed, I think he is lucky he is not in a coma. I think all the crap I review is bad, but the NC and Snob kinds give me an encouragement. 300 films, that is awesome. I hope you do find the time, and when you get started you let me know. Cheers. Feredir28 (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

New Commandments and Abominations[edit]

I decided to come out and announce that I am Jesus. On my user page, I have been constructing a new list of Commandments and Abominations. Any ideas to include or rework are welcome, but post them below first and I will adjust the lists later. Feredir28 (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"I hope you enjoy my work and find it very helpful."[edit]

I do, thanks. --Scream!! (talk) 23:39, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Cheers. Feredir28 (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers[edit]

I'll have to get watching I usually just see the highlights from Thunderf00t and co :) ADK...I'll jerk your beak! 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem mate. I have been observing Shawn since he made his first "apology" video. Bear this in mind as you go through the references, some of them show clips from VFX's videos that are about an hour long, so I figured when making statements like "engaging in drug abuse" I figure I show the shorter film that cuts straight to the point, making it more satisfying to readers. As for claims like "narcissism" there are plenty other users who call him that and present a case, but the one I referenced is a video from a series of the most excellent history-coverage of VFX I have seen (along with the Peach's documentary of VFX). If there is any problem with what I posted, let me know. Feredir28 (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Spellchecker smellchecker[edit]

Your edits are pretty good, but there are a few spelling errors here and there, and a general lack of good flow, and occasional grammar typo. I'm wondering if you wouldn't mind polishing up the VFX article at some point before beginning a new edit spree. I would do it myself, but there is a lot of content that you added, and I don't want to revert any of it, because it's good stuff. --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 02:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, I will correct my mistakes when I get the chance. I have a few more things I want to add, but I will be sure to make the corrections first. I must apologize. My computer does not have spell checks for everything, nor does it correct grammar errors, and often my keyboard skips letters, spaces, or entire words. Feredir28 (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Everyone struggles with those issues >_< But basically, I was just noting it to you, and you seem to be on top of things. :) --Eira OMTG! The Goat be Praised. 05:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Losing our religion[edit]

Have you read this book by S. E. Cupp? Never bothered myself but it's a head-exploding exercise in cognitive dissonance for an atheist to defend creationism. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Good idea! I have not read her book, but I have seen multiple interviews of Cupp on the news, and I am not convinced she is what she says she is. I think, at best she is defending the freedom of religion, but I cannot fathom how she can side with religion any more than that. Anyone can show why religion is extremely dangerous by pointing to the burning of witches in Africa happening right now, so it really puzzles me how she can defend religion. However, if I (or whoever) review her book, we can explain not only why she is wrong, but also where it hints she may not be what she calls herself. Thanks. I will see if I can find her book online or at the library. Feredir28 (talk) 20:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Damn, that was fast. Did you Johnny 5 that shit? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Not exactly, more like an army of ninja programs I developed on the grid. Feredir28 (talk) 03:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
You're going way too easy on Cupp. I just got through the monstrosity that is the evolution chapter. Of course, all the poll data she cites is, as you pointed out, completely immaterial to the issue, but if you actually look at the data she cites, there's massive amounts of spin on all of it, revealing her breathtaking dishonesty. In fact, I don't think I've found a poll or survey she hasn't quote mined yet. And then she shoehorned some global warming denialist bull into the end of the chapter for the cherry to top off the turd. It's so hard to resist beating the thing to pieces, but it's a library copy unfortunately. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

refs for Question Evolution[edit]

Say, do you have the full references for Question Evolution that you cited? It'd be great if you put them in the article. steriletalk 22:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I will include as many references as I can, but unfortunately it will have to wait tomorrow (my apologies, I'm just busy). Btw, are you one of the chaps on YouTube who plan to do a big collaborative project on this "Question Evolution"? Feredir28 (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Your articles[edit]

As I start cataloging our creationism refutations, I want to help you copy edit and spruce up your side by side articles on creationist resources. Would you please make me a list so I can get to work? Nutty Rouxnever mind 22:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Jesus fuck you're really prolific. Are you doing all this research yourself? Are you a grad student with access to all these academic papers or what? Nutty Rouxnever mind 22:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Forget it. I found a list from your YouTube channel. If there's anything else to brag about please put it up there. Nutty Rouxnever mind 22:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for commenting late. You are cataloging all current creationism refutations on RW or are you cataloging all future projects? Let me know, I will be glad to help. If you are referring to the work on my profile (books, programs, films, etc) then yes, I am doing this research myself (except for S. E. Cupp's book, I am working with Nebuchadnezzar). I do not mean to brag, I know I do a lot of work, but I state at the bottom of my profile that help is always appreciated. You mean on my actual channel or the TWL channel? Feredir28 (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to catalog what we've already got so we can figure out where the holes are and what to update. How are you doing your research of the academic papers? Nutty Rouxnever mind 23:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh goodie. I can't wait to see this catalog. Is there a place to go to help construct it, or is this an individual project? I get my sources here and there, I am a university student and can access my college library, but I sometimes get references straight from my own dozens of books on "Evolution vs. Creationism" stuff. Other references I find from various sites: talkorigins, talkreason, talkdesign, google scholar, sometimes from biologists on YouTube, and so on and so on. Feredir28 (talk) 02:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
A project page is a great idea to get everything laid out so we can see it in one place. Nutty Rouxnever mind 02:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Feredir28 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I'm impressed by your dedication. I thought that I read a lot of books but you're in a different league.--BobSpring is sprung! 18:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Christianity and the Native Americans[edit]

Recently, I did a huge history paper for my university class regarding the history of Native American racism and stereotypes. I wanted to know where they originated and who inflamed them to what we now know. Nowadays, it is all because of movies (such as 1. the Natives did not empower women and 2. the Natives had no religion and/or worship nature/Satan) but even those stereotypes came from somewhere. So after digging deeper, I found that there were some huge causes for the spread of racism and stereotypes. I know it is difficult to absolutely pin down, but the road kept returning to Christianity. Here is an example, when the Puritans arrived, they sought religious freedom for themselves, they believed God created the earth for the Puritans to own, and when the Native Americans refused to give up their land, the Puritans believed any opposition to them was an opposition to God. There are many many many more things to explain and to show; Christianity portrayed the NA as devils and savages in every fashion imaginable, and the imperial mindset that the Christian Europeans had a right to the new land also played a role.

All I want to do is give an historical account of Christianity and the Natives, and show how the mix brought disaster. Christopher Colombus and even John Smith called these people "devils" (“there is yet in Virginia no place discovered to bee so Savage in which the Savages have not religion...But their chiefe God they worship is the Divell [Devil].”) Native Americans did indeed empower women, big time, but the reason why they no longer do is because the Christian Europeans refused to trade or help chiefs and tribes who took advice from women (2 Timothy back in action). There is a lot to share, even when the Christian missionaries tried too force the Natives to adopt the European culture was harsh (sort of similar to Straight Camps, but more brutal).

So anyway, I wanted to start an article on this (and trust me, it will get big), but I am not sure what to title it. Perhaps "History of Christianity and the Native Americans" or something shorter if possible. And ideas? Or does something like this already exist, and I just missed it? Or should I just go with "History of Christianity and the Native Americans" because that kinds does sum it all up. Feredir28 (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I have a dissertation on it... want that? If you are interested in some books, try "the pipe and the cross", an older book you'll likely have to get at your library (can't remember the Frier's name, but i'll figure it out). Sam Gill's works are also a great place to look, especially "mother earth". Depending on the particular religion you are discussing, Raymond Demallie has some amazing stuff on the Lakota religion - specifcially "black Elk speaks", called "The Sixth Grandfather", where he in effect looks line by line at how the modern story telling of the 1920's changed what BE said, into something far more Christian. I can help you, as you go along, but i'm not sure how specific or how general you want to start. Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 20:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I lied, not cross and pipe, Pipe, Bible, and peyote among the Oglala Lakota : a study in religious identity / Paul B. Steinmetz
I hope I did not confuse you, I meant I wanted to start an article on RationalWiki. I had already finished my work and read seven books on the subject, including some text on psychedelic drugs and its connection to Native American mythology and religion as a whole. I appreciate your input, but I was more wondering how should I title the article (after that, all the work will start rolling in). Basically, it will just show the historical links between Native Americans and Christianity and explain the harsh history between the two, starting off with the first colonists to present day. Cheers. Feredir28 (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I would just jump in as you already have it titled (or rather, shorter saying "Native Americans & Xianity" or "xianity & native americans", and if it really needs a new title later on, you can change it. It sounds like you know what you want to say, so the work is mostly done. When I'm doing larger Wiki articles, i usually start with my headers I know i want to address, and then just start filling in. Are you doing this as an Essay or a Wiki page?Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 22:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipage. Alright, I will start it off, and it someone decides to change it to a more appropriate title, that will be find. Thanks a lot mate. Feredir28 (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
You might find some useful stuff on the noble savage page. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Native Americans and Christianity?[edit]

dude, i don't want to pick on you, but that article needs serious work; it has no links to anything and lots of places to put them, and the writing is really dodgy. can you get some links in there and then we can start to edit it into shape? thanks. P-Foster (talk) 23:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Dude I know it needs work, I just got started. See the above section, we just briefly talked about it not that long ago. Links, okay, I figured references were more important otherwise they would be baseless statements. Feredir28 (talk) 23:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Godot and I spent the better part of the night trying to bang that thing into shape. You've been here long enough that you should have a good idea of what a RW article looks like, and what kind of standard we have in terms of style and writing. Instead of dropping a big chunk of rough work into mainspace, maybe you could finesse it in user space until it's ready? Thanks. P-Foster (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Quality v. Quantity[edit]

I think some of what you are writing is really interesting, but some of it is just very hard to understand and poorly written. I'd like to ask if instead of starting new articles, you take a bit more time to make the ones you have written, more clear, it would be great. I get that we all make typos, and have issues with our ideas at time, but you really seem to not reread what you write, before moving on to a new topic. You've got good ideas. Since you are a student, it's worth learning to take the time to reread, edit, and finalize what you are presenting so everyone can see what you are trying to argue.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 17:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, quality isn't an issue for me personally. I enjoy the fact that someone has taken time to review all this stuff (I'd be dead long before I could!). Since RW is really more a series of "collected essays" than "articles" then a bit of flavour of an individual author is fine. Sure, if things started to get noticed then we can all pile on and check for errors and homogenise the style, but that's not possible on many topics. I'm just thankful someone can put that sort of content out there, as while quality can be better than quantity, quantity is better than nothing. ADK...I'll sacrifice your riddle! 18:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Quality is an issue here. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, claifications[edit]

That article has always bothered me, cause it's so filled with agenda it feels more like "jesus myth" than like "true analysis of the evidence". I've studied this for some 20 years, professional, so I'm not easily swayed by links to "why jesus wasn't real" or "the skpetics annotated bible" rather than articles written in JAAR, or Journal of early christian studies, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum (which i have to have in translation of course), etc. As i said on teh talk page, if you all really want it to be Jesus Myth Theory type stuff, i'll back out. but it's not a rational approach. :-) --Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 18:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Defender's Guide for Life's Toughest Questions[edit]

Do you know where I can get an online text or summary of Ray Comfort's masterpiece? Incidentally our article comes high if readers search Google for a review so let's make the article even better. I'm not Jesus (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for bringing this to my attention. Well, I'm glad at least one of my reviews gets a high rating. Anyway, you can read large parts of Ray Comfort's book on Google Books - however, after reading a chapter or two, Google will not allow you to read further until a certain amount of time has passed (unless you use a different computer). I kinda doubt that local public libraries will have a copy of his book (all I could find was You Can Lead an Atheist to Evidence) but feel free to check. I hope that helps. As far as I know, there are only Christian reviews of this book, and that will not provide any help at all. Thank you for getting on board in helping finishing this book review. Feredir28 (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Shame that's a Comfort screed as it's a pretty cool title. ADK...I'll castigate your lockpick! 17:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Coming in high on Google isn't a "high rating", it's a warning to make sure the piece is coherent. Which it isn't. ħumanUser talk:Human 21:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah...[edit]

This explains so much ADK...I'll annihilate your mongoose! 15:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

??? Care to explain? 14:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
That you're remarkably knowledgeable about youtube users! Among other things, of course. ADK...I'll swirl your hovel! 15:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, yes I have been among the YouTube community for several years, which help me construct the VenomFangX article here on RW almost three-time fold. I still plan to make more articles on YouTube users and such (I just hate seeing the Vlogroll and see soooo many red links). Feredir28 (talk) 15:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

You're welcome at Atheism Wiki if you feel like starting an account. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The current Iron Chariots and RatWiki articles that you helped to write are both on the front page of Google. Other editors may have been right to take material out, the articles remained popular and high in Google after material was taken out. You have helped to write and inspire two web pages that are popular and are causing Ray Comfort problems, that’s quite an achievement for an undergraduate student. I’ve transferred to Atheism Wiki on Ray Comfort as much as I could find from the older versions of the Iron Chariots article and The RatWiki article on Ray comfort. The revisions I’ve linked to are roughly right but I can’t remember exactly which ones I used. The Atheism Wiki article is now so long that many readers will be put off reading it, therefore I’ve linked back to Iron Chariots and RatWiki for those who want something shorter. Most or all of what you wrote is still on the Internet and people who are keen to find out a great deal about Ray Comfort can find it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

PC, our very own Kendoll... how sad. ħumanUser talk:Human 05:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Imagine if I was studying to be a journalist or something, I would perhaps be the downfall of Ray Comfort. Fuck. I live within an hour from Ray Comfort, I could learn a lot about his operations, crew, financial arrangements, etc. and reveal them to the public. But then again, anyone even slightly partially educated in science can cripple Ray Comfort. Since I see his publications and tracts all over (even by street preachers who are not familiar at all with Comfort) I figure I should focus a large percentage of my energy on Ray Comfort. I could practically write my own book on this clown, but like Dawkins I know that if I did that, Ray Comfort would patronize himself, self-feeding his delusion that he is on an equal intellectual playing field as Dawkins or even you and I. That being said, I sincerely thank you for saving my material. I fully understand that some of it had to be edited and such, but the points I make always hit home (I'm sure you agree). What I REALLY REALLY REALLY want is some video editing software of some sort. I have my own YouTube channel that is shy of 1,000 subscribers. If I made my own videos, I would have ~100 videos debunking EVERYTHING by Ray Comfort, and I can say what I wish. Every time I make a video debunking something, my subscription list grows. Unfortunately, due to school, I do not have the time. Feredir28 (talk) 16:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've still got a lot of work putting your stuff into Atheism Wiki, I've got 28 pages in a word document and I've got to check it all and add what isn't there yet. If it stops Ray Comfort wrecking just one person't life it's worth while. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

RAmen to that brother. Feredir28 (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I’ve copied all what you wrote about Ways of the Master to Atheism Wiki. There’s a great deal of bad feeling at Iron Chariots and a troll concerned editor called Jdog is making it very difficult to continue there. I welcomed him before I knew what he is like. It’s likely that what you wrote will be drastically cut or deleted at Iron Chariots and trying to fight it will probably create divisions and achieve little. Have you thought of starting your own wiki? Proxima Centauri (talk) 10:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Take care that you don't annoy the senior admins at Iron Chariots. I've only recently become an admin there and if a long standing sysop blocks you it would be more than my sysop buttons are worth to unblock. Proxima Centauri (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You can contact me at Atheism Wiki about how to get going. Today I'm starting a new section of The fear of God (Way of the Master)

I've deleted all the episodes of the Way of the Master Series at Iron Chariots except one where the images need to be copied to Atheism Wiki, I had to as leading administrator, Kazim said he wanted it off the wiki. The good news is WOTM on ATheism Wiki is already on page 8 of Google and will certasinly rise as Iron Chariots is no longer competing. Here's page 7 of Google just in case it rises higher before you get to it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Proxima, its been a while mate. Hope you're doing well. Ive been thinking and due to what is going on here on RW, I have decided to start moving some stuff. It seems some people are considering deleting my book reviews. They already sent back my review of Comfort's Hitler book. They are so concerned that these reviews are not complete or at sloppy in some areas they figure it may be best to get rid of them. So in response, I decided to start slowly moving them onto my blog here: http://feredir28.blogspot.com/ so if anyone takes the heat, it will be me. Do you think we can move my book reviews to Atheism Wiki? I think they may be less tense, but all I care about now is that the rebuttals stay online as resources, because these books are constantly being used by theists in debates - so someone needs to critique these books thoroughly and share when and where these guys go wrong. Feredir28 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My book reviews[edit]

After re-reading several of my book reviews, I keep feeling a strong urge that I have to rewrite them. I try to properly report what the author wrote, but at the same time I try to include a critique pointing out all the parts where the author is factually incorrect. I already include several "Comment boxes" which some are great but others are such a freakin eye sore. I am beginning to think the answer is to create a side-by-side refutation, similar to what I did with the Kent Hovind Seminars, making the whole thing a much easier read. Anyone reading this, a little feedback would be much appreciated. Should I do this with one book review and we can determine if it helps? Or do I really not bother asking and just do it? Feredir28 (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the format you usually use with your reviews lends itself better to a side-by-side article. Go for it. Blue Talk 20:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Blue. For now I will start with one reversion and we will see how it goes. I will post it here in this section once it gets rolling. Feredir28 (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Blue makes a great point, side-by-side would really help you and your readers a lot. If and when you do rewrite, you also might watch the streaming thoughts that sometimes pervade your work. You get really excited (or annoyed, given the topic) about who and what you are writing, and sometimes your ideas wander from the focus of the paragraph. I think this kind of material is really important for people to understand who and what comfort is and what he says, and why it's just dumb! But if the writing style is too long, it gets that "too long, didn't read" feel - even if it's important stuff. Personally, you might look at breaking up some of the articles into smaller sections. Again, it's not *your* fault that people have low attention spans, but it is nevertheless, the reality of the internet.  :-) Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 21:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)(edit con)
Thanks mate, and you are absolutely right; it is a rule of the internet. I will try to go back and be careful of the length and tone of the work. I will try to re-edit as I go, but for the most part I will focus on trying to properly re-construct them and keeping them nice. The side-by-side thing is an excellent way to be sure that the main focus is clearly on the paragraph it is responding too, so some "wandering" material may be taken out or moved to a more appropriate spot. Feredir28 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest side-by-side or a more traditional review style. You don't need to laboriously paraphrase most of the source material for the latter -- take a look at the New York Review of Books for some examples. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You could even do both. a traditional review to start, then a "side by side" on his arguments, when it matters. and you can always recycle your own work. he does, after all. If you've written a good side by side on his argument about, oh, sin - you can just link to it. Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 21:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I just did a side-by-side reformatting for God Doesn't Believe in Atheists: Proof That the Atheist Doesn't Exist. I know that the "refutations" side are too long and could be cut down or linked to other articles, but the only thing that matters is if it is more "readable" now. Slightly? Greatly? Thoughts anybody? Feredir28 (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
I tossed a sucky intro onto your article, just to describe the book, then highlight that there is an argument by argument challenge following. But i've never read the book, so please do rewrite it. :-) but you did need something that was a short summary, and said "go read more".Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 22:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Fun about Ray Comfort[edit]

Do you feel like writing entertaining stuff about Ray Comfort that they won’t keep in the serious article? Here’s just the article for you. God is Lord (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

A thought[edit]

When you get an article really where you like it, you might consider making a sock and going onto these xian sites and saying "look what this guy on RW (or which ever site you choose) is writing about Ray"). that might bring your articles some unwanted traffic, but it also might bring teh 14 year old who thinks he knows everything, to a place where he can say "oh, really, it's not that?"Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 21:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I never done such a thing, and I make a rather bad bluffer. For instance, I would be rather unsure which Christian site I would visit to draw attention to the RW articles I worked on. Although i do see your point, drawing in a crowd who might go "really? that is not true after all? how about that." IDK, we will see, but thanks. Feredir28 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Here's the thing with the stuff you are writing. YOu are putting a lot of effort into something that is sorta "preaching to the crowd". you, yourself, said "I want to help people find out the truth about this guy", so you have to get "those types", here. Do think about it, but as you say, it's hard to figure out how to do.  :-) but keep in mind, i think your style and ideas work well for the 12-20 crowd who are very new to the whole "god is great" crap. So it's trying to find those "kids" (i'm old, so everyone is a kid, don't take offense) and get them info. Pink mowse.pngGodotGet over it!. 22:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

180[edit]

You spend a lot of time in/around the works of Comfort. Do you think that this is one of his more -- um -- Popular films/works? That is, do you think people are talking about it one way or the other? If they are, then it's likely to be (like his 5 year old banana stunt) something worth really focusing on for not just you, but RW. If someone is googling "180 movie" we want them to get here, and to say "wow, not only is 180 stupid, but that RW site is cool." (my two cents anyhow0. but if this is just one more in a long line of his works, it's probably not as important as his other stuff. what do you think?Pink mowse.pngGodotAround, around, around, around, over, and under and through 21:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It may not be the "atheist nightmare" popular - where we found humor in the idiocracy - rather, it is more like a WTF moment like the Origin of Species stunt. I find humor in the fact that Ray says things like "why punish the child for the crimes of the father" and several other parts, but that will never be as funny as Ray holding the banana by his mouth. That being said, this should not be discarded by the rest of RW. I completely get your point that people wanting to learn more about 180 will find this site, and we want them to go "wow, that guy is full of it" and also say "I like this wiki, I'll stick around." I was going to fix the section, but your two switches lost all my data. Feredir28 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, HATE that. I'll stay out till you're done. Just give a shout out in the comments section if you are done for the night. :-)Pink mowse.pngGodotAround, around, around, around, over, and under and through 21:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Okay, done. I will leave this site alone for the night, and maybe for the next few days. Feredir28 (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Bananas have Wild Sex with Bats![edit]

Yes really, it's here. Wild bananas aren't tame like those Ray Comfort loves. I've added it to Banana fallacy. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Way of the Master[edit]

Were there 4 series of WOTM? There are only 3 series in the template Looks like a lot more work, AAAAAhhhh!!!!.

Yep, and if I am right, the next series is a bunch of episodes of Ray and Kirk pissing away money just to travel around the world to preach like Paul. I am sure they also went sight-seeing, but it is irritating that they earned that much money by selling people lies and bullshit material.Feredir28 (talk) 20:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know[edit]

...to put outgoing links to common terms like atheist, pseudoscience, etc. That's a no-brainer. P-Foster Talk "Watched Mad Men thinking it was supposed to be a sit-com. Found it disappointing." 21:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Page moves to userspace[edit]

Hey. Human and I moved a number of articles you primarily (or solely) wrote to your userspace. I found some problems with uncited use of others' work in several of them. It's not right to ask any of us to look for more. A number of the articles are incomplete, with whole sections undone that I'm 99% certain only you would care to finish. I don't know how to be more diplomatic about this so I'll just say it: you need to copyedit your work. It's filled with grammatical errors that render it incoherent in places and I don't think it's fair to expect other editors to copyedit such a huge volume of writing. Additionally, in certain instances you use both sides of the side-by-side template to editorialize the author's positions, which keeps you from adequately or concisely conveying his ideas. That's not fair. Finally, these aren't "book reviews." They're blog posts or essays. If you want to clean them up, and most importantly get rid of the TL;DR, I think it's a great idea because RW could definitely use Ray Comfort material, but in a presentable state. Thanks. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

ħumanUser talk:Human 04:09, 13 May 2012 (UTC) [2]

I think they're right, Feredir. A huge amount of copyediting is needed for these articles.--ADtalkModerator 06:08, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Whole Foods Article[edit]

Thank you so much for adding the Whole Foods article. That is characterized as a bastion of environmental liberalism but also is woo in some ways for real. Thanks for contributing to the wiki. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

My pleasure. I've been waiting for someone to make that one for a while, so I figured let's get the ball rolling. I made it rather quick and it's a bit short, so there's plenty of room to grow.Feredir28 (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)