User talk:Feredir28/What's So Great About Christianity

Should the responses, corrections, fact-checks, criticisms, etc. to the content of this book be in blue comment boxes? I think it will make a much easier read, making it less confusing to readers. Feredir28 (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Can't hurt to try it and see what it looks like. ADK^{...I'll reiterate your question mark!} 18:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

IMO, it looks better. The thoughts of Ray Comfort and RW are now clearly distinct. I think the biggest problem is the Anthropic principle part. I do not want to take any information out, but it is bit of a eye sore. Feredir28 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

{{quotebox}} would probably be better, it would save on having to style each blockquote individually. ADK^{...I'll meditate your cellulite!} 20:27, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Imma gonna delete as it's not a "side by side", the left side is paraphrased not quoted. Sorry. ħuman 05:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

And spelling it "D'Souzza" multiple times is just embarassing. ħuman 05:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I only found the one such mispelling. Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 05:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Why does it matter if it's paraphrased or not? that is not a valid reason for deletion. --Godot On a perdu le contrôle 05:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You can't quote all of a book - how else would you do it? Peter ^{tanquam ex ungue leonem} 05:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

But to paraphrase is to weaken the source. Surely the authors can quote the parts of the book that matter? ħuman 05:56, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The trouble here is that we wrote both sides. The left side does not make D'Souza's case, it includes our critiques in its content. ħuman 05:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That demands improvement, not deletion. But we should also be aware of copyright issues.--^talk 08:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Let me gingerly suggest that this is just the tip of quantity over quality iceberg ... 13:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I've been going through Feredir's articles and am starting to see that it would take a wiki-wide project to make them presentable. It's not worth anyone's time to have to go through these things correcting the huge number of spelling, grammatical, and tone problems, with whole paragraphs that are completely incomprehensible. The work is just too slovenly to do anything but send it back to the author with a big question mark circled in red. And that's putting aside substantive theological and scientific analysis that looks like it was just made up. Some of these articles show up at the top of Google searches for their subjects. Something needs to be done about this. 06:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)