User talk:Marauder40

		The Original Barnstar
		For rendering editorial assistance during a GAN. Cheers! Eustress (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		This is for your efforts in the epic, 5 month long struggle against sockpuppeting-vandal Spotfixer/TruthIIPower. Schrandit (talk) 04:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pages

Hi, As of June 2012 I will be semi-retiring from Wikipedia. I will still watch a few pages every day or two, but not watch many pages every day as before.

Could I ask you to occasionally watch a few more pages that have good referenced content and should really be saved from vandalism, fringe views, sudden mergers, etc.? I think you already watch a few of these, but here is a list in any case:

• Mary (mother of Jesus), Roman Catholic Mariology, and Marian devotions All three pages are quite stable and fully referenced. The first item has a few rough and less than sourced items, I may fix those within the next 3 months. No other problems exist. There is also Nativity of Jesus.

• Divine Mercy, Divine Mercy image and Mary Faustina Kowalska: All three pages were carefully rewritten a year ago and are fully sourced now. Highly stable and hardly any vandalism. It is a question of looking for merge flags, etc.

• Holy Face of Jesus and the Shroud of Turin. The first page is totally stable and also non-controversial. The Shroud page has been extremely stable given its controversial nature. There is user:thucyd who knows much more about it, but logs in every week or two, and he has provided many solid references. Every possible angle on that object is covered in the article, but there is a user Vincenzo Ruello (he also writes on UFO items) who logs in as multiple IPs (they often get blocked) and adds promotional items. He sometimes pretends to be his own best friend, etc. So that page does need attention. But every possible aspect has been discussed in the archives, so it is just a question of pointing to those really.

• Jesus related pages. These are as follows:

• Jesus has been stable for a year and is fully referenced. I even took out referenced based on suggestions, but it is stable "because it has so many references". The last big debate was about calling Jesus Palestinian or Jewish, etc. But that is over now once it was pointed out that it was a political issue more than anything else. The magnet for debate there is the regularly scheduled talk page comment that Jesus did not really exist. That has been discussed on talk many, many times and it usually ends with the demand: "per WP:RS/AC, please provide a WP:RS source that says 'most historians hold that Jesus did not exist' instead of arguing about it here". The debate always stops after that.

• Crucifixion of Jesus: Again, pretty stable. And as above, the recurring talk page comment is that he was not crucified. And again there are clear WP:RS sources that say that 'most historians hold that Baptism and Crucifixion are beyond doubt'. And there are no WP:RS sources that say that most scholars hold the opposite. But the key issue here is not to mix these two events with other biblical episodes, for there are many historians who argue Marriage at Cana was not historical, etc. So the only two certain events that are subject to agreement are those two.

Your help in watching these as your time allows will be greatly appreciated. And thank you for having been a really dear friend in the past few years. History2007 (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to hear you are semi-retiring. It sounds like you are in a mode similar to the mode I have been in over the last few months. I have added pages above that weren't already in my watchlist to my watchlist. Thank-you for all you have done on here, I am always amazed by how you are able to come up with all the sources you do for the edits you do. See you around. Good luck and God Bless. Marauder40 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you my friend. I had forgotten Virgin birth of Jesus and Perpetual virginity of Mary in the above. My reasons were different, look here and you will understand. I had to do it. I do what I say - they did not expect that. But I will still watch the key pages for I think the content matters. But I have already worked on most of the key Christianity topics that were mentioned above and was mostly doing technical items. But I think these pages deserve to survive. That was why I did not quit altogether. And again thank you for all you have done. History2007 (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Also sorry to hear about the semi-retirement. You have made a difference, History.– Lionel ^(talk) 11:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

KoC

What do you think about taking KoC to GA? – Lionel ^(talk) 11:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I see no problem with it being taken to GA. I personally don't have the time to do it since I am in mainly in a semi-retired mode on here. I mainly just have been coming on for vandalism reverts and commenting. Since the issues for delisting from FA were minor, I see no problem with it at least becoming GA.Marauder40 (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point GA would be mostly a formality. I can handle it. Based on all the work you've done on the article, I hope you don't mind that I took the liberty of adding you as co-nominator. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I will monitor it. Thanks. Marauder40 (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)