User talk:Marauder40

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marauder40.

Archives

2008-2009

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

		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)[reply]

Bishop Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige

Hello, you are a member of the Wikiproject Catholicism.We would appreciate your help. Please take a look at this article about the catholic bishop Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige . Users deleted sources and tried to force their anti-catholic POV on it. They banned many people that tried to add sources. They didnt block me or Eastmain, but they deleted our sources we gave too. It appears that they don't like this catholic bishop.

Best version until now with 13 sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&diff=343039227&oldid=343037941

And after deleting the sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alfred_Seiwert-Fleige&action=historysubmit&diff=343481960&oldid=343039227

(At first they had planned on deleting the whole article but it didnt work)

Check out at the information on these other wikipedia articles about Seiwert Fleige and compare them to the info that is on there now. You will notice that its quite the oposite:

Pierre_Martin_Ngô_Đình_Thục

Palmarian_Catholic_Church

Sedevacantism

Clemente_Domínguez_y_Gómez

Thank you --Michelle cannon (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration notice

FYI, The following was copied to you from my talk page. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 02:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Catholic Church and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,. Please add others to the party list if you think it is necessary. Karanacs (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

William E. Lori

Would you mind taking a look at William E. Lori? It had a tag on about having enough references. Tonight while providing references for the article (time flies), it appears to me that whole paragraphs were lifted out of these references and inserted to create his article. It could probably use a good copyedit or rewrite.--Morenooso (talk) 05:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church

You commented on the recent sweeping changes to the article. My critique of them and an alternate suggestion is linked at Talk:Catholic_Church#Recent_Major_and_Substantive_Changes_to_this_Article Xandar 14:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church RfC

Input is welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Catholic Church. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 00:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church RFC

I noticed that you commented on the Catholic Church RFC and endorsed the comments of NancyHeise but not that of Xandar. For the most part, NancyHeise and Xandar have common views of the dispute and thus it is surprising to find an editor endorsing one and not the other. Would you care to explain to me what the difference is between the two opinions and why you endorsed NancyHeise and not Xandar? Thanx. --Richard S (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was that Nancy tended to address the meat of why certain versions were better then others, Xandar addressed the cause of the issue and I feel that is beating a dead horse. Marauder40 (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially my thinking, as well. Student7 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marian Apparitions

I'll read the WP:Reliable and get back on this. In the meantime please note that a permanent structure has been erected on the site, marking the site of the apparitions, pilgrims are locating to the site weekly. And they have put up a very exhaustive official web site... Thanks Alan347 (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just pilgrims attending and a cross erected on the site doesn't make it notable. If you read the first paragraph of the section you keep trying to add the paragraph to it says the following "There are hundreds of other reported apparitions around the world without major references or church investigations and they can not be included in this section, due to their lack of notability." It can be hard for a new user to understand that something you may be passionate about may not be notable enough for an article, but that is part of the process. You must meet notability issues before you can add it. You need to find the proper references and fight for what you believe in, but realize that you may be wrong. Marauder40 (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just FYI, a few new pages are appearing about list of key episodes in the Canonical Gospels, e.g. Denial of Peter and Road to Emmaus appearance. I will keep adding more from that list as time goes on. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. I will keep an eye out on them. Marauder40 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring (3RR warning)I won't template you, but you clearly violated WP:3RR on Jesus, and I'm shocked that the admin who blocked your opponent didn't block you as well. Edit warring is never appropriate, even if you believe you are in the right. Please try to avoid edit warring in the future. It takes two to tango, and the world won't end if a version of the article you don't personally like is left up for a little while.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]FYII just found out about the existence of this document, A Christian reflection on the New Age. One learns things here. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]GreyfriarsHi Marauder40, you removed ‘Greyfriars’ from Conventual Franciscans, remarking ‘not needed in lead’. So maybe you put it in somewhere else in the article? For nearly 500 years now, the Conventual Franciscans in Britain and several more countries have called themselves ‘Greyfriars’; please compare this portrayal. Thank you --BoyBoy (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]The lead is only supposed to contain things that are mentioned in the article. Greyfriars is one name given to a local (primarily in Britain and Ireland) group of Conventual Franciscans. It is not the primary name of the Conventual Franciscans, it started out as a nickname for a particular fraternity then was adopted by them and their offshoots. To put it as equal weight as the official name to the entire group is giving it undue weight. If you want it mentioned you can add it to the main article. It isn't my job to add it there.Marauder40 (talk) 13:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Oh, neither is it my job. --BoyBoy (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] I don't think you get the idea of Wikipedia. If you want to make a change be Bold and do it. If people don't like it they revert it. If you still think your edit is appropriate you can look at what they say and add it in that manner or discuss it on the talk page. If you think it belongs in the article go through the process. If not don't. That is what Wikipedia is about. It is not my job to add something to an article that you feel is appropriate. Marauder40 (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]FYIHi, FYI, I actually setup a specific section for the persistent IP fellow: User_talk:150.199.97.75#This_account. It has many references that show the IP is not correct. But correct or not, he is persistent - we have to give him that. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Thanks for the info. Marauder40 (talk) 18:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Sexual orientation of Benedict XVI.Hy can you explain me, which sexual orientation Benedict XXV. has ? As i know, he never married and had never a girlfriend in his whole life. And in many Internet Blogs i read, that the pope is gay. 92.252.88.157 (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]