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)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For helping a colleague in need – Lionel (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

	Your First Good Article
	So you're in "semi-retired mode" and this is how you "monitor" progress? You killed it!LOL! [1] – Lionel (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Wikiproject Ratings

If the thing that just brought you to my talk page is that I just rated your favorite page, I have rated several hundred pages in the last couple of days. If you have a complaint, go ahead and file it here. It may take me a few days to deal with it, so don't think I am ignoring you. Just a reminder, just in case you are upset that I rated your favorite page "Low" importance or something like that, it doesn't mean your topic isn't important. It probably just means that I personally feel the topic, when in considered with the entire breadth of teachings and life of the Catholic church may be of "Low" importance. Your average church, school, etc. doesn't really help someone that is trying to understand Catholicism much. If you disagree, feel free to state why or bring it up on the Wikiproject page. Don't just state it on the talk page for the article, because I may not be actively following that page. Thank-you. Marauder40 (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

FYI: someone (maybe 2 of them) went out and got photos and added to Divine Mercy Shrine (Misamis Oriental). It is beautiful. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. I wonder how something like that would go over in the US.Marauder40 (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There is Lux Mundi (statue) non-denom, and 2 feet taller. The point about the Misamis one was that apparently people just built it with no funding from anywhere. History2007 (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

BLP

Would you be so kind to explain why you think that that is a BLP issue? Trio The Punch (talk) 14:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Claiming anyone is gay/bi/etc. without a reliable source is a BLP violation. It is that way for any living person whether they be a pop star or a religious figure. BLP applies to both article space and talk space.Marauder40 (talk) 14:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But please doublecheck, this person did not claim he is gay. Quote:

"In Germany different publications, internetblogs and internetportals write, that Ratzinger ist gay."

This is a fact. Blogs and portals contain all kinds of nonsensical and incorrect statements, worldwide but also in Germany, and this is one of them.

"But he speaks not about his sexual orientation."

To be honest I am not sure if this is true, but it seems likely considering he is unlikely to speak about his own sexual preferences. If it is not true then it seems to be an honest mistake, not an attack.

"This topic should be part of the biography."

I think "This topic" refers to Ratzingers sexuality.

Per WP:AGF I assume it is an attempt to suggest an improvement to the article: some sources make claim x, but he never spoke about that, we should include the correct info about his sexuality in his wiki article. Trio The Punch (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry but it has come up numerous times on BLP pages, everything from Justin Bieber to Pope Benedict and every time someone says so and so is gay it is removed until there is a reliable source, usually including the standard of the person themself admitting they are gay to include it. Until a valid reliable source is brought forward any speculation is to be removed.Marauder40 (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

He did not say: "Ratzinger is gay", he said something like "certain unreliable source claim he is gay, but he never spoke about being gay, we should include the correct info about his sexuality to dispel the myth". Trio The Punch (talk) 14:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No source, no go, per WP:V, of course. By the way 3RR message was left for punch. History2007 (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You should read more carefully.

"In Germany different publications, internetblogs and internetportals write, that Ratzinger ist gay."

This is a fact. Blogs and portals contain all kinds of nonsensical and incorrect statements, worldwide but also in Germany, and this is one of them.

"But he speaks not about his sexual orientation."

To be honest I am not sure if this is true, but it seems likely considering he is unlikely to speak about his own sexual preferences. If it is not true then it seems to be an honest mistake, not an attack.

"This topic should be part of the biography."

I think "This topic" refers to Ratzingers sexuality.

See? There was no speculation and no one claimed that Ratzinger is gay. Trio The Punch (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

{ec}It doesn't matter, BLP still applies. Any speculation of this type is not appropriate. Find a valid reliable source and you can bring it to the talk page. However, in most cases where the fact someone is gay is admitted to an article, the only allowed sources are ones where the person themself says they are. People can speculate all they want, but that doesn't make it so. Also you need to be aware that you have majorly violated WP:3RR. I would have reported you already if it wasn't for the fact that there is a good chance it will already be dealt with via boomerang. The only chance you have of not being dealt with is that you didn't explicitly receive a 3rr warning on your page. Marauder40 (talk) 15:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What speculation? He stated a simple fact. Can you show me the speculation you are referring to? Trio The Punch (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC) p.s. I don't think you understand what WP:BOOMERANG means.

It doesn't matter, any inference that a BLP is gay is to be removed in any shape or form. Period. Bring forth a valid reliable source. Until you do that there is no room for any discussion. Marauder40 (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It is on ANI already. History2007 (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see it on ANI, did you mean 3rr or BLPN?Marauder40 (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Please quote the sentence that infers that Ratzinger is gay or contains speculation or claims about Ratzingers sexuality. Thanks in advance. Trio The Punch (talk) 15:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

How do you spell innuendo? Or is it innuendon't do? End of discussion. History2007 (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Trio, Bring forth a valid reliable source and things can be discussed. You are now beating a dead horse. If you do not agree take it through normal dispute resolution channels. However, I have seen many cases exactly like this and in ALL cases the answer is that nothing remotely like this is to remain in articles or on talk pages unless there is a valid reliable source. Please discontinue using my talk page related to this topic.Marauder40 (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It is on ANI 3RR, look at his history, will see it. He is one revert short of a block. I left him a notice anyway. And he has only done 300 odd edits, so needs to be told it is a bright line, so no excuse for being new. And yes, I have also seen cases where innuendo-based statements get deleted for sure. His case is lost already. He just does not know it yet. History2007 (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he has actually violated 3rr on the Talk page itself. If you combine both what he reverted of mine and the other editor that removed a much larger section, it is a 3rr violation. But I am not someone that takes people to the administrators at the drop of a dime, so until he continues I am just letting it be. Thanks again History. Marauder40 (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Now that it is on there, no need to do anything. Some admin will count it up, either 3 or 4. In any case, he has to stop reverting either way per WP:GO now History2007 (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right, he has crossed 3RR but the diffs were not presented right. History2007 (talk) 15:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

So far you have yet to quote the sentence that infers that Ratzinger is gay or contains speculation or claims about Ratzingers sexuality. Why do you insist it exists if you are unable to quote that sentence? Tag teaming helps you evade 3rr, but admins have experience and a brain. Trio The Punch (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This may look like a new account, but not necessarily a new user - knows policy it looks like. Anyway, I am done on this, and he can just be ignored/deleted per WP:GO anyway. History2007 (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

If there would've been a sentence that infers that Ratzinger is gay or contains speculation or claims about Ratzingers sexuality you would've quoted it to me by now, and I would've been embarrassed. But you can't find one, because it does not exist. Trio The Punch (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)