User talk:CME GBM

Image tagging for Image:UMHBChapel Color.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:UMHBChapel Color.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 02:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. Regrettably, I have declined your request as you do not have 500 mainspace edits. You are welcome to apply again at a later time. Feel free to contact me with any questions, Alphachimp 02:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Technical problem: with my Login + Edit this Page

Only with this account, but on any PC, when I click "Edit this Page," I receive an error message stating:

You have chosen to open index.php which is a PHP file from http://en.wikipedia.org. Open with_____; Save to Disk______.

The only way I can presently edit is to click on [Edit] within an article. And that does not allow me access to the introductory paragraph. I will greatly appreciate your help. Thanks, CME GBM 16:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Help request

Hi there, what do you need help with and I'll try and help, if I cant I'll point you in the right direction!! Tellyaddict 16:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is a hard one!! Well I'm not particularly sure, its probably best to ask at the helpdesk and they can tell you almost anything about using wikipedia! If they cant help you then contact me on my talk page and I'll think of something else!!

Respectfully... Tellyaddict 10:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

From what I've seen, this is a rare problem that nevertheless manages to come up every so often -- if you would be so kind, please check Special:Preferences, go to the "Editing" tab, and make sure that "Use external editor by default" is unchecked, please. Luna Santin 05:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Luna Santin, THANKS! THAT FIXED IT. I would never have known to look for that. I'm very grateful! CME GBM 18:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: Christian Views

CME: You made some excellent changes to the Christian Views of Women page, with lots of new citations. Thank you for all your hard work. Unfortunately, a lot of what has been added is editorial, i.e. it suggests original research, which is not how Wikipedia pages are supposed to be created. Please visit WP:OR to learn more about this important policy. Pschelden 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Pschelden: it is not OR. These are the interpretations of the theologians to whom I have given credit with the citations. I fully understand OR, "original" meaning my research as the editor. Nothing that has been added is editorial. It is all expert interpretations. Sorry you misunderstood. CME GBM 04:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please review the definition of OR. One quote from the page you asked me to visit: "Original research includes editors' personal views, political opinions, and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position. That is, any facts, opinions, interpretations, definitions, and arguments published by Wikipedia must already have been published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic of the article." I have gone to a great deal of trouble to comply with your request to the original editor of "Jesus and women." If anything, this short section now contains too many footnote citations. I sincerely believe that you misunderstand the fundamental idea of WP:OR. I concur that without the citations from "interpretations…already…published by a reliable publication in relation to the topic, it could be understood as OR. Let's please turn our attention to finishing this important section. Thanks. CME GBM 04:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

CME: Here's the quoted text I have the biggest problem with in the article, and let me try to explain why:

"The Gospels are unique in presenting women in a variety of situations. Remarkably, in no instance is a woman disgraced, belittled, reproached, or stereotyped. Jesus treats each of them with dignity and respect. This section presents each of the New Testament records of Jesus' interactions with women.[3]. These examples of the manner of Jesus are instructive for inferring his attitudes toward women and show repeatedly how he liberated and affirmed women. [4]"

1) The final statement is not properly cited. I'd like to look for the book you cite, and would, if only the page numbers from which you refer were included. Your claim that the examples "show repeatedly how [Jesus] liberated and affirmed women" is controversial and as such constitutes original research (i.e. personal interpretations). To avoid this, try writing something like, "According to Stagg, . . ." while offering proper, paginated citations to the source. Otherwise, the style of the sentence suggests that Stagg, who may or may not affirm this absolute statement, should be taken at his word, rather than studied and considered for his validity. Also, the absoluteness of the statement as it is written leaves no room for dissenting opinion. This would be fine if the statement was something like "liquid water is wet." But when you're making an overarching claim of a historical figure's various interactions with half the species, suggestions that they "show repeatedly how he liberated and affirmed women" are out of place. Properly, the words "liberated" and "affirmed" should be defined, for one thing. For another, casting such a large net over the situations effectively and rhetorically bars interpretations that would make Stagg's opinion problematic.

2) Your boldest claims are still uncited:

"The Gospels are unique in presenting women in a variety of situations. Remarkably, in no instance is a woman disgraced, belittled, reproached, or stereotyped. Jesus treats each of them with dignity and respect."

The claim to uniqueness is dangerous, and, when taken literally, absurd: it suggests that no other written account features women in a variety of situations. When taken from this perspective, it's obviously, patently, false. Ejaculations like "remarkably" denote encyclopedic statements that must be cited, because they signify something beyond the ordinary (and particularly, something that may not be easily accepted). This is certainly the case here, with the overarching and absolute claim that "in no instance is a woman disgraced, belittled, reproached, or stereotyped." This statement goes beyond the paragraph's citations, and in fact offers no citing texts of its own. Even if it had cited texts, it would be better to put such controversial language in a style as I suggested earlier, "[Theologian X] has written that . . . " This rhetorically leaves available multiple interpretations, which, like it or not, are necessary on a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Please recognize that I've gone to the trouble to explain this to you so that you can incorporate these important principles of neutrality and balance in your own editing, and I've done so partly because I believe you have something to offer the overall project at Wikipedia. Hopefully you can recognize that without proper citations and a neutral, balanced style, editors should not "turn [their] attention to finishing this important section," but should rather take careful consideration of the changes they have made, making sure to annotate, paginate and cite whenever necessary. This is true of any article, but it becomes even more true when dealing with an article of particular controversy, such as "Christian Views About Women." My portion of this discussion will be posted on the discussion page at the article. Pschelden 18:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

AWB

You still don't have enough mainspace edits to give us the impression you will be able to handle the tool. Feel free to apply again later on. Sorry, alphachimp 07:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Spelling 'corrections'

Itis helpful if editors from the United States could remember that WP is an international not a US work. The corrections are no such thing, merely your preference for US spelling over against that which is customary in the United Kindgdom and many other places. There are UK citizens who regard as parochialism the 'correction' of what is perfectly correct already. Can you seee your way to reverting what was perfectly OK before you touched it? Roger Arguile 11:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:CBEmasthead.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CBEmasthead.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:UMHB-Seal-Purple.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:UMHB-Seal-Purple.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:CBE Logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:CBE Logo.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CBE Logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:CBE Logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved material from Monogamy in Christianity to Christian views on marriage

This is a courtesy notice to you as a frequent editor of Christian views on marriage. I moved some material to the article. I placed a summary of my thinking on the Talk page. In brief, I think the moved content would very much benefit from integration into Christian views on marriage, as well as stylistic reformatting to the style of that article, removal of interpretive components (unless they represent cited viewpoints), and redaction of primary source material. Perhaps you will be able to edit the material to bring it up to snuff. Regards,FeatherPluma (talk) 10:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:Christian-Marriage-Symbol.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CBFmasthead.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CBFmasthead.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Christian-Marriage-Symbol.jpg

The file File:Christian-Marriage-Symbol.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, superseded by File:Christian-Marriage-Symbol.svg.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 05:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)