User talk:CME GBM

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] 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:

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/m/e/User_talk%7ECME_GBM_8f1f.html"