User talk:Bernini123

January 2021
Hello, I'm Elizium23. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Yahweh, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 14:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I did include a citation for that information: Joyce, G. (1912). The Blessed Trinity. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved January 1, 2021 from New Advent: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm The source summarizes the views of the church fathers, Aquinas, and others on how Yahweh (the God of the Old Testament) relates to the Christian trinity. Did this not appear in the edit or are you disputing the reliability of this source? Thank you.

July 2023
Hello Bernini123. I'm glad you are here on Wikipedia. I recently reverted your addition of a photograph you took to the page Juniperus virginiana. It did not add positively to the article's quality as it did not illustrate anything that needed to be shown about the species. If you disagree and want to restore the picture it might be good to put it at the bottom of the page in a gallery rather than in the section about the pollen of the species. That way it won't make for bad formatting for people viewing the page on mobile devices. I'm happy to help with questions about how to do things here on Wikipedia, especially when you are editing pages on plants. MtBotany (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The image shows an avenue of aged red cedars at a colonial estate in Northern Virginia, demonstrating that the species was considered a stately tree and suitable for ornamental plantings in the style of old-world cedars and cypresses. If you judge that this adds anything to the article's quality, I would be happy to move it to a gallery.  I was unaware that it messed up the formatting on mobile devices.  My opinion was that providing multiple images of the species, in different contexts, can help people in identifying the tree.  Please correct me if I'm mistaken. Bernini123 (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no formal rule about what does or does not add to a species page. My opinion is that if a new picture bumps previous pictures down beyond the text or starts to crowd the page, then it would be better in a gallery. For example when I was editing Geum triflorum lots of the pictures ended up in a gallery at the end of page. I could not stand to leave them out because they showed good things about the plant, but not enough room even with expansions to the text. Picture quality and placement are a subject of opinion and taste. So we talk about what to do on a page when there is disagreement.
 * I'm watching this page to make sure I will not miss comments by you now, but it is usually a good idea to use the mention a user link when replying. Example:@Bernini123. MtBotany (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that these things are a matter of opinion and taste. For example, a botanist may be content with a picture or two of the leaves and seeds, a layman whose concerns are more aesthetic than scientific may want to see more images of the tree as a whole. Bernini123 (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)