User talk:Bartholomite

October 2018

Hello, I'm CAPTAIN RAJU. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mother Angelica have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify links

I think it was a good idea in principle to add streaming audio links to the list of recordings at Sir Hugh but as far as I know it qualifies as WP:LINKSTOAVOID because of WP:ELREG and WP:RICHMEDIA. If there is already a consensus allowing this sort of link as an exception to those guidelines I would love—even prefer—to be wrong. Ibadibam (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Prosperity theology into Christianity in the 21st century. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latin translations

Why are you going from university to university adding Latin translations of the university name? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: The Latin translation of university names is a common inclusion in the university infobox template. If you and @Contributor321: are so scandalized by the use of Latin in the Latin_name field, I have no intent on continuing to edit university pages as your edit wars are not the hill I plan to die on. Bartholomite (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos, Bartholomite, for taking the high road. For the record, information in infoboxes is subject to the same standards of verifiability and original research as content in the article body, so use of the latin_name field is appropriate for institutions whose Latin names are attested in reliable sources. Practically speaking, this might include institutions that existed in the heyday of academic Latin, or which appear in ecclesiastical writings or the few remaining Latin-language journals. For everything else, the field is effectively useless. Ibadibam (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spreading disinformation

You are willfully spreading disinformation which has no backing by any credible source. You are advised to cease this activity, or legal action will be incurred.

Montchevalier (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MontChevalier: "Legal action will be incurred?" Buddy, what website do you think you're on? Regardless, I haven't cited any uncredible sources, but I'd almost be tempted to if you want to take that tone against me. But instead I'll just ask you to cease and desist. Bartholomite (talk) 03:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find out when my bishop sends wikipedia a cease and desist. You are warned once. Montchevalier (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]