User talk:Militum professio scriniarii

Hello Militum professio scriniarii. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Pilgrim Press, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Please do not re-add a speedy tag. Use redirects for discussion instead. Thank you. BangJan1999 21:34, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain further. I already left a comment on Talk:Pilgrim Press. Please advise what further action is required to correct the incorrect redirect. Thanks in advance. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained above, I would recommend taking the page in question to redirects for discussion. BangJan1999 02:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay, thanks for the link. I will follow up there. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 12:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Me Before You (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change spelling, dates, and such from one format to another per WP:DATERET and WP:ENGVAR. We have a source that says Me Before You is an international co-production between the US and UK. You can't just remove that, change the formatting, and call it a British film because simply because you think it is. If reliable sources say that something is British, we call it British. If they call it a combination of British and American, that's what we call it. What we don't do is ignore what reliable sources say and overrule them with our own original research. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Militum professio scriniarii! Your additions to Royal Brunei Armed Forces have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 13:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Royal Brunei Air Force units has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Alalch E. 13:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop doing what you are doing. What you are creating does not seem to be useful. Wait for the above linked discussion to conclude. —Alalch E. 13:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Data.gov.uk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RDF. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and fixed. Thanks for the heads up. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 11:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your edit to Government of Brunei. Unfortunately, I had to undo your move per WP:RMUM. This move must be discussed on the talk page of the article. It is also likely the move does not as per the manual of style, as no other countries have their official names in their government pages (see Government of Nepal, Government of India, Government of Italy, but I assume you are doing this in WP:GOODFAITH and will simply undo the edits. If you wish for the move to happen, it would be a good idea to talk about it in Talk:Government of Brunei.

BurgeoningContracting (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Balibo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indonesian Special Forces.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you MUST provide a source for your changes to Air transports of heads of state and government. Until then, your edits will continue to be removed, as contentious information added to Wikipedia REQUIRES a supporting source. SurferSquall (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Vespina (aircraft). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Do.not falsely accuse editors of vandalism, which.has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. Good-faith efforts to improve articles. are NOT vandalism. BilCat (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intend to reply to me? SurferSquall (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not indented. Twinkle just added the warning in this section as you had added the Month/year heading. BilCat (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I am unfamiliar with the many bots and programs on Wikipedia SurferSquall (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Pilatus PC-7. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Do NOT falsely accuse editors of vandalism, which.has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia. Good-faith efforts to improve articles are NOT vandalism. This isn't your first warning for this, but next time you can defend yourself at ANI. BilCat (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Order of the Bath. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You were asked a few times already to not make false accusations of vandalism. Time to stop. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Order of the Bath, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Yamla (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 'claim' that I inserted "unsourced or poorly sourced" is a BLATANT LIE. I used a valid citation to a valid RELIABLE SOURCE - which has been accepted as a valid and reliable citation for a long time on its corresponding related article - added by a totally different editor! Drmies edit summary to revert my edit was a blatant lie - an as an Admin, they should know better than most! Admins are equally bound by rules over edit warring - and Drmies has totally failed to justify his reasoning that the citation I included is unreliable! Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies excuse that the citation is unreliable is frankly preposterous. There are tens of thousands of valid citations here on Wikipedia which are to websites which no longer exist (dead) - but have been archived. The citation I added included the archived URL - and that method has been accepted as valid virtually since the dawn of Wikipedia! Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop yelling? Again you missed the fact that my claim is that your website is not reliable because it is not reliable, not because it is dead. Second, a "blatant lie" is an obvious violation of WP:AGF. Third, you keep claiming "vandalism", which is a personal attack that you've been warned about (by BilCat) before. I will be happy to explain my reasoning for calling that source unreliable, once you explain how it is reliable. You can do that at WP:RSN. Drmies (talk)

Sorry, I apologise for shouting. However, with respect, you are wrong to state that 'indoku.co.uk' is 'my' website. I have zero connection with 'indoku.co.uk' - so please do not make false accusations. The 'indoku.co.uk' citation I used was simply copied from the related article - and whilst I never checked back through its edit summary to see who added it or when, the date of the actual cited article in the website is more than 10 years old - so (a) it is not unreasonable to accept link rot, and (b) why has nobody else stated the 'indoku.co.uk' citation, or the website as a whole is 'unreliable'? If a 10 year old citation is accepted as valid on one Wikipedia article, why is it suddenly deemed unreliable when used in the identical context on a different but related article?

As for BilCat, he has an extremely long history of personal attacks, and even threats against others. BilCat is prolific in accusing others of personal attacks - yet he is also prolific in making his own personal attacks - and threats! I have even seen BilCat bragging on the talk page of his friends how he enjoys threatening others!

As for WP:RSN - can you please advise where is the requirement here on Wikipedia that every external citation is proved reliable? That would be a monumental, and surely unreachable task! Surely, the process would be to assess any 'questionable' sources as they arise (specifically when a citation source looks unreliable - maybe due to inaccuracies), and then discuss. 'indoku.co.uk' is used on many different articles - it is (or was!) a reliable journalistic website reporting on official relations between Indonesia and the United Kingdom, and frequently used sources such as the BBC, Reuters, and AP. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any reference to indoku.co.uk on WP:RSN. Can you please show where this was judged to be a reliable source? I don't think anyone cares that it's archived, only that it meets the criteria outlined in WP:RS. --Yamla (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies was very clear in one of his edit summaries that the citation was unreliable because it was dead :-/ Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You've made absolutely unacceptable attacks here and in edit summaries and you don't appear repentent. Doug Weller talk 13:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh??? Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 13:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you can't give me a reason? Doug Weller talk 13:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, but I don't recall any interactions with yourself. :-/ Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct and irrelevant. If I don't get a response soon, expect a block. Doug Weller talk 14:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise to whoever I have offended. But I have also been on the receiving end of unwarranted personal attacks. I am only human, sorry. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough. You need to apologise directly to the people you insulted. Including in edit summaries. Other people's actions do not excuse yours, and I don't know if any of them besides User:Drmies might be reading this. Doug Weller talk 15:00, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can do this by using {{re|username1|username2}} etc. on your talk page. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this comment, "I have even seen BilCat bragging on the talk page of his friends how he enjoys threatening others!", is one of the ones Doug is referring to. I don't recall ever bragging about how I "enjoy[s] threatening others", so if you can provide a diff of where you think that's what I did, it would be helpful. BilCat (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BilCat yes, that’s one of them. Doug Weller talk 19:40, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not the only PA he's made towards me, but at least it has a specific claim which he should be able to back up. If I have said that I "enjoy threatening others", it's obviously not a good thing, and I should address it. However, many people view standard user warnings and notices as "threats", and they are definitely not threats. Beyond that, I have no idea what he's referring to. BilCat (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Theo McNab. Thanks! Cl3phact0 (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Theo McNab. Thanks! Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Wingwatchers was:

At a staggering 61.5% most likely plagiarism I in good conscience cannot accept this draft, and no other reviewers should. Since the second para is directly copied from https://www.adams.ie/irish-artist-directory/theo-mcnab-art-sold-at-auction I questioned the verifiability of all the complementary citation in this draft because it is likely that you just shove them onto the draft, defeating the whole purpose of the concept. I also questioned if these citations support their corresponding statement at all. Consult me during and after this is fixed.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Theo McNab and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Wingwatchers (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Militum professio scriniarii! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Wingwatchers (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You say: "British English only capitalise proper nouns, not adjectives"; but English should be capitalized in titles too. A table's initial column is its title, and its following set of data are its contents. You can see this style all over Wikipedia and it is not your prerogative to change it just because of a rule of British English that you interpret and follow rigidly.

Regarding the sports clubs of the police and army of Brunei; the football teams are the most prominent and other sports have little activity outside of the National Sports Festival. There is little to no representation of those clubs in other sports than football and so football should be the primary content of their pages.

The Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sports do not govern the football league, as Brunei had been banned by FIFA due to this exact predicament in 2008. I don't think any sports ministry in this world does, only their football associations. かぴさん Kapisan (talk) 02:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this revert you made at File:Royal Brunei Armed Forces Sports Council logo.png, I don't know if you have missed my response to your query about the use of that logo in other articles. As I explained there, you cannot jam multiple rationales into a single non-free usage rationale template. Each and every usage of the logo must have its own separate non-free usage rationale template. I did not "fix" your edit by adding these non-free usage rationales because as I explained in my reply, I do not believe their usage meets the non-free content criteria. You are welcome to add the templates yourself, or get assistance from the Teahouse, but it will almost certainly result in the logo being listed at files for discussion as some usages not meeting the non-free content criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 20:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've set out why this is the case at Talk:United_Kingdom_military_aircraft_registration_number#Use_of_term_"serial"_to_describe_registration_numbers and I'd like to ask you to comment there as to your thinking on the matter. Thank you.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Militum professio scriniarii, was this edit absolutely necessary? The replacement of spaces with underscores effectively broke the usage of the "chief minister" field (see United States Armed Forces and People's Liberation Army for examples; the Secretary of Defense and Minister of National Defense are not showing in the infobox because they are still specified under the old format. The same probably happened to all other uses of the infobox). If policy really requires the underscore to be used then we'll have to update the docs and get someone with AWB permissions to fix all applications of the infobox (there're 360 transclusions, too many to fix by hand), but otherwise it would be easier to just revert the edit. Liu1126 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liu1126:, Hello, and thanks for the heads up. Sorry, I was not aware my edit broke those field displays. I was merely trying to standardise all fields. There is a way to include options for both - but for the sake of speed, I reverted my error edit. Thanks again, best regards. Militum professio scriniarii (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for the quick response! Liu1126 (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Template:Ijtihad-class patrol boats, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please read the guidelines at WP:NC-SHIPS Llammakey (talk) 12:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have created the draft for the Defence Academy Royal Brunei Armed Forces. Feel free to edit and expand on it, as I will be busy from time to time in the coming days. Thank you for your contributions. Pangalau (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, quick question re your reversion of my edit at Template:Military of Brunei. I was under the impression that Wikipedia prefers sentence case, and have never seen mention of an exception made for British English. I've just done a quick review of MOS:HEADCAPS, and don't see it there. In your edit summary, you mentioned examples - can you point me toward these? Genuinely just trying to understand this better for future. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would really like to see documentation of this guideline.

Also, your recent reversion of my changes at Anduki Airfield not only changed capitals to lower letters, but it re-added punctuation in captions where it doesn't belong - the sentence fragment captions in the gallery at the end of the article, per MOS:CAPFRAG. Any objections if I take those back out? You seem to have a vested interest in the capital-letters thing that I have no interest in arguing over, so I'll let that part drop. I'd simply like the article to comply with the MOS as much as possible. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]