"Corporals_killings==
I assume, from your edits, that you have edited on WP before under another name. However, should this not be the case, I would respectfully point out that the lede in a WP article should normally encapsulate the article. In the above article the subsequent passages make clear that the killings of these corporals resulted in successful murder prosecutions. Since WP strives to use a neutral point of view - NOT bowdlerised language or mealy mouthed euphemisms - I have reverted your change of murder to ""killing"". 

It may be reprehensible, but folks would also take you more seriously if you responded on these, your talk pages, and completed some details on your user page rather than keeping it blank...(kiwiexile at DMOZ)  • 

Murder is not neutral. Also I don't appreciate your tone.  

What exactly don't you like about my tone, 303?...(kiwiexile at DMOZ)  • 

Is Brixton Busters really a new editor?
(Thread moved here from another user talk page so the subject of speculation can respond if he wishes to...):

I do not like your tone, manner or attitude to relatively new users, as you did here, , should you continue in such an argumentative and unwelcoming way I will report you to admin. Wikipedia should be welcoming to new editors.  
Do you have any evidence that this is indeed a new editor and not just 303 abusing the right to vanish? Personally, I'm glad 303 is back since he's always been a hard working and productive editor, but he hardly needs your (unnecessary?) protection since it's obvious that he's an accomplished Wikipedian from day one...(kiwiexile at DMOZ)  • 
And what evidence do you have not to AGF?  There are 3,000,000 people who have contributed to wikipedia. If indeed 303 has returned, on what basis do you make an accusation of abusing a right to vanish?  He left in good standing and would therefore not be evading a ban or block. Keep your speculations to yourself, please.  
Considering that you banned me for two consecutive periods of 14 days after speculating that I was a sock puppet of a retired German I think I'll ignore your advice, Tyrenius. Just look at the text, spelling mistakes and context of User:Brixton Busters (first?) edits and tell me again that I should assume that this is a genuine new editor.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with Gaimhreadhan's tone in the referenced diff, he was respectful and discursive. Frankly, Domer48, you are continuing with the same insulting behaviour you use elsewhere. I am just composing my responses to the Arbcom you are disrespectfully ignoring by bulk-editing the Great Irish Famine article, and I will also be drawing to their attention this disgraceful and harassing comment you just made.  

I'm going to move this thread to User talk:Brixton Busters where that (brand new?) editor can then comment on whether they have recently edited on WP using a different user name. If the references to 303 are summarily removed again, I will take it as a strong confirmation that my assumptions (made on the basis of textual and contextual analysis) are correct.

I don't see anything wrong with letting bygones be bygones; what would be wrong is giving an experienced and knowledgeable editor (now using a different user name) the same latitude and licence we would give a newbie.

I think it would be very helpful at this early stage for (kiwiexile at DMOZ)  • 

I think this is completely inappropriate behaviour. I feel we should apologise to User:Brixton Busters , for this seemingly irrational behaviour for an experienced editor who kno