User talk:MarcusBritish

I need help sir..

Hi again marcus, its me joey i need your help about my 2nd article its because the surname of my article is not in Capital letter..i dont know how to change it. i hoping for your reply..thank you so much in advance. Joeymcortina (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

 Done Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 07:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help again..:) Joeymcortina (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

No probs! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

i need help again sir.. i dont know why is that my added reference is not appearing in my wikipedia article but when i log into my account it was posted there..how can i fix that?? hoping for your reply..sir Joeymcortina (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. What reference, on what article? Perhaps the ref is to a website which is blacklisted? I'll need more details though, to know what you're referring to and what you tried to reference, exactly. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 14:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

sorry sir for not giving the clear details..the title of my 2nd article is "Rafael Corpus" and the reference that i added is *Stagg, Samuel (1935). Teodoro R. Yangco. Manila: University of The Philippines Press., it only appears in article when im currently log into my account but when i log out and search again my article my added reference is not posted.. Joeymcortina (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what's happening there, I see the ref'd book you gave just fine. Could be a caching issue. Try adding "?action=purge" in your browser URL bar, so that you get http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Corpus?action=purge, next time, it might help. If not, it could be that your browser isn't clearing its temporary internet files, and is displaying an older copy. Try pressing Ctrl and F5 together, to refresh the page from the server. Other than that, 'fraid I don't know what else could cause it, sorry. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

thank you so much sir for the help i will do it and if it still doesn't work, is it okay that i will not need to put the reference in my article?.. 119.93.79.35 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure. It is there, no doubt about that. Seems be a problem with the visibility of it, from what you're saying. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

then i will not delete my added reference and wait till it will appear in the article without log in my account. thanks again sir. Joeymcortina (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for putting my prominent proboscis in here, but I don't understand. The reference is visible when you're logged in, but not visible when you're not? In any case, I'm logged in (which I always am; I don't edit from my IP) and I can see it. Or at least I think I'm seeing it. Maybe you should post the issue at the village pump (which I don't have a link for, but you should be able to find it). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

It might be Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense to me either. Cookies (when logged in and out) shouldn't affect what an article looks like. Unless we're talking different PCS or browsers here. Otherwise, it makes no sense at all. So yes, Village pump might be the best bet in that case. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 13:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Artistic work

Nachtjagdgruppe 10 emblem

I saw your work on the project talk page. Well done! I wonder if you could also create something as complcated as Nachtjagdgruppe 10 emblem? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh heck! That's a small image to work from, hard to see the detail, and nothing bigger on Google to look at. I'll give it a go, though. Should be able to get a close approximation with a little time and patience. Will get back to you. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on this now.. Photoshopping, but keep getting distracted by ingrates, playing childish games on ANI. What are the letters on the emblem? Looks like "Tllo" or "Illo" - also, because of the low-quality of the one I'm working off, I may have trouble matching the shade of red used on the text and boar tongue. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 20:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

See thumb. I haven't done anything in SVG format before, having just got Adobe Illustrator I've converted it from Photoshop format instead of just a PNG. The copyright info may need updating also, as well as categorising. Do as you feel fit, in terms of Commons data. Any problems, with the image itself, please let me know. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, great job! No sorry I have difficulties myself making out what the lettes are. My guess, and I will try to verify this, is that it is "Illo". It could be a nickname of a wife or girlfriend. Thanks for the time and effort. MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No probs. Although I created the original copy, someone else has titivated the SVG I uploaded, mainly due to some quality issues based on my lack of technical experience with Illustrator. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 06:33, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Mechanized corps (Soviet)

10th Guards tank corps

Thanks for the badge you did - that's great! Would it be possible to go back to that page and create badges for all the corps we have articles for at Category:Mechanized corps of the Soviet Union? Or even one or two? Cheers and many thanks, Buckshot06 (talk) 18:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

It would be possible, only I can't tell which insignia at http://www.wio.ru/tank/oz/oz-en.htm relates to which article in the category. It would be easier for me if you indicate which of those images you would like reproducing from the page, and which article they relate to, and I'll see what I can do. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. No problem - down on the right-hand side is an insignia for 10th Guards Tank Corps; that's an earlier version of 10th Guards Uralsko-Lvovskaya Tank Division. Could you do that one? The others we actually don't seem to have any other line-ups.. Thanks muchly.. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that's the one? You'll need to go to Commons and categorise it. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 19:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you sort this, as I don't see any articles listed for its usage? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 04:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added it now. Thanks very much for your help. Might you consider doing a couple of RNZAF squadrons? I'd really like to fix No. 40 Squadron RNZAF. Buckshot06 (talk) 10:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What do they need? Insignia? If they need patches with crests like that low-quality on 5 Squadron page, I probably wouldn't be very good, as it's more elaborate detail what will the crown and trim, whereas I'm probably better suited to doing flat icon/logo/flag/roundel type images at the moment, being new to vector images. Can't see one on the 40 Squadron article, though. Let me know what's needed. Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davina Reichman (2nd nomination)

This page is for discussion as to whether the article Davina Reichman should be deleted or kept. I would urge you to confine your contributions on the page to that single question, and not to allow yourself to be drawn into debates on any other topic. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Tempest in a teapot a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Storm in a teacup. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Eisfbnore • talk 08:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

To coin an old phrase..."oops!" — Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 08:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Fisting

Resolved

Did you bother to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ADroidfetuses CTJF83 23:01, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Uhhh, that link shows a different one so it isn't helpful. And FYI Simonxag is not banned. How can he be Brucejenner? You reverted Droidfetuses on 9 Dec, and Simonxag on the 10 Dec. Even if they posted the same thing, why is one banned and one not - socks should be banned too. Right? Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:14, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed the banned user's comments, as I linked to the block log above. Simonxag reverted my removal of that banned user's comments, so I reverted Simonxag explaining the user is banned, and it is proper to remove their comments. CTJF83 23:31, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Looking at my edit summary, "revert Simonxag, banned user, their edits get removed" I can see where the confusion came from, and I'll be more careful specifying who the banned user is. CTJF83 23:34, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my fault too.. I took the edit summary literally. I thought Droidfetuses was the first sock of Brucejenner, and Simonxag yet another sock repeating the "oppose" !vote. I see now that he reverted your revert and then by moving it he made it look like it was his comment. Sorry, bit of confusion both ways, it seems. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ya, while I was in the shower I was like Marcus probably just read the summary instead of looking at the difference...so I'll take half the blame if you take half :) CTJF83 23:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the diffs originally, but only made sense of the second one, just before reverting you, and I realised the first diff was a revert itself not long ago, and that was the missing piece to the puzzle. Let's keep it simple: blame Simonxag, he started the mess, lol! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Works for me! CTJF83 02:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies if my opening seemed snarky. CTJF83 23:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it's fine, was fair enough due to the minor confusion. Sorted now though. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:55, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your knowledge might help

Marcus you state that your knowledge is mainly military , good it might be able to help give me direction in an issue that I was invovled in and trying to figure where to go to resolve it . Here is the artcile on The Troubles , you will see in the info box the correct use of flags the Union Flag and the Tricolour , and nothing for the others , however Warrenpoint ambush has the usage for the flags for the IRA and British army . Disscussion here on this and here on Operation Flavius have lead to inconsistency . From my understanding flags can be used in military infoboxes , and from my understanding the use of flags in these boxes relates solely to the military of that state , in this regard the incorrect use of the tricolour. Am I wrong in trying to remove this from the IRA side of infoboxes? And where would I go to get this sorted ? MOS relating to flags and icons or military history ? Murry1975 (talk) 09:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Flags in articles relating to battles/conflicts/campaigns/wars normally use the most prominent flag of each participant. I don't think it has to be the country flag.. for example, some WWII battles use the Nazi swastika rather than flag of Germany, although either would probably be acceptable. In the case of a terrorist organisations or para-military forces you're going to have to determine if that force had its own flag icon to use, initially. If not, and if the IRA did use the Irish flag, the Republic flag of Éire, then you need to realise that it is just history. By not using the flag they used, even against the population or government's wishes, you would be denying the truth. Wiki is not censored, not toned down just because people don't like things that happened. WWII German Army articles still use swastikas, even though it's illegal symbol in Germany, because it was history it can't be rewritten to suit the detractors. Though I can understand that the majority of the Irish population did not support the IRA, and wouldn't want their national flag tainted by having it represent a terrorist group.. if that's what happened, it happened. No two ways about it. Armies don't always represent the state. The Confederacy of the American Civil War represented itself, the Union Army represented the state. A whole new flag for the rebel cause. Despite claims today that it is a "racist flag" (bullshit) it still flies in many southern states, because it is part of their history, it represents their fight, personal cause, and sacrifices rather than the CSA's desire to keep slaves, as is claimed. I suppose it's equally fair to say that the Irish flag represents the cause and fight of the IRA, but not so much the country and true Irish people, despite their intentions, and lacks the same form of sympathy because of their methods, especially against civilian targets. They were a minority effort. You could ask on WT:MILHIST for advice, although I don't think I've ever seen anyone on there with interest in Irish history, specifically that period of conflict. But they may be able to give general advice and suggestions on whether use of the flag is within norms. Alternatively, as WP:MOSFLAG#Flags states that flags should not be used in infoboxes, and despite the fact that most military articles do it, because it does in fact look good, and not distracting, you could opt to remove them. To be honest MOSFLAG says don't, then gives a load of reasons when you should, which are about all situations, so it just contradicts itself, which is typically unambiguous of Wiki. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 10:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice and help. The flag pre-dates the state (from mid-1800s) and has always been used by various republican groups since then and by all forms of the IRA (THE IRA , and then the offical , provo ,and so on). It just seems like a contradiction use it in the Troubes to define the security forces of the state and the paramilitaries who didnt recognise the state or its army as legitimate. It is an oddity to look at two infoboxes within the Troubles Cat and see it representing both sides . And again thanks for the help , I agree with Wiki being contradictory - guidelines that state one thing and then state another and the mother of all. Thanks Murry1975 (talk) 13:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Re WQA

You're not required to participate. It might be wiser and less work for all of us if let the WQA volunteers review the WQA posting and comment before you decided if this is something you want to spend more time on. I am not telling you not to post but I think you've seen I (usually) genuinely try to de-escalate situations. Thanks. Gerardw (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

And I admit this [1] was a shitty move on my part that I'm not proud of. Gerardw (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

...and I didn't see your comments on WQA about anything posted being removed unread, apologies for posting. Gerardw (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Just let him rant. He's an idiot. He's accusing me of highlighting his block to discredit him, when he pulled that stunt against me first. Kettle.. frying pan.. black as bog. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As long as you don't attempt to coerce me into participating, or let anyone use WQA to sling mud now they know I won't partake, I'm fine. Let him have his little tantrums. I'll get a change of nappies for when he's done. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm entirely sincere in that participation is entirely up to your either way. My opinion is that's is not a good use of your time. But I don't control what goes on at WQA, so if anyone slings mud it's on them, not me. Gerardw (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah see Gerard, fastest WQA in history. Lol.. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm perhaps rather similar in the way I react to you, and I'm at least as sick of the Irish POV-pushing as you are, but I've learned that you need to avoid comments such as "he's an idiot". That turns it into a stupid "personal attack" discussion, and there are more than enough administrators more than happy to block you for the greater glorification of Wikipedia's God-king. Best stick to the facts, with the odd expletive thrown in as a fucking intensifier where appropriate. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

As you probably gathered, I'm not the swearing type.. at least not typing, it just looks odd, to me, because I don't believe forum-like text conveys a voice or tone.. so to me "fuck" on here is no less stupid than "fuck" scraped on a toilet station bog wall. Maybe you should start leaving your phone numbers, and intentions, like those guys.. it might prove more interesting. LOL! :P Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I swear rather rarely, but it does have its place. Just try and imagine the impact of the queen or the American president telling you that you were a fucking cunt for instance. The only point I'm trying to make is that your opponents will deploy every trick they can to provoke you into "personal attacks", and then they've got you by the short and curlies. Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Corcoran copyvio?

If you have evidence (or reason for suspicion) that this article is a copyvio, please give your reasoning at Talk:Corcoran. If not, it is possible that the tag might be removed. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

[2] maybe you'd also like to tell User:MarnetteD that, and check out this war-editing. And read the new heading below. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Your case that it's a copyvio is that Sheodred removed the tag? How convincing! Please be aware that editors can be blocked for disruption. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

No that is not my bloody case. That is just FYI. My "case" has been logged on Wikipedia:Suspected_copyright_violations/2011-12-14. Do your job properly before accusing others of "disruption". Removing tags you author is COI, adding them requires AGF. You should know that. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 17:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for now providing the evidence for your charge of copyvio. Tagging the article without giving a link to your report is apparently what led to the questions. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Good. Does that mean you're going to re-apply the Copyright-unsure tag, or is Sheodred's new example of his war-editing nature also be sanctioned along with his other 43 edits, PAs, reverts, canvassing and such? I see admins aren't willing to react to that huge list of examples I took time to compile. Too much like hard work, it seems. Nevertheless, you said yourself community processes have not been exhausted, and I'm a patient man. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 18:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

IPSock

I have no idea what the hell you are doing tagging those pages... or on what basis, but it's definitely the sort of thing that is frowned on whilst in disputes with that user. If you have serious grounds that those IP's are Sheodred then post the evidence on the SPI and allow an experienced admin to figure it out and tag it appropriatly. Simply tagging willy nilly is not a good move. Please consider stepping away from Sheodred and allowing neutral people to resolve the issues; because at this moment it looks worryingly like you are trying to hound him from Wikipedia using whatever avenue is available.... --Errant ^(chat!) 00:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus; I don't have time to try and resolve this, so I have raised it at WP:AN/I for other admins to look over. I recommend you take any criticism and concerns raised there under due consideration. I appreciate you are trying to resolve issues here on WP - but there is a certain Battleground attitude to your posts that has escalate this way too quickly into a personal conflict. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:52, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

How dare you tell me what "I can and cannot" do, within rights of SPI suspicion? How dare you also accuse me of "willy-nilly", on what basis do you assume to understand how I identified these IPs? Admin support of Wikipedia:Griefing is worse that editors tagging socks, and also frowned upon. I suggest look at the huge list of disruptive, unsourced, unverified, non-NPOV edits on WP:ECCN#Re: Sheodred before you dare attack my position without ever having acted upon it. You are totally in the wrong here. You are also taking sides against someone with a proven bad track record. I don't need to Wikihound anyone, if they weren't so bloody lazy they'd read the list, review the serious underlying POV nature of it and act on by now. End of this day, when this comes to ArbCom, I see a large number of admins who are going to be shamed for neglecting to take the matter seriously. Tell your little friend to use proper dispute resolution procedures if has issues with me. He's only using you to avoid exposure of the list. Tell him to open an RFC, I'll post the list there. He doesn't wan that. I am totally within my rights to highlight suspect SPIs. The only way he is finding them is by going through my contribs history. What's worse, Wikistalking and looking for excuses to complain, or doing something that may result in a bad editor being identified. I suggest you reconsider your position, as it appears to be clouded by pre-judgement! You're being used. Suggest you remind yourself what tools are for, and the practices that are not designed to support.. i.e. mass POV editing. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Marcus. Tell him to open an RFC; over the last few days I have been considering taking just this step, but avoided it because I hoped you would see some sense, or at least calm down. Every interaction I have seen go by my watchlist involving you has ended up in some sort of battleground largely because of your explosive attitude to absolutely everything. I kinda understand this; back in '06 when I was first a Wikipedian I had something of the same approach. Bottom line is that it simply doesn't work well online. I am totally within my rights to highlight suspect SPI; yes you are. And the way to do that is to post an SPI report with clear evidence of why that IP is linked. So far you have not done that at all.. Anyway; so far my view of you is that you seem to take any form of criticism as both a personal affront and a clear indication that the person giving it is complicit against you, abusing their position or just trying to annoy you. Your posts appear to have an "I'm better than you attitude". It's terribly hard to interact with someone holding that attitude. Take, for example, the above post.. you seem to have missed that I utterly oppose Sheodred's thoughts on the whole Anglo-Irish issue, and consider that, within the Irish/British topic area there may be some problems to resolve. But despite that you are attacking my participation of helping my "little friend". This is the sort of attitude that is poisoning your interation here on Wikipedia. I really hope you take this as helpful criticism, but I can't help feeling you simply will not see it that way... --Errant ^(chat!) 01:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, the matter is simple:

• Marcus comes across situation with Irish editors attempting to rewrite MOS to prevent use of Anglo-Irish.
• Marcus opposes said proposal, and other editors cause it to collapse.
• Sheodred takes result as an attack on Irish rights. Opens AN/I in order to retaliate for the collapse of his agenda.
• AN/I fails. Goes to WQA.
• WQA fails. Goes to ECCN.
• I respond to ECCN with huge list to prove the agenda.
• I am attacked by Sheodred and his selectively canvassed friends.
• Discover Sheodred has a restriction on making pro-Irish edits. He has instead been removing British nationality refs.
• Contact admins who oversaw restriction, to review possibility of bad faith breach or circumventing of restriction.
• Admins ignore request. Sheodred becomes cocky, attacks myself and supporters of Topic Ban.
• Sheodred runs to other admins, 2 so far, for help in "fighting Marcus off". You're number 2.

Where's is the list of 43+ disruptive edits on a nationalistic level (hence ECCN) even taken seriously in there?

Simply put, Sheodred forum shopped for support, diluted the case, derailed it.

If you can find anything "wrong" in my edits, any pro-British leanings, go ahead. Otherwise, I'm the victim here, of retaliation.

Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 01:14, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

ECCN et. al.

Thanks for the heads up on the ECCN. It's area I stay out of because, as an American, I don't really have the necessary background. We're a relatively young (a snapshot in history, really) geographically large, and fairly mobile society; this does not lend itself to understand geohistorical conflicts which have roots going back centuries.

As far as the current interaction between you and Shreoded; it's been my observation that once the involved parties have made their initial statement, ongoing interaction between them generally adds little to reviewer's understanding of the situation. In fact, the editor who appears to be calmer and edits less generally provides a much better first impression. Speaking for myself as a at least try to be "neutral middle-man," I tend to rely mostly on my own examination of diffs rather than accept at face value claims by any involved party. In a nutshell I'm suggesting although speaking in your defense may be allowable doesn't always mean it is wise. Not replying to an accusation doesn't imply you accept the veracity of it, in fact, done appropriately, it can give the appearance the accusation is so far beneath replying it's worth your effort. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 03:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I follow your logic but in this case, as he has gone running to various admins who then take his word for granted and fill my page with rebukes, I have little choice but to stand my ground. Which is why I feel this will end up in ArbCom's lap. They review every detail, without allowing room for one side to swing their views with personal talk page requests to offer a biased hand in matters. Did your examination of any of the diffs here lead you to any conclusions? Btw, your last comment on AN/I reads "I did mean to imply..." – did you miss a "not" out? Strange new username.. LOTR reference? Cheers, Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 03:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Irish versus British, and the WP:TROUBLES Arbcom case

I had previously warned User:Sheodred about the discretionary sanctions under the WP:TROUBLES case. Thanks to the large dump of evidence at WP:ANI#MarcusBritish and Sheodred I've now become aware that your edits have much in common with those of Sheodred, since you seem to be pursuing a nationalist agenda from the opposite viewpoint. It makes me wish that the voluntary topic ban on Sheodred had been sweeping enough to keep him away from all nationalist issues, both on articles and talk pages. But that is too late to fix. Now we come to you. Besides seeming to be engaged in a crusade to limit what Sheodred can do, you seem to want to cause so much turmoil that Arbcom will have to take the case. If you are resolved to take that path, I offer you the first step. You are hereby notified of the discretionary sanctions under the WP:TROUBLES case. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to The Troubles. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)