User talk:The Quill/Archive index2009/December

Cameron
Regarding your revert of my edit on the article, you have put nothing explanatory in your edit summary, please comment as to why you have reverted my edit, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The section is about the hypocrisy of Cameron cycling, if you just call is Cameron and Cycling you need to put all the good points in as well. The Quill (talk) 17:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The section is written like an attack and is written as if a tabloid newspaper. Off2riorob (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Answer me this one question...do you think that the leader of the conservative party can just go out cycling on his pushbike on his own without any protection? Off2riorob (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Then it needs to be re-written. I support the Conservative Party I wouldn't let Cameron be unjustly critised though you have to remeber that neutrality is needed in the article. The Quill (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If Cameron is going to get attacked he shouldn't cycle, or he could bring security on a bike. The Quill (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, good idea, security on a bike, this is a good idea, but perhaps the people protecting him wouldn't allow that, but its a good idea. Off2riorob (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct, so the car following him has to be there...he can't go out without, ..Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was simply taking all the opinion out of the section and writing it more neutrally...this...

Cameron as a cyclist
He regularly uses his bicycle to commute to work. In the spring of 2006 he was photographed cycling to work followed by his driver in a car carrying his belongings, his Conservative Party spokesperson subsequently said that this was a regular arrangement for Cameron at the time. This has led to questions regarding any claims to "green" credentials.


 * Sorry it would appear that I have managed to confuse myself. i am totally for your edit. I will revert back my last edit. Sorry to have caused inconvineince. The Quill (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, thank you. Off2riorob (talk) 17:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

High Rep
Talk page agreed to keep it as one article, happy to talk about it and if people change their mind then fine but I think you're the one unilaterally changing not I. I'm putting it back, albeit taking the opportunity to update the article name after a stagnant debate on the matter (and not to my preference). There is a lot of continuity between the posts, they are essentially the same thing only annexing one Commission foreign affairs post. Furthermore we have so little data on so far it works far better as a single article - if we have a massive expansion then sure but right now a list of one looks rather redundant.- J.Logan`t : 17:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I admit that I changed the article, however you didn't revert you changed to another formation. The Quill (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I expanded on it at the same time. You complaining about adding data now?- J.Logan`t : 17:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, "discuss this"? I am reverting to the formatting agreed on the talk page, you're the one changing what was agreed so why are we waiting on you're edit rather than the system before this started? Little one sided no?- J.Logan`t : 17:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The format that was agreed was on High Represenative for Comman Foreign and Security Policy. You invented your own decission. The Quill (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * . - J.Logan`t : 17:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Careful
You've also undone my edits which were definitely not vandalism. Pcap ping  19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * But i also undid an edit which claimed that the president of romania actually the headmaster of hogwarts, i suggest you check the page you are editing before you make changes. The Quill (talk) 19:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Footballer page moves
Hello. Someone pointed out your recent moves of footballer articles disambiguated by (English footballer), see WT:FOOTY. For footballers, the nationality in the parentheses denotes not legal nationality, which would be British, but sporting nationality, i.e. the country for which the player has played or is eligible to play international football. England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate footballing nations, so it's an appropriate disambiguator to use for articles about persons notable for playing football.

Where you've moved them to (footballer born xxxx), that's fine, though consensus would exclude a comma. But some of those moved used the "English" disambiguator because (footballer) alone didn't help the reader: where other articles at that name concerned players of American football or Australian Rules footballer as well as people of other sporting nationalities. E.g. the clear primary topic John Charles is a Welsh international footballer, and an article exists on John Charles the player of American football, so calling the article about the Englishman just John Charles (footballer) wouldn't clearly distinguish between him and either of the others. For some of them, (English footballer) may well not be the best disambiguator, but (footballer) on its own isn't enough. I'll move some of them back. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)