User talk:Neatsfoot

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Neatsfoot! Thank you for your contributions. I am Green Giant and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!  Green Giant  ( talk )  22:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

comment on Floquenbeam's talk
Removed your comment, you must have got it wrong, because supporter of Aam Aadmi Party or Anna Hazare are not any religious activists. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK, thanks, I guess I misunderstood. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've replaced it with a more vague comment - I don't want to blame the wrong people. Neatsfoot (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

My edit of your user page
I edited your user page so it would redirect to your talkpage because there is nothing on it! Sorry if it offended you! Luxure (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Request
Could you stop posting at User talk:Lukejordan02? You obviously have no idea what you're talking about. PhilKnight (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No - if you think I'm factually incorrect about something, please feel free to explain it to me. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You are giving unsolicited advice to admins which plainly contradicts WP:Blocking policy, specifically "Except in cases of unambiguous error or significant change in circumstances dealing with the reason for blocking, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator to discuss the matter. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." PhilKnight (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But there have been attempts to contact the blocking admin, which were successful, and he made it clear he would accept an unblock if there is a consensus - AND the consensus makes it clear that there was an unambiguous error. Neatsfoot (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC) ( strike "unambiguous" - that would be claiming too much )
 * Oh, and what's this "unsolicited" business? Are mere mortals like me not allowed to speak unless first spoken to? Neatsfoot (talk) 12:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate being referred to as an old hen, and I didn't ask for your advice. PhilKnight (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, the "old hen" thing was excessive, and I apologize for that. But I notice you are not responding to the actual content of my response above - so please don't tell me I'm wrong and then just ignore me when I show you I am not. And you don't get to shut me up by telling me you didn't ask for my advice - I have as much right as you to join in any administration-related discussion I please, without being invited by you, and admins *do not* get to rule on who can and cannot speak. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion on User talk:Lukejordan02 is now getting somewhere, and hopefully the unblock requirements can be finalized. I accept your apology, but nonetheless I consider your earlier remarks to be clueless. PhilKnight (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to substantiate your claim of cluelessness rather than just repeating it - I'm open to constructive criticism, but you have not yet offered any that I have not countered. If my countering of your argument is wrong, please explain why. Neatsfoot (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not interested in arguing with you. I'm just asking that you stop posting at User talk:Lukejordan02, because you aren't helping. PhilKnight (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll post wherever I please, and you have no right to demand otherwise. Neatsfoot (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I should add that I'm open to persuasion if you want me to stop posting somewhere, but "I'm not interested in arguing with you" is not it. Neatsfoot (talk) 14:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, I see on your user page the the following quote:

It's good to let your ego be punctured once in a while. Most of us, after several years and tens of thousands of edits, start to put a lot of our egos into our work here, more than we originally either intended or anticipated. While it's natural for this to happen, the unintended consequences include feelings of ownership over one's contributions and a quickness to react in poor faith, and even with arrogance. Someone reverted your edits with a sarcastic edit summary? Let it go. Someone called you a bad name somewhere? Don't retaliate. Let it go. While it hurts at first to let these things go, being able to do so is the true test of strength and maturity. You only gain in the long run. Retaliating not only brings you discredit, but it increases your anger, and corresponding risk of over-reaction, as the number of related provocations rises. (Antandrus, January 2007)
 * I think that's excellent, and I thank you for sharing it. Neatsfoot (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * is brilliant... Carrite (talk) 09:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request
You're the first editor since the ones on Roy Halladay (Talk:Roy_Halladay) to vouch for the quality of my edits, as oppose to pushing to have me blocked and reverted my contributions over sockpuppetry while ignoring the content of my edits. Its really touching and greatly appreciated. Could you also have a look at the Apple Store article and see if that is an okay edit ? BenefactorDubsta (talk) 04:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I don't think asking other people to evaluate your edits is the best way to proceed. It seems to me that there is a "rules for rules sake" culture here, and if an account is thought to be a sock of a blocked account then people will revert its edits without any regard to their merits - and I'm not going to get involved in any edit warring over such things. I suggest the best thing to do is open an unblock request at your original account, and be prepared to perform the appropriate rituals of contrition. Neatsfoot (talk) 08:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
De728631 (talk) 12:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Punctuation
Thanks for your edit at Derren Brown. Your edit was quite appropriate but I just though I'd let you know that it's not a matter of British punctuation. MOS:LQ applies regardless of the variety of English. Anyway, keep up the good work. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info and the link - as a Brit, it's nice to know that the British way is considered "logical" ;-) Neatsfoot (talk) 09:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the language is called "English", not "Ammerykan." -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed :-) Neatsfoot (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk page remark
While I often feel tempted to say something like that, we do prefer a bit more restraint... Anyway, you got it the wrong way round. They should go away and grow up rather than cause here all the problems that growing up entails and then go away. Peridon (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hehe, yes, you're right - but after a couple of hours of vandal-fighting, I felt I needed that. And I feel much better now :-) Neatsfoot (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you specify the source
enough
 * levente 2-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Levente_2
 * Go away and come back when you can speak English! Neatsfoot (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


 * rush ahead anyways forever soon Hozman just something I created it in English
 * levente 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Levente 2 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what you are saying (Nem értem, mit mond). Your English is very bad (Az angol nagyon rossz). Neatsfoot (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Please do not be rude to users who cannot comprehend the English language. Just ignore them. Lux ure   Σ  07:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. If the above exchange was our first encounter, then I'd agree with you. But this person had been causing trouble by creating articles in nonsense English and by adding nonsense English into existing articles, and I had been trying to help him understand the problem. But he simply cannot understand what anyone says to him in English, and when I nominated one of his articles for deletion the incomprehensible message above was his response. He is incapable of contributing here and was making work for others in cleaning up his messes, and he could not be ignored as you suggest - he absolutely does need to be told that his English is not sufficient to contribute here and my response above was another attempt to tell him as simply as possible. Someone has now also tried to explain to him in Hungarian, so hopefully that has been understood. (And generally, if you see an exchange like this, you should perhaps try to ascertain what led up to it before you start scolding people ;-) Neatsfoot (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In truth I was just doing to write 'Just ignore the idiot' but that would have been rude! Anyway, well done on your actions, pretty good for a newbie! Thanls for liking my signature as well! Cheers, Lux ure   Σ  20:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I asked for it to be protected too, so it should stop at least for a while - and if it resumes after that, we can get the protection extended. Neatsfoot (talk) 21:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me add to this that I saw the changes which did not look right but I did not know who was correct. It is good that someone familiar with the subject was able to handle this and I thank you for it. Donner60 (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I don't really know the subject, so I looked back in the history and saw where the rapid edits were starting and worked from there by trial and error. Neatsfoot (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Constitution of Armenia
Thanks for catching the problem with my reversion which did not consider prior edits. Although no excuse, the program I was using shows only the most recent change (and not the entire article) unless a special effort is made to see the previous change or one goes off to the actual page. It happens infrequently, but I have been misled by this. Thanks, again. Donner60 (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Easily done, I guess that's a problem with these tools and things - they speed things up but at the risk of missing things. Neatsfoot (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of my post
My apologies on what I posted. I thought it would be of interest to the local peopleBob Kinney (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem - it can take time to learn our way around - I'll give you a template on your page that should offer a few helpful links. Neatsfoot (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Nyiregyháza-Záhony railway
Hi,

To answer your question at WP:ANI, the Nyiregyháza-Záhony railway article is not a hoax: that railway line is very much in existence, and it is part of an important connection between Hungary and Ukraine/Russia, especially for cargo traffic. As far as I can tell, the facts in the article are correct as well. The problem is that the article is not about the thing named in the title.

If you hop on a train in Budapest and start riding towards Ukraine, you will go through Cegléd, Szolnok, Debrecen and Nyíregyháza in this order before you reach the border at Záhony, so Nyíregyháza-Záhony is just a short stretch of a much longer railway line (line 100) between Budapest and Záhony. And most of the article is either about the entire line or parts of the railway line outside the Nyíregyháza-Záhony stretch. I recommend renaming the article to Budapest-Szolnok-Debrecen-Nyíregyháza-Záhony railway line.

--Malatinszky (talk) 13:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. Neatsfoot (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)