This user may have left Wikipedia. Neatsfoot has not edited Wikipedia since 18 November 2014. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.
Welcome!
Some cookies to welcome you!
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 Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
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. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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, LuxureΣ20:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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.
