Mvpo666

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Mvpo666! 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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

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) 19:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Mvpo666, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Mvpo666! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/spelling-can-be-a-hot-potatoe/ Cheers SmartSE (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

There are in fact islands that are part of the state of victoria... take care satusuro 16:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Iguana

Why do you repeatedly keep undoing my edit, without leaving even some commentary? I even provided sources the second time. What's the issue here, please? Wolfdog (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Clapham Junction

It's pronounced /ˈklæpəm/, not /ˈklæfəm/. See [1]. Marnanel (talk) 00:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rihanna, you may be blocked from editing. IPadPerson (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing. 124.148.212.227 (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. 124.148.212.227 (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly what I could say about you. All of my information was correct and backed up with reliable sources, whereas yours wasn't at all. Hypocrisy is unnecessary. Mvpo666 (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Benin pronunciation

For the most common pronunciation, check out virtually any dictionary, including http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Benin?q=benin and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/benin?s=t. Wolfdog (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Just because there is a "most common" pronunciation, it doesn't mean there isn't an alternative. For example: the most common pronunciation of route is "ROOT" but some people pronounce it as "ROWT". Benin is a similar idea (except I have never heard anyone say "bi-NEEN" before). "bi-NIN" is certainly not wrong. Mvpo666 (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Leagrave railway station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St Albans railway station. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Newhaven Harbour railway station

Please stop making those edits. Newhaven Marine railway station is a terminus, and moreover it is closed; the railway line between there and Newhaven Harbour railway station carries no scheduled passenger trains, and is also closed. If it did carry such trains, Newhaven Marine would be open - but it isn't. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. Like you said, Newhaven Marine railway station is closed (I never denied it, that is why it says "Line open, station closed"). However, the line remains open. If it weren't open, it wouldn't be available for any train services at all (trains just wouldn't be allowed on it). And since a few services do use the line, it is still physically open, just not for passengers. It is a bit like saying that the Castle Donington Line is closed because no passenger services run on it, even though it is still used for freight.

Besides, there is actually a scheduled service which runs regularly from Newhaven Marine (at 18:52, I think).

Mvpo666 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please don't reply in a different place. It makes following a thread difficult.

There may indeed be trains along the line, but empty coaching stock (ECS) and freight services are outside the scope of routeboxes, which describe scheduled passenger services. If there really is a scheduled passenger service either to or from Newhaven Marine, I should be able to find it in National Rail Enquiries - but I can't. But if a service did run, Newhaven Marine would not be closed - why run a train to a closed station? If passengers can use the station for the purpose of using the train, the station is not closed.

Put simply: either both the line and station are closed, or both are open. The situation of one being open and the other closed is illogical. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

On this 2011 visit to Newhaven Marine, the station was closed, a ghost train did go to there but was not accessible to passengers, and an old poster offered a relief taxi service for the two-to-three-minute walk to Newhaven Harbour. So the line was open in the 'Parliamentary' sense but no longer carried passengers. NebY (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A train that is not accessible to passengers is not a passenger train, it is ECS. If there are no trains accessible to passengers (or if you prefer, if the only trains that use the line are ECS workings), the line is not open for passenger services, therefore, the line is closed to passenger trains. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe our problem is that a description that's helpful to our readers is at odds with the legal situation. Legally, they're running a scheduled passenger service; that's more convenient for them than the closure procedures. Practically, they're not. NebY (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your recent editing history at Tamworth railway station shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Mvpo666, Redrose64, perhaps we should just discuss this here. The issue is whether we take north/southbound from the line or from the station geography. Now, I do understand the argument for east/westbound on the WCML - the platforms are oriented east/west (ish) and it distinguishes from the XCR high level platforms, which are definitely north/south. However the WCML itself is certainly north/south. Trains on the WCML that go through Tamworth are either working northbound or southbound services. Therefore it makes more sense to call the WCML platforms north/southbound, on the grounds that up/down is frowned upon as being too jargony.

All this being said, Mvpo666 I would like to reiterate what Redrose said. There is a policy on Wikipedia called WP:BRD, short for "bold, revert, discuss". Someone makes an edit, someone else disagrees and reverts it. If the first person disagrees they should discuss the matter with other users to gain consensus as to what the correct wording is - perhaps a middle ground can be reached. Edit summaries are bad places to argue, as there is no room for a full explanation. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We should use the general direction of the line as a whole. The WCML through Tamworth does follow an approximate west-east alignment through the station. However, to the west of the station, it curves to the right until it is running almost north-northwest after only two miles. Similarly, further to the east it curves to the right until at Polesworth (less than 4 miles) it's running south-east. This is not the only location where the alignment through the station differs greatly from the general direction: on the Great Western Main Line - which is generally considered to be a west-east route - westbound trains through Goring & Streatley are on a right-hand curve, a tangent to which is due north approximately half a mile north of the station; it continues to curve such that it is aligned 5° east of north three-quarters of a mile north of the station. As a result, trains running towards Bristol are actually getting slightly further away from Bristol (as the crow flies) over this stretch. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The general direction of the line as a whole is used only when talking about the train services (e.g. "the next service from Tattenham Corner will run northbound to London Bridge"). This is because a train service is actually getting somewhere: in this case, its destination is London Bridge, which is more or less to the north of Tattenham Corner. So when the service is getting to a certain place, we use the direction of that place in relation to us. However, when talking about platforms, the current direction of the line must be used, e.g. "at Tattenham Corner, platform 1 is a southbound platform used by northward services to London Bridge". That is because a platform is always facing one particular direction (in this case, the south). That direction is not related to the general direction of services using it (I hope it all makes sense, by the way; I am not very good at explaining). This is why I have come up with the alternative: instead of constantly reverting each other's edits, just say: "Platform 1 is a westbound platform for northward services to Crewe and beyond". That way, both actual and general directions are included.

Also, I apologise for arguing through edit summaries; I am quite new to Wikipedia so I did not know about BRD, and I also do not know how to start a discussion elsewhere. Mvpo666 (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Discussions are held on talk pages. Every article has one; in the row of tabs at the top you should see one marked "Talk" - in the case of Tamworth railway station, this leads you to Talk:Tamworth railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Kingston upon Hull. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Charles (talk) 21:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit to Warblington railway station

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Warblington railway station without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! JAaron95 | Talk | Contribs 14:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing {{Hitchin Flat Junction}}

Thanks for doing that. I had several attempts and never got the space in the arrows at the bottom sorted out. I tried and tried.... Si Trew (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's okay . The problem was the <br /> function, which made the bottom "layer" slightly longer, unfortunately too long for the symbol to fill all of it. So instead I added another layer and split the text between the two layers. Mvpo666 (talk) 22:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Original Research

Would you please note that you cannot revert or make any edit on Wikipedia based on what you believe to be true or not. This edit was accompanied by an edit summary of "I am quite certain that this service will be run by 12-car units...". I have not reverted this particular edit because someone else did exactly the same thing so you could have legitimately reverted it as an 'unreferenced change', but it has now been flagged that a reference is required. I regret that it does not matter how certain you are of anything, you cannot alter anything in Wikipedia based on that certainty. You cannot even alter it if you have personally counted the carriages on the train because that would be original research. The only way you can alter anything (or even add anything) is if you provide a reliable and verifiable reference to support the change or addition. I note that I have had to revert a couple of other unreferenced changes that you have made. However, I have managed to provide a reference for one piece of information that you [added] (though I did have to correct it). –LiveRail < Talk > 14:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Travolator

Your reference that you provided ([2]) for your US English version of travolator clearly identifies the spelling as US English. It also offers 'travolator' as an alternate spelling. Unfortunately, the OED frequently records both British and US spellings these days. On the other hand [3] clearly identifies 'travolator' as the British English spelling (because Collins is a British English dictionary).

I have also just been thanked by another editor for correcting the spelling. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I started a thread at Talk:Waterloo & City line#Travolator or Travelator. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Two things I would like to quickly point out: first, by undoing my edit, you also removed the link to the Wikipedia article about trav(o/e)lators that I had provided; could you please add it back there? Secondly, that article states that the British-English spellings of the word are either "travelator" or "travellator" (i.e. not "travolator) and that in US English, there isn't such a word at all (apparently they say "moving walkway" instead). Does this mean that that article will need to be edited as well? Mvpo666 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

You are correct about the link so it does need restoring. I cannot find a reference to 'travellator' (with two l's) anywhere (and Google turns up nothing at all except a note to ask if I meant 'travelator'), so that would appear to be erroneous. So I would say that that article does need editing, and I shall oblige. I B Wright (talk) 16:10, 15 July 2015 (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) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with vandalism

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

incorrect pronounciation edits

Mvpo666 has a history of bad edits regarding placename pronounciations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.159.162.68 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on this page, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Mvpo666 (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. (All articles should be prose instead of having tables everywhere), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:26, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: I have done similar edits on other articles (such as Southern, Thameslink and London Midland), and none of these edits were ever reverted; in fact, some users have thanked me for those edits. I do not understand why some users are suddenly reverting this particular edit (sometimes without explanation), despite the fact that there is nothing explicitly wrong with the change. Could you please elaborate on what the issue is? Mvpo666 (talk) 18:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: Perhaps it would be kind of you to reply to this paragraph, instead of going around and restoring ALL of my table edits without any explanation (or at the very least, a note on the article talk page). I am now going to revert it for the second time, as I have not found any information on the Policies and guidelines page regarding the fact that all articles should be written in prose; also, the table is objectively better than "prose" because it is more detailed, more accurate (the prose section was incorrect at times), more readable and easier to edit. There is virtually no reason for it to remain as prose. Your revert on the London Midland page has already been reverted by another user, probably for the same reasons. Mvpo666 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't realize you replied (first ping never worked!), That article is only one where I've reverted you ? ...., I was meant to have hit Twinkle (which includes an edit summary) but accidentally smacked Rollback which proves no summary so sorry about that,

Anyway my main and actual issue is simply the tables, Personally I prefer the prose/list instead of the tables - They take up unnecessary room and I guess in an encycloepdia view it's probably unencyclopedia if that makes sense but that's just mho,

I've had enough of this swamp and 3RRNO so I'm not edit warring with you but it may be a good idea for you to revert yourself and go to the talkpage ..... otherwise Charles (or someone no doubt) will revert and then you'll end up blocked.... –Davey2010^Talk 23:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: The ping thing was my mistake; I completely forgot that you need to ping users for them to see your edit. I added the pings later on, but I do apologise for coming out in such a rude manner.

It was also my mistake to accuse you of reverting tables on other articles; that was in fact Charles. I should have paid attention to that.

Anyway, if you really prefer prose form to tables, maybe we could do without the table, but keep ALL the information that is in it using bullet points. For example, instead of having a row (of the table) saying "London Waterloo to Salisbury / 1 / Woking, Basingstoke, Overton, Whitchurch, Andover, Grateley", we could have bullet points saying "* Waterloo to Salisbury (hourly) calling at Woking, Basingstoke, Overton, Whitchurch, Andover and Grateley" (or something along those lines). My main concern with the prose-form edit that was there before I changed it was that it was relatively vague (and at times erroneous). I thought that the table would make it easier to organise and manage the services in case of a timetable change. I am going to keep the table at the moment but if someone decides to change it back again, I'll try to turn all the information from the table into a bullet-point form, and hope no one reverts that. Also, I want to keep the external links that I had provided. Mvpo666 (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

UPDATE: And there goes the revert. I'll turn it into a list as soon as I have time. Mvpo666 (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:USEPROSE. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

RFC

Hi, It may be a good idea to start an WP:RFC as I don't think anyone's going to agree with it all, I personally don't have an issue with your edits however I've been known to be the minority on alot of things on this place but as I say it may be better to start an RFC and get others peoples opinions who don't edit the article, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

@Davey2010: That's a good idea. Which RfC category would you go for? I'm not sure which one would suit this issue most. Mvpo666 (talk) 23:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Personally I would just list it under Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Economy, trade, and companies, as technically South West Trains is a company and that's the closest to a category I think we're gonna get :), Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 23:28, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks :) Mvpo666 (talk) 23:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at South West Trains, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Charles (talk) 10:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mvpo666. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mvpo666. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mvpo666. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Floppy Cube for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Floppy Cube is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floppy Cube until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Toddst1 (talk) 20:33, 28 July 2021 (UTC)