User talk:Progress and on

Welcome - but please check your citations

Hi Progress and on, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing!

However, please do not use bare URLs as citations like you did at Glasgow Subway - bare URLs are unhelpful to readers and are subject to link rot. Please instead consider using templates such as Template:Cite Web. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thx. Will do next time. Progress and on (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please take another look at the template documentation - your sources at Glasgow Subway are simply URLs inside curly brackets, which are worse than bare URLs are they result in template errors. Danners430 (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Glasgow Subway. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Opolito (talk) 20:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have found one. It will post on the one. It is tiresome that people will not accept hard facts. Progress and on (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Please post it on the Glasgow Subway talk page so it can be evaluated and discussed. Opolito (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was ill-advised. The Grace's Guide article does not say that the Glasgow Subway is the fourth oldest underground railway. It doesn't even say that the Mersey Railway was the thirds oldest, it doesn't even describe the Mersey Railway as an underground railway. Please stop and take the time to thoroughly read WP:OR - which is one of the core polices of Wikipedia and you have to follow it.

You need to find an independent, published source that explicitly says the Glasgow Subway is the fourth oldest underground railway in the world. A source that is about the Mersey Railway and not the Glasgow Subway is not good enough. You are now disrupting Wikipedia in order to push your own preferred viewpoint. I strongly suggest you stop doing that, because if you continue you will likely be blocked from editing. Opolito (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did give two sources, one independent a book with page number, but both were reverted. Progress and on (talk) 23:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But they were sources that said the Mersey Railway opened in 1886 - which isn't disputed. They did not say that the Glasgow Subway was the fourth underground railway. Per WP:SYNTH (go read it) you cannot take a fact about the Mersey Railway and use it to draw a conclusion about the Glasgow Subway, especially as that conclusion contradicts the multiple sources that say the Glasgow Subway was the third underground railway. You need a source that says "the Glasgow Subway is the fourth oldest underground railway". If you find that source, you need to take it to the article's talk page and establish a consensus before it is added to the article. Opolito (talk) 23:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty obvious that you screwed up and are trying to save face. What you propose is 100% illogical. It is getting a bit silly now. You are making this up. All that matters is the dates of the openings and that they are underground railways - all factually proven. The editor puts the railways in chronological order with the dates, then reader sees it and knows which was 1, 2, 3 and 4 by the dates. If the reader wants to verify solid refs are given. The reader can figure it out. They are not stupid. Progress and on (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but nice try. As you obviously haven't read WP:SYNTH as at least 5 editors have asked you to, I will quote the very first line of this policy "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". You are taking the opening dates from multiple sources to state the conclusion that the Glasgow Subway was not the third underground railway. You are not allowed to do that. You need a source that explicitly states that the Glasgow Subway was the fourth underground railway. Opolito (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. I put one independent ref from a book with book page. You know that.

There is no ref stating the Metropolitan Railway dates from 1863 or mentions the Glasgow Subway. Not one for Budapest either. So these should be removed from the article according to your logic. Progress and on (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ref from the SPT in the intro of the Glasgow Subway/ I says:

The Subway is generally recognised as the world’s third underground railway, after London and Budapest.

We need hard facts, not speculation. This ref needs removing. Progress and on (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to use any of the other references I already supplied here instead, which all support it being the third underground railway. Opolito (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Glasgow Subway. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 21:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Awkward editor. Refs given Progress and on (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But, again, that source does not says "Glasgow Subway is the fourth oldest underground railway". As has been pointed out to you multiple times, by multiple editors, you have to find a source that says that. You cannot use a source that is only about the Mersey Railway to make a claim about the Glasgow Subway. Please revert your edit. If you do not, I'll bring this to the admin noticeboard as you are continuing to post original research into that article and you have also broken the WP:3RR rule. Opolito (talk) 22:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Opolito wrote; '"that source does not says Glasgow Subway is the fourth oldest underground railway"..'

No need to, just the dates of the railways matter, and the railways put in chronological order. the reader can figure it out. They are not stupid, as they would know that 1863 and 1886 come before 1896.

Are you serious when you write this illogical stuff? Are you taking the mickey? I think you are provoking. None of your views are backed in wikipedia. Progress and on (talk) 23:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is sorted. The reference you added in this diff, which I have reverted, makes no mention of the Glasgow Subway, so it cannot be used to support the claims you are making based on it. This is due to a policy called WP:SYNTH which states that we are explicitly not allowed to do what you are trying to do. You've been referred to that policy a few times; would you please take a moment or two to read it and see what we all mean? John (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I insert hard facts with a ref and it keep getting reverted. So I change the ref. Again the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progress and on (talk • contribs)

I need you to read the policy linked above, and I need you to think and see why what you are trying to do is not allowed. If you continue to edit-war and do not follow my advice, you are likely to be blocked soon. John (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All I am doing is inserting hard facts with a date and referenced. What wikipedia is about. All easily looked up. You are saying I am doing something wrong. What am I doing wrong? Progress and on (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the policy that is linked above, as you’ve been requested to do multiple times? Danners430 (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Metropolitan Railway or Budapest Metro make no reference to the Glasgow Subway either. They state when they were opened. Now is is a matter of looking at dates.

Underground urban railways:

1st. Metropolitan Railway, 1863

2nd. Mersey Railway, 1886

3rd. Budapest Metro, 1896.

4th Glasgow subway, 1896

It is clear which is 1 , 2, 3 and 4 by the dates. Readers can easily figure that out.

You do not like the ref to the official Merseyrail web site [the Mersey Railway is now a part of Merseyrail] confirming the railway is underground and opened in 1886. I replaced a book ref and page number with the Merseyrail web site. I will put back the book ref. Progress and on (talk) 22:53, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop - don’t put anything back for now.

Wikipedia has a rule called the 3 revert rule - you’ve already broken it. The rule calls for editors to get consensus before restoring their edits. If you post again before a consensus is reached, it wouldn’t surprise me if you end up at WP:ANI.

There is no rush. Wait until a consensus is reached before making your edits. Danners430 (talk) 22:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what I have edited is fine. It s just a revert rule that is the problem - reverting people putting back inaccuracies.

BTW, what I am doing is correct and factual. no agenda, no nothing. Progress and on (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the revert rule isn’t the primary problem here - I’m just warning you so you don’t inevitably get yourself blocked. Have a read of the policies you’ve been told to read. Danners430 (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Factual hard refs are given. If the revert rule is not the problem, what is it? I still do not know where you think there is a problem, when factual edits with refs are added? Progress and on (talk) 23:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reply from Danners430. Progress and on (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, am I not allowed a good night’s sleep?

I’ve about had enough. This is your final warning to tone down your personal attacks, read Wikipedia policy, and seek consensus before posting, or you will end up at ANI. Danners430 (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, someone's beaten me to it. Danners430 (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had a read, I am doing nothing wrong. Progress and on (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would need a good source that actually states that the Glasgow Subway is the xth-oldest in the world. Because it is contested, you would also need consensus in the talk page discussion. You have neither. You have read the policy, but you have not understood it if you think there is nothing wrong with what you are doing. You have < 40 edits, and I have > 200,000. How likely is it that you understand the policy better than I do, let alone the other two editors who disagree with you? John (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do NOT need consensus at all. A consensus of people with skewed logic? A consensus of people with maybe an agenda?

I see, let's have a consensus to eliminate hard facts. Wonderful eh? Are you serious? Wikipedia is easily hijacked with you facilitating that.

We need indisputable FACTS. HARD FACTS do not need a consensus.

In this case all we need is factual DATES. It is as simple as that.

We do not need a document saying something is 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. The hard factual dates tell the reader that, as readers can count. Do you get it?

We do not need what YOU 'think' something is.

How many edits you have done is totally irrelevant.

One editor has made an idiot of himself trying to save face. If he is genuinely not trying to save face he should not be in a position of power in Wikipedia. You are backing that up, going against hard FACTS.

Are you taking the mick like the other one?

I advise you to read again what I wrote. Then have a good look at yourself. Progress and on (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get your facts? That's what we need. I get that you are probably just taking foundation dates and putting them in order- but that's original research that we cannot verify(as is your views on what constitutes an underground railway or subway). Are you certain you have studied every rail system on this planet to know every foundation date on the planet? 331dot (talk) 09:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progress and on, Wikipedia is a collaborative project where even the inclusion of facts needs a consensus (WP:ONUS), where information comes from reliable sources, preferably secondary ones, instead of personal interpretation of primary sources (WP:PSTS, WP:BURDEN), and where civility is upheld so strongly that further sentences like One editor has made an idiot of himself trying to save face. will sooner or later result in a block that is neither limited in duration nor to one article. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, slap a lot of WPs implying I am wrong when I am 100% correct. Cut it out! Do not treat people as fools.

Wikipedia is about FACTS. So I see many want a consensus to eliminate a hard fact. This is ridiculous. I eagerly await your response.

PS. Please do not post a raft of WPs. Discuss the issue of editors wanting hard verifiable facts removed. Progress and on (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If "your response" refers to a message you expect me to write, please let me know which question is open towards me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What personal interpretation are you on about? Show me some.

I gave reliable sources. A number of them.

I wrote "One editor has made an idiot of himself trying to save face". because it is true. I never mentioned a name. I have been very civil, direct and assertive and most of all FACTUAL.

A block for what? Reverting infacuals. It is best you look hard and get off your high horse with spurious unfounded accusations. Progress and on (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Progress_and_on reported by User:Fortuna imperatrix mundi (Result: ). Thank you. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Glasgow Subway) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring combined with persistent incivility. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]