Talk:Transport in Romania

Copyright problem
The section "rail transport" seems to be directly copied from: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/EXTECAREGTOPTRANSPORT/0,,contentMDK:20647580~pagePK:34004173~piPK:34003707~theSitePK:571121,00.html

perma-link Can anyone re-write this section. Thanks.87.102.78.86 (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The removals of apparrently copyrighted material is summarise here and includes substantional sections on road,rail, and others.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the world bank has not released the information on its site under a suitable license or free use terms "..The information presented herein is for informative purposes only. The World Bank is pleased to allow Users to visit the Site and download and copy the information, documents and materials (collectively, "Materials") from the Site for User's personal, non-commercial use, without any right to resell, redistribute or create derivative works there from..."

Unfortunately this does not fit in with the GFDL license or whatever is used on this site, (if the wikipedia barons changed the terms of this site so that content could not be used for commercial use things might be a lot easier..)Shortfatlad (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Information itself can not be copyrighted. So, it is OK to use WB site, providing it is not copied verbatim. Ruslik_ Zero 07:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Which part of this is Copyrighted?
"Public roads in Romania (excluding street networks) are classified in a three-tier system: Nergaal (talk) 05:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * national (main) roads (14,500 km)
 * district or county roads (app. 36,000 km)
 * communal roads (app. 28,000 km)."


 * Compare " Public roads in Romania (excluding street networks) are classified in a three-tier system: national (main) roads (14,500 km), district roads (app. 36,000 km), and communal roads (app. 28,000 km)." from the world bank site
 * Please note: it's quite clear that you directly copy-pasted from the world-bank site into the article, since the edit history shows you added the the information. So you should know exactly where the information came from, and how you obtained it. It's not convincing to me for you to claim ignorance of the problem. You might need to also read Plagiarism.Shortfatlad (talk) 06:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jesus, is there a less blunt way you could have missed answering the question I posted? As for your comment, do you remember where were you 2 years and 2 months ago? Probably somewhere between switching your baby teeth and learning to spell words. Anyways, you probably don't remember. What was I doing then? Answer: thanks for reminding me. Now a final question: do you ahve any minute idea how did this looked like more than 2 years ago before you go on and accuse people of plagiarism and remove unspecifically information just because you stumped on a cool looking internal link on wikipedia? Nergaal (talk) 08:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think or are saying that the world bank has copied from wikipedia that is a matter for the administrators too. You could start at the help desk. see WP:HELPShortfatlad (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Note the site says "updated Jan 2006" - that's before you added the info.)
 * Please see Editor_assistance/Requests and see if the problem can be sorted out.Shortfatlad (talk) 09:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion
OK, please cool it. Uncivil language is not cool and editors should WP:AGF. Now the Word Bank page says: © 2009 		The World Bank Group, All Rights Reserved, and appears to have last been updated 30 January 2006. This is a diff of what Transport in Romania looked like on 29 January 2006. This leads fairly inescapably to the conclusion that the material intorduced at this diff, is in fact plagiarism of. Hence its removal is correct. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just found from "Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Country Profile: Romania, December 2006" I think this is definitely public domain and can be used as an alternative. Though the other source is still good for references.Shortfatlad (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The user who stirred this up has put more energy into creating wikidrama, typing on talkpages, throwing accusations, indiscriminately removing UNCOPYRIGHTED information from article, than to actually improve the article. I don't care about whatever text I might have added in my first months on wikipedia, but I do not believe unconstructive behavior such as Shortfall's should be encouraged with such an ease because he clearly does not care about the quality of the article since I have asked him twice now to backup his deletion of:

"Public roads in Romania (excluding street networks) are classified in a three-tier system:

national (main) roads (14,500 km) district or county roads (app. 36,000 km) communal roads (app. 28,000 km)."

yet he disregarded my request without even blinking. Nergaal (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already given a link to where an identical section of text appears on the worldbank site - it's given above immediately after you asked this question before.
 * Also please stop attacking me.Shortfatlad (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * And which part of that sentence is copyrighted? You are saying that you would prefer deleting the sentence rather than putting the reference in and rewording it? Sorry, but how is that constructive editing? Nergaal (talk) 04:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Look you copy pasted it into the article from a copyrighted page - you work it out - why take it out on me? If you want to rewrite and reference it, go for it. Good luck.Shortfatlad (talk) 05:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you realized that you spent a couple of days sending messages, making accusations very frivolously, filled up talk pages, and in the end you are not willing to rewrite one paragraph to improve the article? What is your definition of improving wikipedia? I am asking this on the assumption that you joined wikipedia with the aim of improving wikipedia and not to satisfy your need to be OCD on things that otherwise you aren't willing to throw even a cent. Nergaal (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For your information I came here to add references to the article - when I looked for references I discovered that you had copied your contribution. So yes - I did come here to contribute. What is OCDShortfatlad (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's what we call a "personal attack", and it's forbidden by policy. (More literally, it is obsessive compulsive disorder.) Nergaal, it is very constructive editing to remove copyright violations. If you feel that clean content has been removed simultaneously, you are welcome to restore it. If you think material can be rewritten, you are welcome to do that as well. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Template Trams
let's make a new article! Skyhighway (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/bucharest-metro/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)