User talk:Rom rulz424/Archive (2008)

Plagiarism
Do not plagiarise material as you did on the Duncan Road page. It is against Wikipedia policy and will be deleted on sight. 202.93.188.19 (talk) 11:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why was the above comment deleted? 202.93.188.19 (talk) 10:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why were the above comments deleted again? Sh26 (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You never learn do you? Wikipedia's policy state very clearly that plagiarism isn't tolerated - or have you blatantly ignored this once again?
 * Also, you state on "It may have been another "user"" but how can it be - the edit(s) in which this information appears was done by you. Plus don't forgot those childish comments you added to the  because you were caught. --Sk-4 (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted again. is you is it not? Bizarre you say that it isn't --Sk-4 (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I never plagerised the article. Please disregard the comment state by Sk-4. He is rather confused and dazed by the whole situation and seems more focused on this talk page than having a life!!! (Excuse my language!!!) --Rom rulz424 (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Referring to the accusation of plagiarism on the Duncan Road page - it is not possible to edit Wikipedia without either a user name or IP address being recorded. The history of the page shows that you are the only user to have edited the page since you created it. That leaves only one person who could possibly have plagiarised - you. If you truly are innocent then why would you not have said so in the first place instead of deleting messages without response? Judging by your talkpage, you have a history of stealing content from the Ozroads site. Sh26 (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RomRulz424, please read our policy on personal attacks an please refrain from making further attacks on other users. It is quite clear from the edit history that you did indeed copy material from ozroads when you created the article Duncan Road - please read our policy on copyright for an explanation of why this is not appropriate. If you avoid doing this again in the future there will be no further issues. I suggest other editors let this matter drop as further discussion is unlikely to be productive at this stage. Thanks, Gwernol 13:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning
I hate to say it given your excellent work on road articles (I've seen you slowly ambling through my watchlist), but personal attacks such as and others I've seen in the last couple of days are not acceptable at all. I'm sure if either or both of you stood back from this and considered how this looks to outside observers, you'd probably agree to disagree with each other and move on. Orderinchaos 03:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Main Roads Victoria confusion?
I've noticed on a few occasions that you've labelled references from "http://mrv.ozroads.com.au" as being from "Ozroads: The Australian Roads Website." Please note that this is incorrect, as Main Roads Victoria is not part of Ozroads. --122.107.192.67 (talk) 11:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Australian State Route 180.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Australian State Route 180.PNG. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference tags
At great northern highway - just one book by leigh edmunds is not sufficient for the article - to remove the tag is not normal practice - for an article to be adequately referenced - in text citations are needed for a better standard of article - I hope you have not been doing that in all the other roads and highways you have been editing today SatuSuro 10:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Also edit summaries are a very useful indicator of what you are doing - it would be well worth getting in to the habit of using them - cheers SatuSuro 10:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi - sorry to be a nuisance - but is there a problem with edit summaries? it is very helpful if as a member of the wikipedia copmmunity you can indicate your edits - otherwise some edits might not be obvious to those who follow you as to what you were up to - and in some extreme cases your edits might be reverted because you havent indicated what you have been doing - thanks SatuSuro 07:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Railway lines
There is a real long and convoluted discussion about railway lines and merging here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rail_transport_in_Victoria#Naming_lines. The present structure is crap, and needs to be fixed, but it hasn't been done yet. The issue is "V/line service" != "actual piece of railway track". Wongm (talk) 10:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)