User talk:Rom rulz424: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:28, 18 May 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Rom rulz424, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Gwernol 12:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Road information in railway articles

Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. It's good to see another Melburnian among our ranks. But I have to tell you that your editing of railway related articles to put an emphasis on roads is not acceptable. They are articles about the railway stations, not the roads around them. There are separate articles for main roads. And please do not bold street names in articles. You have now done that with numerous articles which now have to be reverted one by one. Please don't make edits like that anymore. Thanks. --Lakeyboy 07:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Route Number on Western Hwy

Just wondering what was the source of your information on State Route 8 being the Western Highway's new route number? --Mk1230 07:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No response for 4 months. I'm deleting the info. - Bricks J. Winzer 12:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EastLink, Melbourne

The existing infobox on the EastLink page is easily sufficient. Adding an additional one is unnecessary, and it clutters and breaks the layout of the page. Please do not continue to revert edits to insert superfluous infoboxes. --Evan C (Talk) 13:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Western Highway, Victoria

I noted you remove the cleanup tag from this article. Do we really need all those images throughout the text of this article? -- Longhair\^talk 12:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up the article for a reason - the images are unnecessary and clutter the article. I would also argue that route numbers are not the most significant thing you can mention about a road, emphasis that such images certainly give. The text I removed later in the article was speculation - completely unsourced (unsourceable, really), and does not belong on Wikipedia (unless a reference of some kind can be found).

I'll revert once, and would hope that you think before editing the article again. --Evan C (Talk) 09:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of maintenance tags

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Home and Away. Please be more careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Sebi _[talk] 07:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ringwood Bypass new route number along EastLink alignment

Apparently State Route 62, will take over from State Route 22 along the Ringwood Bypass and Mount Dandenong Road (Ringwood to Montrose).

If you don't believe me, look at www.ozroads.com.au - click the "Vic" link on the top of the page, then find your way to the "The Metropolitan Route Numbering System in Melbourne"! --Rom rulz424 (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may well be proposed, but it isn't so yet, and I've been unable to find any official source as evidence. IMHO, it should be put back when an official (eg; Vicroads) or published (eg; Melway) source is found. --Evan C (Talk) 11:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dandenong Bypass Route Numbering & Alphanumeric Route Numbering along EastLink

I have also been told from discreet resources that State Route 86 will indeed run through the Dandenong Bypass. It may not be a freeway, however once the Dingley Freeway is complete - State Route 86 will carry through.

As for alphanumeric route numbering, VicRoads plans to keep the Metropolitan State Route number for navigational purposes in the years to come.

If you have any feedback on my two comments, it would be much appreciated!

--Rom rulz424 (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from your "discreet resources" you should know that Eastlink won't be Metropolitan Route 83! But i'm not going to say what it is in fear that you'll once again misrepresent that information. --Sk-4 10:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please provide evidence for your statements. The only actual sources I know of show route 83 as ending at Springvale Road and route 86 as not existing! If the above really is the case, there will surely be some note of it somewhere. --Evan C (Talk) 11:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued use of Alphanumeric for NSW roads

Until such time a source is established for Alphanumeric road markers in NSW, all of your edits on Highway and Road Wikis are being reverted. Stop being a nuisance. Timmah86 05:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me you unprecidented stranger.

Have you ever driven on New South Wales highways before. If you haven't there most certainly is something wrong with you. I do agree that no official reply from RTA has been announced into the introduction of Alphanumeric Route numbering in NSW, but it is plain to see that many highways have already introduced the system, despite the non announcement.

Read between the lines mate under List of highways in New South Wales!!! It clearly says that despite an unofficial announcement, most highways are seeing Alphanumeric route numbers along the entire state!!!

I consistently travel, and I can gurantee you that more than 50% of roads covering New South Wales are well and truly labelled with an Alphanumeric Route number (not coverplated as you claim!).

So if I were you, revert all the pages back to their original status or else I will tell Wikipedia of your disgusting behaviour!!! You have 7 days!!!

--Rom rulz424 01:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC) (Talk)

Tell Wikipedia? What are you, 10? It's really quite simple. The principles of Wikipedia are that we work on current information. As for your question regarding recent travel, I indeed to travel frequently. Little to no signage in the Greater Sydney area has as yet been changed, nor has it on the Central Coast or Newcastle. In fact, the Five Islands project saw the alphanumeric signs installed then, as you deny, coverplated with the current route number. Alphanumeric boxes have been placed on Central Coast Highway signs but coverplated also. Nothing is official and until such time there are no grounds on which to be needlessly and pre-emptively changing these mass amounts of information. Please see WP:CRYSTAL - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

Better still on your claim regarding travel - just last weekend I travelled the Great Western/Mitchell Highway from Sydney to Orange and saw only the old route markers. As above, please respect the guidelines set. 58.166.78.164 14:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

State Route Images

I have been notified by the owner of Main Roads Victoria that you have not had permission to add the various images of State Route shields to Wikipedia. Please remove them immediately. See Wikipedia:Copyright_violations. --Sk-4 09:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this doesn't hide what you have done. You have not contacted the owner of Main Roads Victoria, choosing instead to blatantly steal the images. --Sk-4 06:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you insist you have PERMISSION? You did not even contact the site owner! No emails, no nothing! If you would like to make contact, please email the owner at mainroadsvictoria@gmail.com

I do release at this point in time the site has gone under maintenance.

Do not continue this path of ignorance, you have been warned. --Sk-4 02:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being a coward all right. I do not need proof to show you that I had PERMISSION, I KNOW SO!!! So quite butting me or else I well tell Wikipedia of your abusive behaviour!!! FAREWELL!!! --Rom rulz424 09:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You absolutely must prove that you have permission. It's that simple. --Evan C (Talk) 10:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just clear it up for you. If you do not fully create the content you upload to Wikipedia, it is subject to fair use for copyright claims. If this is the case, you either need the copyright holders permission or upload it under a fair use licence (for which is the case for logos, promotional images, television and movie stills, book covers etc.) As is the case of these route numbers, you are uploading them to another website (this one) without permission of the copyright holder. Sure, they may let you if you send them an e-mail. They might let you upload them with no restrictions or with GNU 1.2 or similar licence terms. It depends.

But anyways, the route numbers would be better off being created in the same style as the existing ones as the ones you've been uploading are not the best quality route markers available. Maybe ask the creator of the SVG route numbers which are used on these Wikipedia articles to kindly create and upload missing route markers. --Lakeyboy 12:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeyboy, could you please tell me who uploads the SVG route markers please. It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Rom rulz424 04:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:112.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:112.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:121.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:121.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on User talk:Lakeyboy

I have now posted a reply to your message on my userpage. --Lakeyboy 22:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alphanumeric in NSW

Hi there, previous to discussions between us regarding Alphanumeric rollout in NSW - I have maintained correspondence with RTA and received the following response. Please note the following and take into consideration before applying any route markers to NSW roads until further notice is given.

Alpha-numeric route marking is RTA policy, and has been for some years.
However there is no commitment for funding at this time. The change of name for the Central Coast Highway provided the opportunity to reduce the cost for any ultimate roll-out of the new route markers, by placing these markers on new signs with traditional marker coverplates.
The number ascribed to the Central Coast Highway is provisional only. The reason for this is that the RTA needs to fully consult with external stakeholders (including local government) before the new scheme can be launched.

Hope this clarifies the situation for you.Timmah86 01:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a recent spate of Highway in NSW articles with your noting on them of proposed route markers with reference to Ozroads. I leave this message to notify you of my support of this as you are providing evidence and references as you are doing so and will not object to your continuing of this, provided the link evidences this on each individual article you edit. Congratulations on your continued commitment to Australian Road articles. Timmah86 (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Template:2008 Formula One teams, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Alexfusco⁵ 01:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Route 40, Melbourne

In this article, I think the 'Major junctions' is best in the article, not in the infobox. It squashes the page up too much and leaves whitespace. The main reason for the infobox is to have important facts in once place for comparison, just because there is a space for it in there doesn't mean it has to go in there. If the list wasn't so long it wouldn't matter, but it does here. Wongm (talk) 08:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with this reasoning. The original had an infobox which was eight times the length of the article, which is not the point of an infobox, which is to present information concisely. The major junctions should be in the article, although I'm not sure all of those are necessarily major, and they should probably be done in a more conventional list format (i.e. as some kind of table). Orderinchaos 12:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Highway

Hi. I noticed that you changed the infobox in Golden Highway to say that the eastern end is at Muswellbrook. That is not correct. For your convenience, this is a link to google maps that shows the route of the Golden Highway from Belford, New South Wales to Dubbo. The distance is not quite correct as the google map points are not at the intersections. --Athol Mullen (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a note to user Athol Mullen please note Google Maps cannot be cited as a reference for the fact that various routes and roads are incorrectly marked and they are not an official mapping licensee for any roads in Australia. This can be evidenced by their use of National Highway 1 route markers used as far south as the Sydney Harbour Bridge. Timmah86 (talk) 05:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err. I wasn't citing it as a reference. I know how broken the sensis map data that it uses is. I was simply using it as a quick method of illustrating the route, as I know that the route shown on the map is correct in this particular case. The driving instructions are quite wrong, though... --Athol Mullen (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Why were the above comments deleted again? Sh26 (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1] "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 [2] because you were caught. --Sk-4 (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted again. [3] is you is it not? Bizarre you say that it isn't [4]--Sk-4 (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

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

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 Satu Suro 10:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Satu Suro 10:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 Satu Suro 07:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Goldfields Highway

Why are you reverting my edits??

The spelling is terrible - lenora is Leonora
The text in the infobox does not make sense.
The Anne Beadell Highway has nothing to do with the Goldfields Hwy

By looking at the comments others have left here, it seems that you have a habit of doing as you please, without checking your facts. How do I know the infomation is correct?? I live in Kalgoorlie and drive this highway every day!! I will be reverting your edits back to the one's I made. Do not undo again or I will report you! Tazkal (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys - been watching all this - Rom rulz has been at this stuff before - please note inadequate edit summaries will see his/her reverts reverted by an admin - rather than a normal editor - otherwise it gets into edit warring and possible WP:3RR territory. Please note that reverting without adequate talk page comment or summary as to why a change has been made is simply not on. Please take care with this - thanks Satu Suro 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW - you never ask another editor to stop editing an article - that makes it obvious you are not very sure of how wikipedia works - Satu Suro 13:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue

OK You may well have info to hand where you think something works - I am not specifically debating that at this point - in March I asked you to consider edit summaries or more explanations on talk pages - so that someone can follow what you are doing - you seem to enjoy being 'secretive' - there are indeed requirements within general wikipedia practice that specifically request adequate edit summaries - and or notes/communications as to why an edit or summary has been done.

So when it comes to editng or reverting anothers edits - and asking them to stop editing - I consider you are wrong there - regardless of whether you think you are right' - thats not the issue - in the wikipedia community we survive (well most) from being clear and specific as to the information that we are changing or reverting - silent reverts deserve admin or further action - you dont say why in a summary or talk page comment - that is where I take issue.

I can understand that Tazkal has issue with your reverts as he actually experiences the highway. If you have a difference - put the argument on the talk page - clearly from yourside - and then work from there - not by silently reverting. Try it - it might actually help clarify what you are up to and help others understand some of your edits Satu Suro 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State Hwy, Major Arterial Road, what on earth is going on?

Just noticed you've been editing the listing for 'highways' in each state. How are you defining each category? How are Nepean and Bellarine Hwys 'Major Arterial Roads' while Bass Highway is a 'state highway'? ([[6]] It doesn't make any sense. If you have reasons for these categories, where are you doing your research??? --122.107.221.248 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 211: / Line 211: @@
 I can understand that Tazkal has issue with your reverts as he actually experiences the highway.  If you have a difference - put the argument on the talk page - clearly from yourside - and then work from there - not by silently reverting. Try it - it might actually help clarify what you are up to and help others understand some of your edits [[User:SatuSuro|Satu]][[User talk:SatuSuro|Suro]] 14:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
+==State Hwy, Major Arterial Road, what on earth is going on?==
+Just noticed you've been editing the listing for 'highways' in each state. How are you defining each category? How are Nepean and Bellarine Hwys 'Major Arterial Roads' while Bass Highway is a 'state highway'? ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highways_in_Victoria]] It doesn't make any sense. If you have reasons for these categories, where are you doing your research??? --[[Special:Contributions/122.107.221.248|122.107.221.248]] ([[User talk:122.107.221.248|talk]]) 14:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)