User talk:Roman888

Copyright block
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating copyright policy by copying text into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. Please take this opportunity to be sure you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to quote non-free text. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In spite of warnings, you have restored copyrighted content to Wikipedia after it had been removed. In this series of edits, you added the following:

"The involvement of IMT Defence only became known because in March 2005, a former director of IMT, Mohamad Zainuri Mohamad Idrus, filed suit against several Adib-related companies, alleging that Adib and his sister, Askiah Adam wanted to prevent him from exposing the Sukhoi deal. In 2006, Mohamad Zainuri lodged a police report alleging that Adib had stolen the US$108 million commission that was supposed to be channeled to the company while Najib Razak was the Defence Minister at that time."
 * The source says:

"The involvement of IMT Defence only became known because in March 2005, a former director of IMT, Mohamad Zainuri Mohamad Idrus, filed suit against several Adib-related companies, alleging that Adib and his sister, Askiah Adam, 'wanted to prevent him from exposing the reality of the Sukhoi deal.' In 2006, Mohamad Zainuri lodged a police report alleging that Adib had stolen the US$108 million (RM 380 million) commission that was supposed to be channeled to the company."


 * Additional material was copied from sources or too closely paraphrased, which you have also been warned against.


 * Please be careful after your block expires to ensure that your future contributions conform to our copyright policy and that on non-free content. Additional violation of these policies is likely to lead to an extended or indefinite block of your account. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * In light of the fact that you have already received a 48 hour copyright block, in 2008, and are still creating copyright issues more than a year later, even to the extent of restoring copyright violating content as it is being cleaned up, I have adjusted your block to indefinite. I do not believe you should be unblocked without some very credible indication that you understand and intend to comply with Wikipedia's copyright policy. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * To me this is an abuse of your administrative powers here in Wikipedia. I have already said that your investigation is just a waste of time and effort.  I have not restored copyright violating content as you claimed but reworded the one of the articles that was brought up in your investigation page so that it conforms to copyright rules.  You did not even view the changes that were made and just arbitrarily blocked me.  Roman888 (talk) 04:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Arbitrarily? Just two posts above yours is a detailed explanation (with a convincing example) of why your "re-write" remained a copyright violation. I'd strongly urge you to accept the invitation to credibly indicate that you will comply with wikipedia's copyright policy in the future, rather than persist with questioning and contesting the deletion of your past contributions.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have already ACCEPTED your invitation to make the changes needed. I already posted in your talk page about rephrasing certain articles that don't comply with the copyright violations.  You seem fit to try to want to delete materials wholesale, without trying to rephrase the materials that have been mentioned. You are not an administrator, yet you try to put up a copy right warning in the talk page and you get an impartial administrator to back you up.  You also have the guile to report me for copy-right violations which has now let me to being blocked. To me that is blatant censorship and worse than the Malaysian government and mainstream media.  Worse my past edits are being dug up and everything is being put under the microscope.  If I don't get unblocked by MRG, I will just proceed my own way without assisting you in complying with Wikipedia's copyright policy.  You don't want me to be your enemy and I am thinking I will proceed my own way if things don't change.  I also will not be posting url links to the articles which will defeat the purpose of what you are doing.  This is not blackmail, but you guys are not being WP:CIVIL and you don't even try Consensus.  Since I only am allow to post in my talk page, this will probably be my last post under Roman888. Roman888 (talk) 12:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The Wikimedia Foundation is an organization that makes it services available to people who are willing to comply with its Terms of Use. You have for years been violating that. You have already demonstrated a willingness to evade your block by your edits via User talk:115.134.213.4, under which you again restored this copyrighted content. The last time you were blocked for copyright violations, you had done the same thing: restoring copyrighted content to an article after it had been removed and you had been warned. There is absolutely no reason to believe that you will comply with our copyright policy under any account. Now you are not only threatening to continue violating copyright policies, but also to take steps to better cover your tracks while doing so at the same time as violating the sock puppetry policy. I think such threats are hardly likely to convince anyone that you understand and respect the conditions of participation here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Banned
With this edit, I hereby inform you that, per a consensus of the community of the Administrator's Noticeboard that you are banned from the English Wikipedia. Any edits you make in defiance of this ban may be reverted by any user, and any socks you create may be instantly blocked. Per standard procedure, you access to this talk page is revoked. If you desire to appeal, you may contact the Arbitration Committee. Courcelles 20:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)