User talk:Roman888

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

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

I have already

WP:CIVIL and you don't even try Wikipedia: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)[reply

]

The Wikimedia Foundation is an organization that makes it services available to people who are willing to comply with its

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)[reply

]

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

With this edit, I hereby inform you that, per a consensus of the community of the Administrator's Noticeboard that you are