This may be true, however, this is an encyclopedia and all statements need a reliable source (WP:RS). Please feel free to edit the article again, providing references that support this assertion. Thank you! Jacona (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Electric Wombat (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked 1 week from editing for abuse of editing privileges, specifically edit warring, personal attacks, and copyright violations. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~)). However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

IronGargoyle (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Djphrost (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

There was no fucking Intellectual Property violations 'Copyright', which I stated in edit.Djphrost (talk) 23:13, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Doesn't even matter at this point, since you're also blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. There's a limit to the number of times our volunteers need to tolerate being called "nazis"; that limit is zero. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Regarding the copyright: you specifically cited New Statesman as your source for that section, which just as specifically claims copyright to it. Naming the source doesn't allow verbatim use of the content. To your point, yes Center for Research & Globalization grants permission to use "Original Global Research articles". The thing is, this one is not an original article from them. Look at the page on their own site where they reprint the article. It specifically states there "It was first published on April 17, 2000 in the New Statesman." So again, it is sourced to New Statesman, which asserts copyright, and all sources you provide lead back there. If you really want that material in the article, then take that material and put it in your own words. You can use the article as a source for the ideas expressed, just put it in your own words. Electric Wombat (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]