Jump to content

Talk:Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Video Clip

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article as a sub-page

[edit]

I've been meaning to create an article specifically for the video tape controvesy in entirely, mainly because there were also other side effects as a result of the leak, mainly the thousand-strong lawyer's march in Putrajaya back in September. By the looks of it, it seems appropriate that this article can serve as a sub-page to an article series. - Two hundred percent (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

[edit]

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "TheStar2" :
    • {{cite news|date=May 14, 2008|url=http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/14/nation/21240628&sec=nation|title=Loh: A lot more to Lingam clip|publisher=TheStar}}
    • {{cite news|date=May 21, 2008|url=http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/21/nation/21286208&sec=nation|title=How the commission decided in the Lingam video inquiry|publisher=TheStar}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of copyrighted material

[edit]

I have deleted two portions of this article as they have been lifted word-for-word, or are too closely paraphrased, from the sources cited. The portions were undoubtedly added in good faith, but their additions are contrary to copyright policy. The portions are as follows:

Extended content
The article says:

Loh remembered that Lingam had mentioned about how he had manipulated cases to his advantage by using certain lawyers against certain judges to make sure the judgments would be in his favour. Loh said he was so disturbed that something was terribly wrong with the judiciary that he decided there was no more freedom in the courts and chose not to take his Bar exams.

The [source http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/5/14/nation/21240628&sec=nation] says:

However, from memory, Loh, 34, said he remembered that Lingam had mentioned about how he had manipulated cases to his advantage by using certain lawyers against certain judges to make sure the judgments would be in his favour.

And later says:

After what he heard that night, Loh said he was so disturbed that he decided there was no more freedom in the courts and chose not to take his Bar exams.

The article says:

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam video clip has found that it was former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim who was talking to prominent lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam on the telephone. Sources said the five-man panel also found that the video clip was authentic and that the conversation was true in substance. They said the commission also found that it was lawyer Loh Mui Fah who Lingam was speaking to after his telephone conversation with Fairuz. Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor presented a two-volume report on the findings to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin at the Istana Negara here yesterday.

The source says:

The Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam video clip has found that it was former Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim who was talking to prominent lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam on the telephone. Sources said the five-man panel also found that the video clip was authentic and that the conversation was true in substance. They said the commission also found that it was lawyer Loh Mui Fah who Lingam was speaking to after his telephone conversation with Fairuz. Commission chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor presented a two-volume report on the findings to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin at the Istana Negara here yesterday.

Cheers --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


[edit]

‎ This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Mkativerata (talk) 19:59, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Video Clip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Video Clip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Royal_Commission_of_Inquiry_into_the_Lingam_Video_Clip&oldid=1201153060"