I agree that it's somewhat ambiguous, though I suspect this user may actually be a mouse. More information may be needed. I wonder what would happen if I left this here? Noto Emoji Pie 1f9c0Horse.staple (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello REAL MOUSE IRL and thanks for all your work in copyright cleanup! I just stopped by to let you know that I disagree with your decision at Rhampholeon nebulauctor. I google-searched for the source article "Pygmy chameleons of the Rhampholeon platyceps compex (Squamata: Chamaeleonidae): Description of four new species from isolated ‘sky islands’ of northern Mozambique" by title and found it at ResearchGate, PubMed, and elsewhere. When I downloaded the article from ResearchGate I found no evidence of a compatible license. The only place I see a CC-0 is at https://zenodo.org/records/6123215, but CC-0 does not appear to apply to this article. So I removed the suspect content. Please let me know if you have any questions.--— Diannaa🍁 (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, REAL MOUSE IRL.
I had speedy deletetion by you when I tried to publish at the first time.
If you are ok, would you check what I have modified about that topic?
I tried to put what I understand not just copying about x.1280 which is international standards from ITU-T.
when I published about x.1280, I expected Draft: mark, but there was no that part.
So I deleted.
Your request for RD1 redaction on List of Instant Star episodes pointed at the source being an archived CTV page which didn't match the alleged stolen material. Earwig's detector pointed at the correct source, the IMDb episode listing. Not sure what happened there. — Cyrius|✎13:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The earlier diff (01:05, 6 May 2025 UTC) was flagged on CopyPatrol here, and I did see the same overlap when double checking in earwig against the archived version. If the later diff replaced those with different copied descriptions then I completely missed that, my bad. REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk14:07, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regaring my edit on "2 euro commemorative coins" article (2 euro commemorative coins), that you deleted on May 10, 2025, allow me to express my disagreement and my kind request to check and revise it please.
May I ask please why you chose to delete solely my edit, since I did nothing different than almost all the previous users that had edited this particular article had done? Just take a look on the coin descripions on all the above tables and tell me please if they also violate the same rules you're claiming my edit does. What I did was exactly what all the others before me had done and that was copying and pasting the official coin description from the law page published in the official Goverment Journal of the European Union (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html), in which thre is no copyright indication, not the web site of the European Central Bank. The image link on the leftmost box of each coin in this page will lead you there. Here are some random examples, in which you can see that the text of the coin descritions on the law pages is exactly the same with the relevant coin descriptions on the Wiki article I'm talking about:
Apparently, the European Central Bank has copied the same law text from the official EU law journal in its web site, not the opposite. If you believe that copying text from the EU Law Journal is copyright violation, then why didn't you delete almost all coin descriptions in almost all tables of this article, instead of choosing to delete mine only? That can be considered unequal treatment, can't be.
For these reasons above, I'm kindly asking you to revise this deletion and restore my edit, which had been made with effort and time spending. Thnak you. Thanosmed Thanosmed (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit was revision deleted by an admin, Cyrius. As a non-admin I have no ability to restore that content, and no admin will restore it if there is risk of a copyvio.
You'll notice from the history of that article that previous revisions have been deleted for the same copying by Diannaa, so there is no unequal treatment here. The extant copied descriptions were overlooked, but they likely need to be removed as well.
"No copyright indication" does not mean the text is free of copyright, there needs to be indication that the text is in the public domain or compatibly licensed, and you need to provide attribution to the source if this is the case. The onus is on you to show that the material you copy into Wikipedia is not a violation. REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk22:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another admin noted in the deletion log that the ultimate source for these descriptions appears to be this website. If so, the descriptions will all have to come out, as their pages are marked as being copyright. The webpages of https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ are compatibly licensed (CC-by-4.0), and if that's the ultimate source, they can stay. That's not a decision I am prepared to make. This might be a good candidate to list at WP:CP. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 03:06, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that notice, as I am pretty much sure that the ultimate source, based on common sense, cannot be other than https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ webpage, which is compatibly licensed, as you're mensioning. Just think about it. This webpage is the official law journal of the European Union. The source of every EU law, publically released and in disposal to be used by anybody, as this is the purpose and the spirit of official state law publications since the beginning of written law in the modern democratic states all over the world. These law texts are verbatim copied, directly taken from the official, printed or electronic, law journals of every country or state constitution in the world, by lawyers and juridic officials, to be used in courts. There can't be any text sources superior to a law journal, with copyright limitations in law texts. This is legally irrational and thus simply impossible! So I strongly believe that these edits have to be restored, given that their source (the official EU Law journal) is listed aside of each line in all tables.
I agree that the eur-lex.europa.eu copies are the originals and CC-BY-4.0. I've gone ahead and un-redacted and reverted the page. Had I noticed the source links @Thanosmed had put in the actual article, I would have rejected the redaction. Also would have saved myself time trying to track down the supposed "original source". Stupid ECB with their stupid blanket copyright claim. — Cyrius|✎13:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyrius Thank you very much for the fast reaction! I'm just a simple user, but besides that, I suggest that this incident could be somehow listed in Wikipedia:Copyright problems, to help others decide wisely in similar situations in the future. Alongside, we should keep in mind that the vast majority of EU official documents with special or particular meaning of any kind are primary EU laws, published in eur-lex.europa.eu. Thanosmed (talk) 00:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's maybe also a discussion to be had on whether Wikipedia needs individual entries with paragraph descriptions for all 400-odd commemorative 2€ coins. It would save a lot of hassle to rip out the tables here and now.
Do these coins even get independant coverage? That page is sourced exclusively to EU pages and coin collector forums, and I can't say I've seen news coverage of them. REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk07:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello REAL MOUSE IRL. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of VARAMAR, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Previous deletion was due to G7 and not the AFD discussion. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello REAL MOUSE IRL, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Olof Palme Primary School, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Note that educational institutions are not eligible under this criterion. See CSD A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 11:58, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello REAL MOUSE IRL. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mathias "P" Jensen, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Pro footballer is a credible claim of importioance, and not promotional. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no power to do this, and an admin will not reinstate a page that is a copyright violation. You are welcome to recreate the draft using your own words, but further copyright violations may lead to being blocked. REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk13:03, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just letting you know that I removed your G12 tag on Costantino Ciervo, as the bio on the auction site you gave as the source was actually a translation of the German Wikipedia article de:Costantino Ciervo. I've seen a similar pattern of translated bios from foreign language Wikipedias on a surprisingly large number of art auction sites in particular, so just giving a heads up so that you know to look out for that in future :) MCE89 (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no longer any copyvio there, and in fact, it had been eliminated before the copyvio tag was posted on the article. I don't believe that the tag belongs there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the copyvio-revdel tag is to delete previous revisions in the history of the article where the copyrighted text remains. You have had this explained to you at User_talk:Yerlo. The template says "Note to others: Please do not remove this template until an administrator has reviewed it.", so please stop removing them. REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk00:44, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it says "...or [by] directly contacting an administrator on their talk page. ...Administrators may at their discretion unilaterally revision delete copyrighted content." In these cases, since the copyvio has been removed (or in at least one case, Pablo Larrazábal, it never existed at all), it is more appropriate to ask an admin if they wish to hide any old versions, rather than to template an article that has no copyvio. -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The template says "Note to the requestor: Make sure the page has already been reverted to a non-infringing revision or that infringing text has been removed or replaced before submitting this request.". Can you explain why you think it should not be used when the copyvio has been removed from the article, when it specifically requests the exact opposite? Do I need to ping someone in with more years and a higher edit count before you will read what is being said to you? REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk01:01, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stewards generally want a successful appeal on a wiki before they will unlock an account. That said, unlocking is moot in this instance since they claim to have lost access to their original account. Giraffer (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion of “Blue Light Bandits” / “Blue Light Gangs” article
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm reaching out regarding the recent deletion (through forwarding) of the **Blue Light Bandits** (also known as **Blue Light Gangs**) article. I found this surprising, given the strong and sustained public coverage:
- There are at least 100 unique articles from reputable South African news outlets directly covering the phenomenon, plus extensive international coverage. I was very careful in selecting appropriate articles for facts only. (You suggested during your deletion only one article existed, I humbly request you to look deeper)
- Multiple televised news segments and documentaries are available online discussing their operations.
- The gangs continue to impersonate police, hijacking vehicles and targeting motorists and tourists—posing a significant public safety concern - as early as last week. This is a public safety concern that needs visibility.
- The phenomena is actively being discussed in social media circles around the world, including on major podcasts, etc. - which is what led me to spend the hours doing the work.
- Its a valuable resource for Wikipedia users.
This article in an important centralized reference for:
- Tourists and international travellers researching safety in South Africa, especially that area of the world.
- Journalists and researchers investigating organized crime, and a central understanding of this specific form of crime.
- South African citizens seeking reliable summaries.
Without it, readers often resort to scattered or unreliable sources, misinformation or denial of events. The deleted page, while possibly needing improvements, offered a valuable hub of carefully sourced content.
Would you be willing to restore an archived version to my userspace so I can refine the citations, align it with Wikipedia standards, and propose a properly sourced version? Or make suggestions, instead of deleting?
Happy to collaborate and provide links to more top-tier sources. Thanks for your time and contributions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I appreciate the explicit technical difference between a redirect and deletion. But the redirect is an effective deletion in this case as it obfuscates the key point in the material of a *specific* gang operation, not just an activity which happens around the world of criminals haphazardly acting like officers, which could happen in any country around the world. By that logic, Hells Angels could be folded up and similarly listed in "biker gangs".
Ergo, the request is that the obvious uniqueness of the subject material and importance for the points above mentioned (and apologies, cleaned up by AI to make less emotional, given all my hours of work going to waste).
Understood. And no, I was certainly not paid for this, in any way, I am aware of the terms. Why would you assume that? It's VERY interesting and useful subject matter per the points above and your forwarding is incorrect and should be retracted. Quepenamivida (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) RMI did not assume anything; she merely asked you a question in good faith. Even if the answer to that question is "no", she has done nothing wrong and there is nothing to retract. jlwoodwa (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dude. These comments were not LLM generated. My points were clear and my writing was my own. I am, in fact, capable of writing and expressing my own ideas through the English language in a professional tone and manner - so you are just being disrespectful.
Are you just collapsing my arguments because you don't want to respond?
Is this not the right place to voice my opinions? I very clearly researched this information over the last week and did my best to explain it. Should I be more emotional or angry for you deleting my work?!
So here we go... again... I'll just be blunt. You have disrespectfully treated my hard work based on incorrect opinions.
Please undo it.
See WP:V and WP:RS, all key facts were sourced from reputable media outlets.
See WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD, you've done the wrong thing.
Yikes, sorry, some other random person collapsed my comments. I'll go bug them. *Sigh* Reminds me why I gave up helping out on Wikipedia years ago. So much hassle for so little reward. Quepenamivida (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will not self-revert the redirect, your badgering will not change that. Please do not post to my talk page again about this, you are being incredibly annoying. REAL_MOUSE_IRLtalk19:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Asking again - given no other response, asking you to reconsider and remove the forward. This is an extremely well sourced article with very specific details about a very specific gang who continue to operate in South Africa and maintain relevance - as well as a historical fact of historical interest. Per WP:N, the subject meets the general notability guideline: there is significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent secondary sources over an extended period.
Per WP:V and WP:RS, all key facts were sourced from reputable media outlets (e.g., News24, TimesLIVE, IOL, BBC, Reuters). This ensures that the article’s claims can be verified and meet reliability requirements.
Per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD (“alternatives to deletion”), content that is verifiable and notable should be improved or refined, rather than removed or redirected in a way that obscures the specific topic.
Police impersonation is not a sufficient resource, as it lacks clear references to this specific type of criminal and gang, which is a precedent already set. Crime in South Africa is not specific enough, as this has been established as a specific gang, like Hells Angels - or more famous bank robbers of which there are many.
1) A specific and named gang activity, not merely a generic instance of police impersonation. SO the forward doesn't make sense.
2) The subject of sustained and in-depth coverage, which meets WP:N and is comparable to other documented gangs in Category:South African gangsters, if not way more sourced, IMHO.
3) Of continuing relevance, with recent incidents reported as recently as last week and still making a huge splash on social media.
On social media, the ringleader has been possibly shot and killed in a police shootout recently - no reputable sources exist that I can find on this , though - I assume this will come soon.
Your elimination-through-forward greatly reduces available information on an important international issue that is well documented. It removes an accessible, centralized, well-sourced resource that serves journalists, researchers, citizens, and travellers.
I will commit to refining the article further in my userspace if restoration is granted (or if you think it needs editing - I put a LOT of time into it), ensuring it fully complies with content and sourcing standards.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello! I saw your your comment over at ANI, where you stated the "The OR/SYNTH concerns from the two AfDs have not been addressed..." I have recently published the stub article Influence of severe weather on American politics for the topic. If I may ask, could you check it over and see if the OR/SYNTH concerns from the two AFDs on the general topic have been addressed? I am wanting to understand exactly where editors are thinking original research is occurring. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:00, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User Lkcl: disruptive subject matter expert. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)