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]
