There's not enough to justify the tag, and User:Skitash made changes to the article. I removed the tag. I hope you don't add it back. Also as I noted on the RPP, further investigation into your claim is welcome. Until you can prove extensive copy/paste that justifies the tag please don't add it back. el.ziade (talkallam) 18:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, based on the examples provided on the talk page (all of which have been addressed by Skitash), it seems that the copied passages are short and have been cited. Since the copied material is properly attributed and linked to its original sources, it does not constitute a copyright violation. I do not think it's justified to tag the article with a copyvio. el.ziade (talkallam) 18:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, copyvio tool indicates that there's a less than 5% similarity and I've already changed and reworded content the IP hopper showed concern about, so their argument lacks merit. They are either deliberately pretending to not see it or refusing to acknowledge it by continuing to edit war. It's perplexing that they opted for a full copyright investigation over a few similar-sounding sentences rather than trying to improve the article. My best guess is that this is just another petty excuse the IP hopper is using to continue harassing me as they have done on my talk page.[1][2]Skitash (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All that proves is that copyvio tool is pretty useless. 2001:8F8:1DDA:A9B6:17CC:E045:8086:7B37 (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No vio found, claim cannot be validated. Tag removed from article. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:43, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Article cleaned by investigator or others. No remaining infringement. Sennecaster (Chat) 02:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Article deleted for a reason other than copyright concerns. MER-C 15:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)