Wrenhawk

Canyon Wren

I have reverted your edits to Canyon Wren because they included sections that were copied from the species account at bna.birds.cornell.edu, which is fully copyrighted. I have noticed that your username is a name also used elsewhere by a person that is involved in the Canyon Wren article on bna.birds.cornell.edu. If that is not a coincidence and you retain the rights to the material, I hope you will consider following the instructions on WP:DCM, which would allow its inclusion on wikipedia (it certainly did improve the Canyon Wren article). Otherwise it can only be included if rewritten to a level where it does not fall under WP:Copy-paste and WP:COPYVIO. • Rabo³ • 05:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on my talk page. Some of this is essentially a repeat of the above, but based on your comment it appears some points were missed: First, no one but you mentioned plagiarism. This is about copyrights (→ intro of WP:Plagiarism described the difference). Secondly, you added sections to a wikipedia article that were identical to fully copyrighted material published elsewhere. When you did this, you did not specify anywhere that you had the rights to use this material. How could I, or indeed anyone but you, know that it wasn't a copyright violation? If you don't want to risk being accused of copyright violations in such cases, I would recommend you make it absolutely clear that you hold the copyright – at least in the edit summary when you insert the information, and preferably also with a note on the talk page of the individual species (e.g. a comment on Talk:Canyon Wren, which would minimize the risk that someone removes it in the future on grounds of copyvio).

Assuming that you, as stated in your new comment on my talk page, is the author of this species account on BNA, the main question is if you gave up the rights to Cornell when it was submitted to BNA (cf. section "You cannot donate what someone else owns" on WP:DCM). I do not know the agreement between you and Cornell, so only you can answer that question. If you gave up the rights, the information can only be submitted to wikipedia in a heavily rewritten form (cf. last sentence in my earlier comment). If you retain the rights, it can be submitted to wikipedia. In the latter case, you can easily reinsert all the information in the article again via history (if uncertain about this, you can place a comment on my talk page and I'll do it). As already noted in my first comment, it certainly did improve the Canyon Wren article, and it would be great if the copyright status allows its use on wikipedia. • Rabo³ • 09:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)