Talk:Pheidole simplispinosa

Insects: Ants Low‑importance

	Insects portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Ant task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Copyright does not apply

The text used in the article stems from a scientific publication (the reference). As a pure description of nature, these pieces of text do not qualify as intellectual property and therefore are not copyrightable. The copyright notice in the referenced page clearly states this.

The purpose of the text being replicated in Wikipedia is to

make them available to a wider audience
have them embedded in Wikipedia's greater network of the knowledge of mankind

Therefore, please allow the article to stay online even though the texts are replicated from another source.

Gsautter (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the sources, I decided that copyright infringement wasn't an issue. However, the article as you copied it was very difficult to understand (technical) and not to Wikipedia's standards (see WP:MOS). So I "stubbed" the article down. Feel free to add back content that is presented in a way everyone can understand. Regards, PDCook (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I'm not sure that "No known copyright restrictions apply", as it says at the bottom of the reference you provided, is sufficient to satisfy WP:Copyright. PDCook (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into Plazi, I think the copyright issue isn't so much of a problem, but the issue remains that these article are difficult for the average person to understand and don't conform to Wikipedia's manual of style. PDCook (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication in any of the sources that Gsautter has used that say "all text copyright except the descriptions of nature." This argument is suspect and controversial. As a matter of a strict interpretation of copyright, the publications used are entirely copyrighted and whole sentences and phrases cannot be used. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]