== Assertion of copyright to what an editor wrote and added to Wikipedia == 

 Dear Sir: I have withdrawn my own texts and translations of the cantigas d' amigo from the article on that topic.  They are copyrighted material.  Other 'editors', through their ignorance and arrogance, insults and abuse, have made me give up all hope of trying to improve anything in Wikipedia, namely on the subjects which are my main area of research, medieval Galician-Portuguese philology and poetry.  Please do not put those texts back.  Rip Cohen, alias MB 

 :I do not know enough about Galician-Portuguese literature to adjudicate your dispute with FilipeS.  (I noticed your page blanking only after watching  for the first time recently in connection with a minor discussion about an unrelated merge.)  If I did know more, I can assure you that I would respect your academic credentials and do my best to make sure that everything valuable in your contributions receive a warm welcome into Wikipedia, subject to the normal collaborative reworking & pursuit of consensus (see WP:OWN).  What I do know, however, is that every time you clicked "Save" to make a contribution to Wikipedia, you did so on these terms: "By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License.  If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it."  This encyclopedia would not function at all if editors had the right to demand that their contributions be used only on special terms they invented.  So your assertion of control over your contributions will not impress the community of editors.  I am not a lawyer; of course there are guidelines and procedures for disputes involving copyright.  But on reading the text I link, it seems obvious and implicit that, since you admit contributing your material under the GFDL license, deletion is not required.  (While, again, I am not a lawyer & do not speak on behalf of Wikipedia, it does seem that if you do not possess the copyright to your contributions, then, perhaps, you infringed on your publisher's rights by licensing it to Wikipedia, and your publisher might be able to make a valid protest.) Of course, contributions from scholarly sources should receive due attribution when appropriate, and you should bring it up on a talk page if you think this would be appropriate.  I want to end this by saying for the third time that I'm not a lawyer, and for all I know you have a legitimate claim, and there is an established dispute resolution process that can serve you.  But deleting content you freely gave to the encyclopedia doesn't seem the best way to approach it.  Moreover, I hope that the spirit of generosity that first moved you to give your work as a gift to this free encyclopedia still carries some weight, despite your disgruntlement & frustration with FilipeS.  If you take the time to document such points as "All competent scholars use the term Cantiga d'amigo," then I have faith that, eventually, even obscure article talk pages will attract enough notice that the view based on reliable sources will prevail.  Respectfully,