Alfredo_Corvino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is a brief biography of an outstanding teacher in the field of ballet and his association with The Juilliard School, which is included in Wikipedia. The editor(s) accuse me of "copy and paste" when, in fact, the article has been re-written several times in my own words. There may certainly be similarities between my article and the various sources used to obtain and validate information. If, for example, I list ballet companies that Alfredo Corvino was associated with and I provide this information in chronological order, which would seem to be the most reasonable and rational way of presenting this information, then it may indeed appear similar to existing references that provide the same information. Sometimes there is only one way to express something - for example: "... died on August 5, 2005...". Can you suggest an alternate way to express this same fact that is both reasonable and rational? Indeed, in my attempt to "rewrite" common phrases numerous times, it is quite possible that an "already used wording" could spring to the mind. That is, after all, a part of how the human cognitive process works.

(Here is a challenge to you - how many really different ways could you write and rewrite you own resume? And how many of those versions would be reasonable, logical and rational?)

My article on Alfredo Corvino contains basically three parts - (1) his training/development (2) his career as both dancer and ballet instructor and (3) his philosophy and knowledge that made him one of the outstanding ballet teachers of the 20th century. The editor(s) seems fixated on the obituary from the New York Times and looking for similarities.

I read on the Wikipedia site that the Editors should "ASSIST" rather than merely "DELETE". You can certainly tell by my membership, that I am a new/novice contributor to Wikipedia. It seems that "DELETE" may be used just to clear someone's desk. I signed on to Wikipedia to find that my article is already deleted without the opportunity to address the issues with the editor.

I recognize that I was in error with my very first attempt at contributing to Wikipedia when I presented a copy of an obituary from the New York Times (newspaper) but in fairness, I had fully documented the article with complete credit to the author, the publication, the date published and even the internet address (http://). (I documented the material in the very same way that I would have done in my thesis or doctoral dissertation.) Instead, I am accused of "vandalizing" Wikipedia!

If there is something specific in my article on Alfredo Corvino that offends the editors, I will be more than happy to attempt another revision. I would appreciate the opportunity to revise rather than have the editor use "copyright violations" and "repeated submisson" to merely push my article out of his or her way.

Thank you. Seamanjg (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• How about making a draft in your own space (i.e. User:Seamanjg/Alfredo Corvino)? Otherwise, I have to endorse said pretty much all deletions as they look like clear copypasta from whichever sources given. Remember that you can use external sources as a source of content but not as a source for your sentences. It's just like in school where plagiarism is very much forbidden. –MuZemike 00:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse speedy deletion per WP:CSD#G12. Seamanjg, I recommend reading through WP:CFAQ, which is very useful when it comes to understanding Wikipedia copyright policy. This passage, in particular, may help you:

Facts cannot be copyrighted. It is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia, although the structure, presentation, and phrasing of the information should be your own original creation. ... You can use the facts, but unless they are presented without creativity (such as an alphabetical phone directory), you may need to reorganize as well as restate them to avoid substantial similarity infringement. It can be helpful in this respect to utilize multiple sources, which can provide a greater selection of facts from which to draw.

Drafting in userspace may be the best path forward. Good luck. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Copyvio speedy does not prevent recreation of article on subject, so long as the writing of the recreation is original; each of your variations appear to have been "derivative works" rather than original texts. So get to it, as the previous editor describes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Plain and pure copyvio. No prejudice to creating a non-violating version, of course. Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Copyright violations are not allowed- no matter how notable the subject. There's absolutely no barrier to you writing an article- in your own words; using suitable references- and placing it back. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review and feedback. I believe, based on reading through the responses, that the current problem with the article on Alfredo Corvino is that the revisions I made are still more like "derivations" of existing phrases... similarity infringement... in other words, while I changed words, the structure of the phrases in my article was still too similar to the original material.

How do I address a situation where I may wish to use a direct quote? Is this possible? For example, if I wanted to include a segment of an actual conversation by an individual... such as a direct quote by Alfredo Corvino... can this be done? Sometimes, things are said or written so precisely... so perfectly... that they can not be rewritten and have the same impact.

Although it may not seem like it to you, I really am trying to learn and to do things in a correct manner. What really frustrated me yesterday was that my article was blocked and I could no longer make any modification or revisions... and all the messages from editors accusing me of vandalizing wikipedia! (They did seem a bit harsh.)

I will also explore the second suggestion... drafting in userspace ... I am not sure what this exactly means but I will certainly investigate. I am quite sure that new/novice contributors like me, are a constant source of annoyance and irritation to editors, like you... and I do apologize for any inconvenience I have caused.

Thank you for your time! Seamanjg (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]