Talk:1976 Rhodesian Grand Prix

Untitled

The results below were copied from OldRacingCars.com without the permission of the copyright holder. I don't know the process for getting this page removed so I am removing the information that I am most concerned about while I find out how to address this. Allen Brown (talk) 16:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that two changes have been made to my page during the cut-and-paste process that have introduced errors. It is not correct to say that Ian Scheckter did not start; he wasn't actually present so should be regarded as a "did not arrive". Also, it is not true to say that only five drivers posted a time; there is a reason why only five times are shown but that isn't it. Allen Brown (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Stifle' has removed the COPYVIO from this page without adding anything to the discussion page to explain his reasoning. In the absence of that evidence, I have undone his change Allen Brown (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To remind 'Stifle' and others on the exact rules, here is an extract (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright):

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. The United States Court of Appeals noted in Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service that factual compilations of information may be protected with respect to "selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity," as "[t]he compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers."[1] 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. (With respect to paraphrasing works of fiction, see derivative works section below.)

So even if my website could be compared to a telephone directory - and I strongly maintain that it cannot - the lack of any reoganisation, restatement, creativity or multiple sources negates this as a reason. Allen Brown (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]