Talk:Tom Rubython

Edit war
This persistent vandalism is both childish and contrary to the spirit and philosophy of Wikipedia. If either one of you believe that the facts are wrong, then correct them appropriately and quote your sources to back up the position. If you disagree with an edit, then revert it with justifications. This perpetual undisciplined edit war is pointless and may end up with both your IPs being blocked. Mrs Trellis 15:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, looking back over the edit history, it appears there has never been a decent clean version of this page to revert to; perhaps the best thing would be to cut the whole lot down to a basic stub and blank the rest of the unsourced material. DWaterson 01:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Of the two versions, one looks utterly safe but is a whitewash in failing to mention Rubython's litigation history. The other proves to be largely factually accurate in its background detail, but is deeply biased and probably libellous in its interpretation and generalisations (I also suspect it may be a copyvio - it looks professionally written). Given the situation, I'd say convert to stub and demand source citation for everything that goes in. Tearlach 13:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum: please stop reverting to the latter biased version. References are good; as NewsBank confirms, it's a matter of record that he has had failed businesses and has been the defendant in libel suits. However, this does not justify an unencyclopaedic piece of yellow journalism. For instance, "surrounded himself with criminals" is not a neutral description of having had two associates with criminal records.


 * Read WP:NPOV, and if you want to contribute, edit in the negative part of the story while maintaining a style appropriate to an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newspaper. Tearlach 01:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Won or lost the case against Woods?
This article writes that Rubython won the case against Woods in March 2007, however this article (unfortunately in German) claims he lost it: http://www.motorsport-total.com/f1/news/2007/03/Woods_gewinnt_Klage_gegen_BusinessF1_07032405.html

I was confused but this is maybe a bit of clarification: http://www.f1i.com/content/view/6797/1/

81.182.137.42 07:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Confused
 * Yep. A Google News search on Rubython Woods confirms with several sources reporting that both sides produced press releases stating victory. The cached story is enlightening: "Mr. Woods admitted posting an article on the Wikipedia website on 6th January". Tearlach 09:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)