User talk:Winstone123

Rhodri Philipps
Please don't delete contributions to this article without valid reasons. (Pembroken (talk) 23:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC))

You have created your user profile for the sole purpose of trying to discredit the subject. The fact that one of your references is entirely written in German is just one of the tell-tale-signs that you have a personal axe to grind. You're obviously one of the few German trade unionists who knows how to read & write, so I congratulate you profusely. However, citing crass newspaper articles that were all based upon 2 original German newspaper items does not constitute an appropriate use of references on Wikipedia. These original items were based purely upon non-factual unionist testimony & hearsay. Additionally, the subject claims he did not plead guilty to anything. He has the judge's transcript to prove this (which I have personally seen). This is why there is a libel action currently ensuing with certain newspapers. In the midst of such action, it would therefore be hugely irresponsible to cite these same newspaper items as your Wikipedia references as it would mean that you're perpetuating libel yourself & using Wikipedia to do it.

Incidentally, I suggest you look up "anti dumping" in the dictionary. I think you'll find its definition is different to what you think it is, my sausage eating friend... (Winstone123)

Please - if you disagree with the facts (or grammar) in my contributions then please correct them, not erase everything and begin personal insults. You seem to have a lot of knowledge about this person and his business dealings so I hope that you will share your knowledge by contributing to this article. Thank you.

You say that "the subject claims he did not plead guilty to anything" - can you provide a source for this? If this is proven, then we can change the article to simply state that he was judged guilty of the charges. The result of a court case is not hearsay but a fact so this must remain, I think. Can you provide details of this current "libel action"? When was it started and against whom? Is it against the many German news media and broadcasters who reported the outcome of the case or only The Daily Telegraph, London Evening Standard and other UK media?

I did not understand your comment about my use of the term "anti-dumping" - please can you explain? Is this not the matter which was being investigated by the United States government? Pembroken (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Will you please stop the vandalism to this article? Why will you not discuss these matters so that we can reach a consensus? Pembroken (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

These issues as you well know at present are Sub Judice as a matter of law, and your entries are making Wikipedia liable for promulgating this said libel. (Winstone123)

I have no knowledge at all of this legal action you mention - this is why I asked you for details earlier. When was it started and against whom? Where? What is disputed? The reporting of a public trial? Will you please provide evidence to support your claim? (In the case that there really is a legal action, of course the subject must not be discussed here.)

Also, why do persist to erase all of my contributions to this article but not discuss the article? You say that this "libel action" is in relation to the recent Hans Brochier court case, so why do you remove all the information about his past business dealings? Are these also the subject of legal action, so many years later? Pembroken (talk) 21:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not want a distortion of the facts represented on Wikipedia until I could first check the details with Mr. Philipps's legal team which I have now done. The changes I have made to the article are as follows:

1. Use of the word "illegal" in reference to anti-dumping implies nefarious activity. This was a CIVIL (not a criminal) matter, and regardless, crownridge was never found guilty of anything. Neither was Valkia (although Mr. Philipps was nothing to do with this company whatsoever). As for the £5 million debt, this figure is completely wrong. The real figure is closer to £400,000 but is not immediately verifiable.

2. Use of the word "collapse" in reference to Hans Brochier is misleading. The administration took place on an orderly basis; circa 80% of the employees remain in employment to this day. The company never "collapsed".

3. The result that you have stated from the court session in March 2008 is wrong. I have changed it to a verbatum translation of the ACTUAL court finding & sentence.

4. I have also added information relating to the purchase of Hans Brochier and the 11 million Euro transfer; these are documented facts and are included in the case bundle. All of these details (along with the full details of the Nurnburg trial) will be released to the public domain when they are no longer subject to being Sub Judice.

5. The main issue that I take with your version of events is that they are not phrased in a non-partisan manner & are therefore an obvious attack on the subject. Additionally, until the issue is put to bed in Karlsruhe, these matters should not be discussed in a public forum such as this. (Winstone123)

October 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Talk:Rhodri Philipps has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. &mdash; neuro(talk) 16:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Killiondude (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2008 (UTC)