The Liar Returns

Posted by Tim Ireland at 10 February 2007

Category: The Political Weblog Movement

This entry was posted on
Saturday, February 10th, 2007
6:40 pm and is filed
under The Political Weblog Movement.

“Sorry, I am new to editing Wikipedia and didn’t know of the existence of this page until tonight.” – Iain Dale

Iain Dale’s editing history on Wikipedia tells a different story. Iain (the liar) first created a login on 30 April 2006, and it’s pretty obvious that he was aware of his Wikipedia page before now… because he spent an entire afternoon perfecting it 9 months ago:

Also Noteworthy: Nssdfdsfds, the editor who went in to bat for Iain Dale yesterday (and today) first stopped by to correct Anne Milton’s entry by describing me as a ‘left-wing activist’ (and bodging the job) before swiftly moving on to this and many other edits relating to Iain’s entry.

Am I allowed to stroke my beard again?

PS – How interesting… a name appears before my eyes… familiar yet extended: Paul Delaire Staines. Have fun with it.


  1. tyger says

    Bang to rights.

  2. Random says

    TygerBang to rights? Note that Iain never said he was unaware of his Wikipedia entry (note Tim's error in using the word "page" when talking about a multi-page entry, to make it look like Iain lied when he didn't) but that he was unaware of the discussion page within that entry.I will be more restrained than Tim and not suggest that he is a liar. However if he is aware of the use of the term page (look up "Web Page" on Wikipedia, it seems clear that it is assumed to be continuous, 2-dimensional content; the discussion is accessed via a hyperlink, so is not part of the same page) on the internet then he is disingenuous at best.So you are assuming that the fact that Iain has edited a Wikipedia entry means that he automatically knew about the discussion page. I have ammended an entry in Wikipedia, and even added one. I had no idea that there was a discussion page until today. Had I known, I would have used it because the ammendment I made was to correct a repeated malicious ammendment with information I knew to be incorect.

  3. Manic says

    Iain also claimed to be 'new' to Wikipedia. This is not the case. Fine, he may not have used his login for 9 months, but the recent edit history of his article shows that Iain has also been making edits without his login.Oh, and the 'discussion' hyperlink you mention sits right next to the 'edit this page' link. I would regard my assumption to be a fair one.

  4. Random says

    Having made a few changes one day, then months later another change, I would agree that he is still pretty "new" to it, in the same way that I am.I state again, I also knew nothing of the Discussion page, as I only wanted to edit some incorrect information, and took little notice of the rest ofhte hyperlinks. Usually I use Wikipedia for reference, I don't go into more detail any more often than Iain seems to. Why should he know of the discussion page? Why is your assumption fair, when you are openly calling someone a liar about what he knew, using your own arbitary criteria to judge what he should have known?So what is your excuse for disingenuous use of the term "page"?

  5. Manic says

    Happy to respond. Right here, in fact:

  6. Random says

    So I see. You really are desperately struggling, fiddling with accusations and assumptions, to try and justify your previous unwise words. As Iain said, he didn't even want an apology, you could have just deleted the item.Tedious.

  7. Manic says

    Mighty big of Iain, I must say.

  • External Channels

  • Page 3 Politics

    Page 3: a short history

  • Main

  • Archives

  • Categories

  • Twitter

  • The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

    The Cautionary Campfire Songbook

  • Badges + Buttons