The Liar Returns

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.

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"?

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.