Talk:Lauder
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Archive
This should not have been archived. This article is inaccurate, and other editors should not be obstructed from viewing the problems. I myself have regained energy, and am not averse to bringing the issue up again. Misleading information should not exist in any wiki article. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry but a Talk Page of that length should be archived. In any case at the time it was archived you, the principal complainant, announced you were leaving Wikipedia. It is still available for all editors to see, as you well know. You are wrong to continue to claim that good faith edits supported by verifiable sources by other scholars, in accordance with WP:reliable sources are "misleading information" just because you don't like them. You clearly need to look at WK:OWN with regard to Wikipedia articles which touch upon mediaeval Scotland. You are outside the good faith parameters here. Regards David Lauder (talk) 18:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
-
- I think we're gonna keep to the scholarly and factual issues this time, rather than attacks on me. BTW, I don't like them because they are wrong. It isn't the other way around. It would be quite surprising if it were, given I have no connection with Lauder or the family or any interest in the place. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- It wouldn't bother me if you lived at Lauder or that was your surname. The content is more than well-sourced and references cited. Denouncing all these scholars as "wrong" is surely beyond the pale POV? David Lauder (talk) 15:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think we're gonna keep to the scholarly and factual issues this time, rather than attacks on me. BTW, I don't like them because they are wrong. It isn't the other way around. It would be quite surprising if it were, given I have no connection with Lauder or the family or any interest in the place. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
