Ameisen t1_irhtwb0 wrote on October 8, 2022 at 7:41 AM

Reply to comment by adamup27 in TIL that following their execution (by beheading) for treason, the heads of Baron Saye and his son-in-law were unceremoniously impaled on pikes by a mob and pushed together so that they appeared to kiss. by SilasMarner77

There are no edits to the page you linked to below that match your story.

The largest edit on there was in 2017, added three sentences, three partial paragraphs, and zero sources, which is why it was removed.

There are no other edits even remotely matching your description.

Seems strange to blame a power user removing it because it was 'their' page...

> Reverted edits by 161.130.188.187 (talk): Failure to cite a reliable source (HG) (3.1.22)

And that user had never made any edits to the page otherwise, nor did they claim that it was 'their' page.

In fact, they left the following two messages on your talk page:

> Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Lazar Weiner, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks.

> I undid your edit to Lazar Weiner as it was unreferenced. Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. To add a reference, please read Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Your edits are saved in the wp:page history. Please add references when you restore the content. Thank you

So, in essence:

#you're a big fat liar.

[deleted] t1_irmpz5a wrote on October 9, 2022 at 1:18 PM

[deleted]

Ameisen t1_iromvnl wrote on October 9, 2022 at 9:12 PM

> It's hard to give proper references then. He obviously would have mentioned the book itself.

I mean, yes, that's a completely valid citation. That is what they should have done. Instead they created some story about how it was a power-user 'protecting their article' (which was entirely untrue).

I've seen plenty of people use obscure books for references. I've even checked some of those references and have had to mark the usages as incorrect because they misinterpreted the citation.

The simple thing is that the person who reverted the change may or may not have been a 'power user', but the revert had nothing to do with it 'being their article', they explicitly told them (twice) why they reverted it, and they explicitly requested that they add a citation.