Also the US Customary system's weights.

Weird how you replaced a word just so you could entirely change the meaning. Strawman much?

All the mitochondria in all Eukaryotes are the descendents of a single proto-mitochondrion (likely closely-related to Rickettsoid bacteria) which was engulfed by an early proto-Eukaryotic cell, but was not destroyed.

Reptiles are diapsids, while mammals are synapsids. Though it depends on your definition of "reptile", though when amniotes first appeared they very rapidly split into synapsids and diapsids, while apes appeared 10 million years after the first Cattarhines (and aren't significantly different from their closest non-ape relatives).

Apes are monkeys - they're a clade within the catarrhine monkeys. A fairly deeply-originating one at that.

There's no way to define monkeys with apes not being included without being quite paraphyletic.

Why would I bring up a Civil War general?

> Oh, but they do cause they somehow convinced themselves that they won the war.

No, we acknowledge that it was a white peace, because it was. And Sir Arthur Wellesley agreed with that.

Neither side had a single campaign against the other side end in strategic success (save the US destroying the remnants of Tecumseh's Confederacy).

Mainly because Canada claims to have done things that British regulars did.

Are giant piles of rock. I mean, it's hard for those to fail.

They also corrupt schools. There is an entire Hindu Nationalist movement in history and linguistics, pushing that Indo-Europeans came from India, and that Sanskrit is the root language.

Despite the massive amounts of evidence and research to the contrary, if you disagree with them they just call you racist.

Well, he said there was massive voter fraud even after he'd won.

To be fair, any kind of mark for sarcasm completely ruins the impact.

And idiots who don't recognize sarcasm likely will just ignore a sarcasm mark anyways.

Yeah, I still can't understand what you're writing.

It reminds of stereotypical serial killer letters.

What ungodly writing demon have you awakened?

#RETURN, DEMON, WHENCE YOU CAME!

I have... so much trouble reading this since it's just a mess of punctuation marks and other grammar issues - you don't have to write perfectly, but at least put some effort into it.

> How is 1.2 Million pounds a day per 6pound average birth, in gains, 'to simplify it' via more birth rates than loses, not a gain state?

When a baby is born, do you believe that the mass just comes into existence? The Earth loses significantly more mass due to atmospheric escape than it gains via dust and meteorites. It gains significant energy from the Sun via sunlight, which can be bound into states (via photosynthesis, for instance) which does have a notable effect on things, though. However, most of the matter even in a tree is derived basically from the carbon in the atmosphere.

You posted this same nonsense twice.

Net loss. ~100,000 tons lost (atmospheric escape), 45,000 tons gained.

No. Earth does not gain mass when humans increase in number.

> 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.

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.