SBVT 
I don't object to your content edit, but you blew away the citation referencing I did on the existing source. That's lazy editing. I spent a great number of hours formatting over 100 citations on that article so that it would have nice complete footnotes, and I don't appreciate having the sweat of my labor turned into an inline URL that might go dead in a month. Please take more care in the future. -  

Lazy editing is removing factual information which you could have sourced in 3 seconds work. I'd say content is considerably more important than formatting a citation prettily. Derex 
 Excuse me, but I spent five minutes formatting that source, including verifying what was in the article. My edit was proper. It brought the claim in line with the source provided. Your edit removed a valid citation, and replaced it with a simple inline link, which works against the interest of the project. A cite is still valid with a dead link, if the publishing info is there. But when an inline link goes dead without that information, it is much more difficult to find again. I know, because I had to chase down about a third of the citations in that article over the past couple of weeks. So don't get snarky with me. Just have a little respect for the work of others, and be a little more careful next time. -  

Excuse me, but I spent 3 seconds finding a source for that, including reading the google synopsis of the very top hit. Please don't remove trivially sourced content from Wikipedia, which works against the interest of the project. My edit removed neither facts nor citations. Pretty formatting is all very nice, but this is an encylopedia. There is nothing at all wrong with adding inline links, as I did, particularly when they support the facts in an article. My edit was proper. So don't get snarky with me. Just have a little respect for the factual content added by others, and be a little more careful next time. - Derex 
 Not one of my edits removed the source that the anon editor provided. WP:ATT requires that the editor inserting the claim source it properly. The claim did not match the source, so I simply adjusted it during the primary act of adding actual citation information to to URL. According to WP:ATT, it is not my responsibility to further source every claim that an anon adds to an article. It is my responsibility, according to an agreement made on the talk page, to properly cite all the sources that were in the article, so that they may be further verified. A proper citation, with author, title, publisher, and date, is always preferable (even with NO url) to a simple URL. If some high school kid is researching at the library, and he finds a good citation, he can look that article up on microfiche, but if all that is there is a dead link, he's screwed. Now you can keep deluding yourself that you are right and I am wrong, but no one is going to buy that line of bullshit. If you continue to undo the improvement of source citations that I am doing, the you and I are going to have a big problem. -