"

 as daft as it sounds yes, if it cant be verified it gets removed plain and simple i suggest you reread these core wikipedia policies wp:truth wp:verifable wp:rs wp:nor and wp:nor i hav enot intentions in edit warring with you over it but be warned since it isnt sourced anyone can remove it and report you for vandelism. (talk - contrib) 

 (As it says on my talk page, I prefer to have discussions all in the same place. I am watching this page, so please reply here. To this end I have taken the liberty of moving your previous reply here.)

 So if I add a statement that there are no vacuum tubes in SSDs either, you'll insist on a source for that too? 

 Seriously, you are mistaken on a few points. I think you need to read WP:VERIFY yourself: 

  All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. (emphasis added - jeh) 

 Note the distinction. You wrote ""if it can't be verified it gets removed"". But, first, the claim that SSDs contain no disks obviously can be verified. Not only is it part of the definition of the term, the very first reference in that very article confirms this claim in its description of these devices. So, no, we don't need to cite a source for this particular instance of the claim. 

 And second, except for BLP issues, WP:V only states that unsourced material that needs a source may be removed. This material didn't need a source, and even if it did, it isn't required to remove it right away. Even for claims that really should have a citation to a WP:RS, the polite and widely accepted thing to do is to add a ""citation needed"" template. See template:cn. This is a much less abrasive thing to do to someone's edit rather than simply reverting it. 

 I suppose you could say ""well, since I removed it, its verifiability has been challenged so now it does require a source."" Yeah, fine. So I go to the work of adding a reference name to one of the refs that's already there, and then cite that same ref from my new text as well. No, it's not much work, but consider: Does it really improve the article to add a reference footnote number to a statement that is as obviously true as this one? Is adding that little footnote number really the best use of my time here? Was it the best use of yours? And will this little challenge you raised over a completely trivial edit and obvious claim make me feel more or less eager to contribute to WP in the future? 

 Also: In my edit I merely noted that despite the term ""solid state disk"" there are no actual ""disks"" inside these devices. In your edit comment you said ""since they refer to it is a disk we must to [sic]"". Well, that is true, but my edit did not remove any reference to the terms ""solid state disk"" or ""electronic disk"" from the article, nor even claim that such were wrong. So your edit comment was off point and provided no valid justification for your action. 

 Finally, I must point out that you are wrong about vandalism. The fact is that edits made in good faith are not generally considered vandalism. After reading WP:VERIFY you should probably look at WP:VANDALISM:

Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful. (emphasis added - jeh)

 You should probably also read WP:AGF to see what ""good faith"" means and what you are supposed to do about assuming it.  

 In sum: Please be careful about undo'ing others' edits until you are more familiar with the actual prescriptions of things like WP:VERIFY. Consider using the CN template rather than reverting unsourced material. Please think carefully before tossing around words like ""vandalism"". 

 And you should never have ""intentions of edit-warring"", so the statement that you don't have any here is troubling. Why would you need to state such a thing, if not for the possibility that you might have s