as daft as it sounds yes if it ca nt 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 is nt 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