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 wptruth wpverifable wprs wpnor and wpnor 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       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 youll insist on a source for that too    Seriously you are mistaken on a few points I think you need to read WPVERIFY 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 cant 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 dont need to cite a source for this particular instance of the claim    And second except for BLP issues WPV only states that unsourced material that needs a source may be removed This material didnt need a source and even if it did it isnt required to remove it right away Even for claims that really should have a citation to a WPRS the polite and widely accepted thing to do is to add a citation needed template See templatecn This is a much less abrasive thing to do to someones 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 thats already there and then cite that same ref from my new text as well No its 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 WPVERIFY you should probably look at WPVANDALISM  Even if misguided willfully against consensus or disruptive any goodfaith 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 wellintentioned and vandalizing Mislabelling goodfaith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful emphasis added  jeh   You should probably also read WPAGF to see what good faith means and what you are supposed to do about assuming it     In sum Please be careful about undoing others edits until you are more familiar with the actual prescriptions of things like WPVERIFY 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 editwarring so the statement that you dont have any here is troubling Why would you need to state such a thing if not for the possibility that you might have s