Unsourced material   Having looked at a few of your recent edits I have to say that a high proportion of them seem unhelpful to the project to me You mainly remove material which is a classic warning sign Your judgement as to what is POV seems idiosyncratic and often poor You feel justified in removing uncited material on a somewhat random basis This is generally not very helpful  unfortunately there is not much difference between the overall accuracy of cited and uncited material on Wikipedia and unfortunately the proportion of uncited material is high  Removing it very often just leaves gaps that weaken the article This isnt  and if we ever had hordes of editors willing to chase down references tagged as missing we dont now      I believe youre referring to Vellum The line I removed was tagged as an opinion Thats why I removed it Its also entirely appropriate to removed material thats united since verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia  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   And then it may be put back again if needed with any tags I repeat please dont think you are doing something useful you arent Note the wording of the policy any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged  you should challenge it first by tagging     I dont believe thats true The principle doesnt state that one must tag all material first before one can remove it As it says   Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed The best way for you to fix this problem would be to provide sourcing to support the accuracy of the information youre sure about   Its true You are of course very welcome to add references yourself but of course thats not as much fun as going round just zapping stuff     The line in in the article in question is Many libraries and museums increasingly use only the term membrane Depending on factors such as the method of preparation it may be very hard to determine the animal involved let alone the age of the animal without using a laboratory and the term avoids the need to distinguish between vellum and parchment I have not found sourcing to support the accuracy of that information Thats why I am not adding it Thats again a central principle of wikipedia dont include text without sourcing Im not really sure what youre asking for here   Just to leave it cite tagged and go away  do something useful It was already added  you removed it Two editors both of whom edit in the subject area have told you it is accurate     Come on you know how this works If youre sure you can add the sourcing that makes you sure The line about membrane is hardly crucial to the article Removing it doesnt leave a gap the weakens the article which was your original justification for including unsourced material    No how it works is this is relevant material as TWO editors have told you which happens to be difficult to source in the usual way It was tagged and should be left with its tags  I think your judgement as to what does and does not leave a gap poor as many of your edits show Your edits are unconstructive     Well editors cant source it whether in the usual way or not theres no reason to add the material Again  Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed The line is about museums use of the word That line is not essential to the flow or meaning of the article which doesnt otherwise mention museums or their use of the term whatsoever