SBVT  I dont object to your content edit but you blew away the citation referencing I did on the existing source Thats lazy editing I spent a great number of hours formatting over  citations on that article so that it would have nice complete footnotes and I dont 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  seconds work Id say content is considerably more important than formatting a citation prettily    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 dont 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  seconds finding a source for that including reading the google synopsis of the very top hit Please dont 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 dont get snarky with me Just have a little respect for the factual content added by others and be a little more careful next time     Not one of my edits removed the source that the anon editor provided WPATT 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 WPATT 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 hes 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