`  == 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 isn't 2006, and if we ever had hordes of editors willing to chase down references tagged as missing we don't now.     : I believe you're referring to Vellum. The line I removed was tagged as an opinion. That's why I removed it. It's also entirely appropriate to removed material that's 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 don't think you are doing something useful. you aren't. 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 don't believe that's true. The principle doesn't 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 you're sure about.   :::It's true. You are of course very welcome to add references yourself, but of course that's 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. That's why I am not adding it. That's, again, a central principle of wikipedia: don't include text without sourcing. I'm not really sure what you're 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 you're sure you can add the sourcing that makes you sure. The line about membrane is hardly crucial to the article. Removing it doesn't ``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 can't source it, whether in the ``usual way`` or not, there's 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 doesn't otherwise mention museums or their use of the term whatsoever.   `