User:HLHJ/Sandboxes/TemplateSandbox

You removed some uncited content, and I think you might not have had to.

Policy requires that all statements be citable, but not that they be cited. Citations are always desirable, but rarely mandatory (exceptions). An editor may remove an uncited statement if they think it is unverifiable (no supporting reliable source exists, or the balance of reliable sources indicates that the statement is false). Wikipedia's verifiability policy recommends that editors removing uncited content say that they think the content is unverifiable (and why), for instance in the edit summary. Significant amounts of useful content are added by new editors, who often initially don't cite sources. If newbies' edits are reverted, their chances of becoming regular editors drop from three-in-five to one-in-five, but if their edits get personalized constructive criticism, like inline tags, their chances actually rise. They take corrective feedback as praise and learn to fix their own edits.

Tagging may also not be necessary; as with content removal, editors should tag only if they doubt the statement is verifiable, and they should say why. Wikipedia's editing policy is tag or remove content only if you can't reasonably fix it yourself (say, because it is unverifiable, or the sources are paywalled or in a language you don't understand, or you lack the expertise; replacing an uncited statement with a cited contradicting statement is a perfectly acceptable fix).

Promptly reverting bad-faith editors, like spammers and vandals, is always appropriate, and "spam" or "rvv" are sufficient reason. We want to discourage editors who aren't even trying to help, and there is evidence that immediate reversion is very discouraging. As reverts of well-intended and excellent-quality first edits have increased, the chances that those new editors will keep editing have fallen. Wikipedia is currently slowly dying as more editors leave than join.