Thread:Janus100/@comment-25412203-20181217015809/@comment-27794543-20181218041558

First, you were the one who removed the source on July 29th, causing the cite error. This is how references looked on July 29th before you caused the error and this is how it looked after your removal. Notice the bold red letters in the reference section that YOU caused.

That remained until December 15, see here. Then on December 16, YOU made two edits: one & two. YOUR first edit caused the bold red letters, i.e. the cite error message, to move from the reference section into the actual article text and YOUR second edit hid the cite error. Combined, your two edits did this, i.e. concealed the cite error by claiming "name=ibt170525" is the source.

Then, I went and fixed things. First by recognizing that "name=ibt170525" is not a website nor an appropriate source and second by recovering the source you deleted. Thus, I actually fixed the cite error, unlike your "factual" concealment of it.

My annoyance here is not because of your accidental deletion of the source back in July. Nor is it due to your December 16th edits (even though they were bad edits). I'm annoyed because you're complaining that I reverted your "factual" edits which had nothing factual about them and were just concealing an error that you yourself created.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt above by saying that I don't expect you to know "all the technical details on how ref tags work", but you come back to say that you do know. Thus, I left with that you intentionally concealed the cite error and you intentionally claimed a user-created reference identifier, i.e. "name=ibt170525", is a website link and source for the information.

So, since it wasn't about lack of technical knowledge, why did you do this? Why did you think the appropriate way to fix a cite error was to claim "name=ibt170525" was the source? What is "factual" about this?