I see that you routinely revert unsourced edits with the edit summary "Reverted addition of dubious unsourced content." The particular edit which caught my attention, a table of leading goaltenders in the 1967 NHL season, is correct in every particular. The very next such edit of yours I checked has you claiming as "dubious" and "unsourced" changing the 'years active' date of a band planning an October release from "aug 2010" to "present." Among others is one where you use the tag to revert an item with the source and date named in the edit you reverted, and your marking as "dubious" that The Graduate soundtrack reached the top of the Billboard album chart on April 6, 1968 (which, in fact, it did) and was knocked off by the album Bookends on May 25 (which, in fact, it was). IMHO, it's a WP:AGF and WP:BITE violation both to hurl the word "dubious" at people when, in fact, the edits in question are accurate, and take only moments to ascertain whether or not they are. It is insulting to others to routinely categorize their edits as "dubious" and careless to do so indiscriminately without any notion as to whether they actually are.