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.[1] 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.[2]
Significant amounts of useful content are added by new editors, who often initially don't cite sources.[3] 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.[4] They take corrective feedback as praise[5] 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.[2]Wikipedia's editing policy is tag or remove content only if you can't reasonably fix it yourself[6] (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,[7] the chances that those new editors will keep editing have fallen.[8] Wikipedia is currently slowly dying as more editors leave than join.
The prohibition against original research means that all material added to articles must be verifiable in a reliable, published source, even if not already verified via an inline citation.[OR 1] The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. For example, the statement "the capital of France is Paris" does not require a source to be cited, nor is it original research, because it's not something you thought up and it is easily verifiable; therefore, no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it even if they are not cited. The statement is verifiable, even if not verified.
[Footnote in original policy text]
^By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.
When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that it may not be possible to find a published reliable source, and the material therefore may not be verifiable.[V 1]
[Footnote in original policy text]
^When tagging or removing such material, please keep in mind such edits can easily be misunderstood. Some editors object to others making chronic, frequent, and large-scale deletions of unsourced information, especially if unaccompanied by other efforts to improve the material. Do not concentrate only on material of a particular point of view, as that may appear to be a contravention of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, check to see whether the material is sourced to a citation elsewhere on the page. For all these reasons, it is advisable to clearly communicate that you have a considered reason to believe the material in question cannot be verified. If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it.
Great Wikipedia articles come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.
As explained above, Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research.
^new editors who keep editing for at least 6 months has fallen from ~35% to 10%, both for new editors who who make excellent edits and those who make problematic but well-intended edits; see Meta:Research:Newcomer quality#The source of the decline
You removed some uncited content, and I think you might not have had to.