So?

I reverted you at Марий Эл because your "etymology" of a Mari term consisted of telling what some source said was its translation- three sources to back up basically nothing.

At Ural, you randomly interspersed a bunch of different bits of information into the etymology, referenced with: a reference to a blank page that required a non-functioning link to Google Books and a link to Cambridge University Press to document it, several references to an on-line survival encyclopedia, links to Wikipedia articles, including one that doesn't exist, a reference to some newspaper I've never heard of, and a link to a Books so that readers can verify that the referenced sentence is a plagiarism and a copyright violation. The end result is a mangled mess that includes two copies of the original etymology, doesn't make sense as a whole, and doesn't begin to meet Wiktionary's formatting requirements.

As for Tibet, please see my query at the Etymology scriptorium.

On the whole, you keep adding the same substandard, semi-random crap to etymologies and assume that it's being reverted only because we can't handle the truth. It's true that I have serious doubts about your content, but mostly I don't want to see you making an unreadable mess out of our etymologies.