==Michael Redd III a.k.a. Why I accused you of vandalism== 
 :It's not necessarily vandalism (although negotiable, see below), but I knew it would get your attention. 

 :1.) You need to post reasons for your edits, especially if you are reverting the edits made by others. Anyone can change Wikipedia; you do not own Wikipedia or the means by which it operates. If you undo somebody's work, you must say why. 

 :2.) We have discussed the nickname citations before on your talk page and resolved that it should remain the way it is, without citations. I was very hospitable, and we did hammer out a conclusion. About a week later, however, you went ahead and changed it again, claiming that a citation was "blocked up," despite the fact that the citation you reverted to had nothing to do with the point it was supposed to validate. 

 :3.) The article was locked because of this edit war. It was lifted presuming that you had relented, and then you came back anyway. Didn't you notice that it was locked at one point? 

 :4.) Every time I undo your edits with those useless, clutterful links, I tell you to check the discussion page. Have you ever, even once, checked there? I have my rationale listed in point form, so anyone can understand. That fact that you ask "And why are you re-instating uncited material," tells me that out of the million times I have directed you to the discussion page, you have never checked it. 

 :5.) I do know what vandalism is, and I believe that reversing useful information is vandalism. In your last edit, you undid two interesting items from the Trivia section. If I went and undid all of the work that you did in any given page, that would be vandalism because I would be tearing down established material and, if I were like you, I wouldn't give a reason. 

 :I posted this also on my talk page so you might see it there as well. Sorry to sound harsh, but that's the way it is. It does not need a citation for the reasons I have stated in the discussion page, and a moderator has agreed with me in this instance although not in all instances, so it is not a general rule. As I have mentioned before, the spirit of Wikipedia is more important than the letter because, in theory, you could cite every sentence and maybe every word in an article, but nobody expects you to because of the vague "debatable" guideline. Everything is potentially dubious and debatable, so do we cite everything? I think I explained it better in the discussion page... please consult. (A more harsh version that is bias against you as a user is listed above in the "Blocked for Edit Warring" section; regrettably crude, but it contains some of my general points.)