It's no secret that I'm not a native english speaker. I'm aware of my limits in handling english language. However I still can't see what would be so "improper" in what I wrote, considering the formulation is exactly what native english speakers could read on a website made by a native english speaker.
Maybe the formulation wasn't clear enough (since someone else corrected it already), but I still don't see it as "improper". This goes back to the difference between a neutral comment on my edits, and a bad-faith attack on my person. I hope you'll remember all this in our future exchanges (because no, I won't "go away" and I predict many more clashes like that).

Concerning the following part of your message...These are things I already talked about weeks ago. Obviously you didn't bother reading what I wrote, and you still haven't read any of the Wikipedia documentation for contributors.
WP is a free and open encyclopedia, that anyone can edit at any time. None of its articles are ever finished, they can always be corrected, or deeply reworked. 
It's not my problem if unappropriate edits were made before I decided to modify the article. There has not been any consensus discussion that had approved your section, but anyway I'll note that even  consensus can change. As you can see, WP is based on flexibility.
And I think I have argued enough, I have explained enough why I considered your section had to be replaced. Honestly, I have not mentionned any personal problem against you or any other questionable motivation, I only remarked that rules had been ignored during the writing of that section, and thus it needed to go.
So, to finish with all that, it is not up to you to decide which article can be edited and which cannot be, or which contributor can edit which article. Because these articles do not belong to you. They belong to Wikipedia, and as I'm a part of Wikipedia, I'm also entitled to modify this article.
You've also the right not to agree with certain edits. In that case, to enforce your opinion, then you need to justify it and to explain what aspect of the rules could prevent a certain edit to be made. However, you do not have the right to prevent edits from being made just because you feel the article belongs to you and that you think your contributions are just perfect and don't need improvement.
You have no right to declare an article closed to further modifications just because you like it the way it is.

What really strikes me in your behavior, is that you actually don't give a damn about the content. Not once since you came to this talk page you bothered to argue about the actual content being discussed, nor tried to show if the rules would allow it. No, what mattered for you was only to find ways to assert your domination on articles. You're not fighting to justify or find qualities in the content, you're just fighting for a right to control articles, to maintain your version as the definite and perfect one, and to prevent people you don't like to touch articles.

This is completely anti-wikipedian. So read No ownership of articles and please stop disrupting WP. If I have to go through a dispute resolution process to make you stop, then I will do it next time you revert me again. 
And as I don't see any content discussion here, I consider this debate finished and I won't waste my time answering your claims of ownership.