is a matter of people editing your contributions. Otherwise, why would you edit-war in order to include content that violates the rules (more particularly about OR) and that happens to be written by you ? A lot of OR has already been removed many times from many articles by many editors, including me. However you created conflicts only when your contributions were concerned, because you just cannot accept the idea that your holy edits wouldn't stay on WP. 
I'm not reverting "any change made by anyone", I am removing content that has nothing to do on Wikipedia, such as unsourced opinions and original research. Each time I'm removing something, it is always perfectly justified according to the WP policies and guidelines. However, each time you start an edit war, you're just unable to find anything to substanciate it, other than personal attacks. By the way, contributing to an article in any way, either by actually writing quality content (ie content that meet the requirements from various policies) or by removing the content that doesn't correspond to the WP standards, is work. So yes, I have worked on Eva articles. 
So, you are the hothead who throws childish trantrums each time someone "dares" to touch your Holy Writings, and who yell at me instead of trying to discuss with civility and to actually try to justify your edits. 
Concerning your nonesense about "authority", as Dandy Sephy reminded you, "consensus isn't require to write things, and things being changed is what wikipedia is about". 
Moreover, there is no need of consensus to remove obvious policy violations either (such as original research, unsourced opinions, etc. That is, everything I have removed from your contribs). 
On the contrary, as it is stated in WP:V, "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". I know very well what the next part of the sentence recommands, but it only highlights the fact that there is no need of discussion, only that the editor wanting to re-include the content has the duty to find a source, and not endlessly argue that editors should be allowed to write unsourced OR.
There is also the Jimmy Wales quote: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."
So if you're not ready to accept that anyone can remove your edits, you should not contribute.
What you're saying is indeed utter nonesense. Nowhere in WP is it stated that I would need your approval before removing your contribs (whether I'd just be wanting to replace them with something entirely different, or they'd be blatant policy violations), and indeed Wikipedia is not going to tolerate policy violations just so that some contributors could maintain their grasps on articles and their pride. When I remove content, it is always according to the most basic rules of WP so there's no discussing it. It is not authority, it is applying the rules of WP, and I can't see why they wouldn't apply to you.
By the way, you're reproaching me a so-called "authority", but it doesn't seem to bother you to reinsert your content back into the article without any discussion of without any justification concerning the various policies and guidelines. You should not give lessons about authority in these circumstances.
In conclusion, your multiple and failed attempts at article ownership have only slowed down improvements, as your silly argument is doing now. You'd better either start showing you can write the actual quality content that you're boasting about, or stop whining.  

So everything you're saying is utter nonesense. 
It