Ok, first off, let me clarify that reverting is when you undo someone else's edit (yes, it does include the re-addition of material that has been removed by another user). Your use of the word "vandalism" is incorrect in this case, because everything that you have been involved in so far is classified as a "content dispute", since you and your opponents have been disputing whether certain text should be included. This is not a case of vandalism (this is, for example). Secondly, many of the users that you have been reverting or the ones that have been reverting you are on the same restrictions, so IMO now everyone is equal, and no one is "winning" or "losing". What I've tried to explain to you is that edit wars get nothing accomplished. You keep reverting and reverting, and then someone reverts you, and the cycle continues. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to go back-and-forth like that. The only real way you get something accomplished is by discussing it with other users, in the hopes that you can form a compromise, or consensus. To answer your numbered questions:
After we last spoke you continued to revert (, , , ). On Sason, you reverted 3 times in the last 24 hours. Even though you came close to breaking the three-revert rule (which you were blocked for on May 31), three reverts is not some sort of magic barrier that prevents you from being blocked. An admin could have easily blocked you for simply edit warring. This is the type of stuff that occurred on Armenian-Azeri pages for example before the arbitration case. After that many users were placed on editing restrictions, a lot of the problems were solved. Aggressive editing can be characterized as constant edit warring, and basically a method of getting your version of the article by constant reverting as opposed to discussion. Is is the exact opposite of what is outlined at WP:1RR. Even if you believe the information you are adding is NPOV, if it is contested by several users, the best thing is to discuss it with them, and once you have come to an agreement, to implement that version. 
I'm sure you've tried to be civil, but here I notice you referring to your opponents as "vandals", this is inappropriate because as I explained above, you're involved in a content dispute here. If other users have personally attacked you, please show me links of this and I will warn them. It is never acceptable to do so.
Yes, it is possible. You can get mentored at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. Wiki-adoption was created back in 2006 as a program designed to help new and inexperienced users.
Although you may disagree with him, it is within Namsos' right to nominate an article for deletion if he believes it is non-notable. However, as you can see from the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erich Feigl, it appears that many users there are deciding to keep the article, so I'm not sure that it matters anyways. Everything that you mention (awards, documentaries, books, Google hits, etc.) can be mentioned at the AfD (articles for deletion page). I have noticed that you've already made a comment there already. Make sure to keep an eye on that page, the discussion is typically open for five days.
I don't know the specifics about why your sources were removed, but if you feel like you're not getting anywhere with these disputes, you might try posting something at the Reliable Sources noticeboard if there is a dispute on whether your sources are valid or not. Another option is the new Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. Finally, after you have made all attempts at resolving the conflict (including those two links I gave you), and you still feel like nothing has been accomplished, you can check out formal mediation. There, a mediator will get involved and act as a third party.
I hope all that I have said is helpful. Please feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any further questions/comments. khoi