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 can not 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