I was blocked by William M. Connolley at 0911, on 16 November 2006, for breaking The Three-Revert Rule in relation to the Michael Shields article.
First, I did not know about this rule, being fairly new here.
Second, according to the rules, I should've been warned first, not blocked immediately.
As for why I persisted in reverting this article is because the article I reverted to was an already IMPROVED version where I'd complied with previous complaints by other editors relating to the version of 01:59, 29 October 2006.
More specifically:
1) One complaint was that some of the statements in the article were unreferenced.
I provided all the lacking references for the parts in question in my newer version.
Later editors keep on simply deleting these parts even though they ARE referenced now.
2) Another concerned the POV status of the article.
Several Bulgarian visitors/editors have expressed their displeasure with the article, saying (on the Talk page) that it is too unbalanced in presenting too many (unsupported) claims attempting to discredit the Bulgarian court decision WITHOUT presenting the Bulgarian court evidence against Michael Shields.
In particular, user Goldie was unhappy about the Forgotten Fan documentary claims, which are numerous (and taking up a lot of space) but none are properly referenced, thus making him regard all these claims as unverifiable.
Therefore, I think that the POV tag should stay for the time being until someone comes up with a better version of this article.
3) I've also kept the later grammar editing, as well as making some additional minor factual corrections - like putting a more precise figure for the weight of the stone (attempted murder weapon) in my newest version.
So why all my edits should simply be ignored I don't know