User talk:Mrtego

Mrtego (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

. This page is an attack on Mr Graham and should be deleted or corrected of its misrepresentation of Mr Graham. This page also violates the law of a living person and should be deleted. This page dates of events is not Mrtego (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)accurate and should be changed to the the correct occurrence of the entire article. PLEASE read the true version of what accrue in the Balco investigation.

Trevor Graham: The Truth Behind The Headlines

Background to the Allegations

In summer 2003, Trevor Graham anonymously submitted a syringe to anti-doping authorities that contained a previously undetectable performance-enhancing drug. The substance was being distributed by Bay Area Laboratory Company (BALCO) and Victor Conte. Trevor was concerned about the composition of the contents of the syringe after being given it by CJ Hunter, the ex-husband of Marion Jones, and he urged authorities to investigate its content. A few months after turning in the syringe, Trevor spoke to the United States Anti-Doping Agency personnel (USADA) and made a formal enquiry as to what the substance contained. Once again no action was taken and Trevor continued his endeavors as a professional coach.

However, following Trevor’s submission of the mysterious substance, the USADA commenced communications with Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Special Agent Jeff Novitzky and advised him of the existence of the syringe. Formal investigations into illegal drug doping commenced, and Trevor Graham found himself accused of being a key player in the scandal as opposed to being recognized for his efforts to expose the use of illegal doping.

Process of Indictment

In October 2003, IRS special agents and local law enforcement agencies together with USADA personnel searched BALCO. Following this, they formed a panel of grand jurors in the San Francisco Bay, Ca. area. Many athletes were called to testify, including some of the athletes who Graham had previously trained. Meanwhile, Graham himself was sent an indictment but this was later revoked and he was absolved from testifying.

In the summer of 2004, Trevor received a call from IRS special agents Jeff Novitzky and Erwin Rogers. They informed Graham that they wished to talk with him regarding Victor Conte and a meeting was arranged in Raleigh, NC, at the office of Trevor Graham’s attorney. The meeting at Graham’s attorney’s office was held on June 8 2004 and was attended by Trevor Graham, Special IRS agents Novitzky and Rogers, Trevor’s wife Ann Graham (a seventeen year veteran of the Wake County Sheriff’s Department) and Trevor’s attorney Joseph Zeszotarski. Graham was extensively questioned about his relationship with BALCO and Victor Conte. Two hours into the interview, he was also questioned about an individual of the name Angel “Memo” Heredia, someone who was irrelevant to the BALCO investigation and Victor Conte.

In the summer of 2004, Graham was questioned once again about BALCO and Victor Conte, this time by the USADA. During the 2004 Olympics, American Justin Gatlin, one of the athletes Graham trained, won the 100m gold medal. Following his success, the media questioned Graham and asked if he was the individual responsible for anonymously submitting the syringe to the USADA. Graham publicly confirmed that he was, stating: “Yes: it was the right thing to do.” The following morning the media notified the world of Graham’s actions, accusing him of bringing disgrace to the sport. Almost overnight Trevor Graham went from being a celebrated, highly successful professional coach to the world’s most hated track and field trainer, all on the basis that he had requested an inquiry into the contents of the products being distributed by Bay Area Laboratory Company (BALCO) and Victor Conte.

Thursday, August 3, 2006; 3:42 PM in COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. The U.S. Olympic Committee banned track coach Trevor Graham from its training centers and training sites. Chairman Peter Ueberroth made the announcement in a conference call and said the ban was "permanent."

On November 2nd, 2006, Graham was formally indicted by a San Francisco grand jury for three counts of lying to a federal agency (IRS). The Washington post head line stated: Trevor Graham, the track coach who helped launch the federal investigation of steroid use by elite athletes is now also facing charges in the BALCO case.

Graham was not charged by local authorities in his own jurisdiction of Raleigh, North Carolina. The following day, the USADA presented him with a further charge of violating the world anti-doping codes (WADA). Following advice from his attorney, on 16 November 2006, Graham attended his first court appearance in San Francisco, accompanied by Gail Shifman a San Francisco attorney. Graham pleaded not guilty to the federal charges and was released on a secured bond of $250,000. 

Flaws with the indictment

There are several issues concerning Graham’s indictment that have yet to be resolved and that individuals interested in the case and Graham’s professional standing should be aware of.

Graham agreed to being questioned in relation to BALCO and Victor Conte’s illegal activities. However, the charges later administered against him were not related to these activities but to the information he gave about Angel “Memo” Heredia a resident of Texas in his interview. Evidence produced during the trial indicated that it was not until the special agent’s meeting with CJ Hunter (which took place two hours prior to their meeting with Graham), that they noted the name Angel “Memo” Heredia. During this interview with CJ Hunter, the agents asked Mr. Hunter how to spell Angel “Memo” Heredia’s name. This was interesting since he undisputedly had no relationship to BALCO or Victor Conte and their lack of knowledge of the spelling of his name was indicative of the fact that they had not previously planned on discussing this individual with Graham during the meeting that was planned later that day.

On January of 2007, Graham’s attorney, Gail Shifman, was taken ill and was unable to make a court appearance in Graham’s defense. Without advising Graham, she also asked for a continuance to several of his court appearances; her request was granted. In April 2007, Zeszotarski flew to Colorado to hold a meeting with the USOC. Graham was not initially informed of this meeting and only inadvertently found out about it from his probation officer. When Mr. Zeszotarski arrived back in Raleigh, NC, he did not mention this meeting with the USOC to Graham and around this time Graham also observed a general change in Zeszotarski’s attitude toward him. In spring 2007, Joseph Zeszotarski arranged for a “stay” to be put in place with the Court of American Arbitration Association (AAA) until after the criminal trial had concluded.

Sometime during the months of July and August 2007, Gail Shifman again mysteriously disappeared for weeks in the middle of preparing for Graham’s trial. After relentlessly attempting to locate her, Graham called a meeting with his attorney, who disclosed that he had no knowledge of her whereabouts. He alleged she was delaying the trial in order to give Graham time to accept a plea bargain and that the agents were gathering evidence on Marion Jones. Several days later, she contacted Graham stating that she was ill and hospitalized; no confirmation was given. Graham did not mention the opinion his attorney had offered regarding her use of delaying tactics.

In October 3th, 2007, Marion Jones, one of Trevor Graham’s former athletes, pleaded guilty in New York to a check-fraud scheme that related to her and the biological father of her son and for making many false statements to IRS agent Jeff Novitzky regarding her use of performance enhancing drugs. AS part of Jones preferred agreement, Jones agree to plead guilty to one count of false statements under Title 18 USC 1001. Jones also agree to publicly state that she received the performance enhancing drug “the clear” through Trevor Graham. Because of Jones agreement, the Northern California U.S Attorney Office forego prosecution of her for perjury. Despite the fact that the grand jury in San Francisco California had twice denied the agent’s request for an indictment.

A few days later, Graham had another meeting with his attorney. Gail Shifman was on speakerphone. Once again, Graham was urged to accept the plea and during this conference meeting Gail requested that he flew to San Francisco to meet personally with her. Graham agreed and during the subsequent meeting he continually refused to accept the plea agreement and was subsequently advised that both Gail Shifman and Joseph Zeszotarski would not represent him during the forthcoming trial. Graham was shocked by his attorney’s insistence that he accept a guilty plea, despite the fact they both knew he was innocent and that the statute of limitations had expired.

In November 2007, Graham wrote to Joseph Zeszotarski voicing his frustration and disappointment at the way he had been treated. A meeting was subsequently held in Zeszotarski’s Raleigh office. Although Graham had assumed the meeting was in relation to his dealings with the USOC and thus was intended to prepare him for trial, he was surprised to find that it was attended by Gail Shifman on speaker phone. Once again, he found himself under pressure to accept a plea agreement, which he adamantly declined, insisting on attending trial to prove his innocence. Graham once again reminded them that the statute of limitations had expired and that Joseph Zeszotarski knew he was innocent.

A few days later, a further meeting was held and once again Graham was pressurized by Joseph Zeszotarski with Gail Shifman on speakerphone to accept a plea bargain. However, this time a written plea agreement was presented to Graham. As per all previous meetings, he adamantly refused. His decision to refuse the plea angered Shifman, who insisted that she would not represent him in court if he continued to refuse to sign the document. In her desperation, she swore at Graham and questioned the promiscuity of his wife should he find himself in prison. Graham briefly left the meeting to call his wife to inform her of what had been said. She advised him to do what he thought was right. While on the phone to his wife, Graham overheard Gail asking Zeszotarski: “Do you think that mother fucker will take the plea?” After ending the phone call, Graham returned to the attorney’s office and advised them once again that he was innocent and therefore would not be accepting any plea agreement. The attorneys informed him that they would not represent him in the trial and wished him well.

In November 2007, Zeszotarski, Shifman and Graham met with the same judge who had signed the original indictment and Graham was advised to seek new counsel. Upon leaving the courtroom, in the presence of Zeszotarski, Gail Shifman handed Graham an envelope that contained trial evidence he had not previously seen. Zeszotarski also informed Graham that he would represent him in the USADA case; however, Graham refused his assistance, informing him that he did not want the help of someone who had attempted to force him to plea guilty to a crime he did not commit. Graham no longer had faith in Zeszotarski’s judicial duties. A few weeks later, attorneys William Keane and Paul Aldorf were appointed to represent Graham in court.

In May 2008, Jeff Novitzky left his job at the IRS to work for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). During the trial in San Francisco, Ca. Mr. Novitzky introduced himself as an agent for the FDA and failed to mention his previous position at the IRS. As such, the jurors were never informed of the true nature of Novizky’s involvement in this case.

During the trial no material witnesses were called to testify about the BALCO investigation and no evidence pertaining to this investigation was presented. Graham’s written interview with the IRS agents was also not presented. The only witnesses that were called were affiliated with Angel “Memo” Heredia, a resident of the state of Texas. The evidence that was presented to the jurors was an unwarranted illegal wire tapping conversation and Graham’s phone records from 1998-2000. Some of the athletes Graham had previously trained were forced to testify against him. For example, Antonio Pettigrew, a former athlete of Graham’s, was forced to testify. In 2001 he had retired from competing in track and field events and was an established track and field coach at the University of North Carolina. After taking the stand in the presence of the USADA, he was later banned from practicing for two years. This ruined his career and his reputation and he later committed suicide in the back seat of his car.

Following the trial, Graham was found guilty of one (1) count of lying to a federal agency (IRS) about his phone record. The other two counts where dismissed by the government.

In June 2008, while the case was being prepared for sentencing, Joseph E. Zeszotarski, Jr. wrote a letter to the USADA giving them permission to lift the “stay” that had been put in place until the criminal case was closed. On July 10th, 2008, Joseph Zeszotarski wrote to the USADA waiving Graham’s rights to a hearing with the Court of Arbitration and gave them permission to ban Graham from coaching for life. The USADA was aware that Joseph E. Zeszotarski, Jr. had recused himself from representing Graham back in November 2007. The USADA continually pursued in writing and Electronic Mail to Joseph E. Zeszotarski, Jr. regarding the “stay” that was granted by the Court of Arbitration on behalf of Graham’s written request to them. Joseph Zeszotarski knew at the time of waiving Graham’s rights that there was nothing the USADA could have done to penalize Graham because he had not violated the world Anti Doping Code and had not been convicted of doing so. On July 15, 2008, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) released a news bulletin that Trevor Graham was banned for life from participating in any capacity by the United States Olympic Committee, USA Track and Field, the International Association of Athletics Federations, and any other signatory to the World Anti-Doping Code, as a result of his conviction in the instant offense. Christina Carrubba, a United States Probation Officer, spoke with Travis Tygart, the Chief Executive Officer of USADA. He stated that the defendant's conduct has caused tremendous damage on an international scale. Mr. Tygart reported that USADA utilized several hundreds of thousands of dollars and a large amount of time investigating the defendant's claims. Although he revealed that between 12 and 25 of the athletes who had tested positive for the use of performance-enhancing drugs or had been banned from competition had been coached by the defendant, to this day the USADA has not provided any evidence to support this statement. This false statement was issued by Travis Tygart in an attempt to send Mr. Graham to prison.

On August 19, 2008, the AAA collaborated with the USADA and the panel member who had been chosen by Graham was never informed or made aware of the proceedings. All correspondence was sent to Graham’s former attorney Joseph E. Zeszotarski, Jr. instead of directly to Graham. Only the Arbitrator can grant an award based on the evidence; however, the Court of Arbitration was never notified of any correspondence of any decision regarding the waiving of Graham’s rights. USADA can suggest a sanction but the final decision lies solely on the Court of Arbitration. The USADA and Joseph Zeszotarski in collaboration became judge and jury. To this day Graham does not know who paid Joseph Zeszotarski for his services.

On October 2008, Graham was sentenced under the 2007 sentencing guidelines as a “Class D Felon” by the United States Court. This felony class follows the same guidelines as that applied to criminals who are convicted of more serious cases of drug trafficking. Graham was fined $5,000, placed on five years probation, awarded 500 hours of community service and placed under one year home confinement. Graham’s attorney, William Keane, informed him that he should remain silent on the case for two years and that, should he want to file an appeal, he would need to seek new counsel.

This case represented a serious violation of Graham’s civil rights as follows:

1. Removal from area of jurisdiction:

Graham was removed from his area of jurisdiction, Raleigh North Carolina and was forced to defend himself in San Francisco, Ca. This represented a violation of his civil rights as he was taken out of his residence without official permission from the Governor or Wake County authorities. Based on North Carolina Ordinances for individual residence, the authorities should have notified Graham and charged him in his home county instead of administering the charges outside his area of jurisdiction. The fact the court hearing took place in San Francisco made it virtually impossible for Graham to call witnesses in his defense because he lacked the monetary funds required to pay for their travel expenses and stay in hotels.

2. The statute of limitations pertaining to the charges against Graham had expired. Yet the case continued until November 2008.

Furthermore, Graham was unable to subpoena witnesses in his defense because the trial took place almost ten years after the alleged crime and many of the individuals who were in a position to support Graham’s plea of innocence were retired or had moved on with their personal lives.

3. The charges related to the athletes Graham trained, not himself.

Graham was indicted for charges that were irrelevant to him but were related to the athletes he had trained between 1997 and 2000.

4. The process of the investigation was illegal

Graham was illegally questioned during the process of the investigation. Prior to Graham’s initial meeting with the IRS they informed him that the purpose of the interview was to discuss BALCO and Victor Conte and how he had come into contact with the syringe. At no point was Heredia mentioned. Graham answered truthfully to all questions put to him during the three-hour interview. If CJ Hunter had not mentioned Heredia to the IRS officers a few hours before the meeting, they never would have questioned Graham about this individual.

All charges pertained to Graham’s relationship with “Memo”. Interestingly, to date Angel “Memo” Heredia has yet to be charged with any criminal activities and is not under investigation. Phone recordings presented at the trial and used as evidence had been illegally collected, without a warrant.

The USDADA ruling also represented a serious violation of Graham’s rights as follows:

1) Graham was never given an opportunity to appear before the Court of Arbitration to defend himself.

Graham’s former attorney, whom the USADA knew was no longer representing him, was provided with an opportunity to waive Graham’s rights without his permission. Although the USADA had Graham’s contact details on file and had plenty of opportunity to get in touch with him and not his ex-attorney, he was never notified of the fact that his attorney had waived his rights on his behalf. Despite the fact that there was a stay put in place until the criminal trial was concluded, something that all parties were aware of, the USADA progressed to issue a lifetime coaching ban to Graham without giving a reason. The world anti-doping code, where no hearing occurs, the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility should submit to the persons described in Article 13.2.3 a reasoned decision explaining the action taken. No such decision was ever received by Graham.

According to the USOC and the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (TSOASA): USOC Due Process requires that an athlete or coach has a hearing before being declared ineligible [§220522 (a)(8)].

USOC Due Process Checklist: The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (TSOASA) requires that an athlete or coach has a hearing before being declared ineligible [§220522 (a)(8)]. The USOC recommends the following be included in such a hearing: • Notice of the specific charges or alleged violations in writing, and possible consequences if the charges are found to be true; • Reasonable time between receipt of the notice of charges and the hearing within which to prepare a defense; • The right to have the hearing conducted at such a time and place so as to make it practicable for the person charged to attend; • A hearing before a disinterested and impartial body of fact finders; • The right to be assisted in the presentation of one’s case at the hearing, including the assistance of legal counsel, if desired; • The right to call witnesses and present oral and written evidence and argument; • The right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; • The right to have a record made of the hearing if desired; • The burden of proof shall be on the proponent of the charge, which burden shall be at least a “preponderance of the evidence” unless the NGB requires or provides for a higher burden of proof; • A written decision, with reasons therefore, based solely on the evidence of record, handed down in a timely fashion; • Written notice of appeal procedures, if the decision is adverse to the person charged, and prompt and fair adjudication of the appeal.

Before any action was taken by the USOC and USADA Graham should have been permitted a hearing before the American Arbitration Association. Furthermore, the USADA and USOC should have provided evidence and justification for their decision. Graham has never been given an opportunity to defend his name and in the absence of any documented evidence to support his ban, he is unable to file an appeal. As such, he stands accused with no means of defending himself and/or reinstating his reputation as a professional (and very successful) sports coach.

2) Graham was punished for the same offence by USADA and the Federal Government. Graham is innocent of all doping activities and was never found guilty of any offence relating to such activities in court. However, he is being punished for these crimes.

Today Trevor Graham continues the fight to clear his name. He remains the only professional coach to face discrimination of this level in the United States. Meanwhile, Victor Conte, the manufacturer and distributor of the banned substance remains a free man who continues to operate nutritional supplement businesses and Angel “Memo” Heredia continues to work with Olympic athletes.

Not done: this is the talk page for communicating with the user Mrtego (talk · contribs). Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Trevor Graham

Hi. I have no interest in disparaging Trevor's name. The opposite, in fact. That's why I introduced the interview and pointed out the critical whisteblowing role.

The recent edit you made is a bit difficult however because it has lots of seeming opinion and doesn't really use sources at all. Can we discuss it over and solve it together? Mr. Magoo (talk) 05:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• I made a section for discussion at Graham's talk page. You could take a look and offer some suggestions you had in mind. Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Trevor Graham, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jevansen (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

December 2019

Please stop adding unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did on Trevor Graham. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jevansen (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

i thought you said you didn't know who Mr Graham is. You know exactly who he isMrtego (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You got me. My name is Jeff Novitzky. Jevansen (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Racism is a bitch. I see you have noting better to do than to destroy a black mans image. Good luck to you, your action will get you very far in life Mrtego (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Trevor Graham. Jevansen (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

violation of neutral point of view Mrtego (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Mrtego. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Trevor Graham, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

There is many un source information that is stated about Trevor Graham that should be corrected for example Mr Graham turned in the syringe to destroy his rivalry. In 2004 Mr. Graham stated in his own words when ask by reporters why he turned in the syringe and he stated that he turned in the sample because it was the right thing to do. That statement about Mr. Grahm trying to destroy rivalry should be changed.

There is many more miss source that is stated about him that should be corrected. Sounds like individuals with bias intent against Mr. graham are using this platform to create falls narrative Mrtego (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

None of this addresses your potential conflict of interest. You need to answer the question, do you have any connection with Graham? Thank you Lard Almighty (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

What does it matter wrong is wrong and should be corrected ? you or anyone should not be allowed to use this platform for spreading falls narrative. Mrtego (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Lard Almighty, I am not here to argue just trying to make sure the facts are stated and sourced correctly Mrtego (talk) 16:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your refusal to answer would indicate that you do have a connection. You at least need to declare a conflict of interest. That is the first step under Wikipedia rules. If you don't answer the question, you do risk being blocked. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

This line should also be corrected Following the BALCO scandal, the US Olympic Committee barred him indefinitely from all its training sites.

Because np one can impose a sanction on anyone ban anyone without Due process this is stated in the bylaws of the United States Olympics committee

That line should change that Mr. Graham was ban by the USOC without due process. it should be changed unless you still believe in slavery  Mrtego (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Everything in the article is sourced. That he was banned without due process in unsourced opinion. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Lard Almighty your statement is in correct because Mr Grham was ban before he was charged of breaking any laws or rules and as a matter of fact, Mr. Grahm was never found guilty in any court of breaking anti-doping rules or any rules concerning the USOC bylaws. The fact is right there Infront of you unless you are one of the individuals that is using this platform to paint a false narrative of Mr, Graham. Mrtego (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

And your reliable source for this statement is? Lard Almighty (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Lard Almighty, reliable source of what statement or you referring to? Mrtego (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"Graham has maintained his innocence, and claims that he was not given due process because he was Ban by USADA and the USOC without given a chance of defending himself." Where has that been reported in a reliable source? —C.Fred (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

Hello, I'm ThadeusOfNazereth. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Trevor Graham seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 20:19, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The page on Mr Graham is one sided and prejudice Mr Graham. Mr graham was not given due process Mrtego (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Then you need to support that with reliable sources that say he was not given due process. As it stands, the sources in the article support that there was a multi-year investigation and multiple court cases. It may be easier for you to add something saying "Trevor Graham has maintained his innocence, and claims that he was not given due process for X and Y reasons." That could be acceptable, as long as it was cited to a reliable source. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)^{Talk to Me!} 20:29, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. where can I add that? Mrtego (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

You can start the edit and I can finish it. If you don't mind Mrtego (talk) 20:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Trevor Graham shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also, you have not addressed your conflict of interest with this article. You should not be editing it until you do. Lard Almighty (talk) 02:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)