User talk:13Kenzie13

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Destiny Herndon-De La Rosa. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. FourPaws (talk) 05:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone to the Talk page to work things out. I remain convinced that my edits are accurate and truthful given that the person in question is the linked source, and that the complains are focusing on the slight deviation from her activism, when this page is not about her organization, but her as a specific person acting within a specific community. Infidelity is mentioned in the text of many people's wiki pages, where the event has far less to do with the public face that person puts forward. 13Kenzie13 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the timing is looking suspicious to me, insofar as the last edit reversion on the other wikieditor's part takes place on the same day that the subject apparently became aware of the page content, that had been in place for many months prior, suggesting some collusion between editor and subject. 13Kenzie13 (talk) 01:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your cooperation. I am not here to change your mind on what you believe to be factual or not within the article. I am here only to inform you about community guidelines. I understand you are a fairly new editor so I have only given you a warning. I would ask you to refrain from using verbs/nouns that implicate a person's intent such as "collusion" see (WP:SOCK). If you suspect there is "collusion" by using the duck test contact a CheckUser. CheckUsers have the power to look at someone's IP address and determine if multiple accounts have been used through that IP. As Wikipedians, we assume good faith in other editors (see WP:GOODFAITH). Here are ways to resolve this dispute if the other party reverts your edits as well as disputes in general you may encounter. Wikipedia is edited entirely by volunteers, like you and I, and the community will always value your edits and opinions. FourPaws (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reworked the setup to address the complaint, and separated the content into the personal life section. I'll work on the assumption of good faith, but I expect that will be a bit harder in this instance. 13Kenzie13 (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant content was removed from the article once again. i am asking for a judgement call on the tak page. 13Kenzie13 (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]