User talk:2601:408:8003:C620:F57D:3B1F:D06D:7F3A

Dear "Film Enthusiast",

I have not disrupted wikipedia. I have not used multiple IP addresses, I don't even know how to do that - I can assure you that all of the edits I made were from the same laptop. I'm not trying to circumvent anything. I made good faith edits, and at first I had no idea how to add reference articles to provide documentation for the edits. I learned how to do this, so as to make the edits valid (I'm not very tech-y so it took me a while) and now I feel you're simply out there to make sure this isn't listed no matter how much documentation is provided. Exactly what parameters are required to be in the partner section, because these two started dating in January 2021 and went public in June 2021 and have had many, many articles, etc written about the progression of their relationship. You saying him being a part of his kids' lives and living with him doesn't qualify doesn't seem at all in touch with the reality of the situation. I'm trying to put the accuracy of her page first, and he's very clearly her partner. Exactly what will it take for you to let the edits stand.
 * You have now been informed multiple times by multiple editors in response to your edits from multiple IP addresses that your assumptions about the relationship between Zellweger and Anstead are not sufficient to include Anstead among Zellweger's life "partners" in the Infobox of the Wikipedia article concerning Zellweger. None of the citations you have included establish that Zellweger and Anstead are or necessarily intend to be life partners. Most typically, this parameter of the infobox is not populated at all until the passage of many years establishes the longevity of a relationship. The inclusion of Anstead's name in this parameter of the infobox is hardly essential information needed by Wikipedia's readers to understand the article's subject. Your persistence indicates that you either don't understand Wikipedia's policies or that you intend to ignore them. Please stop now; as you have been warned, if you persist further you will likely find your ability to edit Wikipedia restricted.  General Ization Talk  21:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

As I have described above, there was absolutely nothing malicious in my intent. You keep accusing me about using multiple IP addresses, while I have only used the same laptop. I have enlisted the help of someone more tech savvy than me, and he has found this article which shows your accusations and threats of removing me off of wikipedia truly out of line within the guidelines of the page. Here is the quote:

'''"Assuming good faith (AGF) is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith – that is, the assumption that people are not deliberately trying to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. If this were untrue, a project like Wikipedia would be doomed from the beginning. This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). Nor does assuming good faith prohibit discussion and criticism, as even editors who try to improve Wikipedia may not have the information or skills necessary to succeed in their good-faith goals. Rather, editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of such.

'''When disagreement occurs, try as best you can to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. Consider whether a dispute stems from different perspectives, and look for ways to reach consensus.'''

'''When doubt is cast on good faith, continue to assume good faith yourself when possible. Be civil and follow dispute resolution procedures, rather than attacking editors or edit-warring with them. If you wish to express doubts about the conduct of fellow Wikipedians, please substantiate those doubts with specific diffs and other relevant evidence, so that people can understand the basis for your concerns. Although bad conduct may seem to be due to bad faith, it is usually best to address the conduct without mentioning motives, which might intensify resentments all around.

'''Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively. Just as one can incorrectly judge that another is acting in bad faith, so too can one mistakenly conclude that bad faith is being assumed; exhortations to "Assume Good Faith" can themselves reflect negative assumptions about others." ''' Unfortunately, when the editor(s?) wrote me a message, they certainly didn't follow these guidelines. As far as the edit I was attempting to make, it is clearly a subjective topic - not damaging to wikipedia - so the threats lodged against me are truly unwarranted. I will say, the banner of "Partner" is not something that people usually wait years to consider a couple - and they have referred to each other using the word "partner".  Again, it's subjective.  But it is very clear I was not being malicious.  Once it was suggested I cite references, I did learn how to add articles.  I will receive further help, as I was attacked even after citing references, to take this to mediation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:408:8003:C620:E08A:EDB7:A9D8:580B (talk) 23:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore, this article about reverts seems especially relevant for a subjective topic such as precisely when a person can be considered a "partner".

"'''Reverting tends to be hostile, making editing Wikipedia unpleasant. Sometimes this provokes a reciprocal hostility of re-reversion. Sometimes it also leads to editors departing Wikipedia, temporarily or otherwise, especially the less bellicose. This outcome is clearly detrimental to the development of Wikipedia. Thus, fair and considered thought should be applied to all reversions given all the above. The main purpose of reversion is to undo vandalism or other disruptive edits. If you see an edit that you're sure was intended by its author to damage Wikipedia, and it does, there is no need for further consideration. Just revert it.

'''In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement. This is often true of small edits.

Whenever you believe that the author of an edit was simply misinformed, made a mistake, or did not think an edit through, go ahead and revert. '''If that editor (or anyone else) re-reverts, you will know it is more than that, and you should be more conservative in deciding whether to revert it again. ''' Another kind of acceptable reversion is an incidental one. A Wikipedia editor is not expected to investigate the history of an article to find out if an edit being considered is a reversion of some prior edit. The rule against reversions applies only to cases where the reverter is aware that the edit is a reversion of another edit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:408:8003:C620:E08A:EDB7:A9D8:580B (talk) 23:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * My messages to you did not imply that your edits were "malicious." If I thought they were, I would have already asked that you be blocked from editing.  However, they reflect what we refer to here as a "failure to get the point."  This is considered disruptive.


 * Please see Template:Infobox_person/doc. I and other editors have tried to explain to you the intent of the "partners" parameter of the infobox, and that the relationship so far reported between Zellweger and Anstead does not as yet appear to meet the definition associated with that intent, whether or not you believe that it does. The relationship is already being reported accurately in the body of the article.  Whether or not it meets the definition of "life partner" is an issue so trivial as to not justify the amount of time you or I have already spent on it. I do not intend to spend more.  General Ization  Talk  23:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I was indeed, in this message, accused of trying to disrupt wikipedia and "avoid detection, circumvent policies" and was threatened to be blocked. Furthermore, the parameters you sent specifically state a partner is someone in a domestic partnership, and says that is an unmarried couple who lives together. I am really distressed by the lack of professionalism and general unkindness in which this whole incident has been handled. I will seek moderation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:408:8003:C620:E08A:EDB7:A9D8:580B (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Do not use multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia, like you did at Renée Zellweger. Such attempts to avoid detection, circumvent policies or evade blocks or sanctions will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, '''you may be blocked from editing without further notice. '  General Ization'' Talk  21:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)