"

 Myself and the Sante Kimes Wikipedia article 

I would like to set some things straight about myself and the Sante Kimes article.

1. I am NOT Sante Kimes.

2. I am NOT a relative of Sante Kimes.
3. I DO NOT HAVE or EVER HAD an attorney contacting Wikipedia. This is on outrageous claim.

I AM a researcher of well-known court cases, and have researched the Sante Kimes case in the past.

SUBJECT BAN
 1. Since an administrator asked me to voluntarily not edit anything on the Sante Kimes article, I have complied.

2. If those interesting in my edits to the Sante Kimes article, please just see the article's edit history.
Since making editing mistakes on my FIRST-EVER edits on Wikipedia, I have complied with the appropriate editing guidelines.
Namely,
Posting in the discussion page of the article about ANY large edits I felt appropriate for the article.
 Placing details and reason for the edit in editing tags.

Please see the article's editing history to see that the only edits I have made were to correct dates, spelling mistakes, adding verifying tags, and making small corrections to the article that were needed. Furthermore I gave full details for the changes I made in the editing notes Please see the article's editing history to confirm this.

3. The only edit that I made that was in debate was the article's 'lead' info.
I do contend that the current 'lead' starting with ""American felon"" was placed there as an action of spite by that editor.

The 'lead' I placed WAS of a neutral POV, factual WITH EXACT dates for the named convictions and was supported by references. 
The current 'lead' does not state the dates for when these conviction took place. 
Furthermore, I had placed ""American woman"" in the 'lead', which IS in the 'lead' of various other female criminal's articles who (arguable) allegedly committed WORSE crimes than Sante Kimes is accused of committing.
If it's appropriate for those articles, why is it not appropriate for this article?

In closing, I DID follow editing guidelines for the Sante Kimes article after I learned what was acceptable editing.
Furthermore, I discussed - at length - in the article's discussion page about changes that I felt WERE needed. Yet I NEVER took it upon myself to edit those issues until an agreement could be reached. 

I would like to point out that those changes have yet been agreed upon and I HAVE NOT made any edit in regard to those issues. Therefore, that demonstrates that I am following the editing guidelines.

Because of an apparent personal problem an administrator has with me. - Which is the same editor I was in dispute with on this article's discussion page They have asked me to voluntarily not edit the article - or, most outrageously, not EVEN post on the article's discussion page to discuss the issues with this article.(How is this not considered conflict of interest??)  
I have complied with that request, even though I have not yet read or been advised as to what guideline I was in violation of in regard to the Sante Kimes article or it's discussion page."