Contributor vs contributor
I don't know how to handle this situation. Whenever I change or add to a person in my tree another contributor deletes it or changes it back, their reason was initially Personal Knowledge but now they have stopped adding the reason . The information is supported through the sources, I have even written out census information in the Reasons to Change. I have tried to contact then and finally got an answer they area too busy visiting with relatives they haven't seen in over a year due to Covid-19. My reply was Thank you! but haven't heard anything yet.
Is there anything else I can do to resolve this back and forth of changes and deletions?
At least you have made one step forward in that this other person did answer you.
Most important thing is to make sure your information is correct and well sourced. Keep it all safe in whatever off-line database you use. Next step is to try and determine why this other contributor does not agree with it.
Next I would suggest creating a nice, clear, detailed explanation of your data, including charts if that helps to clarify the situation. When this is all written up, save it as a PDF file and upload it as a Memory, tagging it to all appropriate people. Then at least the information will be in Family Tree.
If you haven't yet, next time you write this other contributor, be sure to explain exactly how you are related to the family you are adding data to. Ask this other contributor how they are related, not in a confrontational way, but as really wanting to get to know this new cousin of yours.
Try to find some way to very kindly remind this other person that we don't have our own trees in Family Tree but that we are all working together to get all of humanity in this single tree. If they are detaching what you add because they don't want "their tree" cluttered with collateral lines, explain that the entire point of Family Tree is to include everyone.
As a last resort, assuming this is just one small clump of family you are working on, you may just have to create your own version of that section of the tree, ideally creating just a few duplicates that at some point in the future you can merge when this other contributor finally reviews the sources and agrees with your conclusions.1
Please go into your FamilySearch account profile and change your Helper Number NOW. This is a public discussion board. It is not a closed FamilySearch support unit. You don't even need to be signed into FamilySearch to read all the posts here. With your username and helper number anyone in the world can sign in as you and do anything on the site they want looking like you, including looking at all the information on any private, living people you have entered. Only give your helper number to people you know and trust.
Sorry I didn't notice in Dlog's answer that she mentioned your helper number or I would have said something right then. No one needs it to look at any deceased person you are working on.1
Now to take a look at your concerns that you have attached information that M'Lissa Andersen has removed.
1) You attached the record https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QP5L-KJR8?from=lynx1UIV7 for an unnamed child which is not identified as to what kind of record it is and no image is available. It does not list full names for her father. The listed birthplace does match where your family was in the 1910 census. There is room in the family for this child assuming she died before 1910. With no name, maybe she was stillborn.
First step would be to get this original record to find out exactly what it is. Is it a birth record? Is it a death record? The try to build some kind of case that DH is Dominic Hugh. This record is vague enough that I can see why M'Lissa isn't convinced it should be there. You need to do more research.
2) You attached a child, Sarah, found in the 1910 census who was age 17 then, giving an approximate birth year of 1893. M'Lissa merged this child with Sally who is not listed in the census based on a death record that gives Sally's name as Sarah Sally and plenty of other sources that only show a child Sally in this family of that age. That merge was completely appropriate and correct.
I don't see any other changes to Dominic that you did and she took off.
So at least as far as Dominic goes, I don't see any problem. You are both doing good work. This is how Family Tree is suppose to function. One person adds a drop of information, another person expands and corrects if needed.
Now Mary Russell is a lot more complicated. You two have sure been making a lot of changes in Residences as shown in the census. I'm not sure that is worth fighting over since the census records are attached as sources and anyone at any time can look at those and see where they were living at the time. You might want to add to the Reason Statement "See census under Sources for full precinct and residence information."
Other information on Mary, such as her birth date on her death certificate that you entered and M'Lissa removed seem to indicate that she only wants fully proven information, to the point of no doubt, on the record. Again, since the source is attached for all other researchers to see that date, it's probably not worth a battle. But you could put all her listed birth dates from various sources in the Reason Statement so that others can find them easily.
For example the Reason Statement could be: "Birth date listed as follows in her various sources: Death Certificate - 15 May 1863, 1910 Census - about 1867, 1920 Census - about 1867, 1900 Census - May 1867, 1930 Census - about 1867." No one should complain about that.2
It was interesting to follow this thread since collaboration with others is a major part of the purpose of the FamilySearch Family Tree as explained in the following knowledge article which is found in the Help Center at FamilySearch:
I appreciate that @Gordon Collett discussed the importance of keeping our Helper Number private, but I just wanted to mention that it is not true that everyone who works in Family Tree can use the Helper Number of another individual to get into the other person's account. If you have a Public account at FamilySearch, you will not see the Help Others option at the upper right corner of pages in Family Tree since this feature is only available for those who are Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who wish to assist one another. Members can also assist guests who have public accounts, but not without their permission, and anyone who has allowed someone to assist as their Helper can remove the permission that was granted to the person who helped them simply by going to their Permissions page in their account settings. They can also change their Helper Number if they choose to do so on the Permissions page.
@SDebbie3, thanks so much for sharing your concern when you have documented your family information. We hope you can reach out to the person who is making changes in a spirit of collaboration to build a more complete look at your common ancestors. Best wishes in your continued work at FamilySearch!2
As Gordon points out, your advice here is not good. Firstly, from a security standpoint and, secondly, what would your advice resolve? FamilySearch seems to have a policy of not getting involved in such issues, so please (especially as you are shown as an employee) take care here, even though I appreciate you were making a sincere effort to be of assistance to SDebbie3.1
Thank you both, in a previous reply someone asked for the helper number. I have changed it.0
When dates are uncertain it is very helpful to use, say, "about 1860" and standardize that. Family Tree needs dates to give good hints. As alternatives to "about" there is also "before" and "after".
I took the liberty of adding some dates and that generated a bunch of fresh hints, some of which I worked, attaching more historical records. There are still more hints waiting for attention. Enjoy!0
Hi, I believe all of my dates and descriptions are backed by more than one source where available. Now this other person is deleting the sources I have attached.1
Yep. They are deleting my work too.0
This is rough, particularly when the other person won't talk to you. It is one thing to insist that only completely proven data be entered in Family Tree itself with calculated or well-reasoned data be put in notes or elsewhere. It is something completely different to remove valid sources. I really hope you can get this other person engaged in a conversation about what working together in Family Tree really means. Otherwise you may just need to wait until this other person is no longer active in Family Tree and fix the records then.2