User talk:Dmoran0

October 2024

Hello, I'm Smallangryplanet. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Central Park birdwatching incident, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Smallangryplanet (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did add the relevant links the same day. Thanks, I appreciate your feedback.

Relevant to the perception of this incident was that within three days of the incident, the press reports began to leave our the real reason for her distress, that Christian Cooper had made a vague verbal threat and a concerted effort to take her dog from her. The perception that she feigned fear and made a false report just because she had been asked to leash her dog is simply false. To his credit, Christian Cooper was open about exactly what had happened and so was Amy Cooper in the earliest reports. It was false reporting in the press which continues to this day which has destroyed Amy Cooper's life. Yes, she did make a racist threat only after trying to ask Christian Cooper to stop first, but in response to a misogynist threat made first by Christian Cooper that could terrify a woman alone. Neither intended to follow through.

A little more context is that dog runs were closed and Manhattan dog walkers were compressed into far fewer off leash areas exactly as people were being cautioned that they could die if they did not maintain distance, even in Central Park...this was before effective masks were widely available. Amy Cooper was one of many who had expanded into The Ramble only during the pandemic. One policeman actually said that he did not have the heart to enforce the leash law at that time. In fact Chris Cooper said he was doing it because the police were not.

There is far more nuance to this story. Absolutely this incident should not have destroyed Amy Cooper's life. Dmoran0 (talk) 14:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Central Park birdwatching incident. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. –DMartin 04:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Central Park birdwatching incident. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. –DMartin 05:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Central Park birdwatching incident 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; read about 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. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dmoran0 reported by User:Tamzin (Result: ). Thank you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Central Park birdwatching incident) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]