User talk:ThrowPrude21

September 2020

Hello, I'm Njd-de. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Killing of Daniel Prude have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. NJD-DE (talk) 17:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Killing of Daniel Prude. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. AussieWikiDan (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Killing of Daniel Prude. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 17:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Death of Daniel Prude 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AN and unblock discussion

I have blocked you to stop the disruption you were causing in response to a thread at WP:AN. You may respond to that thread here and you may request unblocking here. --Deepfriedokra https://imgur.com/a/Ia585zt 18:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

--ThrowPrude21:

The other "editors" of this page are deleting the autopsy reports that I linked, claiming they are not constructive. https://imgur.com/a/Ia585zt

The autopsy report shows detailed information about how Daniel Prude had an extensive history of mental and physical illness.

They are also removing my edits about how he was arrested August 23rd and died on August 30th - a week later.

Please unblock me, block them, and allow me to make the constructive edits that these "editors" are claiming to be unconstructive.

Nope. Those were primary sources. They do not fit the need for WP:RS. I will reset the block to the apply only to the article. You may discuss content on the talk page, which is what you should have done when your edits were first challenged. I will note that per WP:BRD, it is up to you to gain consensus for changes. Your unresponsiveness was a major factor, along with your my-way-is-the-only-way approach, in my decision to block you.. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second this. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reset the block to Killing of Daniel Prude only, but it is indefinite until we know there will be no further disruption. Please review WP:RS ad WP:BLP. Strict sourcing rules are in play, and you must gain WP:CONSENSUS --Deepfriedokra (talk) 18

54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

This is what I'm asking be added to the summary:

The autopsy reports Daniel had a clinical history of severe respiratory acidosis, a clinical history of profound global hypoxic ischemic injuries, a clinical history of suicidal ideation with possible auditory hallucinations and paranoia, and a clinical history of agitation with combative behavior.^[1]

Just to set the record straight, the reason there was an issue in the first place was under no circumstance the fact that you wanted to add those facts from the autopsy (whether true or not) to the article, but instead the fact that you repeatedly removed all references to the dead man's race. There could have been a discussion over the autopsy, but there was absolute consensus among the editors that the man's race should be stated, as well as the fact that the protests linked to the death were related to BLM. You engaged in illicit activity by refusing to adopt the already-existent consensus and instead took a my-way-or-the-highway approach, by deliberately and unilaterally deciding against the consensus to remove all references to the fact that Prude's death sparked social outrage because of the current racial tensions across NA and Europe, which is not an opinion but a fact well documented by the media. Take care. Edit constructively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laprivacidadimporta (talk • contribs) 21:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Imgur https://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/local-news/autopsy-report-daniel-prude-death-ruled-a-homicide-asphyxia-due-to-physical-restraint/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1] Imgur https://www.rochesterfirst.com/news/local-news/autopsy-report-daniel-prude-death-ruled-a-homicide-asphyxia-due-to-physical-restraint/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]