User talk:FirstPrimeOfApophis

Death of Beto Laudisio
Hi FirstPrimeOfApophis! Sorry for the confusion. There are a couple of problems with the content as added. The first is that, as a general principle, just copying a coroner's report verbatim into an article probably isn;t the best way to develop one. We should generally look to summarise, rather than bring it across in full. But the main problem is due to licensing. The coroner's report is under Australian Crown Copyright, and unlike some countries, that means that copyright remains with the Australian government. As you correctly pointed out, we are allowed to use the content, subject to certain conditions. The hassles is that those conditions are not compatible with the Creative Commons license under which Wikipedia's content is released. There are a couple of specific issues. One is that Wikipedia permits full commercial use of content, whereas the license from the site only permits commercial use with permission. Another is that CC allows content to be modified, but this content can't be changed. The best solution is to simply summarise the findings, and that way we can keep everything within the licensing terms. - Bilby (talk) 12:16, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough.FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Important Notice
—— Serial # 18:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My mistake in reverting your edit
Hello FirstPrimeOfApophis - I wanted to drop by & apologize to you for reverting your comment under "Background" on the killing of Rayshard Brooks page. I was under the mistaken assumption that editors need "consensus" prior to removing existing text that had been within an article for a long time. In this diff editor  corrected my mistaken view on that. Like you, I'm new here too & still learning the rules. So, again, I apologize if my mistake caused you any personal frustration. BetsyRMadison (talk) 13:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. No harm done. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 08:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
Your recent editing history 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. El_C 13:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, as you can see from my edit history, I have made exactly 1 edit in the past few days, to revert a significant deletion which another user made without discussion, and inviting that user to discuss those changes in the Talk Page. I look forward to receiving your apology, and to you removing this unjustified nonsense above. Thanks. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * My warning is not nonsense. You should take it seriously. Anyway, please review and make sure you observe WP:ONUS, especially the part that reads: the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. El_C 14:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * so, no acknowledgement of your false accusation that I am edit-warring? And if you have an opinion about the notability of the article's content, take it to the article talk page, I am not much interested in it here. Nearly all of the content I just restored was added by other editors - as you would know if you had truthfully looked at the article's history. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 14:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The edit war began with your first revert. No, I have no opinion about your content dispute. El_C 14:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Eh? If you follow that link to the bold, revert, discuss cycle you posted above, you will see that reverting a bold change (like deleting two long paragraphs without discussion) then inviting the user to discuss the changes in the talk page is absolutely in line with WP policy. And a single revert cannot be an "edit war" by itself - look up WP:EW. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You reverted back to your own original version — that is the beginning of an edit war, as far as I'm concerned. Get consensus for that addition on the article talk page first, as WP:ONUS instructs. El_C 14:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * all you've shown by including those links is that I did not revert to my version, but a completely different later version, so even "as far as you are concerned" it wasn't edit warring. I am still waiting for you to remove the warning and apologize. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You'll be waiting a while. A partial revert is still a revert. You made a bold edit, it was reverted, then the edit war began when you reverted that reversion. I'm not sure I can explain it any more clearly. Rather than possibly seeing you continue to revert further, I've warned you about edit warring and 3RR, as a purely preventative measure. It's quite standard and conventional. El_C 15:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * you accused me of "repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree". That is not a "preventative measure" that is an accusation. It is also a lie, because you then admit I haven't "repeatedly" done anything, it was on my first and only revert that you decided I was edit-warring. And I have not made any "bold edit". The last edit I made (several days ago) has been almost completely overwritten by other editors in the mean time. I didn't revert those changes. I reverted the unilateral deletion of 2 paragraphs which 4 other editors had worked on over the course of several days. All this would have been obvious if you had looked at the edit history, as you claim you have. So you have it wrong: another editor made a bold change, I reverted with an edit summary, and we are now discussing it on the talk page. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * —I think has done yeoman's work bringing sources to the article Talk page and reasoning in a very civil manner. Have others been reciprocating? All I'm hearing is that the article is "about the killing". The article happens to be about many other things besides the killing itself. Others should be required to engage in discussion or desist from preventing the article from being built out in ways obviously relevant to the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello - we haven't met, nor have I met FirstPrimeOfApophis, so there may be background I'm not aware of.  I come to this page from Talk:Killing_of_Rayshard_Brooks wondering who opened that RfC and why.  From what I can see FirstPrimeOfApophis has edited responsibly and broken no rules.  The inserted material wasn't bold or provocative to begin with -- it's relevant, sourced, cogent, and goes to the decision to hold somebody criminally liable for the killing.  I'm not understanding your warnings here, the quick threat of a block.  The warnings here don't match up with what Edit warring actually says or its spirit.  Unless I'm missing something.  Am I missing something?  --Lockley (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , FPoA should have discussed at the talk section, which had already been opened before they reverted, instead of reverting (and then encouraging another user to revert in order to skirt EW), per ONUS. It's an article under DS. We discuss, we don't just revert. FPoA doesn't have the experience to know that, but really that's not a great excuse since they've been advised about that, now three times by me. —valereee (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thanks for the response.  I've looked at the edits carefully.  (1)  Maybe you'll agree with me that the EW warning above is badly stated, inaccurate in fact, then poorly defended, giving FPoA valid reason to dispute the warning that they (2) earned under the DS conditions and events you just explained.  (3) I have the luxury of no involvement in that rolling stinking hysterical food-fight migraine over there & it'll stay that way.  all best to you  --Lockley (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , believe me, I'd prefer not to be there either, nor here. Trying to herd cats at a contentious BLP is not one of the fun parts of this hobby. Tempers are wearing thin with cluelessness. I'll point out that you got here because of an RfC so poorly-designed that if we don't all just ignore it it'll end up creating an impenetrable wall of text. I'll also point you at this collapsed section which should be edifying on that point. —valereee (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Look, everyone, the DS provides me with a wide latitude in which to warn and sanction editors who engage the topic area in question. That is the point of the discretionary sanctions — that normal rules of engagement do not necessarily apply. El_C 15:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Rayshard Brooks RfC Status
Hi. Is the RfC you have going to continue, will you get more input, or refer the matter - wp:DRR? Thanks Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - because it has been about 4 days since the last response, I have just now submitted a request for a closure review at Noticeboard Request. Is there anything else I need to do for this RfC until it is closed? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 09:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi   You could get more opinions @ WP:FRS, if you go ahead with an edit including all the opinions of acting chief of police, mayor, past DA council leader, congressman, senator, etc. there may still be a dispute, so, if no concensus, try WP:DR w/ copy of proposed edit. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * interesting. The second option you mention sounds best to start with. But is it acceptable to add the disputed content when there is an ongoing RfC discussing it? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No. And I think you really need a reasonable consensus. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then I don't plan to do anything until the RfC is closed, because I can't see how else to persuade the dissenting editors to accept the consensus. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Good. It's always best to work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. If not done already, try using wp:FRS for more input. If consensus can't be reached, you can seek dispute resolution. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another politico weighs in: US Atty Barr, “I said that I would have preferred that he had used the grand jury and waited until the Georgia Bureau had completed its investigation.” About 3/4 down the column: Atl Journal-Constitution article BTW I shortened your Noticeboard Request to a link to keep it from running past the usual right margin. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks for that. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)