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

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

——Serial ^# 18:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Policy links

Hello, FirstPrimeOfApophis! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! —valereee (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Directories and indexes Where to: ask questions • make requests Tip of the day Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

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 [1] editor @ProcrastinatingReader: 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 BetsyRMadison (talk · contribs), 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—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. El_C 13:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi El_C (talk · contribs), 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)

El_C (talk · contribs) 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)

El_C (talk · contribs) 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)

El_C (talk · contribs) 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)

El_C (talk · contribs) 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)

El C—I think FirstPrimeOfApophis 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 @El C: - 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 Wikipedia:Edit warring actually says or its spirit. Unless I'm missing something. Am I missing something? --Lockley (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Lockley, 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 Valereee. 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)

Lockley, 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 FirstPrimeOfApophis. 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 Quaerens-veritatem - 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 FirstPrimeOfApophis 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)

Quaerens-veritatem 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)

FirstPrimeOfApophis No. And I think you really need a reasonable consensus. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Quaerens-veritatem 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)

FirstPrimeOfApophis 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)

FirstPrimeOfApophis 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)

Quaerens-veritatem thanks for that. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

FirstPrimeOfApophis You're welcome. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi FirstPrimeOfApophis! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, When to request closure of an RfC, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Tek ma te, fellow Stargate fan EvergreenFir (talk) 01:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Totalitarian democracy

The definition you added to "Totalitarian democracy" seems more vague to me than the definition it replaced. "a dictatorship based on the mass enthusiasm generated by a perfectionist ideology" sounds to me to be nearly the same (in implied meaning) as the definition of totalitarianism. Totalitarian ideologies, from what I understand, seek to regulate all aspects of society according to the ideologies' model, implying that the leaders of the regime view it as the means of achieving perfection. ZFT (talk) 00:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZFT (talk · contribs)! The definition is sourced to a review of Talmon's book published in a scholarly journal. The previous definition was flat-out wrong, I can't remember the exact wording. As I understand it, your definition of totalitarianism is correct; what makes totalitarian democracy "democratic" is its claim to be enacting the will of the people subject to its rule while pursuing a totalitarian reorganisation of society. But if we want to discuss it, let's take it to the talk page of that article. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The previous definition was "a system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government". Wouldn't that just be representative democracy? FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Raladic (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Your recent editing history at Cass Review 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. Raladic (talk) 22:42, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

NPA

Just some friendly advice, but I recommend removing (or clarifying the intended target of) the second sentence of this edit as it could easily be interpreted as a personal attack against another editor on a contentious topic. Void if removed (talk) 20:59, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Void if removed thanks, I've struck it. FirstPrimeOfApophis (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)