Talk:Steve Fossey

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Astronomy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. An appropriate image needs to be added to this article, or the current one needs to be updated. Once this has been done, please remove the |needs-image=yes parameter from this template.

I reverted two edits by a brand new IP who has been edit warring in other articles.

If they have a good point they can explain it more fully here on the talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have undone my clearly explained edits for no reason. If you have a particular objection to them, please quote the policy or guideline that is relevant. 46.208.236.175 (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Bzzzt.

You have been edit-warring, and you made complicated and controversial edits, without explaining yourself on the talk page. Only simple and non-controversial edits can be explained with a brief edit summary.

You are clearly not a complete novice. Grumpy edits from an IP who is clearly not a novice? In my experience grumpy individuals, who are clearly not novices, who insist on editing from IP addresses, are often doing so to evade a well-deserved indefinite block. You could very easily create a single named wiki-ID, and use that so the rest of us could look for consistent responsible explanations at a predictable place.

WP:Courtesy vanishing says it "...is not a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions. It is not a fresh start and does not guarantee anonymity." So, what is your past history here? Geo Swan (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your first word confirms that you are playing some kind of game. If you have a reason, based on a policy or a guideline, to object to my edit, then say which policy or guideline you think applies. If you don't have a reason, then you should obviously not be reverting. 46.208.236.175 (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the edits by 46.208.236.175, with the possible exception of the sentence on the transit. They can indeed be discovered - the planet was previously known only by radial velocity signals. All the other changes seem appropriate to me. There's no reason to revert them or accuse each other of bad faith. Modest Genius ^talk 12:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BKFIP and all their edits have to be checked. You may agree with the edits, but Geo Swan made the right call. Now if you checked the edit and it seems good for you, no big deal. Just for information, regards. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I did indeed check the content of the edits and agreed with them, as I already stated. 46.208.236.175 does not appear on the list of IPs used by that blocked person. Besides, not every change by a blocked user is necessarily a bad one.

WP:AGF. Modest Genius ^talk 11:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

"46.208.236.175 does not appear on the list of IPs used by that blocked person". They appear at the last range block. Furthermore, you will find the IP being flagged as such on the admin board for edit warring.

Fair point, I missed the range. Struck above. Modest Genius ^talk 13:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is enough to check all their edits. They have been community banned and as I stated, there are reasons to that. As I also stated, you agreed with the edit, but GeoSwan did the right thing. My post was not in any way a start to a debate, but an information for the record on this talk page to explain why GeoSwan did that. CocoricoPolynesien (talk) 12:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:AGF." I strongly disagree. Blocked means blocked. Every edit by a blocked contributor is being made in violation of their block. IMO, any violation of a defensible block is enough to strip the rest of us from any obligation to assume good faith. Geo Swan (talk) 19:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]