User talk:Drive to save

July 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. oknazevad (talk) 03:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Now that the formal warning is out of the way, let's get down to brass tacks. Cut the crap. You couldn't be any more obvious of a sockpuppet if you tried. An account with two edits over 2 years ago suddenly becomes active again and makes mass changes just like another editor who had consensus go against him in a dispute. That's classic sock puppet behavior and evidence. Cease now, disclose your original account, and stop editing, or this a punt and any linked to it by a sock puppet investigation will be permanently blocked, as will your original account be indefinitely blocked, as a usimg multiple accounts is not allowed at all. Knock it off, respect consensus, and cease edit warring. oknazevad (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Where is this consensus expressed? Where has this issue been discussed?

You have offered no reason to substantiate the change, but have chased after me undoing any edit I make. This is childish and silly.

Why is "based in" redundant? Let's say you're a freelance writer. And you're a Pittsburgh freelance writer. What does that mean? That means that your home is in Pittsburgh. Of course, you could write about any topic anywhere. So what does it mean to call you a "Pittsburgh-based freelance writer"? It means the same thing, nothing more and nothing less. It's a commonly used expression, yes, and it's commonly edited out by professional editors.

If it required "-based" to indicate the meaning that a person or organization or ball team has a home in one place and performs in many places, then they would need to be the Houston-based Astros, but they're not.Drive to save (talk) 03:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You couldn't be anymore obvious if a WP:SOCK if you tried, Account Activity. Suddenly reactivating an account that had lain dormant for 2 years makes it clear that you've been around for some time, but have a real behavior issue. Cut the bull. Since you can't follow simple rules like that, I have no qualms reverting you on sight as a detriment to the encyclopedia.

And you're still wrong on the facts. "Based in" is not redundant for a mobile operation, especially one with multiple branches. That's true for sports teams and for other companies. And your "Houston-based Astros" is a strawman fallacy. The "Houston" in the team's name is not an adjective, any more than your surname is an adjective. You really are uniformed, and know far less that you presume. It's awfully rich for someone who clearly cannot follow the simple rules of Wikipedia to lecture someone on the far more complex and subtle rules of the English language. oknazevad (talk) 03:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

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:Drive_to_save reported by User:Johnny Au (Result: ). Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 15:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)