User talk:Scsu76

 Hello Scsu76, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents / Department directory


 * The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?


 * Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
 * Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
 * Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help


 * Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Scsu76, good luck, and have fun. – TR536 (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Charleston Armed Forces
All Branches of the armed forces are to be shown under Charleston. After all, it is called "Joint Base Charleston", not "Joint Base North Charleston" for a reason. Further, the location of each base is clearly shown and credited.

The military built Charleston. I am certain if BRAC comes a calling to Charleston again, all would run to defend those bases, regardless of them being in Charleston, North Charleston, or another local city.

Lastly, the port section also credit the entire port, not just that section in the city of Charleston. Again,, it is called the "Port of Charleston" regardless of where it is truly located - remember, metro Charleston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scsu76 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 20 December 2014‎
 * By your own statement above, the material you are adding is relevant to the Charleston, South Carolina metropolitan area article, and not the articles on Charleston, South Carolina.
 * The city articles are about the cities. The metro article is about the metro area. They are seperate articles for a reason, ie: they cover different defined areas. Only places that are physically located within the borders should be listed.
 * I am seeing some conflicting information on if some of these are within the physical borders of North Charleston. For now I have removed those listings as well. Please use the article talk page so that consensus can be reached based on the available third-party reliable sources as to if these fall within the North Charleston borders. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not continue your edit war at Charleston, South Carolina. You must take this to the article talk page so that community discussion can take place. The city article is for information within the city. The metro article is for information about the metro area. They are two individual subjects, covering distinct gographic boundaries, and with their own distinct articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Charleston, South Carolina. 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: In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 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.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Charleston, South Carolina
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. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. The full report is at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Armed Forces listing
You were asked prior to your block to discuss the content on the article talk page. After your block expires and you are again able to edit Wikipedia, you are strongly encouraged to participate in the discussion at Talk:Charleston, South Carolina. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is edit warring and possible sockpuppetry on Charleston, South Carolina. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015
Hi there. I just reverted a bunch of your edits because they were overly detailed info about military bases added to city articles, without references. I see your experience so far on Wikipedia has not been successful. Please take a moment to find out a bit about Wikipedia and how editing works. Thanks for your cooperation. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for abusing multiple accounts per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Scsu76. Multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. Any contributions made while evading blocks or bans can be reverted or deleted without discussion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:58, 15 February 2015 (UTC)