User talk:Realsnappy18

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Realsnappy18. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the article The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Scr★pIron^IV 14:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No conflict of interest on my part whatsoever. ScrapIron, suggest you read references before reverting edits in the future... Realsnappy18 (talk) 14:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Scr★pIron^IV 14:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Military Classic of the South shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Scr★pIron^IV 14:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Make no mistake, as I've clearly pointed out, I am not a sock puppet for anyone. Both Scrapiron and Bubba are attempting to ban or block users when they disagree with their edits and based on false allegations. Appears this has been done in the past to other users that they are now trying to connect me with. Scrapiron routinely follows my edits and reverts them without reading referenced and relevant materials which I have provided on multiple occasions... Check history. This behavior is clearly against Wikipedia guidelines and procedures. Reverting edits that they disagree with personally, without reading the references, is wrong. Happy to discuss this matter further, without false allegations or hidden agendas...Realsnappy18 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]