Capt.Vladi91

October 2024

Hello, I'm Wham2001. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Southeast Missouri State University, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You cannot include material of this nature in a Wikipedia article without multiple, highly reliable sources; see the Wikipedia policy on writing about living people. Wham2001 (talk) 15:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

The Arrow, the source which I cited, is the student newspaper on the campus of Southeast Missouri State University. I am a current student at Southeast Missouri State University. Capt.Vladi91 (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

edit warring on Southeast Missouri State University

Don't revert other editors without explaining your actions on the talk page. Behavior like that can get you blocked. -- Melchior2006 (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, you did not need to respond back in the nasty way you did. Second, The Arrow, the source I cited, is the student run newspaper on the campus of Southeast Missouri State University, a more than credible source. Capt.Vladi91 (talk) 15:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Capt.Vladi91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here The specific source in question, The Arrow, is not only a highly credible publication but also a nationally recognized university newspaper associated with Southeast Missouri State University. It adheres to rigorous journalistic standards and provides accurate, well-researched content. As such, I believe the edits I made, which referenced The Arrow, were based on a reliable and authoritative source. There seems to be no valid reason for this to be considered a violation of Wikipedia’s policies on reliable sourcing. While I fully understand and support Wikipedia’s strict guidelines on verifiability and the use of credible sources, I feel that the ban in this instance may have been imposed prematurely or without a full assessment of the source's credibility. The Arrow meets the standards of reliability, and I am confident that the information I added was accurate and within Wikipedia's content guidelines. I kindly request that my case be re-evaluated, as I have always aimed to contribute constructively to Wikipedia's mission of providing free, accurate information to the public. I am more than willing to engage in further discussion or provide additional context regarding my use of The Arrow as a reference. This is my appeal Capt.Vladi91 (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only as the block has expired. Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were blocked for edit warring over an unsourced rumor. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok. It's common knowledge that the reason why Dr. Vargas's contract was not renewed is because of the rumor. Ask anyone. If this block is a result of the rumor, the punishment is a bit harsh for a first-time offence. There is no reason a block should be issued on the first offence. A brief message is perfect. The messages I received did not mention that what I did was not allowed. How should I know I did something wrong if I did not know? Capt.Vladi91 (talk) 16:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That is exactly what is covered in the first message on your talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)