User talk:Drkatzjr27

Unblock request September 2020[edit]

Your latest edit was evidently an attempt to post an unblock request, but you did not format it correctly. I am correcting it (below), no doubt as you intended it to be. JBW (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Drkatzjr27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Because I no longer have two active accounts

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. only (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Stop editing[edit]

You need to find something better to do with your time... your edits are atrocious... stop CUfiveo (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the information that you had Wiki reverted back to was highly irrelevant information.

Moreover, a statement would be made which was followed in the same paragraph by a completely different topic. This is simply poor writing.

Teachers college Columbia University was one of the first institutions to train teachers to educate less privileged children. As such, it developed programs that were both unique and progressive, as opposed to the more ’traditional curriculum” offered by other universities at that time.

Simply the second above mentioned statement was not even appropriately highlighted, which is the very core of the history of this university.

Moreover, there were paragraphs that were very “wordy” and was not a “notable” highlight of this institution.

I wish to Appeal, formally, the edits that I made that were reverted back.

I wish to also state that if you do not approve of all edits, surely there must be some which I made which should stand.

I find it profoundly shocking that you can simply revert, completely, all of my edit, without having others (and I mean more than 3 readers, approve your actions. Drkatzjr27 (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal[edit]

RE: A Member Completely Reverting Back my Edits

1. I spent considerable time working to write this any more succinct and accurate way.

2. I have no conflict of interest whatsoever.

3. The edits I made were factually accurate to the best of my knowledge.

4. some of the edits were made to simply improve the writing.

For example, in the original edit of this page, there would be a paragraph emphasizing a topic, and then in another sentence, -in the same paragraph- the writer would introduce a completely different topic.

5. If I deleted anything it was because what was stated was not a “highlight” of this institution.

6.

Teachers college Columbia University was one of the first institutions to train teachers to educate less privileged children. As such, it developed programs that were both unique and progressive, as opposed to the more ’traditional curriculum” offered by other universities at that time.

This statement was not appropriately highlighted, which is the very core of the history of this university.

I wish to Appeal, formally, the edits that I made that were ”reverted back”

It is my hope that more than three readers would compare both edits and make a decision… The page as it is reverted back - and - the page as it is with my edits.

As a historian, all of my edits were made in good faith and lacked any conflict of interest.

7.

I wish to also state that if you do not approve all edits, I request that you at least consider others.

I find it profoundly shocking that you can simply revert, completely, -all- of my edits, without having others (and I mean more than 3 readers), approve your actions.

I am also profoundly offended that you would actually state to me to “find something else to do “

Do you consider that statement professional? I don’t - and I don’t think anyone would... Drkatzjr27 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My username is: Drkatzjr27. The member CUfiveo apparently requested that any and all edits I made to the topic page “Teachers College Columbia University” should be completely reverted back.

I made significant edits to a page that was both very poorly edited and written.

My actions were made in good faith and without any conflict of interest.

The member then insulted me, stating that I should “Find something else to do with my time”

Surely insulting a member, who is simply a historian editing in good faith, is against wiki by laws. Drkatzjr27 (talk) 18:13, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TC[edit]

TC is not a university (it's more accurately a college or graduate school) and you shouldn't use promotional type wording in a encyclopedia entry CUfiveo (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 05:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked Account[edit]

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).

Drkatzjr27 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am stating the following in good faith.

I did not use two accounts to try to circumvent editing decisions or rules that I was completely unaware of while offering editing opinions.

I was blocked by editing the Wiki page Teachers College, Columbia University while using the exact same IP and username.

If another IP address was appreciated it would only be because of Anti-Virus software I use which could have changed my IP address to protect my security without my knowledge.

I never did anything with malicious or unethical intent.

It is profoundly unjust and unfair that I am blocked indefinitely.

A more prudent and reasonable decision should be renderedDrkatzjr27 (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That is not how anti-virus software works. At any rate, it is overwhelmingly clear that you used multiple accounts, so you will need to deal with that head on. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.