User talk:JindraZPrahy
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
JindraZPrahy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I tried editing a page about Scouting as it contained a misleading information about Czech scouts (I removed one sentence). My edit was blocked automatically. I then went on to follow the instructions regarding explaining why I had made the edit. After that I have been blocked and I do not know why. Perhaps my edit has been seen as an act of vandalism, however I am willing to explain why I think the sentence I edited needs to be edited. JindraZPrahy (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You attempted to remove text and replace it with nonsense. Please explain this in another unblock request, I am declining this one. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2020 (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.
JindraZPrahy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I tried editing a page about Scouting because I thought it contained misleading information about Czech scouts. The reason for me being blocked was that my edit didn't make any sense. What I did was removing one part of a long sentence concerning Czech scouts because I deemed it to be false so that the whole sentence still made sense. I genuinely do not know why my edit was considered nonsense and I do not know how to review my attempted edit to reconsider it. Whilst making the edit I was making sure that the structure of sentences still holds up but I am willing to admit I had unknowingly made an error. JindraZPrahy (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I have taken a look at your blocked edits. You replaced, "While for example in the predominantly atheist Czech Republic the Scout oath doesn't mention God altogether with the organization being strictly irreligious," with "For example, bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb". If you do not understand why this was considered nonsense, there's nothing left to do here. Even if this was a mistake, you were removing well-sourced information and probably shouldn't have been doing that. Yamla (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2020 (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.
JindraZPrahy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Whilst editing the page for Scouting I tried removing a sentece containing misleading information about Czech scouts. My edit contained a long string of bbbb... which was caused by an accident. I use a Thinkpad notebook with Trackpad and I must have accidentally pressed the b button while scrolling. I do apologise for that, I should have reviewed my edit more carefully. In my previous unblock request an admin mentioned that I have been removing well sourced information. In the comment to my edit I provided a link to official materials from the Czech scout organisation Junák that contradicts said the said information (https://www.skaut.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/stanovy-junaka.pdf, page 3). To be more specific: it is not true that in the Czech scout oath god is not mentioned. The Czech scout oath is even on the Czech Wikipedia here https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skautsk%C3%BD_slib with the word God (Bůh) in it.
I am really sorry for causing trouble. The thing is I am a Czech scout myself and whilst reading wikipedia I encountered a piece of information I found untrue. I tried correcting it as per the instructions on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute and have been banned for it. If you unban me I won't immediately try to edit the article again, I shall look for another way to resolve this (perhaps editing the talk for the article instead? I would be grateful for any suggestions to resolve this.)
JindraZPrahy (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2020 (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.
JindraZPrahy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am requesting an unblock because I think that it is no longer necessary. I was blocked about a month ago for editing a page with nonsense words. The nonsense words were a technical error I had made on accident and the next time I make an edit I will be more careful. I would like to be able to edit Wikipedia in the future so as to help it grow. Especially now when I have time because of the momentary quarantine. JindraZPrahy (talk) 16:30, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Having reviewed the edits in question and your comments here, I have to conclude that you are deliberately misrepresenting the sources to push a specific point of view. Unblocking you would thus be detrimental to the encyclopedia. Huon (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2020 (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.
JindraZPrahy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is another unblock request, I hope it won't be considered spamming. I was originally blocked for two things as I understand it. 1) publishng an edit with nonsense characters and 2) misrepresenting sources. I do not believe the block is any longer necessary because: 1) I have written that those characters were and accident and I will be more careful in the future. 2) I don't think that I have misrepresented sources. The disputed edit concerns the following paragraph: "Duty to God" is a principle of Scouting, though it is applied differently in various countries.[47][48] The Boy Scouts of America (BSA) take a strong position, excluding atheists.[49] The Scout Association in the United Kingdom permits variations to its Promise, in order to accommodate different religious obligations.[50] While for example in the predominantly atheist Czech Republic the Scout oath doesn't mention God altogether with the organization being strictly irreligious,[51] in 2014, United Kingdom Scouts were given the choice of being able to make a variation of the Promise that replaced "duty to God" with "uphold our Scout values",[52] Scouts Canada defines Duty to God broadly in terms of "adherence to spiritual principles" and leaves it to the individual member or leader whether they can follow a Scout Promise that includes Duty to God.[53] Worldwide, roughly one in three Scouts are Muslim.[54] Here, Czech scouts (i. e. Junák -- Český skaut, z. s.) are described as sctrictly irreligious. In this article it is written that Scout oath in the UK permits variations. The reference is in fact outdated: in the UK there is an alternative promise for atheists (ref. https://members.scouts.org.uk/supportresources/958/the-scout-promise?moduleID=10 and https://members.scouts.org.uk/fundamentals/?pageid=2944). Then the Czech republic is mentioned saying that the oath doesn't mention God altogether and that the organisation is strictly irreligious. First of all the czech Scout oath, similarly to oath in the UK, may mention God (https://www.skaut.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/stanovy-junaka.pdf p. 2: Slib lze doplnit dobrovolným dodatkem: „K tomu mi pomáhej Bůh.” -- One can add So help me God. to the oath.). Moreover, duty to God is also an important element in Czech scouting (https://www.skaut.cz/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/stanovy-junaka.pdf p. 1: Skautské hnutí je založeno na třech základních principech: povinnost k Bohu, chápaná jako povinnost hledat a respektovat v životě vyšší hodnoty než materiální... The Scout movement is built upon three principles: duty to God, understood as the duty to seek and respect higher values than material in one's life.). This is why I think it is misleading to say that Junák is a strictly irreligious organisation. It is true, however, that my previous edits didn't quite convince others of my view of the situation. I don't deliberately try to misrepresent sources. I didn't know that this topic was so disputed and I am also quite new to Wikipedia. Next time I will rather edit the talk page than make an edit myself. JindraZPrahy (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2020 (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.
In reply to your email[edit]
Wikipedia content should be a summary of what reliable sources have reported about the subject. While you and I of course are entitled to our opinions about subjects, for Wikipedia it doesn't matter what we believe, and we shouldn't put our beliefs on Wikipedia unless they happen to agree with what the sources have to say. As Yamla said above, "you were removing well-sourced information and probably shouldn't have been doing that." In this context, misrepresenting sources is even worse than just editing based on our opinions because it gives the impression that the changes we make are well-sourced when actually they aren't. You argued above that the Junák document contradicts the statement in question when in reality it confirms it:
Skautský slib zní:
„Slibuji na svou čest, jak dovedu nejlépe:
sloužit nejvyšší Pravdě a Lásce věrně v každé době,
plnit povinnosti vlastní a zachovávat zákony skautské,
duší i tělem být připraven(a) pomáhat vlasti i bližním.“
There's no God in the promise, though people are permitted to add a "So help me God" at the end if they wish. You also pointed to cs:Skautský slib and claim that there God is mentioned in the oath when (at least for Junák, the biggest organization) it isn't and the page instead says: Junák – český skaut je unikátní mezi světovými organizacemi tím, že ve svém slibu neodkazuje přímo na Boha, ale na duchovní hodnoty pravdy a lásky. Wikipedia is not a reliable source anyway, but I fail to see how you could in good faith cite it as if it supported your position. Huon (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
In response:
Firstly, I believe that God in fact is a part of the oath in some sense. Before a scout swears the oath he has to memorize it, think about it and even discuss it with his leaders. The fact that one can add "So help me God" means that one has to consider it seriously. If you consider the scout oath a process one undertakes, then God sure does play a role in it.
All right, it could still be argued, that God isn't mentioned in the oath explicitly, which is true. And this argument doesn't really rely on facts, but on my personal experience.
However, I still believe that saying that the organization is strictly irreligious (which is in the wikiarticle) is misleading because a) as I said people are forced to consider God and mainly b) God in this context with capital G (in czech B) means the christian God! The oath still mentions "The highest Truth and Love" which is a concept that I consider religious (be it not directly in the traditional sense). While it is true that Czech scouts are not one of the most religious, I consider it misleading to say that the organization is strictly irreligious. Irreligious means "Contrary to religious beliefs and practices.; Describing a conscious rejection of religion.; Having no relation to religion; nonreligious." Czech scouts aren't like that. This was the reason for my edit.
Secondly, you wrote me only about the article I had edited. I also asked about what I should do to get unbanned. I believe I have proven that I had edited Wikipedia with good faith, this is why I do not think that receiving a permaban was appropriate. I can understand that my edit was perhaps viewed as bad, but consider this: If I was a griefer who only wanted to damage Wikipedia, I would have created a new account or used Tor to edit what I wanted anonymously. It would be dissapointing if I was banned from Wikipedia forever. --JindraZPrahy (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
- The main problem I see with unblocking you is that misrepresenting sources the way you did costs a lot of trust. Let's assume that some other source comes up that is more difficult to access and you claim it says something - how can other editors or our readers trust that you're truthful and don't just misrepresent that source, too, in a way that agrees with your preconceived point of view? Misrepresenting sources is far more damaging than merely adding nonsense strings of characters. You also seem to defend, despite my explanations above, your approach of "editing according to what you feel is misleading" instead of "editing according to what reliable published sources say". That's contrary to our core content policies, WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. In order to get unblocked, you will need to convince an admin (who won't be me) that you can be trusted to put Wikipedia's policies and reliable sources first and your personal opinions second. Huon (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)