User talk:JindraZPrahy

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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:. Materialscientist (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

In reply to your email
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:

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)