User talk:Dbigs

April 2024[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. ... discospinster _talk 00:29, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I was not blocked for any good reason. I joined the Wikipedia editing community after reading a page containing information that was false, biased, and intended to harm the reputation of the person the page was about. I sought to have the ability to correct this egregious error because the objective of Wikipedia is and should be to provide objective information, free of personal biases. However, I found the article in question to be semi-protected to prevent vandalism, which was completely reasonable. The only way by which a new Wikipedia editor can edit a page with such protections is to have their account for at least four days and provide ten edits for other, non-protected articles. Being unable to find any articles with large errors, I decided instead to provide smaller changes to articles, such as clarification, grammatical corrections, or additional information on the subject matter, to reach the amount of edits required before I could fix the article that I originally intended to edit. I strongly maintain that all edits I have made were fact-checked and only improved upon their articles. I have never made an edit to a Wikipedia page that was intended to misinform the reader or sully the reputation of the article's subject. I consider Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource for all and I have donated to it multiple times. Please consider all I have said and understand that I became a Wikipedia editor for the very best of intentions. Dbigs (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I was not blocked for any good reason. I joined the Wikipedia editing community after reading a page containing information that was false, biased, and intended to harm the reputation of the person the page was about. I sought to have the ability to correct this egregious error because the objective of Wikipedia is and should be to provide objective information, free of personal biases. However, I found the article in question to be semi-protected to prevent vandalism, which was completely reasonable. The only way by which a new Wikipedia editor can edit a page with such protections is to have their account for at least four days and provide ten edits for other, non-protected articles. Being unable to find any articles with large errors, I decided instead to provide smaller changes to articles, such as clarification, grammatical corrections, or additional information on the subject matter, to reach the amount of edits required before I could fix the article that I originally intended to edit. I strongly maintain that all edits I have made were fact-checked and only improved upon their articles. I have never made an edit to a Wikipedia page that was intended to misinform the reader or sully the reputation of the article's subject. I consider Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource for all and I have donated to it multiple times. Please consider all I have said and understand that I became a Wikipedia editor for the very best of intentions. [[User:Dbigs|Dbigs]] ([[User talk:Dbigs#top|talk]]) 02:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was not blocked for any good reason. I joined the Wikipedia editing community after reading a page containing information that was false, biased, and intended to harm the reputation of the person the page was about. I sought to have the ability to correct this egregious error because the objective of Wikipedia is and should be to provide objective information, free of personal biases. However, I found the article in question to be semi-protected to prevent vandalism, which was completely reasonable. The only way by which a new Wikipedia editor can edit a page with such protections is to have their account for at least four days and provide ten edits for other, non-protected articles. Being unable to find any articles with large errors, I decided instead to provide smaller changes to articles, such as clarification, grammatical corrections, or additional information on the subject matter, to reach the amount of edits required before I could fix the article that I originally intended to edit. I strongly maintain that all edits I have made were fact-checked and only improved upon their articles. I have never made an edit to a Wikipedia page that was intended to misinform the reader or sully the reputation of the article's subject. I consider Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource for all and I have donated to it multiple times. Please consider all I have said and understand that I became a Wikipedia editor for the very best of intentions. [[User:Dbigs|Dbigs]] ([[User talk:Dbigs#top|talk]]) 02:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I was not blocked for any good reason. I joined the Wikipedia editing community after reading a page containing information that was false, biased, and intended to harm the reputation of the person the page was about. I sought to have the ability to correct this egregious error because the objective of Wikipedia is and should be to provide objective information, free of personal biases. However, I found the article in question to be semi-protected to prevent vandalism, which was completely reasonable. The only way by which a new Wikipedia editor can edit a page with such protections is to have their account for at least four days and provide ten edits for other, non-protected articles. Being unable to find any articles with large errors, I decided instead to provide smaller changes to articles, such as clarification, grammatical corrections, or additional information on the subject matter, to reach the amount of edits required before I could fix the article that I originally intended to edit. I strongly maintain that all edits I have made were fact-checked and only improved upon their articles. I have never made an edit to a Wikipedia page that was intended to misinform the reader or sully the reputation of the article's subject. I consider Wikipedia to be a very valuable resource for all and I have donated to it multiple times. Please consider all I have said and understand that I became a Wikipedia editor for the very best of intentions. [[User:Dbigs|Dbigs]] ([[User talk:Dbigs#top|talk]]) 02:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

So you gamed the system to artificially obtain an advanced permission? The system exists for a reason. Did you not consider that you could make an edit request to propose the changes you feel are needed? You have a slight misunderstanding of Wikipedia in that it does not claim to be objective or "without bias", as all sources have biases. Sources are presented to readers so they can evaluate and judge them for themselves when determining what they wish to believe. Wikipedia is written with a neutral point of view, but doesn't claim to be without bias. Any bias in sources will be reflected in Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 08:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the definitions Wikipedia provides in the "Gaming the system" and "NPOV in Wikipedia" articles that you linked to, I stand by my point that I did nothing wrong by adding slight modifications to articles simply to reach my required edit limit to edit the biased article. Wikipedia defines "Gaming the system" as "Deliberately misusing Wikipedia policy or process for personal advantage at the expense of other editors or the Wikipedia community." That is what the page says literally. Wikipedia even has a checkbox in the "Publish Changes" UI Box where you can clarify that the changes you made to the article were minor. The changes I made only improved the articles they belonged to, even if the improvements were small. Therefore, I did not "Artificially obtain advanced permission;" I followed the rules and was perfectly in right when I provided the edits to other articles.

You are right in saying that all sources are somewhat biased. However, in the link you provided to NPOV page, Wikipedia expressly states that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, WITHOUT EDITORIAL BIAS (caps inserted by me), all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This has not been the case for several articles that I have read, and I seek to rectify these errors.

As for having the option to request to edit a protected article, I admit that I did not know that this was an option. Going forward I will try my best to be more aware of my options when making changes to Wikipedia pages.

If there were any changes that I made to Wikipedia articles that did not improve the article, I sincerely apologize and ask for clemency. I joined the Wikipedia editing community to improve upon the valuable resource that Wikipedia is.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbigs (talk • contribs)

Most of your minor edits did not qualify as minor edits; any edit that changes the meaning of the article is not a minor edit, even if it only changes a single word. Only spelling and grammar fixes qualify as "minor". 331dot (talk) 15:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, thank you for correcting that. I will be careful to not edit articles for the sole purpose of providing minimal extra information in the future; I will make sure that all of the changes I make will bring major improvements, or I won't make them at all. But I'm still asking for mercy for my account to be unbanned because I joined Wikipedia with honorable intentions and I have seen that what I was doing was not really improving the articles that I changed.

I apologize and I ask to have a second chance. I will be careful to bring actual improvement to articles that I edit in the future if my account gets unbanned. Dbigs (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]