User talk:Federal Regulatory Authority (FRA)
January 2025
[edit]
Hello, I'm Discospinster. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Uluru Statement from the Heart seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ... discospinster talk 20:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
is not a neutral description. ... discospinster talk 20:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)divisive racial politics manifesto presented as a petition...
If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. --Kinu t/c 21:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- This is not disruptive editing. For my username, it's not a name used or claimed by any entity anywhere in the world. In 3 words it sums up my area of scholarly and academic interest. WP:MISLEADNAME you've linked to doesn't in any way specially limit those who may work in government, or claim to, in their participation in the project. Federal Regulatory Authority (FRA) (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your edits to the voice referendum page and the Uluru statement from the heart are pretty obviously massively politically slanted and your own POV. We write articles in unbiased language on Wikipedia, trying NOT to include our own beliefs. Your edits clearly were deliberately against that. GraziePrego (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- My edits were not biased, and I was just making sure the page reflects the full picture. Wikipedia should show all perspectives, and that's exactly what I was doing. I didn’t push any personal beliefs, just facts. If my edits don’t match your views, that’s not a reason to call them slanted. I stand by what I contributed, and I believe it was in line with Wikipedia's guidelines. Federal Regulatory Authority (FRA) (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- My edits were based on a more complete understanding of the topic, including the criticisms and opposition that were missing from the original. The Uluru Statement and its proposals are far from universally accepted, and I felt it was necessary to reflect that in the article. If it seems like I introduced my own point of view, it's because the previous version was too one-sided and didn't accurately represent the full range of opinions on the matter.
- I stand by the changes I made. Wikipedia should be a space where all perspectives are shown, and that includes the legitimate concerns raised about the proposals in the Uluru Statement, as well as the rejection of the Voice by the Australian public. Just because my edits don't align with your perspective doesn't mean they’re biased—they just add the missing context that the original lacked. Federal Regulatory Authority (FRA) (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Statement might not be universally accepted, but you have to include reliable sources that reflect the criticisms and opposition. Otherwise it looks like you are just adding your opinion. "All perspectives" does not mean personal views. (Also your name does imply a governmental organization.) ... discospinster talk 23:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- Your edits to the voice referendum page and the Uluru statement from the heart are pretty obviously massively politically slanted and your own POV. We write articles in unbiased language on Wikipedia, trying NOT to include our own beliefs. Your edits clearly were deliberately against that. GraziePrego (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- You are also blatantly the same user as User:State Regulatory Authority, making this a sockpuppet account. Dropping old accounts and starting new ones is allowed - but it's explicitly not allowed to
resume editing articles or topics in the same manner
. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)- Alright, I’ll admit my edits went too far, and I understand why that’s a problem. I’ll follow the rules from now on and stick to neutral, guideline-compliant edits—no more POV pushing, I promise. That said, I do have one request. I’ve already set up a new account, and I’d like it not to be blocked. I want to contribute positively to the project, and I assure you I’ll be sticking strictly to Wikipedia’s standards this time. Please give me this chance. International Regulatory Authority (IRA) (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- ???????? You’ve already set up a new account and started editing again? I really don’t think you’ve understood Wikipedia’s guidelines around multiple accounts. Also, the block is about preventing you as a person from continuing to edit, not just one specific account. GraziePrego (talk) 06:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
- Alright, I’ll admit my edits went too far, and I understand why that’s a problem. I’ll follow the rules from now on and stick to neutral, guideline-compliant edits—no more POV pushing, I promise. That said, I do have one request. I’ve already set up a new account, and I’d like it not to be blocked. I want to contribute positively to the project, and I assure you I’ll be sticking strictly to Wikipedia’s standards this time. Please give me this chance. International Regulatory Authority (IRA) (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)