User talk:Freasham28

June 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Pioneer Courthouse Square. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Skynxnex (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

how is this in any way pov? Freasham28 (talk) 17:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you express in your recent edit summary that you're not sure why these changes are being reverted let me try to explain. "homeless bums" is a very loaded term and isn't otherwise used in the article. Since it's not otherwise used in the article, you'd need to add sources, or at least citations, explaining why that is what reliable sources largely use when describing the square.

Most editors at wikipedia at least try to follow WP:BRD, or BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. So you were bold, your edits were reverted. Now it's time to discuss before you attempt to add the same edit again. It needs to be sourced since, as I said, it's fairly loaded language and have WP:DUE weight to be placed at the end of the lead paragraph. Skynxnex (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The best place to try to add information about the type of people who may be in the square is probably in a new section on the article's talk page. I am pretty sure someone else will revert your most recent edit shortly and I likely will at some point but I am deferring revert myself for a bit to give time to potentially discuss/refine/add sources. Skynxnex (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. There should be some mention of homeless people in Pioneer Courthouse Square. I apologize for using the word "bums." However, most are harmless and this should be acknowledged so as not to wrongly tar them. I am willing to modify to change the language, however there should be a mention of them. Here is a source: https://en.tripadvisor.com.hk/ShowUserReviews-g52024-d126568-r433822637-Pioneer_Courthouse_Square-Portland_Oregon.html Freasham28 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A TripAdvisor user review is not a reliable source. Reliable sources are, to put it briefly, published, secondary sources. Please read up on WP:RS to understand this better. My Pants Metal (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Pioneer Courthouse Square, you may be blocked from editing. My Pants Metal (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know why any source at all is needed. It is a fact that there are many bums at pioneer Courthouse Square. Have you been there lately? Do we need a source on saying the sky is blue? Freasham28 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Pioneer Courthouse Square. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you block me? Just help me to craft the language so it's not pov. Freasham28 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2023 (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).

Freasham28 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Instead of helping to me build a non-pov contribution, the admin just blocked me. I want to work together to create a non-pov inclusion of homelessness in this article. I don't understand the hostility. Why block me indefinitely when I'm trying to work in good faith to resolve this? Freasham28 (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You need sources for your edit. I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2023 (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.