User talk:AlexFrazier

Welcome!

Hello, AlexFrazier, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Herod the Great does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
How to edit a page
Help pages
Tutorial
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! tgeorgescu (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Begging your pardon, but I didn't make a change to any fringe point of view. I made changes to alter opinions with facts. I provided sources. And the changes I made are in conformity with over four-hundred years of academic opinion. I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're going to undo factual, quality changes made to erroneous material, then this site isn't going to be worth much academically. Case in point, expressing the opinion that Matthew's account of the Bethlehem massacre is fictitious is not in conformity with a neutral point of view. There is no evidence that it is fictitious. Nor would "most" or "many" scholars agree that it is if the quantification of those scholars included individuals from both sides of the argument. In another instance, Appian does not say that Herod was appointed king in 39 BCE. He blatantly gives a context of 40 BCE, consistent with Josephus. The argument from which this is taken is the concept that Appian places Herod's appointment in a context "that by Dio Cassius" can be dated to 39 BCE. And although that is also incorrect, I deliberately left out the contention over the interpretation of Dio Cassius and stuck to the fact that Appian didn't place Herod's appointment in 39 BCE. Ergo, I struck it, because it wasn't fact.

It seems to me that you didn't consider the changes, nor read the reasons I made them. You just had a knee jerk reaction and undid them. I almost get the impression that you wrote this article, which is riddled with errors. Is that the case? Are you trying to protect your work? This is supposed to be a free and open platform. If I'm wrong, and can be demonstrated to be wrong, I can accept having my changes undone. But unless you have a valid reason to exclude my factual changes, I insist that you put them back in. AlexFrazier (talk) 12:46, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I did not write the article (the vast majority of it).

Again: proof is for math and whisky. Not for Ancient history.

My advice: respect WP:RS in general and WP:RS/AC in particular. Otherwise you're not going to enjoy editing Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Herod the Great. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Herod the Great. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Your opinion does not trump WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you review WP:THREATEN. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page blocks

You have been page-blocked from Herod the Great for tendentious editing and ignoring our policies, and from its talkpage for persistent rudeness, threats and personal attacks, both for three months. Please note that if you take this kind of disruption to other pages, you will be blocked from the entire site. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 16:15, 16 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Herod the Great while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Doug Weller talk 08:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Bishonen | tålk 17:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]