User talk:Isabekian

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 12:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source and violation of our WP:NPOV policy in your edits discussing Carahunge research - they need to be rewritten
Your text was:

"Subsequently, different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs, Irakli Simonia and Badri Jijelava ) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) confirmed the astronomical signiﬁcance of the Carahunge mega-lithic complex."

That's a misrepresentation of the source. The source has two relevant sentences: "The expedition supported the idea that Carahunge had an astronomical significance, concluding that the monument is aligned to rising points of the sun, moon, and several bright stars." It also says "The specific geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical significance" - so, "probably" and "supports" - neither word is anything close to confirmed. That's the misrepresentation.

Then there's our Neutral point of view policy linked in the section heading. The next part of the second sentence is "(but see also ▶Chap. 127, “Carahunge - A Critical Assessment” for a different view)." Your edit doesn't suggest that is in the source at all. To follow our policy you must include relevant information from chapter 127. I've reverted one edit entirely and am about to revert the other - please rewrite them complying with our guidelines.

I realise that you are new, but I would think that without even reading our policy an editor should understand that they shouldn't use words not backed in the source and should not cherry pick just one point of view from a source. Doug Weller talk 14:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm trying to assume good faith, but till now your actions are just agressive. If you believe a word I used is not fine, you could: 1) discuss it at talk at first, to not start an WP:WAR, 2) to change that word, but not delete the whole text. Your actions are against WP:NPOV. Isabekian (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. 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 Carahunge, you may be blocked from editing. ''As I explained above, it is not just the claim it was confirmed that is not backed up with the source, but the fact that the source makes it clear that this is disputed, which no one would guess from your revert. I thought I'd explained enough so that you would be able to edit it properly.'' Doug Weller  talk 15:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

The importance of talk pages
Hello Isabekian. I noticed that some of your edits are being reverted repeatedly. It's important in this case to discuss rather than reinstate edits, this also permits to determine what is contested exactly, which sources to select, how to represent them, using a consensus. I see that you started doing the right thing at Talk:Carahunge. Here are relevant links: WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. It's also important to remember that there's no urgency: the articles of the encyclopedia are always in progress, there is no publishing deadline. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 16:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm doing the right thing at talk. But as you see, the other side prefers to delete sources not to discuss at talk. He is an admin, and I'm a new user, so please try to explain the importance of talk to him. Hope he will join there and explain his actions. Thank you! Isabekian (talk) 16:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've discuss the issues above, at FTN and NPOVH. How is that not discussing? Doug Weller  talk 18:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


 * WP:ONUS may be relevant here: while other editors may take the time to correct edits when they can, if the new material is problematic, since they're all volunteers, reverting it then expecting either a rework according to criticism, or a discussion of proposed sources and sentence reformulations at the article's talk page for consensus, is common collaborative practice. Another reason for this is that many must actively patrol new changes to a very large number of articles (mostly against vandalism, but also to revert common errors, promotion, etc).  Doing this is time-intensive and often a note is kept about an improvement to make on a "to-do" list when it cannot be fixed immediately, or, a new edit simply gets reverted with the reason in the edit summary.
 * Isabekian: If the source is reliable but misrepresented, why not suggest alternative sentences at the talk page of those articles instead of only complaining about neutrality or the reverting editor? To me the criticism was simple: the additions attempted to promote that some disputed ideas were confirmed, when the sources used treat it as a possibility, an incertitude.  WP:NPOV (and the related tag you added), is not about balancing an article's neutrality, but about careful source selection and accurate representation of those sources.
 * Also, this is a common error that often happens inadvertently: it's confusing when the discussion happens everywhere (and that doesn't help resolve content disputes). My note at the neutral point of view noticeboard was to redirect the discussion to the existing one at the fringe theories one (WP:FTN) to avoid WP:FORUMSHOPPING.  But my previous message above was likely unclear about that the relevant article's talk page is the best place to seek consensus for the bold-revert-discuss cycle.  The noticeboards help to bring more attention, but not to replace the article's talk page.
 * I hope this gives a good idea of the main Wikipedia processes, — Paleo  Neonate  – 21:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)