User talk:Naustin1980

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
 * 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 sock puppetry.
 * 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. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; 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! Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Bulldozer archaeology
Anyone who knows much about archaeology knows that this term is decades old, over 60 years old. Not only that, but the article is being used not to discuss bulldozer archaeology but Israeli archaeology, which is just not acceptable. You appear to have been editing as an IP first, and are probably JohnEUnite. You can only edit with one account, which do you want to use? Meanwhile, please stop adding inaccurate information to the article and using it to discuss Israeli archaeology. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please stop reverting Dougweller's improvements to the article without explanation. Thank you. -- T K K ! bark with me if you're my dog!  18:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the unfortunate mess made by the 'references', it's clear this is a separate editor although working with the article creator (according to the post on my talk page). This makes it almost impossible to edit as you'd have to renumber every time. See WP:CITE. Dougweller (talk) 22:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013
Your recent editing history at Bulldozer archaeology shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Sorry, but you need to know about this. Dougweller (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what you want me to do. It's not as if you left half the references in place, you just removed, for example, all of the references to the present controversy. I don't want to be involved in a war but I feel that I'm being censored. I'm happy to find new language if I understood what the issue was. I thought I gave equal time to Goren and Deutsch. Do you want me to add more statements to give each side an opportunity to explain its position better? Again, if you tell me what the objection is, I'm happy to try to come up with new wording. Failing that I'll go through dispute resolution but I'd rather work with you first to try and find acceptable language.

(Naustin1980 (talk) 05:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC))


 * What I want you to do is to not edit the article. As you appear to be an employee of Simcha Jacobovici you should not be editing the article in this way (see WP:COI, and it certainly should not ever have been created as a way of bringing an argument that Jacobovici is involved with into Wikipedia. And I assure you he did not reintroduce the term in any way at all. I'd say you can make comments about the article on the talk page but you must read WP:BLP very carefully before you do that. It's core policy and applies to talk pages as well. And I repeat, the article should be built up as a general one about bulldozer archaeology before we get into any current controversies. Dougweller (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Dougweller (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Where am I attacking anyone? Please quote it so I can remove it.

(Naustin1980 (talk) 09:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC))


 * The comment 'Soviet archaeology' certainly looks like an attack on those editors trying to keep the article complaint with our policy and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about the entry itself. As for the term "Soviet Archaeology", you can't censor people and block them and expect no response. I think this kind of censorship has no place in our society. I have repeatedly asked you to quote the offending statements and all you've done is block me.

(Naustin1980 (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC))

How about this one:

"Are all the academics who work for Christian colleges tainted by their theological associations, like Dr. Cargill?"

This is deliberately false and represents a personal attack (Dr. Cargill is a professor at the University of Iowa). Canards like this one are intended to undermine the credibility of your employer's opponents. ''Em-jay-es 14:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I don’t know why you keep talking about my “employer”. The point I brought up about places of employment is an important one. In many “Christian” colleges, as you surely must know, professors have to take an oath to “defend the faith”. For example, at Princeton Theological Seminary, such an oath is undertaken to this day. Recently, Professor Chris Rollston – a tenured professor – was fired from Emmanuel Christian Seminary because of an article he wrote for the Huffington Post about the marginalization of women in the Bible. Another critic of my “employer” is Professor Jim West. He is a working pastor and is an adjunct professor of Biblical Studies at the Quartz Hill School of Theology, another Christian college dedicated to defending and spreading the faith. My point about all this is not that you should ban Professors Rollston and West from providing entries to Wikipedia. My point is that it’s a bizarre twist of logic to attack me because of my “employer”, as if everyone else is independently wealthy, has no job, no employer and, at the very least, no bias. The fact is that my “employer” is an independent documentary film company that has won the highest awards in journalism available in television journalism, including two awards from the American Overseas Press Club. In the UK, we have won the Royal Television Society Award and the British Broadcast Award. By what twist of logic are independent journalists banned because they have “employers”, while pastors working for Christian colleges are considered objective and independent? As for Dr. Cargill, he’s entitled to his opinions but he too arrives at Biblical archaeology by way of a divinity degree, prior to going into archaeology and he too gets a paycheck from the university. In the world that I come from, it’s the journalists that are considered independent. Our society depends on journalism to challenge conventional thinking, including the thinking of academics. Let’s not forget that until quite recently, various universities supported eugenics, justified racism and, for example, in Germany, supported Nazi racial and anti-Semitic theories and policies. So, again, being employed by a university doesn’t put you above having an “employer”. All I’m saying is that banning people because of your prejudices is a Soviet approach to entries. This experience has totally changed my understanding of what Wikipedia is.

(Naustin1980 (talk) 21:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC))