Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2012 March 17
2012 March 19 >

18 March 2012[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Conservation-restoration (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This has now become a ridiculous mess. Out of all of this, a variety of categories have been made and deleted base on the personal opinion of a few editors who on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_6#Category:Conservation-restoration. I have asked for help on his work on my talk page, but I'm not getting very far. Please help. The discussion on the category was hastily closed and now little matches up. I tried to talk to the editor who closed it, User:Mike Selinker, but he quickly turned to vulgarity and insults rather than being helpful. Here's hoping there are editors out there who are willing to do research about a category rather than throwing around their personal opinion and Google search results. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Without wishing to rehash the drama, I will attempt to summarize the facts of this.
  1. Richard emptied Category:Art conservation into his new category.
  2. User:Vegaswikian opened a discussion on the merits of the category. Various people disagreed with Richard, who insisted that due to his WP:EXPERTISE as a conservator-restorer, his opinion should hold sway over all others who were merely using Google as a resource.
  3. After two weeks of discussion, a solution was suggested by, among others, User:Johnbod and User:Peterkingiron:
    1. Creating a category called Category:Conservation and restoration, which contains most of the articles
    2. Creating a category called Category:Art conservation and restoration, which deals solely with art
    3. initiating a move discussion from Conservation-restoration to Conservation and restoration
    4. Deleting Category:Art conservation and Category:Art conservators, which Richard emptied out of turn.
  4. I believed that Richard agreed with all of these elements because:
    1. Richard created the category which was very similarly named to Category:Conservation and restoration
    2. He stated in the discussion, "Conservation and restoration" works because it allows for sub categorization and might allow for specializations in the field to be nuanced, which seemed to clearly apply to art conservation and restoration
    3. He believed both conservation and restoration should be linked, as he had previously created Conservation-restoration
    4. He had asked for deletion of both Category:Art conservation and Category:Art conservators
  5. But I was clearly in error about this, since he went ballistic on my page, leading to an awful interchange in which I was just as guilty as he was. I was particularly incensed that he kept saying I hadn't read the discussion, which I had.
  6. Then in addition to complaining on my page, he did so on the CfD page after the close, and on his page, and on User_talk:Timrollpickering#Discussion.
  7. Along the way, at least four editors told him to take his concerns to DRV, which he finally did after more accusations of ineptness and thuggery.

I believe that my close was correct, and that it satisfied everything Richard wanted, despite his combative tone. He obviously disagrees. Perhaps others will see a road to conclusion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...Mike, I see why you're confused. You have some of the facts wrong:

1) I created a category that matched the article for conservation-restoration. And I moved things into it. It's not my category, it related to the article (which your gang has now moved on to try and change).

2) I also created other categories that matched sub-articles in that article. I never claimed any Wikipedia "expertise" clause, but pointed out that I knew from talking to my colleagues that this made sense, also I've consulted a variety of texts and professional organizations. Google can be useful, but using it in the way your gang does, is wrongheaded.

3) Simply put, you closed the discussion hastily and unilaterally. There's now a big mess because this issue was not properly discussed. I pointed out the issues directly to you.

4) Yes. But you didn't bother to read why the category "art conservation" was problematic. I explained it to you and gave you the SOS! example.

5) If by "ballistic" you mean I asked you why you did what you did. Suffering vulgar insults isn't much fun to anyone, even though you've sanitized your page now ... If you had read and considered the discussion, and actually suggested what you were going to do, we wouldn't be here now, would we, Mike?

6) Yes I did. See below, Mike and think about it for a second rather then defending yourself.

7) people told me to place it on this page, but this page is confusing, so I listed a help thing on my page AS THIS VERY PAGE TELLS ME TO DO! Please don't give me a hard time for doing what you told me to do and what this page explicitly says to do.

I think you should take a break from your work in WP, Mike. Your aggressive, vulgar, and combative approach is no good. Simply saying that I'm aggressive or ballistic doesn't make it so. That's just more name calling. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 00:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Your aggressive, vulgar, and combative approach is no good. Simply saying that I'm aggressive or ballistic doesn't make it so." Does it make it so when you say it about Mike? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, Mike's trusty side kick comes in to do nothing but try and spread the fight.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trusty sidekick"? What are you talking about? Mike and I know each other on WP and we have had passing interactions in the past, but that's about it. It has been quite common for us to disagree on specific issues. It just seems to me that you are doing exactly the same sort of thing that you are criticising Mike for doing to you. You can't have it both ways. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close. The close wasn't exactly what I had supported when I voiced my opinion in the discussion, but I can see that it was a good close. It took the views of the majority into consideration but was also sensitive to what at the time was perceived to be RichardMcCoy's views, which were expressed strongly and repeatedly in the discussion. I don't think the discussion was closed too soon or over hastily. (RichardMcCoy initially called for the discussion to be speedily closed, so I'm not sure why that would not have been too hasty but what Mike did was.) I don't know any other way that a discussion can be closed but "unilaterally": a closer doesn't generally poll everyone to ask, "OK if I close this now?" The discussion had remained open for longer than the standard period of time. After re-reading the discussion, though, I do not get the impression that Mike in any way imposed "his" will. It seems that RichardMcCoy may have only been satisfied with a close of the discussion with no action, as he repeatedly and strongly called for in the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close despite RichardMcCoy's manifest annoyance. RichardMcCoy's argument persuaded no-one (apart from one 'weak keep') to support the retention of Category:Conservation-restoration, and there was clear dissatisfaction with the name. Oculi (talk) 01:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I guess I didn't make that clear before. What's interesting about this entire discussion is that it points exactly to one of the failures of Wikipedia, and it's "seasoned" and "expert" editors. In this example, the gang of three that have tried to own this discussion, and two of which are trying to do it here, have failed to actually do any research -- they've used their Wikipedia club knowledge as a crutch to intimidate any real discussion.
I've asked, demanded, and tried to guilt someone into doing some real research -- "Good OlFactory" apparently was even insulted by my not accepting his meager efforts. But he, like everyone else, has done no real research. It's dissapointing that as "Oculi" points out, no one was persuaded by my argument. Really, I don't think anyone in this "discussion" has even read the article that this category relates to, conservation-restoration. So, in the end, as a way to ultimately expose this culmination of failures, here's one simple bit of research you could have done: look it up in the most recognized international organization of the profession, International Council of Museums. Read the definition of the profession here: http://www.icom-cc.org/47/about-icom-cc/definition-of-profession/.
Simple, really, isn't it? Right: I'll say it again: read that web page and think about this. Do some research.
This wasn't complicated research or particularly difficult to find. But it took real work and thought. You can call me what you want, but recognize the failure of the situation, and the failure of these editors. And, ultimately, please re-open this discussion, change the categories back, and start being productive rather than just trying to win a silly argument out of pride. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've promised not to speak to Richard again because it only makes things worse. But I am glad he posted the Definition of Profession link that he did, because it nicely sums up my close. I wrote RichardMcCoy is right that people in the field sometimes refer to themselves as "conservator-restorers" but the hyphenated "conservation-restoration" is far less common. So the proper course of action is to attempt to change the article name. In the link, we learn about conservator-restorers and the "Working Group for Training in Conservation and Restoration," which shows the "and" being used when the field is referred to. It later uses "conservation-restoration" in running text, showing that the approach is mixed. So using the less jargony approach makes more sense to me. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RichardMcCoy wrote: "'Good OlFactory' apparently was even insulted by my not accepting his meager efforts." No, but I am surprised that you assume to know what my efforts at background research have been or my knowledge in the area consists of, since I have not declared to anyone what they are or have been. You don't know, and are therefore making assumptions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You only makes things worse when you become aggressive and vulgarly insult people, Mike. In the face of the accuracy of this document you're really going to go this far out of the way to try and hang on to your sense of pride? I would think you would be embarrassed to do this. "GoodOLFactory" I only know what you've shown: a capacity to search words in Google.
As usual, you both are more interested in winning an argument, than thinking about what's at hand. What I've given here is one simple example of accuracy, but if you want to play to Mike's lowest common denominator, this Encyclopedia will suffer for your Google view on the world. I would hope that someone else here might be willing to do a little bit of extra research. But perhaps this effort will continue to prove the point that "experienced" editors are simply savvy at Wikipedia policies and able to pull a gang together rather than actually being interested in doing research and gathering knowledge. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse the conclusion seems a rational solution, and probably better than any other. Fighting for one's own terminology is not a very constructive process. When there is a choice between terminology widely used by the general public, and terminology preferred by the profession, the common usage holds unless it is actually wrong or misleading. The role of experts in Wikipedia is to explain things to the non-experts in ordinary language, not induce the non-experts to adopt their preferred jargon. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly common sense and accuracy are of little use here, so I hope that if you all continue with this inaccuracy for the sake of your own ease and believed convenience, I hope that you'll actually go and work through all of the related content to re-name it. At least do better than Mike's half-hearted efforts. I'm guessing not, but it's worth pointing out here to put on record.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 02:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Material heresy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Looking through the deleted edits, I can't understand why this was marked as vandalism: the author appears to have been writing about a specific teaching in Catholic theology. It's definitely not a blatant hoax, and I can see no other reason to consider this vandalism. I've not contacted the deleting admin: all his user rights were removed at his own request when he retired two years ago. Nyttend (talk) 03:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - No objection to creating a new redirect from 'Material heresy' to Christian heresy#Catholic understanding. The deleted material, which seems to be a tirade against Protestantism, has no value in my opinion. The only source provided was a document which reads like a sermon on traditionalcatholic.net. That document is unlikely to qualify as a reliable source in this context and the website is a self-published personal site. EdJohnston (talk) 07:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia can't possibly host the wording originally published. "Invincibly ignorant" is completely unacceptable as a description of anyone. I think there's an encyclopaedic topic to be written about here, probably called something like Catholic soteriology; until one of the few Wikipedians who're remotely interested in religion gets around to writing it, EdJohnston's suggested redirect is as good as any.—S Marshall T/C 12:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three comments: (1) I'm a Protestant. (2) I understood the idea of "invincibly ignorant" as meaning "so ignorant that it's excusable", partly because the page says that they're "not guilty of the sin of heresy". (3) I agree that it's problematic content, but it's far from being an attack page. Nyttend (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I'm jediist pastafarian. It's certainly not meant as an attack page, but irrespective of how it's meant, I don't think that "invincibly ignorant" is something we can say except in a quotation. "Invincibly ignorant" as applied to protestants is opinion, and I find it an inexcusable NPOV violation.—S Marshall T/C 16:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's the routine technical term used, at least previously, in Roman Catholic theological writing, and were must report it accurately. Wikipedia can and should host without any exception whatsoever, the wording used in the RW to describe a subject. The rule is NOT CENSORED. Some people think it applies only to sex, but it applies to race and religion also, and even insults and bigotry. One's personal view of the opinion or the phrase is irrelevant entirely. (And as Nytennd points out, it is used as an excuse, not a condemnation. The alternative, as it was seen, is assigning them to Hell as willfully rejecting true religion. But even were it used as the grossest of insults, it's no cause for removing the term from the article, let alone rejecting an article. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It still needs to be in an attributed quote, as I said. My position is that we can't use that language in Wikipedia's authorial voice.—S Marshall T/C 19:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Two more bits: (1) My point about being a Protestant is to say that I'm not asking for restoration of this article because I'm trying to promote the idea. (2) All this debate about invicible ignorance is irrelevant to the reason I brought it to DRV: it's definitely not vandalism, and there's no other speedy deletion criterion that applies. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – WP:G3 is certainly not the correct deletion criterion; the deleting administrator should probably have prodded the article instead. Whether you can prod it now or not, I don't know; even though it is not an uncontroversial subject, I still think the wait-7-days-and-see-if-anybody-notices-it approach is the best way to decide whether it gets deleted or not. Bwrs (talk) 01:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore There is no point prodding it, as I shall remove the prod. I apparently did not make it clear earlier that I regard it as a valid topic for an article, though a fuller explanation is needed. If the deleting admin still wants to delete it, it would have to be via AfD. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore- The content is valid and should be merged into one of the Catholicism related articles. Reyk YO! 06:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. Not vandalism, and I see no other CSD reason. But clearly not article-worthy in this state; if undeleted it should be selectively merged or redirected or promptly expanded to a stub that establishes topical notability.  Sandstein  18:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_March_18&oldid=1078422213"