Category talk:Conservation and restoration of cultural heritage

More of a mess now ...
This category has a new name, but now it does not match the related article Conservation-restoration, nor the other related sub categories. This was all done with great haste by User:Mike Selinker and User:Vegaswikian who now have walked away from their mess. What a waist of everyone's time ... and now there's much to clean up. --RichardMcCoy (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Mike Selinker has suggested a rename of the article here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion link
Category was created pursuant to this discussion at CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I forgot to also credit you, "GoodOlfactory", for making this mess. I wonder how you and your gang deal with the related categories and articles of the main conservation-restoration article. My guess is you'll do nothing but move on to other things.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, if you're going to attempt a take-down of me, at least spell my user name correctly. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the typo. Take down?  Come one now.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Take down, slam, criticism—whatever you want to say. Whatever you want to call it. But it's a bit unusual to say here that there is a mess, that I made it, and that my "gang" is probably unable or unwilling to fix it. First, I don't think it's a mess; second, what exists was not created by me, it doesn't even conform to what my expressed opinion was; third, I don't know who my gang is; and fourth, I don't know why you feel the need to predict any other users' future actions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry to offend you, GoodOlFactory. I think you are taking this all pretty personally.  The mess is that the primary article related to this category and its sub articles also now need to be re-named, and then I suppose a variety of other categories for the field need to be created so that things can categorized well based on this decision (will you create categories for conservation-restoration that don't deal with art? It seems like there is Wikipedia consensus for renaming the main article to conservation and restoration, but it in fact is inaccurate and based on biased personal opinions not facts.  when I say it was your gang of three that caused this mess, I mean that you three were the ones who fought for this category the hardest, together, so I should hope that you make good on your arguments and work all of this out.  I'm skeptical because I've been editing these articles on and off for a long time and they've really gotten poor attention historically.  --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I was not and am not offended, nor am I taking anything personally. I just found your comments unusual (for the reasons stated above) and I found it mildly amusing that you would write what you did but not bother to get a user name correct. Typos happen, but sometimes they are funny. The three of us—whoever the other two exactly are (Vegaswikian? Mike Selinker? Mangoe?), I'm not even sure—are not a "gang". We are not working in concert in any way, and the repeated suggestion that we might be whiffs of conspiratorial thinking. Vegaswikian was the nominator. Mike Selinker was the uninvolved admin who closed the discussion. Mangoe made some comments in the discussion. I made comments in the discussion. But there is no organised plot against you or your views. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Take it easy. I never said there was any plot against me ... there's not sense in being that dramatic. I have pointed out that you worked together and are allied with these other editors. (You glutton). It's all okay with me, just wanted to point it out.--RichardMcCoy (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm taking it perfectly easy, but am finding this a wee amusing. But no, we did not "work together" nor are we "allied" in any way. I appear to have shared roughly the same opinion as Vegaswikian. But correlation of opinion does not automatically imply "alliance" or "working together". Mike Selinker was a nom who closed the discussion and had nothing to do with "working with" me or "allying" with me. My comment on his page was in reference to his repeated efforts at closing discussions that are dominated by extremely vocal and dominant/persistent users, of which this was one, in my opinionb. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good news then; glad you've cooled off. I see you're cleaning up a few of the associated articles; it'd be really great if you'd also clean up all of the linking text that comes back to the article and category that you wanted changed, and all of the other associated articles that are listed in this category. I thought maybe that the others you listed might pitch in and help you because the agreed so clearly .... ah well, you're probably right in that they aren't your palls. Best, --RichardMcCoy (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was never "hot" to begin with. My only concern was your maligning of other editors, including me, and suggesting there was some organized league against you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear. Here's to making this all work then once all of the moving and editing is done of the associate content!--RichardMcCoy (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)