User talk:Geoff Plourde/Archive 22

Mediation

Hi Geoff! I also responded to you on my own talk page; you should read that first. I just wanted to assure you that while the main focus of the dispute is the terminology used in the title and the text, should the title not be replaced, the greatest cause of conflict is the wording in the Introduction, which I and others feel is not the place to be justifying which of the two terms is the "better" one, when both are (as sources given in the talk page justify) used with equal frequency in the English language.

The introduction is perceived to be perhaps in favour of one variation over the other—the singular form is attached to the end of the paragraph, with an adjoing statement about why it might be less correct or more confusing than the other—a justified claim perhaps, but one that many feel belongs in the section of the article that was created for such claims. (i.e. the Terminology section).

This should be a focal point of the mediation aswell. If we cannot reach a consensus to move the page to America, then I would be willing to compromise if the intro was altered to how a normal Wikipedia introduction is written (e.g. Xa or Xb is...). Thankyou again so much for your help! I'm willing to cooperate in any way you need. Cheers, Night w (talk) 03:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

So...can we reopen the case? I can do the rallying up of the parties involved if you want... Night w (talk) 07:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll start rounding everyone up. But hey, do you think maybe we can take this in another direction? ...Address possible changes to the introduction as the main focus? I think that's what is causing most of the conflict, and changing the page's title altogether isn't going to receive much support at the moment (including from myself)... What are your thoughts? Night w (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! Thanks Geoff that's great. I've sent messages to everyone involved. Should be seeing some action soon. Cheers! Night w (talk) 05:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey Geoff, thankyou so much for sticking with this thing! I was just wondering, if the article so clearly goes against what's outlined by Policy (regarding common divided usage), do I need consensus in order to change it?? I would much rather get approval from other editors and reach an agreement of course, but since my party seem to be inactive, I don't exactly have numbers on my side. In the meantime though, I'll continue trying to propose alternatives to see if they aren't welcomed by other editors. Thanks! Night w (talk) 14:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey Geoff. Sorry it's a little late (I haven't been online in a while), but I just wanted to say thankyou for your help with the case. You've been a huge help! Keep up the good work! Night w (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2009 (UTC)