What is this dispute about? What sections, sentences, or issues in the article(s) can you not agree on? If you are the editor who opened this request, list these issues to be mediated under "Primary issues". If you did not open this request, you can add additional issues to be mediated under "Additional issues". The issues to be mediated would be properly agreed upon later, if this request for mediation is accepted.
Primary issues (added by the filing party)
LoverofArt argues that the neologisms "Garage sale ing," "Garage sale'ing," and "Garage sale-ing" are the dominate neologism/s, citing Google SERP as the source. I argue that out of those three, it is not clear which, if any is dominate and have used Google's own suggestion of "Garage saling," and have cited a modern book found using Google Scholar. As a middle ground, I have also added the other neologisms discussed on the talk page. LoverofArt has reverted these edits many times and has failed to add citations. We are now in an edit war. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Leitmotiv (
talk •
contribs) 04:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC
The discussion on the talk page about sums it up, so it would be redundant to repeat it all here again. I'm not a patient teacher and I don't want this to devolve into a bad faith sort of thing so I'd request someone else explain to the above party how Google works in regards to resolving serp, how search works and what is implied by certain search results. As things stand (and as a neologism), the word is in far more common usage iterated as "saleing", sometimes with a hyphen, sometimes not. Sometimes with an apostrophe, sometimes not. Sometimes with a space, sometimes not. The one thing that is absolutely inarguable is that "Saleing" is the most common usage, not "saling". Contra to this would be the formal rules of English (where ing subsumes the e), however neologisms aren't constrained by that, which is what we're talking about. So, either delete as a neologism (as suggested) or if we're going to accept it, then common usage dictates its form and aesthetic. Also worth examining what the above party considers 'adequately cited'. Trying to 'formally cite' a neologism is pointless, but we can, if we want to. Here's a book published in 1979 entitled "Sale-ing" [1] .
LoverOfArt (
talk)
01:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)reply
My mention of you failing to add citations is directly related to, and only, for the other neologisms that I added (including sailing, which was overlooked but very popular), but that you reverted completely. Yes you added citations for your other edits, but when trying to meet you half way, you did not. I like TransporterMan's idea to just do away with it all, since there is no definitive source.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
04:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I believe that the paragraph in question should be removed as unsourced since the sources proffered so far are only examples of the use of the term and violate
NOR as sources for the existence of the term. If a source which actually discusses the term can be found, it (or they, if more than one) will determine which version or versions of the term are used in the article. —
TransporterMan (
TALK)
14:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)reply
In light of the agreement of all parties at the article talk page that my analysis there is correct, I have removed the terminology paragraph from the article. Since part of that analysis is that there is no
reliable source for the terminology issue which can be used without engaging in prohibited
original research, the primary issue being discussed above would now appear to be moot. This request should be closed or withdrawn. When (and if) someone finds a reliable source which isn't just an example of the use of the term they can propose a proper terminology section built around it at the article talk page. —
TransporterMan (
TALK)
14:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Is there any other actions needed of me at this point? Btw, I like the idea of proposing at the talk page first before making edits.
Leitmotiv (
talk)
17:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Additional issue 2
Parties' agreement to mediation
If you are a named party, please sign below and indicate whether you agree or refuse to participate in mediation. Remember that all editors are obliged to resolve disputes about content through discussion, mediation, or other similar means. If you do not wish to participate in mediation, you must arrange another form of dispute resolution. Comments and questions should be made underneath the numbered list below, to avoid confusion.
This section should only be edited by a mediator. The Mediation Committee's representative will indicate in due course whether the request is
accepted (meaning a mediator will be assigned) or
rejected (meaning you will have to try a different type of dispute resolution). If the mediator asks you a question in this section, you may edit here.