Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Evidence

I'm not familiar with the process of arbitration and so i have taken the safe option and posted this here on the talk page till a later date when im told whether this should be put on the evidence page or whether to just leave it here. The problem i have is the statement in NE2's evidence "NE2 was correct about "decommissioned" being a neologism, but incorrect about "deleted" being a good replacement." The decommissioned discussion was brought to an end during mediation from the Mediation Cabal. I was involved in this and helped negotiate this discussion and provided the summing up at the end which was as follows:
 * The word 'decommissioned' or any other single term is not appropriate in many different uses as this is confusing.
 * The word 'decommissioned' or any other single term can be replaced with multiple, more accurate and therefore less confusing terms. e.g. renumbered, redesignated
 * That a Highways Manual of Style needs to be written to assist in editors in using easy to understand and correct terminology.

Nowhere was it agreed apon that decommissioned was a neologism. What was agreed was that there were better words that could be used. Something that NE2 agreed with himself. I feel it is wrong for NE2 to state that he was right or wrong in this discussion because no one was right or wrong because a middle ground was reached Seddon69 (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Everyone is welcome to provide evidence for the Committee; shedding more light over a case is a good thing. If you want, I can move your evidence to the page, or you can do so yourself by guiding yourself on the blank spaces on the evidence page.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Iv placed that as evidence. Thank you Seddon69 (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)