The only counter-productive and damaging thing to the project in this case is your lack of integrity (in protecting an article where you personally and no one else had force-fed a bogus meaning, despite even more bogus attempts at your part to justify it at a months-neglected rfv that I already closed per regulations), and your lack of integrity as a Wiktionary admin in failing to recluse yourself from this topic. I will not comment on your obvious lack of knowledge in the topic of programming languages and their history. If your intention is to drive people away from editing Wiktionary, and to give the English-language version a bad reputation on the merit of its misleading definitions, congratulations -- you're doing just fine. --Mareklug (talk) 02:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Ok please explain to me:
- Why my lack of integrity is in question when I simply re-open an RFV because I don't think it was closed properly. I specifically am waiting for someone who is more experienced with Wiktionary to handle the matter, as I have more faith in their judgement than in someone who has never made any edits and thus is less likely to understand the subtleties of Wiktionary policy and common practice.