There is no reason to hold on rfv on an issue that is widely documented but frequently misunderstood.:
Then what is going on with your reverting and then protecting. I realize this is not the English Wikipedia, but that wouldn't go well over there. Can you explain why such a as an rfv is going on and this is being reverted in when so easily explained?
I don't understand, why is common sense not involved in this process? We all know the user who added it is a bit naive and must be new to software development. Anyone who has spent 6 months writing web software knows the difference. Is there is IAR here?
Ignore all rules. Do written dictionaries include blatant misuses of a word?
There is no Wiktionary policy stating that users should "Ignore all rules". What other dictionaries do is irrelevant to what is done on Wiktionary.
...you know what. That's fine. Folks will read the Wikipedia article long before coming here. This is a joke. I'm reaping what I sow on the Wikipedia side. Good one guys. Who needs common established expert undisputed facts when we can have a dictionary that covers misconceptions instead?
You are making an effort to avoid understanding us. I can't believe that Wikimedia editors would come here just to troll volunteers on a sister project.
We're describing the language how it's really used. Just because somebody is uneducated about programming doesn't mean they can't speak English. As long as we mark it as proscribed etc, it is acceptable as a definition.