another worthy editor with whom i disagree about his recent editing of what i first wrote six months ago actually gives the best evidence that clarification of the word uphold is appropriate if not in fact needed in this article as you can read above he states on this discussion page that no clarification of the word uphold is needed because it is such a simple word he says if people are smart enough to access wikipedia they should be smart enough to understand the meaning of an incredibly common word i'm willing to concede all of your other points but i will continue to revert your changes if you insist on adding the word approved twice no less to clarify the elementary word uphold emphasis added yet even this intelligent and well expressed editor was confused as to the meaning when he first edited by removing approved as a clarification of the word upheld he did so not because it was a commonly understood word that was incapable of being misunderstood as he now says it is no his reason was the complete opposite he changed it because at that time he misunderstood the meaning of the word in his own explanation of the edit on the revision history page for this article he wrote his reason for removing the word approved stating on december the following december upholding is different from approving emphasis added he changed it because he thought the words had different meanings he understands now but has briefly no doubt as can we all forgotten that people as did he can misunderstand these terms he is also correct that i did put that clarification twice i did so because it seemed appropriate when i sought to present the information in a suitably short yet accurate fashion however it is rather obvious that even twice isn t enough clarification for every time that every reader reads something this is true for us all even editors who take of their own time in an effort to improve wikipedia articles the other editor says if people are smart enough to access wikipedia they should be smart enough to understand the meaning of an incredibly common word i disagree respectfully even intelligent editors can and this instance did misunderstand what they thought was an incredibly common and elementary word such as upheld please understand that this is not a personal attack in any way and that everyone s opinion and thoughtful efforts at editing are valuable it s just that the circumstances are that the very person who now says that the clarification is so completely inappropriate here that he will continue to remove such clarification every time in the future that it is restored is the same person who originally took out the explanation not because it wasn t needed but rather because he didn t himself understand what the term meant we are all human we are all learning the other editor is hardly alone in being human the reason that i could quickly find so many examples of clarification of the same term coincidently done in the same manner is that the term upheld is worth using it has a precise meaning especially to those in the legal field but it i