"

Thank you for informing me of this. I spent a lot of time on my reply, in the hope that this helps to resolve the issue. I just sent you this email, so I wonder whether you really had the time to read my comment for the RfC. Please do so first. I am not familiar with wikipedia mediation, quite hesitant now with anything involving wikipedia, and think that it is better for wikipedians to read my comments for the RfC before doing anything next. (And see below how Rhobite has been vandalizing wikipedia.)  

Email to Rhobite 

To User:Rhobite:

Hi, 

I noticed that you have been removing my edits,
generally claiming that this was ""original research"",
while my edits aren't ""original research"" in the
sense used by wikipedia, but reasoned arguments.

You seem to make the same mistake as User:Rspeer.

I would appreciate it if you would do the following:

(a) inform me whether you are an economist

(b) inform me where I can reach you professionally

(c) please add on the ""deletion review"" page, in the 
section on colignatus, that you have been deleting 
all kinds of stuff without properly consulting 
other people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletion_Review#Colignatus

(d) please read my position paper, the pdf listed 
on my talk page, or available at
http://www.dataweb.nl/~cool/Thomas/English/Science/Letters/2006-03-20-Comments-RfC.pdf

(e) please note that you didn't respect the time out that I asked, nor the time that I asked to formulate my reply to the students

(f) Please undo the erroneous deletions.

My regards,

Thomas Colignatus

 "