You wrote on my talk page:
In psychiatry, the term is used to describe the creation of words which only have meaning to the person who uses them. It is considered normal in children, but a symptom of thought disorder indicative of a psychotic mental illness such as schizophrenia in adults. == jaring == http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaring&action=history If Dirty Sanchez is in Wikipedia, why can not a phobia be in. Do you have something against us? We are really just trying to gain awareness for our concern. As we have seen with the Gays and Blacks, as people become more aware and familiar with these conditions, they become more accepted. Believe me that i wish this was not part of who i am, but it is part of who i am. Can the addition be reinstated?
Well, there is allways the question of what should be in, and what not. People has attempted to get rid of the article you compared to twice, though- you can see this on it's talk page, and in it's history.
If you look at jaring at urbandictionary, you will not find it. It should have been found around here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/browse.php?character=J&page=40 while the example you found, can be found here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dirty+sanchez
where it seems to be a "popular" entry. (Not that popularity is the question, but for something to deserve a place in wikipedia, it generally needs a lot of other hits on the net. )
Do you have other sources for this? I mean, links on the net?
When I reversed your entry, I tried googling first. It didn't give much. So, your claim is unsourced, and thats bad: if I had stumbled into a gazillion examples of this being used, I would have acted differently. The neologism-part is covered on Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. However, you could of course try to write your question on the bottom of the talk-page of the article, Talk:Jaring, and write there that if no-one objects, you will put it in on the article again. Show the other links there if you have any. And if you then get no answers, after a week or so try putting it in in the article again, and writing "as discussed on talk page" in the edit summary. I won't revert you for that one after that- can't promise you everybody else will let it stay, though. But it is possible you can get this in. ~By the way, please sign your post on talk pages with four "tildes", like this: ~~~~ Greswik 07:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)