Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Stav


 * Firstly, off topic: While most likely not obvious to you, I did not assume you where intentionally rude, even if from a non English speaking perspective your previous comment (when "trying to be civil") came out exceptionally so at my end. Yes, you write like a stereotypical monoglot, even more so in your last reply. Personally I don't read french, but that doesn't mean I'll make silly statements implying "since I can't read it, I can't verify it, and therefore it's not verifiable." In any case, your reaction reveals a complete lack of competence or a complete uninterest in intercultural communication. On topic: a) If trying to improve an article by finding sources - I've found several news items and two books - written by a 3rd party suddenly becomes "my field work" and "my original research" in whatever backyard you're stuck in, then you should seriously worry about where you've misplaced your head. Unless you're just dishonest, that is. b) I was trying to explain that in any subject such as this everything will ultimately depend on interviews with a relevant informant, as in examples noted, which you seem to have completely missed/ignored/failed to decode. Either you're not honest and might as well admit you'll never accept any references whatsoever - from an independent 3rd party or not - and just delete the article, or consider my suggestion that the article not be listed under martial arts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smörgåsgrill (talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no clue how it came across as uncivil. I clearly stated that I know they are aceptable, but that they present a V problem for me. A big part of the issue is your use of non-standard English. You use terms like "field work", when you should say something more accurate like, "finding sources". Your word choice sounds like you are performing original reasearch. "Informants" isn't the commonly used term in English for someone who is interviewed by the media.Normally, I'd apologize for my part in the misunderstanding. But not now. Not after you continued on talking about how dishonest I must be and how ignorant I am. So I'm not going to accept any responsibility for your inability to present your part with more clear, less ambiguous terms. Further, you go on to repeat your ridiculous claim and support it with a false premise. I didn't say "''since I can't read it, I can't verify it, and therefore it's not verifiable.", yet you imply that I did. I said that since I can't verify it, I can't just withdraw the nomination. There actually is a difference. The rest I will address on your talk page, where this kind of stuff belongs. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And you have a reply. We obviously have severe problems in communicating with eachother. I only referred to the article on field work to help get my point across as to what any 3rd party needs to do, to point out the absurdity in dismissing every 3rd party reference for doing what they by necessity have to do to get anything written. If my non typical wording sounds like I am performing original research, you didn't read what I wrote carefully enough. To me you do appear dishonest. I have no further interest in helping to improve the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smörgåsgrill (talk • contribs) 19:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)