User talk:SergeyKurdakov

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Gas to liquids[edit]

Hi, Sergey. I made a proposal to merge Gas to liquids, Gas-to-liquids and Methanol to gasoline. You are welcome to discuss. Beagel (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Synthetic fuel[edit]

Hi, Sergey. There is a plan to improve the Synthetic fuel article to the GA level. In this process, there are still several issues, which should be done before renominating this article for GAN. As you have contributed to the article and/or discussion, you may be interested to participate in the discussion about the article improvement. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button Insert-signature.png or Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

June 2012 personal attacks[edit]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. [1] --OpenFuture (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For anyone looking at my profile and wondering what is about. This strange person come even here - with supposed attack on him. No attack. I just commented that I no more talk with ultimate trolls. And is not about to talk to this person. Why? if the page is saved - just look yourself occurance 1 his words "The SEAI paper mention Ayres and Warr and quote them on a completely different topic. It seems to me both SergeyKurdakov and Phmoreno need to understand that quoting Ayres or Warr on one topic is not providing notability for what they say on another topic." there are two problem 1) problem is that SEAI paper quote a paper which solely describes a discussed topic and a curve being provided is solely based on Ayres Warr model and observations. 2) nd problen not only he was wrong, but he implied my low level of intelligence in his reply ( which is not ). Then in the same way he second time referred to presumed by him my low intelligence "You guys seem to have a very hard time understanding that difference." in the same situation - this abusive person is wrong,because a notability, as it is explained in wikipedia rules is not fixed concept, and depends on context. But even if we get that strong interpretation that there is need to have a set of reliable sources ( such as academic publications ( preferably peer reviewed but not necessary) which are further were provided including peer reviewed publications ( which this person would not recognize )). So to stop this self styled 'very important' abusive user he was told that I stop to speak with whom I have reasonable arguments to see as troll. That is - I do not speak with this person as wikipedia has few ways to protect myself from all kinds of self styled abusive gurus. And that after a talk was in fact stopped he tried again to continue here. It will not. and after all still at a time of writing there is a small task to him - to see what references are peer reviewed.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 20:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I have never implied that you had a "low level of intelligence", and I have never in any way styled myself as "very important". Please stop the attacks and untruths and instead engage in constructive discussion as per Wikipedia policy. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes it was as we say when 'himself broke to the ground stick a knife into own body and did that repeatedly twenty times' so of cause "I attack" and bad and this man someone who keeps an order. I have no problem to live in wikipedia and have no conflicts. Just for no reason. But it is not possible to discuss with the person anyway so I will not. Consider - author of the model calls his many year effort "a new theory of economic growth, the Useful Work Growth Theory based on the Ayres-Warr Model" this just implies that many papers coathored by Ayres Warr are all about one topic. Now this was explained to the person to which he responded - it is irrelevant, and then about dozen of times repeated that there is no mentioning of model in references to works by Warr, while references have clear indication - what work by Warr is mentioned and contains the ongoing work around this work on model/theory. Then even word 'model' is presented in several papers ( including peer reviewed ). Did you reader got an explanation? I think that was easy. And it was told to the person and he never even try to hear. How such a behavior is called? It has a common name, sorry. So no need for me to talk with this person, either I explain or not - the outcome I'm bad - he is good and right. And without a talk there is no attack, no problems that he does not see an argument and it is not clear how I could attack him, without talking to him. And of cause, I have a right to say a word when someone attacks me. Again - there was no first attack. The chain was following: a person told, that I'm low level intelligence man ( what ever he claims his intentions, it is not my business, a person should address politely at wikipedia and when not should have a notice), who (about me) cannot track what a content of a link ( the wording as you may see - can be different, and it was chosen the way it was chosen, and because a link IS relevant, it was relevant and is still relevant I also cannot still see what was a meaning?. And the way it was told - is an attack, not by me ). Then I, basing on the claims of person himself that he cannot find outside sources and cannot see how Ayres Warr work is related to model ( and again almost ALL works (esp after the check) by Warr are related to Ayres Warr model - it is just what Warr only does last 10 years - writes on this topic) I joked that if there are problems - then it is not a problem of a model (even without very slight joking it is true - it is not a problem of a model ), then a man again accused myself of 'hard thinking'. So it is not my business, what he tries to present - if he wants a talk - just talk politely, try to figure out what is told by an opponent ( especially if what is told is true), and then if there is a problem left - politely explain. Then there could not be even a problem with me. I cannot see how and for what strange reason I would first attack someone for? So do not try to abuse me. And there would not be reason for any notices. No need to depict me as badly behaving. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 22:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know, trying to repeat the discussion in another place is hardly useful. I warned you of your personal attack. Just don't do it again, and everything will be fine. Continue attacking, and you'll sooner or later find yourself blocked, or even banned. It's as easy as that.
It doesn't matter if you think you are right in the content dispute we are having or not, personal attacks are not allowed.
Discuss the issue, not the editors. It's as simple as that. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I am here to defend Sergey. I have also been involved with this issue and Sergey is not to blame. I find the other person's behavior atrocious.Phmoreno (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That you find explaining Wikipedia policy "atrocious" is not anything I can do anything about and is also not helping. If my behavior is so horrible, please bring it up on the relevant channels. Personal attacks are not allowed, and is the wrong way of dealing with any issue of Wikipedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

there is funny point above. Which I would like to clarify. About discussion. What is a discussion? A discussion when the nature of argument is politely discussed by involved sides, and accepting arguments of a ground on validity (or rejecting them on this ground), when argument is rejected due to ideology (here:so called minimalism - to delete page at any reason, just for fun) it is not discussion. When one side did not accept arguments ( be they good or not ) there is no discussion. For that reason I do not address to the person anymore - it is just no different that addressing to bot or a tree. SergeyKurdakov (talk) 11:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You are completely correct, except you need to think harder about who it is that is driven by ideology in their editing. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
and here is another example of addressing to me with my presumed stupidity SergeyKurdakov (talk) 11:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
There is absolutely no way that comment can be interpreted as meaning that you are stupid, unless you think it's stupid to be driven by ideology, in which case of course, your comment above was a personal attack on me. Was it? Because if that's how it was intended, I'll take it up on the relevant noticeboards. If it was *not* intended as a personal attack, then I suggest once again that you simply refrain from commenting on editors, and instead concentrate on the comment.
You see, when somebody explains that something you say is incorrect, this is *not* a personal attack. Nobody is claiming that you are stupid here. Absolutely noone. In the same way, it is not an attack on anyone to point out that a paper hasn't been published in a reliable source, or that it doesn't mention a certain topic. None of these things attack anyone. They are statements of fact, not personal attacks.
So please stop commenting on other editors, because it does you exactly no good at all. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
so the person ignores that any addressing of the kind "think harder" is a reference to mental capabilities and keeps his story rolling SergeyKurdakov (talk) 12:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
So encouraging someone to go further implies that the road has ended? That's absurd. I'm beginning to suspect that you are wp:baiting me, so I'm out of here. The warnings stand. Stop attacking me. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:15, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
so the request to be polite,keep to discussing facts and not assault on personal grounds is an absurd SergeyKurdakov (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Keep a file[edit]

I believe it is time to start keeping a file on certain editors who harass other editors and make false, misleading or derogatory claims about sources. If you get a complaint filed against you, please let me know immediately. I will be doing an investigation to see who else has been affected.Phmoreno (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

ok, thanks for offering help. Today had a thought that some sort of reputation system can be put in place. The problem is to properly design, as improperly designed reputation system is itself a source of abuse. But here is a good thing - a guy moved me to find more sources. If he files a complain - I would explain. And as I'm not frequent editor - I would not suffer if I'm 'punished'.SergeyKurdakov (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

October 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm DDreth. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Delilah (missile) because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found here. Dreth Phantomhive [talk to me] 23:08, 23 October 2013

Sorry if I accidently reverted your edits to manually undo the vandalism, but do you know there is twinkle Dreth Phantomhive [talk to me] 23:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

Yes I was trying to manually undo vandalism , thanks I will learn about twinkle SergeyKurdakov (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)