User talk:Sergei Gutnikov

Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of I-food
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article I-food, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Sticky Parkin 17:47, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Flagged revisions on Russian Wikipedia
I set up the WikiProject Flagged Revisions to try and get some sort of flagged revision system on this Wikipedia. Flagged Revisions has been operating on the Russian Wikipedia since August 2008. Can you tell me how well it is working? Ideally I would like to see a detailed report posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Flagged Revisions but I would be happy for any small snippets of information. Thanks. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Norleucine
I removed the alternative names being conservative, since they were listed after a wrong name (2-Amino-4-methylpentanoic acid, Caprine, Glycoleucine). I also removed the formula, that was the Leucine formula. Also, my German is rudimentary, but probably we could add "Melting point 301 °C (decomposes)" and "Solubility in water 16 g·l−1 at 23 °C", from de:Norleucin. Albmont (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Alternative names are useful to have. The formula in text was Leu (not corrected by mistake after copying text from Leucine) and it is not needed there anyway - thank you for deletion. Physical properties should be added. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 12:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I found more information following the reference from the de-wiki. It's in English too: http://search.be.acros.com/msds?for=acros&sup=acros&lang=EN&search=22604&button=Show. Albmont (talk) 16:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding information. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

MS
I have reverted your elimination. Being CCSVI such a recent concept the medscape article is the closest thing to a secondary source we have, and in it they consider reliable and relevant Jung's comments as part of the mixed feelings towards the theory from the neurological community.--Garrondo (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree and reverted it back. See my point in the comment. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course a feeling is a reason: see feels than the study is not well constructed. She said so, and somebody else reported it. We are only reporting the exact words as she used them and as reported in a secondary source which gives importance to it. There is no problem is sourcing. If you don't like what she thinks and a secondary source reproduces from her as an expert is not a reason to eliminate it. I will revert again since it is sourced and I believe its true, will copy these comments in talk page and lets discuss it there. --Garrondo (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you insist on this, I will find ten secondary sources saying that liberations procedure is great. And you will not delete this, okay? Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please stop discussing it here and eliminating the text. I have began a thread in the talk page. Lets wait to hear what other people have to say. Regarding you finding other sources: Any secondary sources on the issue would be most welcomed. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your addition on the Buffalo trial again and explained in the talk page why the source provided is not reliable. (The problem is not so much the source used here but the fact that up to the moment results on the buffalo trial have only been press-released and therefore are not reliable per WP:MEDRS).--Garrondo (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Garrondo, I respect your contribution to this article, but it does not make it your personal article where you can make decisions what to include and what to exclude at your own discretion. Let me quote WP:MEDRS for you: "[press releases] should always be used with caution". Please note, it says: "should be used", it does not say "should not be used". Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well done with the reference and paragraph. That was the kind of source we needed but I had not found it yet (And I promise I had looked for it, although mostly in pubmed and it does not seem to appear there yet). The use of the medscape article was due to being the closest thing we had to this article, but this article, since it is from a peer-reviewed journal is much better. As soon as I have time I'll use it in the CCSVI article. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 10:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Side note: unless you say so in your talk page the custom is to answer to comments in your talk page in the other person talkpage since most editors do not watch other peoples talk pages. I have just seen your comment here (although I had seen it in the article's talk page).

Quote elimination
Would be great if we could discuss the issue on the talk page and hear others opinions... I have began a thread there after your second re-addition. Additionally I still think that the 1800 ref is OR since the CCSVI group website is not a reliable source. Would be nice to continue the discussion. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You were answering there as I wrote this. :-)--Garrondo (talk) 12:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Be calm
I feel you are getting tense on the CCSVI article discussions, and borderligning doing personal attacks and assuming bad faith. You have accused me several times of ownership when I have reverted your editions, you use words like "stupid sentence", etc. I would like to ask you to maintain calm, and take a deep breath before editing the article so you do not get burnt out and burn others along your way. Everybody involved in this article is trying to attain the same thing which is an encyclopedic, balanced article. Best regards.--Garrondo (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Formatting references
If you are going to add citations to websites as references please format them correctly (if not others have to come later to do it). The cite web template is probably the easiest way to do it. Thanks in advance.--Garrondo (talk) 07:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have eliminated one of your references to Kuwait since it did not mention CCSVI and I have correctly formatted the other.Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Four reverts in 24 hours
One

Two

Three

Four

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Two Three and Four were edits (supported by sources), not reverts. One was a revert of an addition of something that is not in the source where it was pretended to be. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The concern was that you took a statement by the minister of health in Kuwait that said he would allow a proceed and wrote that he was recommending the procedure. I see you have corrected this now however these two words mean very different things.


 * Whether or not a procedure should be performed based on the evidence is completely different than whether or not people are allowed to perform it. One is a legal / social question the other a scientific one. Unfortunately the page currently mixes these two and thus I do not feel it is yet NPOV. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Angioplasty and stenting are investigational (there is not evidence yet at this point that they treat ie improve MS/CCSVI) thus they are not treatments IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand your opinion. We can discuss it separately, if you wish (by e-mail or Skype). Have you seen the angioplasty for CCSVI? Have you talked to patients before and after it? But in Wikipedia we must relay on sources. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * No never seen angioplasty done for MS. I have not meet anyone who has had it done either.  I have had patients with MS though. The proper trials will be done soon ( 6 - 12 months ) by the sounds of it.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen. I did not see any miracle, but I saw a dysartria completely gone over a few days in a PPMS patient (confirmed by several observers). However, the medication course was changed at the same time (increased dose of baclofen), so it is a confounding factor that makes me doubt whether it was the result of the angioplasty. Please note: this was a PP patient, so not much of effect would have been expected even by the advocates of the treatment. But what I can say for sure: the patient had had severe suicidal thoughts. The time (several) month since she learned about this treatment and was waiting for it were depression-free. I think we, as doctors, have no right to deny patients to have this opportutity of happier life (for those, who convinced themself that they want to try a risky treatment - what is the risk for a person who wants to kill herself anyway?). And the neurologists say "I will not write a referral letter". One of my medical teachers told me a wisdom: "If, after visiting a doctor, the patient does not feel better, he visited not a doctor". This is about placebo. And, possibly, about treatment of CCSVI. Thank you for reading it and I hope for your support. No personal offence. Shake hands. Sergei Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 13:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Placebos are fascinating and if this was risk free and inexpensive I would be more willing to agree with you WRT treatment. I however live in a socialize health care system that just cannot afford expensive placebos.


 * Also it is a little intellectually dishonest to assert one knows the cause and treatment when one does not. This is what separates alternative medicine from medicine ( at least partly ).  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting to do the procedure for free (at the tax-payers expense). I just say that the opportuity should be there for those (and those only) who is convinced that he/she needs this procedure. And patients get assurance not from information about patogenesis (it is all hypotheses yet) but from the other patients accounts who report improvements. Scurvy was treated with lemons when nobody knew anything about vitamins. It would be unethical to encourage patients to undergo angioplasty for CCSVI before we have results of trials. But it is equally (if not more) unethical to make obstacles for those patients who want it and whose disability is deepening by months. Informing about complications and risks - yes, yes and yes! Not giving a referral with all those cautions - no. Just compare it with plastic surgery. It is done with the same risk for far less justified reasons (and I don't say for no reason at all - impromevement of self-perception leeds to a better wellbeing). Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 14:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Sergei you must stop reverting and discuss things. At least two of us are against the inclusion of the 1970s study. You are also over your revert limit. Anyway I am away for the next week. All the best. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Must I? Just because there are two of you against one of me? But there is no voting in Wikipedia. You represent something like an "anti-CCSVI treatment alliance" and I do my best to keep the balance in the article. On the basis of sources that many editors would call reliable, but you persistently trying to discard them (only if they are pro-treatment, you welcome any source for as long as it is anti-treatment, there are numerous examples in the article). Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 20:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. You MUST. Have you heard of the 3 revert rule? You could have been blocked today with the four above. You still continously attack any other editor that does not agree with you, and now accusse us of creating and "anti-CCSVI treatment alliance". I feel quite tired of being accussed of ownership, cabalism, bad faith and other. There is no battle here between "pro-treatment and anti-treatment. You are going directly to a hole if you maintain such attittudes.--Garrondo (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

COI
I fully agree with you that having been present at a procedure does not create any conflict of interest. I believe that most editors of this article have worked or are related with people with MS one way or another. That is probably the reason why we are here and which has led us to having each or views in the issue.

On the other hand I completely disagree on your choice of words of "opponents". There are no opponents here, only as I said above people with different POVs. Knowing that you consider other editors of the article as enemies does not precisely ease working with you. --Garrondo (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * When somebody "completely disagrees" with someone's point of view, they are opponents by definition. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I surely not completely disagree with you, and I have stated so in several occassions. It is your problem if you only see two sides: black or white, pro-anti treatment, neuro-vascular. That is not how WP works.--Garrondo (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

CCSVI Discussion
The major concern that I have with stenting is the risk of hemorrhage that results from the use of the Warfirin needed after the procedure to keep the stent clear of clots. Ronk01  talk  23:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I entirely agree with that. But this is not a concern with ballooning. And whether the procedure helps to a patient will be noticeable before re-stenosis occurs. Then the dispute about benefits/risks will be different for this patient. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But with a 50% re-stenosis rate, and over time 100%, any benefit is very temporary, meaning that the procedure would have to be repeated, which carries risks. Ronk01   talk  21:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Order change
I agree completely: sounds more logical and sensible now. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not have the time or interest to go (right now I do not work with MS outside WP)... and nevertheless I prefer to read articles when they are finished. Thanks for the offering anyway.--Garrondo (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

mistake
I have reverted twice your last edition: not because I do not like it (I do not now), but because surely due to a mistake you insert as a ref a link to edit the talk page, or something like that, while you say that you are adding an article as ref. Review your watchlist and see it by yourself, so do not get angry at me this time. :-) --Garrondo (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Genetics
We are not giving numbers of proportion of patients and controls with CCSVI for any of the studies that have appeared in 2010 and 2011. This is giving undue weight to this study: it is only one other study on proportion of CCSVI, but only serious one on genetics. Moreover to give such data in the genetics section is not relevant for that section. Please do not revert me again. but begin a discussion at talk page per the 3R rule if you still disagree.--Garrondo (talk) 11:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Moreover: I am only closely following the conclusions of the authors; who put the weight in the genetic finding and NOT in the number of cases with CCSVI in patients and controls: For example in abstract there is no mention of proportions data in the conclussions/significance section but only in genetics.--Garrondo (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Garrondo - it is you, not me, who needs to watch out for the 3 reversals rule. Your biased input was reversed by me and then by another editor. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 17:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cargo 200, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battlefield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014


Your recent editing history at Kozyrev mirror shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. ''You don't really require this warning as you seem to know about 3RR, but I thought it would be only fair to warn you. Please get consensus before you do this again. Thanks.'' Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Please be very clear I could have blocked you for edit warring. I have instead restored the redirect and protected it (in fact I thought I'd protected it earlier but failed). You can start an RfC if you wish, but you need to avoid anything that looks at all like edit warring in the future. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not removing anybody's input supported by sources. I am removing a wrong re-direct. On the other hand, I don't think that the article about "Kozyrev" mirrors should be deleted entirely: the pseudo-scientific subject has had a substantial coverage in mass media and deserves to be in Wikipedia as such, but not as a part of the article about a reputable scientist. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You are edit warring - sources don't matter. You have been carrying out an edit war over 2 articles. If you continue you are very likely to be blocked. Sort this out at the mirror talk page with by starting an RfC before any further reverts. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Linking countries
Apologies for my confusing edit summary on the Oxford article. The policy I meant to quote was WP:OVERLINK, which says "the names of major geographic features and locations; languages; religions; and common occupations" should not usually be linked. I take "major geographic features" to include countries such as England. Dave.Dunford (talk) 10:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please prove that England is a major geographic feature. And, separately, that linking to it makes '"it difficult to identify links"' WP:OVERLINK - there are Oxfords in other parts of the World. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 11:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * With respect, I think the onus is on you to prove that England isn't a major geographic feature. If you search the archives of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking for "major geographical location" you'll see this is discussed over and over again, but my reading is that the fairly stable consensus and the consistent outcome of these discussions seems to be that countries are "major geographic features". Where it gets contentious is at the city/state level or below. Do you think many readers of the Oxford article will not know that it's in England? (Even if they don't, it's linked in the infobox anyway, quite rightly.) I'm not particularly defending the guideline, but it seems to be fairly widely accepted and applied. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * England is not a country in international sense. The United Kingdom is. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Oxford shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Using "England is not a country" as an edit summary? David Biddulph (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please give a proof that England is a "major geographical feature". What are the criteria? I am not sure that countries which are subdivisions of sovereign states, although the same word, are unequivocally major. Please put the wikilink back until this is resolved. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The link in the Oxford article was originally to Southeast England, which is a formal entity and probably unfamiliar enough to warrant a link. An anon IP recently changed it to "southern England", which is when the link issue arose. So it's not really a case of "putting the wikilink back". I frankly don't really care very much either way whether England is linked or not, but I'm trying to follow procedure and consensus. Would a compromise be to change it back to Southeast England? Dave.Dunford (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Southeast England in this content is nonsense because Oxford doesn't have any relations particularly to the Southeast England, though it is situated there, of course. The Anonym did a good edit. If you, as you say, don't care, why did you revert my editing three times? Can you put the link to England back, please? Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 09:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I won't put the link back, because WP:OVERLINK suggests it shouldn't be there (as does WP:UKNOWGOV, incidentally, which says explicitly "The top level frame of reference is the country within the UK (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) and is not ordinarily linked" – my emphasis). See also WikiProject_UK_geography/How_to_write_about_settlements, which says the same thing. And there's already a link to England in the infobox for those (mythical) readers who don't know where England is. And, for the record, I didn't revert your edit three times, I reverted you once (you may be confusing me with User:David Biddulph). Dave.Dunford (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The WP:UKNOWGOV classification is specific for the UK Geography project. Maybe we can treat the article about Oxford as an article about the UK geography, though this will diminish the international significance of this city, one of the most know British cities worldwide. And the English wikipedia is not just English, there are many countries worldwide that use it and even more readers whose first language is not English check information in the en-wiki after reading articles in their languages. Hence I would not restrict this article to just UK geography and would leave the wikilink. My apology for the confusion with another editor that you pointed out. Sergei Gutnikov (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Anthropometric cosmetology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anthropometric cosmetology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Anthropometric cosmetology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- CFCF  🍌 (email) 22:25, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Irkut MC-21, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page APU ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Irkut_MC-21 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Irkut_MC-21?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blippar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indi ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Blippar check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Blippar?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Kozyrev mirror for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kozyrev mirror is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kozyrev mirror until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. BorgQueen (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)