Talk:RD-250

combustion cycle

the RD-250 is a gas generator cycle engine. See http://www.russianspaceweb.com/rd250.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:4FF0:C8B0:6845:6336:642D:5A53 (talk) 03:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Usage by DPRK not supported by given sources

I have removed the claims stating that the RD-250 is in use on the Hwasong-17 and other North Korean platforms as that is not supported by the given sources, both of which state that it is a possibility and "potential" but do not unequivocally state this is the case. Please do not re-add this without additional sourcing that unequivocally states this usage as a matter of fact, and consensus to do so. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:43, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

You removed those without seeking discussion beforehand nor have you sought out consensus, only person having issue with it is yourself and no one else, for that matter you do not bother to read sources as evident by your bold assertion that claim has been made about those engines being RD-250. If you have actually read the sources then you would not have removed what you have removed as it is stated engines used are similar or derivative of RD-250 rather than being directly RD-250. You indiscriminately revert several edits without properly reading the sources you dispute as usual from your pattern of behavior as such occurs because you are reckless. Just now you automatically went to revert several edits at once at Hwasong-7 article including those made by User:TCU9999. CybermancySFRY (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not my responsibility to seek out consensus beforehand -- per WP:ONUS, which is Wikipedia policy, that responsibility lies with the person seeking to include the contested information. That's you buddy. That's *YOUR* responsibility. Further, you did not seek discussion until I dragged you here under threat of sanctions. But hey, thank you for finally admitting that the source didn't actually say what you claimed it did. As I told you, neither of the sources you provided directly states that the RD-250 was in use -- one of them states "potentially" and the other said that it visibly "looks like", but neither is an unequivocal statement that the engine in question IS an RD-250, as your edit concluded without appropriate evidentiary foundation. We take source misrepresentation very seriously on this project. But you're accusing me of being "reckless", when you admittedly can't even get your own facts right? I won't hold my breath waiting for your apology, but that would be warranted from you as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 21:02, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course you choose to lie about what I have said instead admitting being wrong for not reading sources you contest and apologizing for being disruptive by undoing my edits because you are not literate enough, let alone informed on subject enough to understand and comprehend the context of sources as evident by your repeated undo's of my edits at Hwasong-7 article as you repeatedly asserted Hwasong-7 was not mentioned because Nodong was mentioned, when you could have looked at very notes of Hwasong-7 article that Nodong is named used for the missile before it was known the actual name/designation of the missile. This lack of literacy and knowledge from you is again demonstrated here about relation of North Korea and RD-250, because you clearly do not have neither to understand what is stated, implied and asserted in sources while in process you assert I have stated what I have not stated because you do not read the sources thoroughly nor do you even bother to read them multiple times when you do not understand them. This kind of behavior can also be seen involving article on Ghadir-class submarine as you repeatedly asserted it has no relevance to the submarine despite Ghadir-class being mentioned as too Yono-class in context for former being either Iranian made Yono-class or derived from it. You are one that repeatedly misrepresents sources, you did so with those I have used for Hwasong-7 as you have done with Ghadir and as you do with RD-250. Hence unsurprising that you misrepresent me, because you have no argument hence have to lie. Just as you have done so over a year ago with Pyoljji-1-2. CybermancySFRY (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

If you keep up the personal attacks, you're going to to the noticeboards. Regardless, we're done here -- you have nothing relevant to say other than personal attacks and aspersions. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:25, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

You complain about personal attacks while you repeatedly have lied about what I have stated and have lied about sources I used, in this article and elsewhere. You label such as personal attacks my critiques of you for lying about content of sources I tried to include which you have undone with bold assertion sources do not support it when in fact it does, you made assertion that it was asserted engine was RD-250 than admit argument of those sources and my inclusion about it is similarities and being derivative, not directly RD-250. That is very evident by very sources I tried to include which you denied by asserting those said what they in fact did not assert. You can go on and report me for personal attacks, people will read it and see for what it is, your actions being described, what you have done, as evident by what you wrote, by what is logged in Wikipedia's database, the timeline, the fact you lied about sources and in the end resorted to lying about me such as what I allegedly said when I have in fact did not. CybermancySFRY (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

More personal attacks. You have nothing of value to say or add otherwise, apparently. We're done here. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 15:46, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Describing what you have done is not a personal attack, it is argument, against your disruptive behavior and misrepresentation of sources that you have done so along have resorted to lying about what I have said by asserting I have made statements that I have not made. You provided nothing on value in here or add anything to community of Wikipedia besides series of vandalism that you have done so and tried to justify under false pretense by bold assertion against content I tried to include as being assertion North Korean engine is RD-250 when sources for content I have added clearly stated North Korean engine is similar or derivative of RD-250, not engine being RD-250 itself. That is my argument against your bold assertions against sources of my content along against your accusations against me. You label my statements about you as personal attacks when you have repeatedly prove my statements as true and not false by how you reacted and behaved. I have not lied about you unlike you that have lied about me. You refuse to acknowledge my arguments in here, you refuse to acknowledge my arguments at Hwasong-7 and Ghadir-class submarine, you assert I have not made a single argument, you behave as if I have not made a single argument, when I have made so and have repeatedly made statements stating same argument over and over and over again. Content I have added is focused on North Korea and their engine that is similar to or derivative of RD-250 and you have asserted that what I wrote is RD-250 is used in North Korea engine when such assertion was not made which you have asserted that I have when I have not, including in very content of sources I used when I wrote additions to the article on section involving North Korea. Instead of admitting what you have done and apologize to me, you choose gaslighting. CybermancySFRY (talk) 18:22, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep yapping. It's not getting you anywhere. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Keep misrepresenting sources and content of those along lie about people. It won't get you anywhere "know-it-all" Philistine. CybermancySFRY (talk) 19:03, 5 May 2026 (UTC)