User talk:Ruslik0/Archive 12

You said the non-cytolytic enterovirus addition to the enterovirus page was "crap": please explain your reasoning
You reverted an inclusion regarding details of non-cytolytic enterovirus (aka non-cytopathic enterovirus) on the enterovirus page on the taciturn grounds of being "crap". Please explain your reasoning for this, using longer sentences and more descriptive words. 91.125.89.101 (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You failed to provide any reliable sources for your information. Without them it is just a crap. Ruslik_ Zero 19:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't always have the time to do everything at once. I added the text first, and planned to add references later. 91.125.89.101 (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I've added the non-cytolytic section back to the enterovirus page, this time with references. The main secondary source reference is a chapter in a book (reference [12] on the page enterovirus), which covers persistent non-cytolytic enterovirus infections. Perhaps you might like to check the page to see if these references are acceptable. 91.125.89.101 (talk) 01:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for tidying up the paragraph. It's good to focus on dilated cardiomyopathy, as this is one of main conditions where research on non-cytolytic enterovirus is performed. However, your quote from a single primary source (Flynn 2017) to support the statement that non-cytolytic infection "probably do not contribute to any ongoing myocardial disease" is not an overall representation of the literature, because the jury is still out as to whether these infections play a causal role in the diseases in which they are found. This 2014 review of persistent enterovirus in T1D concludes that "the molecular and cellular mechanisms of CVB persistence and the link with the development of T1D should be investigated further". And in myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), where non-cytolytic enterovirus is routinely found in multiple organs including skeletal muscles, this 2005 review paper concludes that "renewed interest is needed to study further the role of enterovirus as the causative agent". This ME review paper surveys evidence from ME studies taking muscle tissue biopsies, and from interferon antiviral therapy which often greatly improves ME.
 * Although levels of enteroviral RNA are very low in non-cytolytic infections, these infections do nevertheless produce viral proteins (although not as much as in acute infection). In transgenic mice, the enterovirus 2A protein alone is enough to generate dilated cardiomyopathy, and it is hypothesized that the 2A from non-cytolytic infection (which cleaves dystrophin) may be the cause of dilated cardiomyopathy. This paper found enteroviral VP1 protein present in the heart muscle tissues of patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and myocarditis. And Fig 4 of Lévêque 2017 shows that that in vitro protein production of non-cytolytic virus (TD7 to TD49) is not as great as acute wild-type virus protein production, but still quite substantial. Thus it may be worth mentioning that although RNA levels are very low, non-cytolytic infections still produce enteroviral protein. 91.125.89.101 (talk) 16:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is only for settled science. If "jury is still out" it is a reason to exclude this information altogether. I also noticed that you came here to promote a paticular fringe point of view as well as to advertise your own website, which contributors are not allowed to do. This is not going to end well. Ruslik_ Zero 19:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure, I understand that Wikipedia is only for settled science, and I appreciate the difference between settled science and scientific hypothesis. The existence of the unusual non-cytolytic form of enterovirus has been known about for many decades, and so this is settled science. But it is not settled whether or not non-cytolytic enterovirus infection plays a causal role in the diseases in which it is found. So I am thinking that your final sentence "In persistent infections vrial RNA is present only on very low levels and probably do not contribute to any ongoing myocardial disease being a fading remnant of a recent acute infection" in the enterovirus article is perhaps going beyond what we know at present. My suggestion would be to change the final sentence to "Non-cytolytic enterovirus infections produce viral proteins, but levels of viral RNA are very low, and it is not known whether either contributes to disease." Would that be acceptable? I do appreciate your help with this, and I am sure that an experienced Wikipedia editor, you know better than I about what is regarded as acceptable on Wikipedia.


 * I did write the non-cytolytic enterovirus article on MEpedia, but I do not own that website, I am just a Wiki editor there. 46.208.91.186 (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I do not see evidence that any viral proteins are translated. Ruslik_ Zero 07:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of the studies use a tissue stain to detect enterovirus VP1 protein in tissue biopsies (this stain is a monoclonal antibody called 5-D8/1). The VP1 stain is useful, because it is broadly cross-reactive with a wide range of enteroviruses. So for example, in this study and this study they detected enterovirus VP1 in heart tissue samples from human dilated cardiomyopathy. This VP1 protein cannot come from the wild-type lytic enterovirus, because no lytic virus is found in dilated cardiomyopathy and chronic coxsackievirus B myocarditis tissues. In vitro studies show that non-cytolytic enterovirus with terminal deletions (TD) in its genome can synthesize viral proteins: see Fig 4, which compares protein production in wild-type (WT) enterovirus to TD enterovirus. The enteroviral protein relevant to dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) is the enteroviral 2A protein, a protease which directly cleaves dystrophin. This is hypothesized to be the cause of DCM, though this has not been proven. 46.208.91.186 (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Still no evidence. Ruslik_ Zero 17:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that detecting enterovirus VP1 protein in human tissues infected with non-cytolytic enterovirus is not evidence that these infection produce viral proteins? Can you explain your reasoning please. 46.208.91.186 (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not known whether any non-cytolytic virus was present in these samples at all - they did do any detailed analysis of viral RNA. It may have been an ordinary opportunistic enteroviral infection of inflamed tissues. These measurements also did not determine the type of enterovirus, so it is not clear whether it was the same virus that caused the initial infection. Anyway, these are primary research studies that can not be used as sources. Ruslik_ Zero 17:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess one could argue that the VP1 found in DCM heart tissues might be from an acute wild-type lytic enterovirus infection of the heart, but that seems unlikely given that no VP1 or RNA was found in the control heart biopsies in these studies. Also, other larger studies have shown that enterovirus infections in DCM heart muscle biopsies never contain any wild-type lytic virus: see this study, where they add human DCM heart muscle biopsy tissues to cell lines, but no lytic wild-type infection appears in the cell line. Lytic infection is detected by lysis cell death that manifests in the cell line — no cell death means no lytic virus is present.


 * Stronger evidence that non-cytolytic enterovirus produces viral proteins comes from this 2008 myalgic encephalomyelitis study, which found that in the stomach tissue biopsies of 165 ME patients, VP1 was detected in 82%, but the study found that "No significant cytopathic effect was shown in the EV RNA-positive cultures, whereas wild type strains of enteroviruses would cause major cytopathic changes within one week". So it is clear that in ME patients' stomach tissues you have enterovirus RNA and you have enteroviral VP1, but the VP1 cannot come from wild-type enterovirus, because no wild-type virus was found in these tissues. Thus the VP1 must be due to the persistent non-cytolytic virus.


 * Plus the in vitro studies I cited earlier clearly show artificially engineered non-cytolytic viruses produce the full range of proteins. I appreciate these are primary studies, but I am just citing them to indicate that there is reasonable evidence that non-cytolytic infections do produce viral proteins. 46.208.91.186 (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:SYNTH. Ruslik_ Zero 18:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I added a similar paragraph about non-cytolytic enterovirus in the Coxsackie B virus page, as CVB is one of the main enteroviruses that can convert into the non-cytolytic form. I hope that is OK with you. Hip-IV (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 16 – 30 September 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hillsborough disaster
It is quite incivil to rollback edits without any explanation or reason, unless it is obvious vandalism, which this was not. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I probably clicked a wrong link. Ruslik_ Zero 19:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

IP range block
Hi, Ruslik0 - I posted a notice on your Meta page regarding the range block for (2600:387:0:0:0:0:0:0/48). As you know, got my en.WP acct. working again, there is no problem with my Meta acct., but I cannot edit at Commons. Please exclude my iPad IP in the range block on Commons, or is a month-long global exemption needed? Thanks in advance...Atsme ✍🏻📧 03:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 17 – 29 October 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out!
Hi, just wanted to drop by and say thanks for helping with the tables on Terry stop. They look much better! Seahawk01 (talk) 02:11, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Athabasca Valles revert
Hi Ruslik -

I just wanted to follow up on a recent revert you performed on Athabasca Valles, in which an LPSC abstract in reference to the InSight landing was removed. I do not think that this revert was justified. I would like to note that there are only two other LPSC abstracts used in citations for Athabasca Valles, and both are used to add information that are otherwise not included in peer-reviewed journal articles or in dissertations about this region.

I did not have the chance, but I had been planning to incorporate a paragraph under "Context" and then under the lead describing the relationship of this landform to relevant NASA landed missions. It would have used this citation. At this time there are obviously no peer-reviewed publications relating to new discoveries into Athabasca Valles due to the InSight project. However, when this putative magma chamber discussion advances with InSight, this LPSC abstract cite can be replaced later. 47.147.221.147 (talk) 14:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You can re-add it but, please, do not use such language such as "For the 2018 Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, an abstract was submitted by Laszlo Keszthelyi, Michael T. Bland, and Colin Dundas of the United States Geological Survey ..." because this looks like promotion. Ruslik_ Zero 19:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Reverting to manual taxoboxes
Please do not remove any of the templates from the Automated taxobox system. I know the ICTV updates mean a lot of changes, but big changes like that are precisely why we have automated taxoboxes like. I appreciate the effort, I just don't want us to make extra work for ourselves: I bet more changes will come in the next ICTV update. --Nessie (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * This template should be deleted. It only makes simple things much harder to do. Ruslik_ Zero 18:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You are not in the majority opinion. There's a clear consensus for preferring automatic taxoboxes over manual taxoboxes.  --Nessie (talk) 20:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 18 – 30 November 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 19 – 27 December 2018
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Help at cat flu
Hi, the poor-quality edits to cat flu which you reverted in November were restored by the original editor. I tried to roll the article back to the good version, but haven't been able to figure out how to do it. Please could you take a look? It seems like you have some expertise in this area. Thanks. DferDaisy (talk) 01:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 20 – 31 January 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

User:Momfzo
Hi, I've blocked the above user as a confirmed sock of, whom you globally locked on January 23. Can you do the same for the new account? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ruslik_ Zero 20:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Pneumococcal infection
Do you think i can put those names into the introduction? --2A01:112F:742:C00:80E9:503F:5E3B:469E (talk) 08:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Better to the end of that section. Ruslik_ Zero 20:31, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Knightrises10
Hi, I just ✅. Can you please globally lock the account? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ruslik_ Zero 17:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 21 – 28 February 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of MediaWiki:Articlefeedbackv5
MediaWiki:Articlefeedbackv5, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Miscellany for deletion/Article feedback tool messages and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of MediaWiki:Articlefeedbackv5 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 22:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular
   

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

QwertyUyr
Can you please globally lock ? I don't know who the master is, but the account is ✅ to several globally locked socks, including. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ruslik_ Zero 20:10, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Buertuio
Could you please lock, who is ✅ to many globally locked socks, including ? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ruslik_ Zero 19:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Unblock
Hello!!Unblock with me, please!! --109.184.70.211 (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

FA Review for Ceres
I have nominated Ceres (dwarf planet) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 20:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Angela Criss
Hi, can you please globally lock ? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Uranus
Portal:Uranus, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Uranus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Uranus during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Impossible to add a URL as External Links (Spam filter blocked it)
Hello Rusliko,

You replied to my message in the tea house but I did not understand what you meant. Could you please elaborate? The site I wanted to add as external link is totally valid and legit. It should not be blacklisted.

Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel92140 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Need Info
User box represents the user. I want to know who in en wiki has the best user page in your eyes. I will use that taking permission. Wiki Ruhan (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"LOL(laughing out loud)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LOL(laughing out loud). Since you had some involvement with the LOL(laughing out loud) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:53, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Templates for discussion/Log/2019 October 25
In what way were the modules were not tagged for deletion as required? I tagged the module when I nominated it for deletion (TfD tags for modules have to go on the doc page because they aren't Lua code). The fact that the creator removed the TfD tag out of process several days later does not somehow invalidate the entire discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not under any obligation to study the history of pages before the closure. Though if you insists I can remove the word "procedural" from the result, which will prevent you from re-nominating the module for deletion in foreseeable future. Ruslik_ Zero 20:42, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Your failure to notice that the TfD was removed prematurely may be understandable, but, given that it has now been pointed out, why are you still refusing to reopen the discussion? Furthermore, even if your claim were true and I had forgotten to tag the module, the proper procedure would have been a relisting, not closing as procedural keep. * Pppery * it has begun... 20:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also concerned about this close and would strongly object to you reclosing the discussion which removing procedural would be. You are now involved as a closer who may or may not have an inclination to close as keep because that was the outcome in your first close. There may very well be a consensus to keep, but you shouldn't determine consensus in this case. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I am not involved admin under any reasonable definition of this term. So, I can re-close it if necessary. Anyway the result was clear that there had been no consensus to delete the module, therefore the result will remain "keep". Ruslik_ Zero 08:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail
Hi there! I am new here and starting to contribute to Wikipedia. I have so much respect for what you do. Although I am a classically trained writer and do it for a living, I am so enthralled with what you stand for and am doing this as a labor of love.

This is why I was upset to see you marked my latest contribution as spam. I am a sufferer of IC, and we are experiencing some MAJOR breakthroughs in treatment of this 'invisible illness.'

I thought it would be helpful to share the community forum for IC Sufferers where I have basically educated myself over the years and healed myself holistically. That is why my writeup included it. Also that Youtube video included an interview with a specialist who has just shattered some myths and shared some cutting edge information.

I understand it may seem risky, but I assure you I have NO affiliation with either of these, other than seriously believing IC sufferers will turn to this page and get some real value and the latest information.

I am not sure of the policy on removing a "spam" mark from my profile, but I would like to follow whatever protocol I can to get it removed.

For reference:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interstitial_cystitis&type=revision&diff=930188592&oldid=930185053

Thank You so much for your time and any insights you can provide.

Best, Kelsey
 * Please, read WP:RS especially WP:RSSELF. Ruslik_ Zero 07:26, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle
If you're ready to put some work into a worthy article, the Hearst Castle peer review has been underway for a month and could use some more topic experts. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia Books
Since you participated in the discussion on Wikipedia Books I herewith inform you that a decision has been taken.

See Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_176 Dirk Hünniger (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Global block
Hi, Ruslik. I wrote to you last month to ask for a IP block exemption in en.wiki due to a mischievous IP. Now the same IP has a global block, could you grant me the global IP exemption? Thanks in advance. Regards. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Matiia has already done it, sorry for bothering. Regards. Mr.Ajedrez (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "65.246.72.0/24, please unblock". Thank you. — F ASTILY   01:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

How do I add this information?
Good Day

I added information under treatment and prevention.

May I ask why it has been removed? It is factual, but not scientific (as I stated).

The information is crucial for treatment of this illness that has killed over 4000 in South Africa during 2019.

Kind Regards Slabbertanja (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, read Reliable sources. Ruslik_ Zero 18:50, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Global watchlist
Hi. I saw your comment at Help desk, saying There is none. Global watchlist is a long standing community desire that has not been realized yet. I currently have a user script that creates a functional global watchlist by retrieving via the api watchlists from each wiki. See m:User:DannyS712/Global watchlist. Hope you find this useful --DannyS712 (talk) 02:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This one has its won problems. I am, of course, aware of your project. Ruslik_ Zero 12:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

A Strange Request
Hi, Rusliko. I'm a relatively new Wikipedian with a somewhat weird personal request. I chose your page semi-random from a set of administrators after seeing you had a Chicago barnstar :). If this is too annoying or a complete waste of your time, feel free to delete.

In brief: I am an alumnus of UChicago, where I was heavily involved in the University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt, an absurd five-day long festival of irreverent and ridiculously arcane and obscure competition. This year, it's online, for obvious reasons, and to help former teammates I wanted to take on an item from this year's List: Get an Wikipedia admin to post their support for our team on their talk page by Sunday (17 May 2020, up between roughly UTC 13:00 to 17:00). You can view the website here, where there's a link to the List itself. This item is #88, and the team name in question is "BJ Scav 2020: 'Don't We Need a Name' and The Open Poll." WhinyTheYounger (talk) 15:04, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So, I support your team - "BJ Scav 2020: 'Don't We Need a Name' and The Open Poll". Ruslik_ Zero 20:01, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * God bless WhinyTheYounger (talk) 04:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Quark dispute
How about this? and more specifically here in chapter 10. First of all, this statement is just scientifically incorrect, "Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons, which include baryons (such as protons and neutrons) and mesons (all of which are unstable and short-lived)." Free quarks are no longer in color confinement and have been observed in quark-gluon plasma. Plus, my statement's validity can be confirmed if you go to Hagedorn temperature article for a quick read.

Also, the 2 sources that I added (you already removed them) don't have "Hagedorn temperature" in them because I didn't use them to prove that point. I used the two sources to prove this statement, "Free quarks have been observed in the state known as quark–gluon plasma." Of which, you also removed it from the article. Please reconsider your edit. 14.169.172.125 (talk) 13:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This statement is taken directly from the article quark, "Under sufficiently extreme conditions, quarks may become deconfined and exist as free particles. In the course of asymptotic freedom, the strong interaction becomes weaker at higher temperatures. Eventually, color confinement would be lost and an extremely hot plasma of freely moving quarks and gluons would be formed. This theoretical phase of matter is called quark–gluon plasma.[94]"
 * I have multiple sources that prove (including source 94 in the quark article), "Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons, which include baryons (such as protons and neutrons) and mesons (all of which are unstable and short-lived)" is a blatantly wrong scientific statement. Another editor with a poor understanding of particle physics kept reverting my edits, so the dispute began. You should visit the article talk page. The editor doesn't offer any valid scientific argument and only spewing out non-sense. 14.169.172.125 (talk) 13:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, above Hagedorn temperature, quark-gluon plasma occurs. All my sources clearly state that free quarks are found in this state of matter called "quark-gluon plasma". 14.169.172.125 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Quote from this, "If the conditions for forming a bound state aren't met, then confinement is impossible. The four ways we know how to get there are to create a top quark, to look to the early stages of the hot Big Bang, to collide heavy ions together at relativistic speeds, or to look inside the densest objects (like neutron stars or the hypothetical strange quark stars) to find the quark-gluon plasma inside." There are 4 ways to create free quarks, which proves my point that free quarks exist.
 * I'm trying to prove that the following statement is wrong from current scientific view of particle physics, "Due to a phenomenon known as color confinement, quarks are never directly observed or found in isolation; they can be found only within hadrons, which include baryons (such as protons and neutrons) and mesons (all of which are unstable and short-lived)." 14.169.172.125 (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * All sources that you cited are not reliable. Ruslik_ Zero 05:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * According to Reliable sources, secondary and tertiary sources are preferred. All my 3 sources are ALL reliable sources. Here are my reasons why they are reliable sources. Please explain why each of them is not reliable
 * How is a published book not a reliable source? (source 1)
 * Source 2 is from CERN website. CERN has the largest particle physics lab in the world. It is leading the world in particle physics research.
 * Source 3 is from Forbes. Forbes is a well-known American magazine that explains science for the layman. Source 3 is written by a Ph.D. astrophysicist.14.169.212.232 (talk) 06:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

The information in the quark article was written over 10 years ago. It's outdated, and nobody has updated it for the last 10 years. Now, as physicists gain more understanding of the quarks, physicists discover things that they didn't know for sure before. There are many many sources that support my statement (that you and Cuzkatzimhut keep reverting). Here are 3 more sources from many more in addition to the 3 sources above: from Livescience, from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and from European Commission, managed by European Union.14.169.212.232 (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

User Rights Change Request
Hello, I would like to request you to grant me rollback rights (WP:ROLLBACK). I have been using Twinkle and the manual ‘undo’ button to revert problematic edits and vandalism. I’m willing to take extra care and follow best practices while using the rollback rights, should you choose to accept my request. Thanks, Idell (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would prefer if you gained more experience first. Ruslik_ Zero 05:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Central Station (gay club, Saint-Petersburg, Russia)
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Central Station (gay club, Saint-Petersburg, Russia)&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Ruslik_ Zero 08:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 18
Would you be willing to back out of your close of NC 10 (film)? Nobody advocated for keeping the redirect—there was merely a refutation of the nominator's poor rationale. I don't ever vote for deletion unless there's actual opposition to a given redirect in case I have to close it, so I hadn't, but this is clearly a redirect that should be deleted. For one, there is no mention of the film at the target, so it's unhelpful for anyone wanting to learn anything about the given film. Second, there has been an argument that the film is notable, so it should be deleted per WP:REDLINK to encourage creation of an article at that title. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 14:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not see any consensus in any case. Ruslik_ Zero 18:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is reopened, I plan to add a delete vote, which should make the consensus even stronger in favor of deletion. Will you agree to do that? -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I relisted it. Ruslik_ Zero 19:58, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I have now added my !vote. -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)