I am a representative of OxNotes (a student run website and soon to be textbook) , I apologise for method in which it was recently added to the Wikipedia page, I have ensured all 'marketing speak' has been removed and what is left is only factual information. Please feel free to contact me via LinkedIn, Twitter or email k@oxnotes.com if you require any further information. Thank you.
Kind Regards
Kazim
Kazim Chaudri
Editor: OxNotes by Fluxty (Non-Profit)
www.linkedin.com/in/kazimchaudri
I had added one reference link to page Бесхвостые , tutorvista had added its 4 links, then why not i can add one more reference link from other website. Its not promotion, but the page which i have, also tells about fron digestive system. So is that bad to put a reference link on that page. Please guide me.
Support request with team editing experiment project
Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.
Maybe you should not rollback my code in the word "leapyear"
Hi, DMacks:
When I fixed the some mistake of python code in "leap year", my code is rollback by you for the reason "Too much detail/WP is not a how-to manual". I'm software engineer, and I found many people don't known the history of "leap year", include the textbooks about programming in china. the wrong code is used for getting "leap year"(before 1582). So, I spend some time to study this question, and wrote the code which let more people know "leap year". can you allow the code is added to the context of "leap year".
It's my first commit in Wiki. :)
Best Regards
Jerry.Liu, Beijing, China
PS:
I have add python code to bake of baidu. let more people knows the history of "leap year". My English is poor, maybe you can know what I said. hah.
Edit Summary
Thank you very much for your time, reminder, and guide.
DMacks - Undid revision 895653289 by Medlib.here (talk)
Hello DMacks - I'm not sure what your comment means, can you expand please?
"not in keeping with WP:EL. Maybe could be useful as an actual WP:CITE for new content? Undid revision 895653289 by Medlib.here (talk)"
FYI
I don't care enough for that article, but just so you know, a MoS is also just as toothless as a userspace essay. Any MoS is only optional and not binding. Just because some WikiProject has parked its flag on some article, does not mean it gets to dictate that specific article. Instead, this is decided through local consensus and what is best for the article. Just trying to make it clear why my original edit just links a user essay, and why that in itself is not justification to immediately revert. Not sure if you read it or not, but my essay does elaborate on the issue in depth, rather than just dictate without justification as MoS's tend to do. Opencooper (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the essay, and I do have sympathy for being semantically correct about the meaning of a dict-def list vs somehow indenting. But I also know that that position does not have major support at this time, neither wikipedia-wide nor specifically in the various science working-groups. I don't support creating facts on the ground against consensus prior to developing a new consensus. Not just CHEM, but also MATH has the colon as the standard for indenting. And their MOS are part of the site MOS, not just locally-stamped consensus. DMacks (talk) 06:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 August. It will be on all wikis from 8 August (calendar).
Problems
A change in RelatedArticles extension accidentally enabled it for everyone, not just for mobile users. This has been fixed. [1][2]
Meetings
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 7 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
Today everyone can see IP addresses if someone edits without an account. In the future this could be more hidden. This is to protect unregistered editors so fewer can see their IP address. This would only happen after we make sure the tools for vandal fighting can still be effective. You can read more and comment.
What tipped you off, wombat<->dog edit-warring? I dropped them a level-3 warning, but they haven't edited in the past few days, so nothing much to do for now I guess. DMacks (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz: I have low expectations of a successful outcome if they work in that genre after looking at the deleted content and other details about these editors. But I could go along with WP:ROPE as soon as we get complete clarity of the real-world relationship of these accounts (see my note on Chayobriggs's talkpage). Right now, it sounds like there are (or at least were) at least two people and at least one of them using two accounts. I'm going to be taking a few days off wiki this coming week, so if you think there is a clear and wiki-policy-correct answer to those issues, feel free to unblock in whatever way makes the most sense to disentangle them. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools. Feedback on the discussion page is appreciated. [3]
Due to the absence of volunteer maintenance of Cologne Blue skin, the link to activate it will be hidden. The skin will still work, but editors using it are encouraged to switch to another skin. [4]
Changes later this week
Due to Wikimania, there is no deployment this week. [5]
Meetings
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
The "Wikidata item" link will be moved from "Tools" to "In other projects" section on all Wikimedia projects, starting on August 21. Full announcement, Phabricator task.
It is monoacid in Lewis sense.
It doesn't give any H+ in water but infact gains OH- from water creating H+ ions and making the solution acid.
But it can only take one such hydroxide ion from water cause it can not extend ita octet beyond that.
How do you find me wrong.
Please assist me to know the correct information. Vanshita poddar (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As the article clearly states, that idea is only one possible (and not universally accepted) basis for the acidity of boric acid, is specific to water, and possibly only occurs at very high pH. That is, your universal claim of "in fact" is not well supported. The Lewis acidity is so weak that it doesn't even get involved in hydrogen bonding in the solid state (the B are planar). Instead, the article also notes that there are three pKa values, and we have other articles about various salts and esters that involve all three OH groups. So it might be a monobasic Lewis acid but it's at least as relevant as a tribasic Brønsted-Lawry acid and B-L is a subset of Lewis. There might be a way to include both ideas. DMacks (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sir can you please acknowledge me how that hydrogen bond part makes Lewis acidity of Boron trihydroxide suspicious?
Boron lacks it's octet as well in this compound.
So how is it supposed to be a weak Lewis acid?
And the EN difference between boron and hydrogen being not large, how this compound is supposed to make hydrogen bonds in solid state?
Please acknowledge me how Lewis acid strength and hydrogen bonding are correlated? Vanshita poddar (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are proposing that it is a Lewis acid, which means it is an electron acceptor. You are proposing that it does this by accepting OH– from water. Those are reasonable ideas, given the lack of octet on boron. But note that our article says that B(OH)4– in "strongly alkaline solutions". If boron accepts from an oxygen donor, then having an oxygen in close proximity should make the donation more likely. Regardless of the B–O bond polarity, the oxygens do have lone pairs. In water ice, each oxygen atom H-bonds to two hydrogen atoms (one from each of two other water molecules), giving a tetrahedeal geometry. In solid boric acid, the boron atom is exactly trigonal–planar. There is a single H-bond from each oxygen to one hydrogen from an adjacent atom. But even though the boron atoms are positioned near other molecules' oxygen atoms, they are very far apart: almost 2.5 times the intramolecular B–O bond-length and 20% further than the H-bonded O•••H length. That suggests to me that there is not a strong H-bonding between the O and the B, which means the B remains without a satisfied octet. Therefore it is not a strong Lewis acid because even when forced in close proximity to an oxgygen that can donate it does not accept. Maybe instead there is resonance from oxygen to form a partial pi bond?
All of this is my own analysis, as is what you are saying. And therefore none of it is viable for our article. Instead, we would need a reliable published source. Looking closely at the talkpage, I agree that "monobasic, with some tribasic ideas" as in your later changes is a good summary. User:37.210.142.107 did not provide an explanation for why changing it to tribasic. DMacks (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your "strong alkaline" part, I would like to discuss this further. Sir [B(OH)4]- exist even in water which is not a strong alkali. Boron does not accept lone pairs from oxygen in B(OH)3 and I guess the inter atomic distance may be the correct explanation for this.
Besides, I don't understand how we can scale the strength of Lewis acids of various compounds. I suppose the resonance part may also be true but if resonance is possible, electron donation from adjacent oxygen should also be possible. Isn't so?
Overall, I think boron truhydroxide is stable in solid state because of the formation of H bonds, which stabilises the solid and also, I suppose there must be some back bonding instead of this inter atomic distance for octet accomplishment of B.
I will be waiting for authorised results and would love to know about it.
Thanks for the discussion.
I was going through the page once again and noticed your edits regarding formation of BO3^-3 ions.
I would like to know name of some borates having this ion.
I was going through a wikipedia page about sodium perborate which has this ion but in its structure, the compound is hydrated and boron is attached to OH- ions rather than just O^-2 ions which further concerns me if it actually behaves as Bronsted acid or not.
If it doesn't, I would like to know the source of those three Pka values noted at the page.
If it does, please provide Some examples where is exist as that ion. Vanshita poddar (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 6 August. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 7 August. It will be on all wikis from 8 August (calendar).
You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 7 August at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.