User talk:Mykhal

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sushil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Susheela. 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) 09:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

BR vs WBR[edit]

Thank you for your efforts. Since I and probably others are only dimly aware of the technical aspects supporting Wikipedia, people like me really rely on the good efforts of folks like you. --Smokefoot (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Glucoraphanin.png[edit]

Glucoraphanin.png

Hello. The picture you made of glucoraphanin shows a double bond between the rightmost sulfur atom and the oxygen. The non-planarity implies a lone pair on the sulfur. In that case, the sulfur atom has ten electrons around it. In fact, there should not be a double bond between the sulfur and the oxygen, but rather, the sulfur should have a formal charge of +1 and the oxygen a formal charge of −1, with a single bond between them (see Sulfoxide). Can you fix this? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Eric Kvaalen, citing from the Graphical representation standards for chemical structure diagrams (IUPAC Recommendations 2008)1: Functional groups containing sulfur, selenium, and tellurium are also preferably depicted with normal single and double bonds and without the addition of extra formal charges, even though such representations will violate the octet rule. The same formalism is used in the recent Blue book from 2013. Therefore in this moment I am not considering to apply the suggested change. Even through I understand and share your sense for precision and correctness. Regards, —Mykhal (talk) 18:08, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I have just read your link. They explain the problem with the nitro group, and they say that in that case one should use formal charges (or else just write NO
2
). But then they give no explanation or justification why they go the other way with phosphorus and the chalcogens! People of the world, rise up! Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:07, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree it seems like inconsistency and tradition. I think one explanation why nitro group notation with two N=O bonds is unacceptable is because it would mean octet rule violation for 1st/2nd periodic table row element, which really is unacceptable, because there are no d-orbitals involved, only s and p. I guess you should be consistent in your fight and promote this single-bond-and-charges-only notation also for e.g. inorganic sulfates, phosphates, etc.. which would then look really wild :) —Mykhal (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
(please note that the last sentence is an example of irony) —Mykhal (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:PhD dropout Wikipedians has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:PhD dropout Wikipedians, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

My silly mistake[edit]

The self-link was rightly reverted... what was I thinking? Andrewa (talk) 19:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, admin. I am somewhat sorry for slightly rude action. If the the page contained no info about the alternate self-link name, it could be done little bit more systematically – creating red link by deleting the redirection page. But it contains some info.. so it's debatable what's the right thing. —Mykhal (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
That I'm an admin is irrelevant... sorry if I scared you. I stuffed up. We all do at times. Didn't check the preview adequately. I see no rudeness. Thanks for being so collaborative, it's very encouraging! Andrewa (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Mykhal. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)