User talk:Grunkhead

Welcome!

Hello, Grunkhead, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Icelandic names and pronunciation

You included an article about a place with it's proper icelandic name. en.wikipedia is in english. please provide an english name, transcription and some guide how to pronounce the name in english as well. Dedalus (talk) 15:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC) / Thanks, done fast. Dedalus (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for any help on pronunciation. The transliteration was the easy part; I still haven't got my head around how to link spelling to pronunciation in Icelandic (properly, anyway). It's a subject I'm still exploring. Grunkhead (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link Additions

Hi. I have been reverting your link additions to the RSC pages. I feel that they are not appropriate, but I would like you to discuss them on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements before re-inserting them. To me, they seem good references (they come from the RSC!), and could be used as such, and I certainly don't think that they belong at the top of the external links. Maybe they should be automagically linked from the elements infobox, or in another way in a template. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, I don't know about Grunkhead, but you have entirely lost me there. If you feel they are good references, then it is completely baffling that you think they are suitable candidates for mass deletion. If they have not been inserted to your liking then the appropriate thing would have been cleanup, not mass deletion. If you think this is spam then fair enough, but why then suggest putting them in a template? You could have at least discussed it with the editor before reverting. SpinningSpark 17:54, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, I think it is a shame to revert these links. They are in the same vein as those already listed (such as Webelements), in most cases they were put either in alphabetical order or at the end of the list. The podcasts often give an additional viewpoint from a professional chemist or science writer on a particular part of the element's history, use, etc. that would not deserve their own section on the Wiki page, but would qualify well as "additional interesting information". As you noted, the source is strong. My links to the RSC are minor: I'm a professional research chemist and member of the RSC. Thus, I wouldn't consider them spam or even a solicitation/advert. The auto links would be nice, but we'd need some table for the URLs; they're not the most logical URLs. I would request that you to save your time and leave the links as they are. Grunkhead (talk) 18:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean that they totally should not be linked in this way, it fails WP:ELNO (most of the material is included here, or on linked articles; listening to one of the included podcasts, potassium, spends more time telling about potash and the origin of the name, then about potassium itself and I am not sure if mp3 files pass number 7, there was a time that Linux did not play mp3), and certainly not as top links. They may have a better place, maybe as a reference (but for now I don't see where). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a Naming of the elements or something similar, ah, it is List of chemical element name etymologies. Also, I did not suggest or know that you are related to the RSC or whatever, and I did not give any form of warning, just opened a discussion, and I do believe that this inclusion needs to be discussed. As to webelements, yes, I know, but as the external links guideline says, we can't link to every external resource available, and maybe even the webelements links fail the guideline. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think I'm going to come down decisively neutral on whether I think these should be included, but your reasoning for excluding really does not hold up. You repeatedly say it fails WP:ELNO but only specifically quote #7 which says "Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country". A substantial number of users is hardly a handful of people with old Linux machines, Microsoft owns the soul of most of the universe whether you like it or not. So lets stop playing lawyers over that one and concentrate on what should be included. The relevant part of WP:EL is "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." Given that the source is the RSC I think we can take it as read that it is neutral and accurate. It also cannot be directly integrated for format and copyright reasons. The only question to my mind is does this constitute a unique resource, to which I remain neutral. I put it to you again that mass reverting is to be used against spammers, not good faith editors who have not done anything positively damaging. You can still have a discussion, but there is no real reason why you cannot let the edits stand while that discussion takes place. SpinningSpark 23:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add another voice to the debate, I reviewed a few of these link additions the other day and felt they were suitable content thus let them stand. I have to agree with Spinninspark on this point for cases like this: have the discussion and reach a consensus before doing mass reverts of good faith edits. Cheers, Turgan ^Talk 02:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the numbers and parts of WP:EL, though I did mention the parts:

Intro: "... it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. ...", some articles already contain quite a linkfarm.
Intro: "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it.". Most of the information in the article where the link was added already contains the same info in the document (see ELNO #1 below), however, there are small parts which either could be expanded and this could be the reference, or this could be the reference for what there is.
Important points: "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links."
[WP:ELNO]] #1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.", what I heard on Potassium, hardly adds to Potassium, the etymology is already in Potassium#History of the free element
WP:ELNO #7: Weak, maybe, but mp3 requires software which I think is still not available on Linux, see also #8. Microsoft may be installed on a lot of machines, Linux is a substantial number.
WP:ELNO #8: mp3 still needs to be installed, it is not a standard AFAIK.

I reverted, as I felt that consensus should be reached before inclusion, and I think that inclusion in the external links section is not justifiable, per my concerns. I do think that I did assume good faith in starting a discussion here on it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Image Deletion

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:54, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]