The sort of editor who refers to my talk page as an "Attack Page" is an excellent example of why I'm leaving wikipedia for the nonce. Apparently mentioning someone by name constitutes an "attack" and "harrassment" both (see prior edits to this page). The fact that I'm having a revert war on my own talk page regarding my decision to participate less is an excellent example of exactly why I have made this decision.
Purpose of this note: Wikipedia continually solicits feedback from the editor corps regarding morale and mindset, and I believe that mine are perhaps representative of a small but perhaps measurable minority of the editor base.
I fondly remember
- My first edit (not bad, in retrospect)
- The first time my contribution was (quite correctly) undone by an expert and how I felt afterwards.
- My first defense of someone's undo of my work
- My first undo (undoing my own work!)
- my first (bad) page creation
- My next (better) page creation
- My first AfD proposal
To those who have critiqued my work but with whom I have worked happily over the years, including Materials Scientist, SB Harris, Edgar 181, Smokefoot and all the rest, I laud you all. To you and to those who may try and send me messages in the future, I want to make note that I do not expect to participate as much in the future as I have in the past.
The bulk of the active editing corps seems to value participation and inclusion (within the scope of the WP rules) above all else, including the overal WP:ENC quality of the result. Because I feel this represents the majority of editors currently at work on Wikipedia, I choose not to participate for a while.
V2O5 and trona
Hi I saw your edits and then your notes above. I apologize if I am one of those who drove you out or insulted you. It is difficult to succinctly comment on edits and not come across as arrogant or mean spirited. It takes thick skin sometimes. Hopefully you will at least monitor things and edit a little.
In any case, you are almost certainly right about V2O5: no way anyone can heat it enough to drive off O2 and make V metal at least in any practical sense. But about trona, the comment "This is a cocrystal of two well-known molecules, not a new three-sodium compound." is incorrect (imho). There are typically no molecules in salt-like species. That is why we call them salts to some extent. Going out on a limb before checking the Xray structure, its probably a highly organized morass of water, protons, carbonate. People and texts sometimes represent souble salts as individual entitities, but often that description is a fiction or a great simplification.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
- Smokefoot indeed you are one of the people that keeps me going, not one who makes life harder. You've always seemed very reasonable (just like above) and I'm happy to work with you anytime. By all means nuke my Trona change (although I *think* trona is a crystal that's basically half one thing and half another (like a half-fired clay that's partway between Kaolinite and Mullite, expelling some but not all of the silicon from the core matrix - or maybe I don't know what I'm talking about here either O.O ) If so, then I think the Na2 notation is going to be a little clearer. IMHO, you know best - do what you think is right. Riventree (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
By the way...
Having a little time to poke around today, I noticed from your comments and those on the talk page that you seem to be having some difficulty, so I hope my comments didn't offend. I know I have a tendency to be quite blunt, but the subject interests me, so I thought I would give my opinion.
If it helps, there were basically two modes of thinking about steel and iron: the Eastern and Western modes. In the East, the focus was not so much on making a really pure, homogenous steel, but more in creating a balance and harmony between the metals they had. Methods of using a crucible were developed to fuse the different metals that could not normally be welded by convention means, because the carbon content was too different. Because of this, the metals like wootz and chi-kang had to be worked at very low temperatures, making forging very difficult. This was also done deliberately to prevent too much diffusion. The goal was not to produce a homogenous metal, but to capitalize on the composite properties of both. This all fits in with the Oriental idea of Chi and balance.
In Europe, the focus was place on trying to get that pure, homogenous steel. Most European smiths did not like working with wootz, once it started to be imported, because it was so difficult to forge.
Blister steel is basically a core of wrought iron with a shell of extremely high carbon-content, typically in the range of 1.5% or higher. This made it fairly useless and difficult to work, until people began pounding it into flat plates, cutting it into smaller plates, stacking, and welding into a solid block. Then repeating the process to make shear steel. This was similar to the Japanese folding process. The shear steel was better than most previous methods, however, the steel still wasn't homogeneous.
This was a real problem for Huntsman, because a watch spring can't have sections of wrought iron mixed in, because iron is not springy. What Huntsman did was to fully homogenize the steel, which was the European goal. The crucible steel that he created was the first, truly modern steel of today's quality and standards. His process enable alloying, precise control of carbon content, and the easy removal of impurities, and really led to the modern age of steel-making. That's why I believe it deserves an article of its own, because it really was a leap in technology that allowed us to move out of the Renaissance and into the modern age.
I hope that helps explain. It's nothing personal against you, so I hope there are no hard feelings. Don't be discouraged, Wikipedia can be abrasive at times, so it's important to have a thick skin. Zaereth (talk) 00:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)