User talk:Wizard191

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia!

Dear Wizard191: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any dicussion comment with four tildes (~~~~). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Kukini 06:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wrought iron

Dear Wizard191. You have made a real mess of the above article. I do not want to be harsh with you, and have little doubt that what you have done is only from an excess of enthusiasm. However, before you edit articles on the history of metallurgy, you need to be sure that you really do understand what you are changing. I have no dount that the 1854 book that you cite reflects how iron was made in the 1850s, but that does not mean that the author really knew what had gone on before. You have clearly not understood the difference between pig iron and wrought iron and that the the fining of pig iron involves a chemical process, not merely a mechanical one. I would strongly suggest that you take a look at the articles on History of Ferrous Metallurgy; Bloomery; Finery forge; and such like. I do not want to start having to engage in edit wars with you. Please ensure that you cite credible authorities, written by people who know their subject. I have not seen "Engineer to win", but assume this to be a book on engineering, not on metallurgy. I have spent a lot of time trying to get the various articles on the iron and steel industry correct, as regards historical processes, but you appear to be undoing that work.

I will confess that my knowledge of post-1850 processes is not strong, my research having mainly been for the charcoal iron industry, on which I have a doctorate in economic history. I do not want to discourage you from constructive editing, but I am afraid that some of what you are doing is not that. I will be substantially amending some of what you have done, but not tonight. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if the above appeared harsh. The truth is that I was somewhat exasperated to find reasonably correct text replaced with errors. It may well be that the article in its recent state was not very satisfactory. Part of the problem is that Wikipedia is liable to produce a series of parallel articles dealing with the same subject. This is unsatisfactory, unless these form a "tree", where a general article leads to various more detailed ones. I tried construct such a tree with History of Ferrous Metallurgy at the top and a variety of subsidiary articles below, but there were so many that this was difficult. I suspect that I ought to have picked up what you were doing, as you were doing it, but I was probably only checking the last change, where you had made a number of them between occasions when I looked in the course of checking my watchlist. You will note that I had reverted a large number of not very good changes not long before you started work. I will hope before long to work over what you have done and deal with the issues raised above. When I have done so, I will welcome your having a good critical look at I have done. However, I wanted to avoid the two of us having an edit war, which is a waste of very one's time.
Some months ago, I had to discourage some one else, who sought to expand an account of puddling in an article where it was purposely dealt with only briefly, rather than adding to the detailed article, which is (I think) puddling (metallurgy). Many articles expand by different editors adding a bit more. Every so often, some one has to go through them and tidy them up, eliminating the dross. I am sure that is what you were trying to do. It just is that I did not think you had done it well. I hope that when I have had a go at it, you will recognise some of what you did as still there. Some of what you did is good. If that were not the case, I would have reverted the lot.
the New Year begins here in 20 minutes time, though no dount it is only early evening for you. So many I wish you a Happy New Year? I hope that it will be one in whcih you can do some profitable editing on WP. There is plenty of trash to be revised and plenty of stub articles to be expanded, so we need all the editors we can get. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
I want to thank you for your interference, as it has stimulated me to carry out a major revision of the historical section of the article, including making good its lack of citations. As I said, I have not seen Engineer to win, but if the content you wrote about "forging method" citing it is accurately cited, the author does not understand what he was writing about. I tried to eliminate all mention of this, but the reference books that I have to hand do not give temperatures, so that I found it necessary to restore a citation of it. However, it would be better if it could be eliminated entirely, at least from the historical section. I have hardly touched anything outside the historiccal section; "puddling" has been edited. However, I eliminated your "forging method" section (which was - I fear - full of misunderstandings and restored what was there before you started. I then edited and expanded this to provide what I hope is a better account, with fuller citations. Additionally, I have added some new sections. There are a few red links. This is intentional, as articles are needed. I have been intending to produce one on "potting and stamping" for some time, but in doing so, I would want to express my own views, which are still unpublished and so constitute WP:OR. I therefore need to write an article and publish it in a journal before I can provide a summary for WP. I think I have done about all to this article that I want to for the moment, so it is over to you to see what you can do to improve it further. One concern that I have is that there may be too much on puddling here and that the detail should appear in the article puddling (metallurgy). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell at a quick glance, The Manufacture of Iron, in All Its Various Branches appears to be a satisfactory source for its period. However, you must bear in mind that the author is writing about what was done in his time. This may differ from what was done earlier and, of course, he could not know what would happened after he wrote. For example, I observe a section on the German forge, but not on the Walloon process, the one used in Great Britain and probably in colonial period in America. Puddling began in the 1780s, but only worked for whate cast iron until preliminary refining in a refinery or running out furnace was combined. The practice of adding a source of iron oxide to the charge only began in about the 1830s - see Joseph Hall (metallurgist). Subject to this qualification, by all means use this work. Unfortuantely, the volume of Percy's metallurgy (published 1860s) on iron, which is frequently cited as an authorative source, appears not to be available on Google Books. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of the modern steel industry

I am glad you are tackling this article. Some one else started out on it with great enthusiasm and then gave up. The result is that there is a reasonable section on USA, and virtually nothign else. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about that

It seems to have been a bug, I simply don't do that kind of thing. I've no idea how or whether I triggered it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the note about UNS! I guess I may be a bit too attached to that debate and I appreciate your perspective. I don't think that simply walking away is the best solution, but I will try to balance my actions and words to match the low importance of the issue at stake. Thank you for mediating us.--Yannick (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Phase diagram

I saw your note on the talk page at heat treatment. I'm impressed with your creation of the diagram. I did have just one comment.

It's nice to have a visual for the temperatures for subcritical/process annealing and spherodizing relative to the austenitizing (critical) temperature, but the diagram implies these two processes are only done on steels with certain carbon contents. In fact, subcritical annealing can be done on both steels and irons (the diagram implies it can be done only on steels with less than 0.30% carbon), while spherodizing is done only on steels and not irons (the diagram implies it is only done to steels with more than 0.60%, and also to irons - alloys that have up to several percent carbon).

I suspect you were trying to show the times involved in these processes, but I worry the effect is more confusing than informative. LyrlTalk C 22:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] categories

I have restored categories that you have removed from articles. They may not be exactly the right ones, but are not too bad. I see no objection to removing categories, if you replace them with something better, but they are primarily there to be a navigation tool, and are best left as they are, unless clearly wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Continuous cooling transformation

Thank you for editing the article, its now much better. Sometimes the only way to get a rubbish article improved is to threaten it with deletion! Cheers, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 14:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Leaching (chemical science)

A tag has been placed on Leaching (chemical science) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Leaching (chemical science). Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. If you feel that the page shouldnt be deleted you're welcome to post on the talk page, but dont remove the template until the situation has been resolved. Ironholds (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You said to look at the talk page; what am i meant to be looking at? you dont seem to have posted anything. thanks. Ironholds (talk) 13:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A quick note:

It's not a good idea to put the {{prod}} template on things that you're not proposing for deletion (like other people's talk pages when you're showing it to them). It puts the page on a list of pages that have been proposed for deletion. I suggest using {{tl|prod}} instead. That creates a link to the template page. That's all, thanks! --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)