Talk:Chalcanthum

Context
(cont. from edit summaries) Well, you could start by including some kind of noun, eg. "compound," "substance," etc. to describe the subject of the article. Readers should not have to pore through the Alchemy article to find out what the hell is being discussed. By the way, disagreements about an edit should be resolved on the talk page, not by swift, unreasonable reverts. And "add context" is a rather rude, flippant reply in any case. KyleGarvey 01:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You never explained your problem with the article until you detailed it on the talk page. I'm not sure why you thought my "add context" comment was inappropriate; I simply added the context that I thought you wanted. All of this could have been avoided by: a) simply detailing your problem in the first place, or b) just fixing it yourself. &mdash; BRIAN 0918  • 2006-06-06 01:34
 * A) I did detail my problem... with a tag that you - whether you are dense or lazy or both - took down. Tags are self-explanatory and all-encompassing. This is a team project: If you don't understand something, another editor will... Therefore, don't take stuff down without asking. B) Templates were created so that I wouldn't have to fix it myself. "Add context" seemed like a rather audacious imperative to me. I don't have the time, alchemical knowledge, interest, or - right now - the patience to single-handedly have fixed the article, or to fix it now. KyleGarvey 21:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You wrote: context. That's not much to go by. If you have too little time to add the word "compound" to an article, how is it you have so much time to write lengthy replies on this article's talk page? &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-06 21:43
 * Hmm, that's an interesting question. Maybe you can take your own advice, go write an entire encyclopedia by yourself, and leave me to collaborate, leave notes, and work with other people. KyleGarvey 22:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're making less and less sense. I didn't claim to have too little time, whereas you did. &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2006-06-06 23:56

Format
Is it okay if I format this as a dab page? It practically is one already, and it should be, because it's about a word rather than a specific substance. —Keenan Pepper 23:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of pages which are about words, rather than specific subjects. You could add disambig to the page if you want, but I think it would be counterproductive to rearrange the prose into a clunky disambig-style list. The prose allows for a better explanation of how the word's use has changed over time (although right now the article lacks those details). &mdash; BRIAN 0918 • 2006-07-01 23:53

Vitriol!
this substance is mentionned in the Mishnah many time with the orthographe Kankantum קנקנטום and the commentator Ovadiah of Bartenura (Italy) translate it as "vidrioli", and according to the context (it is mentionned together with ink and gum), and the fact that it is used to write and has the ability to change the color of water, it seems that the meening acid sulfuric may be discarded, but there is no mention of a distinct color.