User talk:Ava Eva Thornton

Hi Ava Eva Thornton! I noticed your contributions to Weber (unit) and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! ~Kvng (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my negative implications at WT:PHYSICS#Sock alert. I have reviewed some of your edits, and they show a distinctly different character from those of the problematic editor that seems to have resurfaced a few months ago, despite some superficial similarities. You are making some definite improvements in accuracy in the area of units, for example. I would make some suggestions to smooth your way into this chaotic world of editing WP, where problematic editors pop up periodically:

• Try to resist adding explanatory material. In places, you have been expanding existing material with explanation suitable for a high-school student, and does not improve quality. It in not Wikipedia's function to teach people, only to provide a reference.
• Try to avoid expanding existing material without reviewing and evaluating the sources. For example, your addition at Einstein (unit) appears to expand on a misconception that I have not found a source for. In particular, if you can infer enough to expand on something without researching it, the reader can do the same without your addition.
• Natural units, physical constants and related articles are probably best avoided until you have a good deal more experience in editing other articles. The topic seems to intrigue everyone who is new to it, and the temptation of adding a lot of rather trivial detail, as well as some "obvious things" that are downright errors or do not meet WP criteria, appears to be irresistible. There is actually little of value to be added here, it has been a war zone (as you may have inferred), and the kind of thing that you have been adding was there before and has been removed, and will likely be again.
• As I have suggested elsewhere, please try to condense your edits into a few edits. Many small edits to an article leaves a history that remains forever and is frustrating to navigate, wasting hundreds of times more of others' future effort than you save.

That said, I'm sure you'll get the hang of what has a place in WP soon enough. Welcome, and I hope I have not scared you off. 172.82.46.195 (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology, I'm not sure how much effort, if any, I'll be putting into Wikipedia in future. If I want to create educational content, I'll probably focus more on other platforms for a while, like e.g. YouTube, that don't have such excessively restrictive editorial guidelines. Ava Eva Thornton (talk) 12:46, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Template talk:Infobox unit that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Meters (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've removed "International System of Units" from the lead sentences of metre, Newton (unit)‎ and maybe more that aren't on my watchlist, with the summary "Updated in accordance with new consensus on the Template:Infobox unit/doc talk page". Quickly skimming that long discussion, I can't see how that change is in accordance with it, or why such a change would be discussed there. Has it been discussed elsewhere? NebY (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was about changing the "unit system" part of the infobox from "SI base unit" or "SI derived unit" (which are NOT systems of units) to "SI". I also included some additional edits to the main body of text for brevity, clarity, or to add a new reference to base/derived units in some articles. If you want change parts of the main texts of those articles back, feel free to do so. Ava Eva Thornton (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you make any more such edits, please could you either change your edit summary to make it clear that you are also making changes that are not "in accordance with new consensus on the Template:Infobox unit/doc talk page" or make a pair of edits, one in accordance with that discussion and another making other changes and summarised appropriately. NebY (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#"International System of Units" or "SI" in leads of unit articles and will mention that at Template talk:Infobox unit#Let's set "unit system" to "International System of Units" in the templates. NebY (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've only now looked at Newton (unit) and understood the additions you're making to infoboxes. I'm not at all sure that they're within the spirit of infoboxes, not being key points that help the reader quickly understand the topic of the article. They clearly weren't imagined by the template designers! Also, we don't have anything in the body of the articles that explains why they're there, and their relevance to many (ahem) derived units is not direct. I can't get into a discussion about it now and maybe not tomorrow, but maybe you could raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics before putting in any more work on the individual articles. Otherwise I could when I can make the time and think it through, but in that case maybe you'd like to pause. NebY (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking some more about this, I do believe the constants are out of scope for the articles on specific units of measurement, including their infoboxes. The great virtue of a hyper-linked encyclopedia is that we don't need to put all the related information in one article, even that which in some sense underpins it. Instead we only put – especially in the infobox – what's specific to the article's topic. We don't put the Planck constant in Hydrogen's infobox, just as we don't put the diameter of the earth in Istanbul. WP:TOPIC applies.

Putting derivations in the infobox looks like a good idea until we realise they're already there: Newton (unit) already has

"1 N in ...... is equal to ..

SI base units 1 kg⋅m⋅s−2" (forgive my careless formatting, please!).

Repeating that just above as "Derivation kg·ms−2" risks confusion rather than clarification, like explaining things in different ways to someone who got it the first time, and at the very least gives the reader more to read for no gain. I've not tried to follow you to every article but I have noticed that in one case you added a derivation that isn't the same as the conversion to base units but is open to dispute. The Watt (unit) used to be derived as 1 J/s (eg CIPM 1946 Resolution 2 in SI Brochure 9) but now (26th CGPM 2018 Resolution 1 in SI Brochure 9) is defined as "W = kg m2 s–3".

I see you've already reverted your additions of constants - thank you! Do you want to discuss it further somewhere or do the above comments and your own further consideration persuade you to leave them out? As to derivations in the infobox, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics does seem a very civil and constructive venue if you want to take it further. What do you think? NebY (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]