User talk:Aab64

Welcome!

Hi Aab64! I noticed your contributions to Stoney units 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

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Drmies, thanks for your support,

I don't know English and I would like to know: is the translation in the article satisfactory? Aab64 (talk) 14:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it could do with a few small tweaks but most of it is written in a language I don't understand, haha. And I wonder if this verifies this, "Since the creation of the Planck units (1901) it has seemed obvious...". I can't read the article. But I'll make a few copy edits. Most importantly though, please explain what you're doing in an edit summary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aab64! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Centimetre–gram–second system of units several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Centimetre–gram–second system of units, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. NebY (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NebY!

I want to give readers new information to think about.

But you yourself did not discuss the disputes over the content on the article discussion pages and immediately entered into an edit war.

What prevented this? -- Aab64 (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As WP:ONUS puts it, The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. See Wikipedia:Edit warring for a full description of what edit-warring is, and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for how you can seek consensus for your content to be included in an article. NebY (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Chronon. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. NebY (talk) 15:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Chronon" I referred to the article by W and Z bosons. What's wrong?

-- Aab64 (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. NebY (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ZergTwo. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Planck units, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ZergTwo (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, The source has already been rejected and cannot be inserted. -- Aab64 (talk) 16:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Possible conflict of interest

Hi, I noticed that you might be trying to add a citation to your own article at Planck units. While we appreciate contributions, adding citations to your own work can sometimes be seen as a conflict of interest. It's usually best to let others decide whether it's appropriate to include. Thanks for understanding. For further discussion about citing your own articles, see User:XOR'easter/So, you've decided to write about physics and/or mathematics on Wikipedia#Writing about your own work. — Jähmefyysikko (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided unknown information, do you feel the difference?

-- Aab64 (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but I'd like to point out that Wikipedia is not a place to promote original research. As an encyclopedia its focus is more on the information that is already widely known. (See WP:FORUM) Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:35, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's finish here. Aab64 (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]