User talk:103.37.196.74

May 2018
Hello, I'm Meters. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Atmospheric pressure have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Meters (talk) 03:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I dunno if you checked my change at all, but conversions between SI units are that trivial and I corrected a plain obvious mistake. Call it unconstructive, I call it confusing nonsense. Check the numerals yourself


 * 1.03 kg
 * 10.1 newtons
 * 10.1 N/cm2
 * 101 kN/m2
 * 10.1 N/cm2


 * Just the amount of equivalent numbers imply redundancies, but I did not correct style but an obvious mistake. I guess you are more firm with this non-SI units, so maybe check them as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.37.196.74 (talk • contribs) 03:25, May 11, 2018 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely wrong. If you do not understand why then you should not be editing these types of articles. A kg is a mass, and a N is a force. Force and mass are related by the acceleration. In this case the acceleration is Earth's gravity, g. As I said in my edit summary g is not exactly 10. A kilogram does not exert a force of 10 Newtons under Earth's gravity, See Newton (unit).  Meters (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are right, I am absolutely wrong. However I feel it is a noteworthy physical aspect in this listing of values in different unit systems. Going to change the article to fit the Manual of Style, up to you to disagree and delete this edit. By the way - a hint to the edit history for the explanation would have been much more helpful than this provoking sandbox textblock above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.37.196.74 (talk • contribs) 01:01, June 20, 2018 (UTC)
 * Please learn to sign your talk page posts with ~
 * This isn't a sandbox, it's your user page. And since it's your user page and we were in the middle of a conversation I figured you would see it. Talk page posts often have no more than a "reply" or a "cmt" for a summary.  No point going into detail in the summary when it's all in the message.  You made an incorrect edit and then you compounded it by arguing the point. "So wrong" seems like a pretty good summary.
 * And if you expect someone to see a talk page reply more than five weeks after the fact you had better learn to ping them. Many editors would not have seen your reply because they long since would have removed your talk page from their watchlists. I'll be trimming mine soon so you just squeaked in. Meters (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I know it is not a sandbox, my/our conversation was also about content, not Wiki markup, thus the sandbox is not helpful. Anyway the mistakes are on my side. I got your message 5 weeks later, as I do not keep my IP, just randomly got it back within a small pool. I obviously need to set up a real account. Anyway, thanks for the reply. :) 103.37.196.74 (talk) 07:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a just a canned warning template. We don't write long-winded warnings for every little edit we undo. Meters (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)