User talk:Edgar.bonet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Thank you for updating the formula on the Tuning Fork page! I'm making a set for hobby, and working with the formula as had been previously stated was giving me problems. (I suppose I should have realized that it can't be affected by the perpendicular length on a rectangular cross-section, because when it's vibrating properly there are no forces in that direction and you could just cut it into two tuning forks, but I didn't.) --Shortgeek (logged out right now)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Solar day on Mars[edit]

A: The term sol is used by planetary astronomers to refer to the duration of a solar day
B: The term sol is used by planetary astronomers to refer to the duration of a solar day on Mars

The text above is a comparison of two contested edits on the page Timekeeping on Mars.
B causes confusion, and is inaccurate, as solar day or Sol will be used for other planets and not just the first that we visit.
A is concise clear, and links to an intermediary article for further reading.

⇒ Moved the discussion to Talk:Timekeeping on Mars#Meaning of sol

Your edit to "Atomic clock"[edit]

In this edit you introduced a {{citation}} template into an article that has a mixture of Citation style 1 templates (like {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}}) and hand-formatted citations. It is not desirable to mix these two different styles of templates because they render the citation a little differently. Granted, the article's citations are in a far-from-ideal state, with the mixture of Citation style 1 and hand-formatted templates, but adding a Citation template makes the citations even less consistent. If you want to improve the citations in that article, I'm afraid a more comprehensive effort is needed, rather than just playing with one or two citations. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The edit was about replacing {{cite web}} with something more suited to citing an article in a scientific journal. I did not think about consistency of styles. I will replace that right away with {{cite journal}}. — Edgar.bonet (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2016 (UTC)