User talk:Erkcan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Wolfgang Panofsky
[edit] Albert Einstein Award
Your help is dearly needed! Which organization awards this prize? There are many awards named after Albert Einstein (and even obe named after Hans Albert Einstein), but I wasn't able to find one whose prize winner lsz matches our article. --Pjacobi 20:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for your answer but I fear we should better delete the article (for now), if we can't even pinpoint which organization is behind this prize. Also for Gürzey, I didn't find a single source on the WWW (other than our own article and copies of it). --Pjacobi 17:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hi there
Hi there man. I see you are still editing the wikipedia with abandon. You're right--it can be addictive. Josh Thompson 04:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you still check your SLAC email? If not, send me a message with your current contact info. Josh Thompson 19:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Relativistic Breit–Wigner distribution interwiki
Hi there. No I am not certain (I am not a physicist). The Polish version mentions that "Breit–Wigner distribution" is the same distribution as the Cauchy distribution in math, but at the same time the discussion of the physics applications (to me) seems to be identical to the en version of the article. I think it is prudent to remove the interwiki, until such time that someone can confirm it with more certainty. Cheers! Qblik 14:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Müteferrika
Hi, Erkcan. This is my rationale: we already have a source saying that he was a Unitarian; the source you cite said much more, and referencing was done on the basis of what was up for preview on google books - which, if I were to consider just how many times the man is mentioned in the index section, is awkward and rather superficial. Given that I do not own the book, I cannot "fix it", and this kind of careless editing-from-previews makes such problems very hard to correct in time. I personally only use google books for sourcing in cases where the relevant preview gives me complete or almost complete info on the subject I am looking into. Dahn (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Be that as it may, your reference was incomplete: which page(s)? Dahn (talk) 10:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
To clarify my point: the exact problem I mentioned was not necessarily in relation to Müteferrika's religion, but to info on him in general. For a parallel: in an article on Ceauşescu, a user has introduced a reference based on a google snippet from one of Daniel Chirot's books, to source the fact that his execution came at the end of a show trial; this would be acceptable if that book would discuss this and only this aspect. But Chirot's book mentions Ceauşescu about 1,000 times for 1,000 different reasons (and, as a side note, the overall account it gives of the man is negative). The book used as a reference on Müteferrika is, of course, not as tightly connected to the subject. However, it says much more about the man in general, meaning that it could be used to source the entire article.
I say: better than to throw around references from a book that is in itself useful and was not made completely available to the editor, don't use the book at all. This is especially obvious for google books, where a fact discussed on a "visible" page may be countered on an "invisible" page, and where, in particular cases like Chirot, the full and exact context is not made fully available. This may not have been as stringent a matter the case for Müteferrika, but I think that the approach I recommend is the most reasonable in all instances. And of course, in cases where the source only deals with a particular subject once or twice, this need not apply. Regards, Dahn (talk) 23:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
