User talk:Gene s/Archive 2004 05-09

Hello and welcome,

I was going to post my standard welcome text here but I see you've been around a while and made plenty of edits already, so it might seem a little patronising. If there's anything you're not clear on, please ask me any questions here and I'll attempt to answer them.--ALargeElk 14:28, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Hebbian theory

Thanks for your rewording of the fire together, wire together summary of Hebbian theory. You're correct that the popular phrase reads fire together, wire together, (not wire together, fire together), but the phrase needs a bit more context. IMO, saying "Hebbian theory is often summarized as fire together, wire together" is just too vague (e.g. What fires together? What gets wired together?) so I've changed the phrase to "...cells that fire together, wire together." --Diberri | Talk 08:27, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)

That's fine also. I have no objections Gene s 09:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

About Salakhov

Hi!

Salakhov uses Myakzyum Salakhov becose ksu site was made by Russians before renovating of Tatar alphabet. One man couldn't have more than one name in Latin alphabet (Tatars write Shakespeare, not Şeykspir)! Hi has only official Latin and Cyrillic name, another names are transliteration : tt:Mäğzüm Säläxev - ru:Ìÿêçþì Ñàëàõîâ - en:Myakzyum Salakhov. But this three-step transliteration is mistakely. RUSSIAN NAMING VIOLE THE CONVENTION (by Russian naming tradition only). Russian name Myakzyum is not origin!

yours --Untifler 17:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This is an English wikipedia. Not a Tatar or a Russian wikipedia. Noone uses Russian (Cyrillic) spelling for article titles. Article title should be either a common English name, or an official English name. If the transliteraion from Russian is the most common or official, it should be used. If the most common or official is from Tatar, Tatar transliteration should be used. In neither case a foreign character set should be used for the article title. Gene s 06:28, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's irrelevant who made the ksu web site. It's an official web site in English. Thus it's an authority. If you don't like it, petition the site maintainer for a change. Wikipedia is not a political forum. It's an encyclopedia. If you don't know a common English name for something, search google. You should not use foreign character sets for article titles. You should not use "alternative" city names for article titles. What you are doing is a violation of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Gene s

I was impressed buy Talk:Kiev, so... Is it normal to use Tatar Transliteration names in brakets, becose they are really used in English speaking Tatar emmigration all over the world (they do not know what is Naberezhnye Chelny or something else). And I'm not sure, that Naberazhnye Chelny word is most commonly word in English... Of, course, I'l not violate the Wikipedian laws, but I really don't know which names are mre commonly in use...

So, I stop the discussion... --Untifler 12:39, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Continued at Talk:Tatarstan Gene s 14:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

ps How to make appilation to Nameconvention?

Go to that page and write to the Talk there. You can also use the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment Gene s 14:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Wealthy_people

Deleted the category per discussion on [Wikipedia:Categories for deletion]. - UtherSRG 11:29, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks.Gene s 11:37, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hryvnia

Hi Gene, I'm a wikipedian who wrote the German article Hriwnja and just saw your additions to history of the currency name which is partially missing in the german version. I find them quite interesting, do you have any sources at russian/ukrainian websites or literature, where I could find this information? It's not that I do not believe you, but I prefer translating information from as close to the source as possible ;-). Thanks for an answer, (maybe here) --elya 18:16, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

thanks, Ill give it a try. --elya 19:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neural Network Resources

Gene s:

I definitely believe that Neural Network Resources at www.neoxi.com/NNR/ are more than appropriate for Neural Network category - have a look at the site! It's a professional selection of publically available resources on the web.

Then leave it in one article, maybe in a couple of articles with general information on the subject. What you are currently doing is self-promotion and search engine spam. You should not add the link to every article no matter how relevant it is. Your link is certainly no more useful than the section in dmoz.org directory. 13:43, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Have you seen the site? It's quite broad! Very well, which articles would you suggest?

Yes, I visited it. It's a link collection. No better and no worse than other sites with links. It's not adding much value beyond the original sites it links to. I guess placing a link to your site to Neural network is OK. Otherwise, I can't think of any place where else it should be. I understand that you want to increase the number of visitors to your site. Then maybe you should actually provide some useful content beside the links. Search engine spam is a bad practice. Gene s 13:59, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, it is what it sais: Neural Network Resources. Well selected collection. Whether it's better or worst than the other sites, that one I leave on the reader - who has free access to all the materials. If one finds it useful, let it be so. The visitors may benefit from the variety rahter than supression. Search engine spam is not an issue here.

Yes, spam is an issue. By placing a link to your site in dozens of articles regardless of relevancy you are spamming. Spam will not be tolerated. Gene s 14:21, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you about not tolerating spam, naturally. However, I may object about you (and only you) beeing the one deciding about the relevancy.

First of all it's not only me who objected to your spam. At least two other people reverted your edits, and two more wrote to article talk pages. I was the quickest and the most active in reverting your edits. If it were left for longer time, other people would join in in removing it. Gene s 15:03, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why did you remove it also from the neural network category - to which it is clearly relevant?

It's not clearly relevant. It's mildly relevant to a point that I would not have bothered to remove it if it were the only article where you posted it. But you did not. You posted it to dozens of articles where it clearly did not belong. So far it remains in the Neural Network page. I will not remove it unless you start posting it again elsewhere. Gene s 16:39, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

So, you are the ONE to decide? I put it to the place where I found it relevant. You indiscriminantly removed from any place you found it irrespective of relevancy. Well, that seems like very biased, subjective and selfish act.

Yes, I make decisions. Just like you made a decision to spam, I made a decision to revert your spam. I am speaking only for myself. When I say I will not remove it, I mean just that - I will not remove it. Others still might remove the link if they feel so. If you look at the articles where I removed your spam, there is not a single article where anyone but you reverted my edits. Obviously noone but you thinks your site is valuable. If you start spamming again, I'll chaise after you and remove your spam on sight. If you disagree, put up an arbitration request. As far as I am concerned, this talk is over. Gene s 03:45, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

смолка and смола

Ok, I won't fight for this one, but I was always taught that смола means both tar and resin, with the earlier meaning being the basic one. Altavista goes here in conflict with my paper dictionaries (PWN and Wiem). However, you might now better so I withdraw. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 14:19, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

As in most cases, the ethymology of a Slavic toponym is problematic. They all are... The cases where the name can be traced without any doubt (Narva or Kaliningrad) are indeed very rare. How about creating a separate section explaining the possible ethymologies? [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:46, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

A place for replies ?

Hi Gene S,

Do you want to dispute in here or there ?

BIR 07:54, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The discussion should be carried on the talk page of the disputed article. --Gene s 07:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

BIR @ Chechnya.

Dear Gene's,

thank you for your patience in dealing BIR and other inaccurate and biased contributors into the Chenchnya article. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 11:23, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you on the separatists' side ?

Dear Gene S,

Firstly, in this regards of Akhmadov, you have to prove that the word "separatist" is precise, if you really want to use it.

If the term is penned freely in this historic context, then equally the re-born Russian federation in the form of the Yeltsin-established regime, still in-force, is just "separatist", because both these two entities, namely present Russia and the ChRI together, among the many others like the Baltic states etc. etc., separated from the Soviet Union.

If the entities are accepted as "separatists", then we also accept, among other things, that so called Yanayev's junta was legal and all others are just separatist, which should return back to that infamous junta.

Unfortunately, I can't Russian properly, but I thing the mentioned word has there a specially loaded meaning, becuase you like to pen it everywhere Chechens are mentioned on the Wikipedia.

I also thank you and other anti-separatists for your telling contributions. Just let me know if you'll establish Yanayev's junta anew one day.--BIR 06:40, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please discuss matters regarding specific articles on the talk page of the article. Do not do it here again. --Gene s 06:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ok. There it is.--BIR 06:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gmail invite

hey, i got some more so i sent you one, just now. if you don't see it, check spam folders. i hear hotmail doesn't like gmail invites. blankfaze | (беседа!) 03:25, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Drekavac

I was pleasantly surprised by your edits of drekavac - when I created it I was surprised that noone is editing it, and I was wondering when someone will - well, you showed up after almost two months :) Maybe I should start introducing intentional grammatical errors in my articles ;)

As a sidenote, Baba Roga and Baba Yaga probably deserve separate articles, but for now it can stay this way. Nikola 15:28, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it may not be such a bad idea after all :-)

I believe Drekavac is pronounced Drekavach. Maybe it should be spelled that way too. What do you think?

Sorry to barge in, I happened to notice this while answering your other comment :) Drekavac is actually pronounced dre-kah-vats (not -ch at the end). --Joy [shallot]

Do you have any English language links for Baba Roga? I can't find any - everything is in Croatian.

--Gene s 03:58, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Baba Roga/Yaga

I'm not sure what's the difference, but I believe there is some slight difference. They could probably be lumped together until you find a more exact answer anyway. --Joy [shallot] 08:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User:128.231.88.3

If you look at the changes 128.231.88.3 made to List of Jews you could see that s/he most definitely was a vandal: with the exception of De Niro (who is often mistaken for half-Jewish due to an error in Adam Sandler's The Chanukah Song) all the others are very famously Jewish, as any Google search will attest:

• Dustin Hoffman, Camille Pissaro, Heinrich Heine, Franz Kafka and Karl Marx fully Jewish (though Marx was raised Lutheran)
• Harrison Ford, Paul Newman and Marcel Proust half Jewish (as stated)
• Marilyn Monroe and Elizabeth Taylor converts to Judaism (though how sincere Marilyn Monroe's conversion was is another question).

The changes in the other lists are of more obscure people, but since I personally verified most of the entries removed from List of Russian Jews (such as Vladimir Zworykin) I thought it justified to revert this, and the other changes. (Though just to make myself certain, I might try to confirm/refute the other changes). Udzu 16:47, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PS Out of interest, which names did you have trouble confirming?

PPS Oops, s/he's done it again! S/he's just removed André Weil, Herman Minkowski, John von Neumann and Georg Cantor, four of the most famous Jewish mathematicians, from List of Jewish scientists and philosophers.

I reoplied on your talk page. --Gene s 07:20, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you have a suggestion on how to elicit a response from em – beyond a silent revert – that would be most welcome. Note however that even if e is trying to remove people who don't identify as Jewish by religion (which I doubt, since I've never seen any claims that Kafka, Hoffman, Weil or Minkowski don't identify as Jewish) then that's still vandalism, since the discussed concensus is that due to the nature and history of Judaism the lists should anyone of Jewish ethnicity (including atheists), not just adherents to Judaism. Udzu 09:22, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

PS I might being a bit quick to judge, but my main gripe is the lack of comments in the changes (meaning that the only conribution made by that IP in the last month has been removing things).

Rus

Dear Gene, we really need someone to flesh out the anti-normanist part of Rus' (people). I think you have a lot to contribute there.--Wiglaf 08:15, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't consider myself to be an anti-normandist. I think it is the most believable conjecture. I simply object to the current wording which casually dismisses all alternative theories. --Gene s 06:39, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RSFSR

Nice pick up on Kronstadt.Sfahey 21:54, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear fellow-nitpicker !

Shall we continue whole winter ahead, or ahall we be contribute more productively?

Someone said in a James Bond novel something like first time is a coincidence, second time is a conjunction, third time is a declaration of war ;=)--BIR 13:29, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't know how I have to explain to you, so that you would understand. Use the talk page of the article in question. This is the third time I have to tell it to you. Use the Talk Page Of The Article. Understand? Ymmärtää? --Gene s

Anlamadim, ama ne olsa olsun. Ok. I stay there --BIR 13:41, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)