User talk:Maxim Masiutin
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] The Bat! page
There is a page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bat%21 which was written not by me, I did only add a sentence "Version 3.0 introduced..." and a few sentences to the paragraph about "Forged headers". However, 216.111.97.126 expressed an opition in the discusstion page "Sounds a little bit too much like marketing material from the makers of the software". Do you agree with 216.111.97.126? If yes, how can we edit this page to not look like a marketing?
- A good way to combat advertising is to use references from reliable sources. Right now, the article says things like, "It is well respected within the computer industry, and has won a number of awards" but it doesn't say who respects it (or gives any evidence that this is true), nor does it say what awards those are. Using phrases like "some say" and "it is believed" are considered weasel words; that is, a phrase that gives the appearance of a neutral point of view without giving sources for these opinions (or avoiding facts altogether). You can read the article on weasel words to give you an idea on how to improve this, and you can include references from outside sources that address the benefits and disadvantages to this e-mail client. However, it is my opinion that the article does not really read like an advertisement--but it doesn't conform to NPOV, either. -- Merope Talk 13:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Moldova&King
Maxim, let me state again that, at the moment, I don't have much interest in Moldovan topics. I have done a lot to prevent Romanian nationalist POV from slipping into the Moldovans page, and am getting quite tired of visiting the matter every single time. That is to say that I will revert all edits I find to be wrong or questionable, from either side, and allow all edits which increase both text quality (which is lacking) and clarity, without (and I agree 1000% with you here) aiming to maintain the current redundancy and over-detailing. I have specified before that the history section on the Moldova page be made smaller and the "History of Moldova" one larger (the latter's early section still expects to have idiocy removed from it, and I promised I'll help with that in the future, according to the guidlines wherby it shoul contain the history of those parts that are now Moldova inside Moldavia and Romania, instead of repeating info and proferating crap; the last section seems good to me, and I understand it was reviwed by some good-faith Russian users as well).
Secondly, I want to caution you again that using inherently didactic concepts such as nation-building in the text should be avoided. Try and rephrase your points to make them self-evident, and please cite the source each time you use it (notes etc.).
A quick glance over what I find to be wrong in the points you make:
1. The use of Cyrillic in the Principality of Moldavia has no link to the use of Cyrillic in Bessarabia. The alphabet in use in the former was the Romanian Cyrillic alphabet, and I am getting quite jaded that I still hear this argument. Cyrillic in Bessarabia was Russian Cyrillic, and was associated with the primordial use of Russian (the constantly decreasing officially-sanctioned use of Romanian/Moldovan was based on a transliteration into Russian - in the same way the "ch" sound in Russian words is easily rendered as "ci" in Romanian; that is to say, it was not traditional at all). The "Moldovan alphabet" was a third version: Stalin bbasically took his version of what was, again, transliteration (especially since, by then, Romanian was generally written in Latin script), and called it "an alphabet"; in itself, it is not connected to what came before or after (let us not forget that, during the period, it was generally expected that the Soviet Union itself was to adopt the Latin alphabet...). The use of that alphabet in Transnistria followed Stalin's directives: in fact, Transnistria's history is connected to the rest of Moldova only because of Stalin's experiment (we can agree that it had not ever been part of the same region until Stalin proclaimed to be part of Moldavia). I do believe that mention of the Moldovan language and alphabet needs to be made inside the article as well, and I do not agree with your point here.
2. Given the special policies Stalin had in respect to Romania and Romanians, given the inventions in respect to Moldovanism advocated by Stalin, and given the inclusion in the repressions of thousands of commoners (mirrored in Bukovina), it is almost universal agreement of historians that social repression was doubled by national repression. At least mention of that needs to be made (and, as I am currently reading it, it seems to give only minimal detail). What we ought to add in the future is mention of the mass murder of Jews in Bessarabia and Transnistria.
3.That point is subjective, I wager. One would have to go into detail to match nationalist experiments other than the Moldovenism controversy and the killing of Jews. If you wer, however, referring to stuff such as building projects and institutional measures, I guess we shoul add more, but not too much, detail for each administration.
About my removal of your edits, Maxim: you forget that you could have edited sections without removing them as well. As I have said, I only give the minimum attention to the article; I agree that much of it is stylistic, careless, and redundant (note, for example, the sickening overlinking, especially of the words such as "Romanian" and "Moldovan", in blatant diregard for the Manula of Style). It needs a radical change, and I have other things to do (for which I have more expertise). Please edit with more care, without relying on one source over other, without introducing novel and obscure concepts, and without fitting here detail that belongs elsewhere, and you will have my full support. What I want to suggest is that you approach User:Illythr, another Russian-Moldovan user, and convene on what you dislike in the article (he has reviewed it once before, and I respect and trust his NPOV). He and I agreed a while back that Moldova and related articles need more work. Personally, I have a format in my head that I want to propose, but I'd rather not deal with it now. Dahn 19:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- Maxim: 1. there is no connection between Romanian Cyrillic (used all over Romania, and a Serbo-Bulgarian borrowing, one obviously different from both old and new Russian spellings) and Moldovan Cyrillic. Stalin reformed something that was not in use, and the reform actually created an instrument that is ill-adjusted for writing Romanian (or, if you will, "Moldovan"). An oblique mention of "Cyrillic having been in use" would sanction a POV: truth is that, ever since Czarist times, Bessarabia was not allowed an internal development of Romanian-Moldovan script; by the time Stalin took over, Cyrillic was, obviously, not used in Bessarabia - his invention was used in Transnistria (even there, with the promise that the entire Soviet Union was to switch to Latin!) and imposed on Bessarabia (as were notion that Romanian and Moldovan were separate languages). 2. I rank those alleged persecutions as high as I rank the pesky allegation by Romanians that people in Moldova were opressed into declaring themselves Moldovan. Both are bogus, and rely on oversimplification. In any case, it would be the ultimate exaggeration to compare between such allegations and the Gulag mass-murder. Dahn 10:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Sorry for the delay. Allow me again stress that I think the page needs to be balanced, and that I do welcome your edits - as long as they do not hurt the content that is not redundant (oh, feel free to remove and rephrase redundant and problematic sentences). Your edit replaced text with a comment on information that readers did not necessarily have, I'd rather have the information, and I believe that the current text can and should be synthesised. In the process, you could make mention of the reverse in situation using while a more neutral voice than the one you had on my talk page (no unbiased source could actually vouch that people suffered significantly from this phenomenon - it was, at the same time, misinterpreted, ill-enforced, and short-lived; I am not sure how much of that is exaggeration - but some has to be, as the incidents you mention appear vague and interpretable). A while back, Illythr has made objections to the page as well, citing very similar reasons; he has not, however, implicated the same arguments necessarily, and his edits have not covered the incidents you mention. I don't think,however,that Illythr is completely satisfied with the article at hand (neither am I, and for the same reasons of lack in consistency, for reasons of variations in tone, and for reasons of Romanian POV surfacing at points). I suggest again that you discuss your planned changes with him as well. Cheers. Dahn 03:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
Privet, Maxim! I read though the article, and I noticed that ther is at least one weasel word left. It's the part here, where it says:
Some say its user interface is not very intuitive, but this may be overcome by the high level of available customization
What I want to know is, who specifically says this. For example, if it's a man called Gleb Kravetsky, say something like this:
Some critics, namely Gleb Kravetsky, claim that its user interface is not very intuitive, , but this may be overcome by the high level of available customization
Also, this needs a source as well. Which internet service providers, sites and organisations claim this?
Ciao. —Khoikhoi 22:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- You changes look fine to me. In regards to the second part, I noticed the entire "Forged headers" was directly copied from this website. You can't do that, Maxim. :-) Please review Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information. What I suggest is that you either email the website for permission or re-write the paragraphs in your own words. Regards. —Khoikhoi 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Comparison of e-mail clients
"The Bat! and can import certificates (from PKCS#12/PFX format) which were created outside The Bat!" Maxim please try to create S/MIME certificate on token in browser (thawte, Globaltrust, certum) and tehen try to add this certificate to account in TB. Good Luck! Please after change description on Comparsion page ;) I wrote to RITs and want description why internal S/MIME not support using certificates created outside TB - without answer. When you want to create certificate for account on token and use this certificate you must use MS CryptoAPI - internal implementation its bugge here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sebastian Murawski (talk • contribs) 16:59, 27 October 2006.
