User talk:Apankrat/Archive

Foie gras, mediation

Hello Alex. Looks like ST47 is trying to get the mediation back under control and has started a point-by-point list of issues. You may wish to give your input, as the rest of the mediation seems to be rather hopelessly tangled. Regards, Ramdrake 18:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will chime in tonight (it's 1.30 PM here right now). Thanks for the note, Ramdrake. Alex Pankratov 21:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foie Gras, your question to me

(This section is a follow-up to a question I asked on Foie Gras talk page. Alex Pankratov 04:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Come on Alex, you are totally trying to tiddlywink me with that question! How can you ask such a thing? Animals suffer and feel pain. Alex, do you have any pets? I'm really curious what is up with you. How old are you? Where do you live? Why can't you sympathize with sentient beings other than humans, assuming you sympathize with other humans :)GingerGin 08:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is up with me. As I said it was not a loaded question. I am trying to understand if there is any rationality to AR. Because frankly it looks like it's based purely on emotions sprinkled liberally with a quasi-science to make it look credible.

I have friends who are vegetarian and vegan, and I do not think any less of them because of that. I understand their views and I can see how they arrived at holding them. But as with everything else it's not all black and white. That is why I asked the original question - is there a rational explanation to why it's OK to eat, say, mushrooms, but not animals. It is "sort of" obvious on an emotional level, because animals are similar to humans, but beyond that it is not. If one starts sympathizing with animals on the ground of sentience, why are other species getting excluded ?

To answer your questions (though you did not answer mine). I am Canadian and I had pets in the past. And I am old enough to know the difference between pets and domesticated animals, and to see the difference between a person strangling a cat and a farmer raising a cattle.

And if you could refrain from descending to personal attacks (no matter how mild they are), that'd most appreciated. Thanks. Alex Pankratov 05:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are good questions, Alex, on a general level. What is it that makes us believe that cats are sentient? What is it that makes us believe that anyone but ourselves is sentient? I don't think that there exist any scientific answers to the sentience problem today; neither in the case of cats, nor in the case of other humans.

Despite that, you, like almost all humans, act on the assumption that other humans are sentient; at least when they exhibit signs such as (apparent) understanding of their environments and purposeful behaviour. Cats and ducks show the same signs. Plants do not; at least not any more than deeply comatose humans, which most people, probably including you, do not count as sentient. I believe we are right in assuming all this, even if we cannot give it any ultimate rational foundation. The foundation we do give it is as solid as any of our everyday beliefs.

Animal rights just means taking into account the sentient experiences of non-human animals just as we take into account those of other humans. To ask for a rational foundation for animal rights without doing the same for human rights is to apply a double standard.

Concerning personal attacks: I think that here too you are applying a double standard. You have consistently insulted a number of people, among whom I am. You have repeatedly called me a sockpuppeteer, which I am not - and it is hard to understand how you could have thought I was. You have repeatedly attempted to discount MichaelBrock's opinions, calling him a sockpuppet. You have repeatedly called me and others extremists. I agree that personal attacks are not constructive, and I expect you to refrain from them as much as others do.

David Olivier 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Foie Gras, part N

Apankrat is a cruel person, that's all I have to say. Beostaerling 17:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is in response to my revert of what appears to be a vandalizing edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foie_gras&diff=109591056&oldid=109590476

Alex Pankratov 18:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beostaerling (Talk | contribs) (Apankrat eats Foie Gras, and that's a fact.)

He says that like it's an insult. I say, my man, were you insulted? SchmuckyTheCat 18:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse moi, are you a Russian trying to teach me about animal handling? Please stay off my edits to Foie Gras. Beostaerling 18:04, 20 February 2007

The user in question has just been asked by an admin to stay away from anything related to foie gras, due to te nature of his edits.--Ramdrake 18:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of instant messaging clients, Protocol support

The table for protocol support is needed in two pages:

Can you make a template of it and change both pages accordingly? Thank you 91.35.185.115 15:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAX, Moved Inter-Asterisk eXchange Discussion

I have moved our discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam which is where it belonged in the first place - my error for putting it on the WP:SPAM talk page. Calltech 13:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAX, Inter-Asterisk_eXchange edit

Hello Alex. Since you added the Yate link on the IAX page can you please also add it on the SIP and H.323 page, since it support also those. I can't do that because it will be a COI. Diana cionoiu 21:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diana, what you are doing is consider spamming. Read the guidelines here WP:SPAM. The specific guideline that WP considers spamming is Source Solicitation:
- "Source soliciting
  - Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article."
Also, links to your website for the purpose promoting your project is against WP guidelines here WP:EL. Bottom line - stop using WP to promote your project! Calltech 02:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I appologize. Diana cionoiu 11:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAX, Commercial license vs proprietary license

The problem with using the term commercial is that it doesn't really reflect the real facts. GPL can be a commercial license if you sell the software (see RedHat Enterprise), or a proprietary license can be freeware like Skype for example. The previous term open source was refering to the fact that the source is open to the public, so the next term should be in the same area, which means without sources available. 85.204.142.178 11:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I edited the introduction section and effectively got rid of the licensing mention altogether. It did not really belong there to begin with as it's not an Asterisk article. Alex Pankratov 18:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IAX, Citation needed for IAX

For the first part of the phase that is a protocol used mainly with data and signalling together i think i should use the RFC (i'm not sure), for the second part that IAX is derivated from the internal protocol used between Asterisk modules i think that the only place to cite that is the Asterisk source code, especially modules/chan_iax2.c i guess. I'm a bit puzzled on how should i add citation on this paragraph, if you can give me some guildlines it will be great. 85.204.142.178 11:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diane (?), the tag is for the second part, because it is not trivial to check and it may or may not be a subjective opinion. I am not that familiar with Asterisk source, but from the casual glance it is not obvious that IAX2 was derived from the inter-module protocol and not, for example, that they were developed in parallel (which is how I would've done it personally). I would probably suggest taking the 'historically' part out and rephrase the sentence to note that IAX-like protocol is also used by Asterisk internally for cross-module communication. That's assuming it is in fact what's happening. Alex Pankratov 17:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alex. It just happend that i was an Asterisk developer before being a Yate develop. I guess if someone digs a bit more it will find out that the IAX has been developed from the internal Asterisk protocol. In in the include/frame.h you will find the definition of ast_frame structure which is very similar with iax_frame structure which can be found in channels directory.

Interesting. Let's leave your edit as is then for now. I'll put a reference on IAX Talk page to point at this exchange. If anyone is going to have an issue with the wording, we will just continue conversation then. Alex Pankratov 01:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LogMeIn

WP:CSD#G4 applies after an article has been through an articles for deletion discussion and the community consensus has been to delete it. Such was the case with LogMeIn, as shown here. Carlossuarez46 00:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored it and placed it in AFD to see what community consensus is now. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 16:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Apankrat. Thanks for correcting my information in LogMeIn. You may find that I have made similar mistakes elsewhere in the article so please give it a quick check over. If you can explain how the "assisted p2p" works then I think that will enhance the article. I want to get plenty of technical info into the article. This is interesting and useful in its own right and it also helps counter the impression that the article is vanity or advertising. --DanielRigal 10:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Daniel. The assisted p2p basically means that LMI's server helps two clients to connect to each other directly. For one, it helps them to locate each other (e.g. when they are coming from dynamic network addresses). It also orchestrates the connection setup if these guys reside behind firewalls or NAT devices. In other words the server assists clients in establishing (p2p) connection between them. If you ever noticed how LMI ActiveX says "connection handoff completed" in its log - that's exactly this stuff. There is a longer description of this business on Hamachi page and I think there was a section in Security Whitepaper that talks about this. Alex Pankratov 19:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crikey! I am absolutely flabergasted to see that LogMeIn has been deleted again! I have asked Sandstein to reconsider but I fear we may have to request a proper review. I know discussions on Wikipedia are not votes where the majority view holds, but I thought that the "keep" camp had the upper hand both in numbers and in quality of argument. It almost makes a mockery of having a discussion.

I would be prepared to start again, using GoToMyPC as a template, but I am afraid that I could do a lot of work and just have it deleted again. --DanielRigal 01:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, bummer. Let's see what Sandstein has to say. His decision is unfounded and its justification is highly superficial. There is always Deletion Review procedure to fall back to. Alex Pankratov 03:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic Discussions on Article discussion talk pages

Hi friend, you recently undid an edit of mine... The edit I made is here: [1]. The edit you made is here (Reverting my removal with the edit summary: "it is not offtopic, this was in the news alright"): [2]. - Our perceptions of 'off-topic' differ, clearly. Article discussion pages are only for discussing the article - not the topic. Whilst what the user said may have been about the article, it had no context as to improving the article. Which, thus, makes it "off-topic". Do you understand? I apologise for this confusion. Furthermore, this particular user continues to leave posts on article discussion pages which are off-topic and admin's are aware of this. Once again, sorry for the confusion, I shall remove the said discussion again. Apologie's for any inconvenience. Scarian ^Talk 11:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not one for religiously citing Wikipedia guidelines but here is the guideline which supports my decision [3]. Also, as I said previously, the user in question has had an auspicious past with using discussion pages as a general discussion 'blog' (I have previously informed an admin of this whom agreed with my surmise). In reply to this: "...that that person is posting relevant facts on a Talk page and expects other editors to incorporate them into the article." - I could see no obvious hint as to his expectations.

I'm sorry we have had this 'disagreement' - of sorts, but I am doing as the guideline suggests. And, also, for the record - please don't take this as a personal attack on yourself - it is the user whom started off the conversation in the first place that is in the wrong. Hooah. Have a nice day, friend. Scarian ^Talk 17:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swarm intelligence

Hi there. I was editing while on the road (and so not paying full attention) and when I got home I opened WP again to carry on, but seeing you undid the edits I assume you may have a better idea of what the article should look like, so I invite you to Talk:Swarm intelligence. NerdyNSK 22:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOCKS, Please don't reverse valid changes

Alex, the Socks client list is updated by release date. If you want to undo the change copy the current client list first, it took some time to go through those websites, sometimes download the last release to check the release date which is not always stated on the websites.

As with any kind of programs there are many old abandoned projects, it is not clear why you want to persist with unsorted list which is difficult to navigate through (and sorting by name won't quite help it).

Thanks.

SOCKS, Please don't reverse valid changes

I'm not connected to any of those programs, but it was my work to put them in the release date order and it took some time (not all dates were originally stated). Information should be correctly organized. The latest entries are more relevant so they should be on the top. A project abandoned in 2002 is of little value.

You are mixing relevancy and marketing, to market something I need to be associated with the product, if you check it closely maybe you'll find out most likely none of those programs are made in the Philippines (check my IP address) :)

I used your last page to make the latest update, only the list is organized correctly (the initial reason was I went through the list without dates back then and got too many misses and too much wasted time). I didn't notice any spam there as well.

Ok here is the civility.

SOCKS, Please don't reverse valid changes

If you have a link to a policy which states that a list of links must be arranged alphabetically please let me know so I'll be aware of what you are trying to enforce, I guess it would still give a preference to a program starting with "A"

Comparison articles

Please note the pages in question have long had problems with spam. Please also note that that ALL the editors objecting to my edits are either anonymous (User:87.56.149.202) or objecting to my removing links to their own websites (User:Mgibson99). AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'm not saying that having an article would prove notability. I'm saying that if the software in question had an article then notability could be established within the article. You might not be aware but there is a long history of software developers coming to Wikipedia and writing articles about their own software. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CrossLoop AlistairMcMillan (talk) 00:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom vote

Hello there. I noticed you voted oppose on my ArbCom candidacy. However, you didn't say why. I was wondering if you had any specific concerns you'd like me to address? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Saga

I have again removed the material on aliens, which is 10K of excessive WP:PLOT. Please read WP:WAF and, if you still think it warrants inclusion, articulate a rationale on the talk page. --EEMIV (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]