Talk:Panorama Tools

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Panorama Tools article.

Contents

[edit] STOP

Do not bring your argument onto Wikipedia, if there is some disagreement between your two groups settle it outside of Wikipedia. This is not the place for that. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for you two to bicker. Tnikkel 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Guys, I know all of you personally. Please leave the inflammatory nonsense out of Wikipedia, this is not the place. Links to both groups are perfectly valid. Visitors to the linked resources can decide the value of each, but it is not reasonable to try to assert who is official and who isn't here. If you want to link to your sites, great, but leave it at that. -RH —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rogerhoward (talk • contribs) 01:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Panotools.info links

So people keep deleting the links to the mail list, wiki, and main news site of the Panotools.info site claiming it to be spam. Just because it's not as large or don't agree it should be there, doesn't classify the links as spam WP:SPAM. Although it's not as large or active as the Panotools.org site, it still has viable content on it related to this article. I think we should include it in the external links. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Roguegeek,

If you notice in the text of the current page it links to 'Panorama Tools (Software)' so the NG group will be found. I have seen no reciprocating gestures fromthe NG group and as an example of the NG managements bitter/unprofessional management style, they ban me from the NG group without ever making a post or giving any explanation for their actions. They started this group saying that Kevin was a dictator and the NG group has taken on this role in spades. - John —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Spikowski (talk • contribs) 22:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

I don't know what the story is there. I'm not a part of those communities at the moment. If there is a dispute you have with someone outside of this, please take care of it outside. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and has some strict policies about some of the edits you are making. I'm just attempting to uphold them. If you make edits that follow the guidelines set by Wikipedia, I'll help enforce them if they are viable edits. I see no reason to include the links from panotools.info here. Just don't be malicious about things and please learn to sign WP:SIGNATURE your comments. Roguegeek (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


I have tried to work with the Yahoo Groups NG mailing list new member approval team but they feel they rule the panorama space and I don't deserve a response. It seems their egos have enlarged to the point that other panorama groups don't exist. If the NG group wishes to engage in a meaning discussion, I'm always available. John Spikowski 23:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is not the place for outside arguments. Information placed here must be encyclopedic and follow the policies and guidelines set by Wikipedia. Do not use Wikipedia as a forum for your disagreement with another group. Roguegeek (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to .info / .org

I don't care too much about the past and I hope I can forget about it because those where hard times for the group but this is over now. In my eyes the Wiki link should point only to the active Wiki not to a dead outdated copy. Sure, John want's to make money with our knowlege but this doesn't justfy the link. For this purpose you can go to SEO companies but you don't need Wikipedia. Some comparisons:

.info Wiki User list - 2 Users with no contributions from Bill Seddon

Recentchanges Last changes today with newly copied articles from .org (btw: I am glad he likes my Tutorial!) the rest is a "AdSense Test"

.org Wiki User list - 72 Users

Recentchanges - Looks active

.info mailing list The own contributions from the .info mailing list are limit to maybe 20 email in the last months with around 10 from John. The rest are copied messages from the .org mailing list with removed footers. It is not possible to see how many members are subscribed but I guess not more than 50.

.org mailing list This list at Yahoo has currently over 900 members an is very active the last 10 weeks produced over 2700 messages

--Wuz 23:34, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely understand what you are trying to say, but if they are valid reliable sources WP:RS as defined by Wikipedia, they can't be removed. I guess it's up to whomever to show how they do or don't classify as reliable sources. Whatever the outcome is, let's not edit war here. We'll leave it all up for now and bring items for and against each of them. We discuss before changes are made that deal with this issue. Roguegeek (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
My main points against the direct links to the wiki and the mailing list are, that these are just copies without original content. I have no problem with a link to panotools.info's main page but I don't see a usage to point to copies of the orignal where you can not reach the author or make modifications that last because they are overwritten with the next update from the source wiki. --Wuz 00:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I write as one of the main contributors both to the panotools wiki and the mailinglist. I (among others) asked John Spikowski to respect my copyright and remove my articles from his mailing list archive - he refused. Does Wikipedia really encourage links to pages where individual copyright is violated? -- Erik Krause, 21 September 2006

[edit] = The PanoTools Real Story

The PanoTools group was created in April 2003 and the NG group in July 2006. After two months of turning the PanoTools group focus from panorama topics to a political correctness forum and ignoring all the hard work of others, a forked version the PanoTools group was created. The original 'band leader' has left and the followers took his place. Kevin gave Mark Fink moderator privileges with the understanding that the members e-mail addresses were never to be misused. (shouldn't have had to say anything as this is a known Yahoo Groups rule) Mark and his buddies created false and deceptive e-mail and sent 2700+ members a message saying the list has moved. They turned the PanoTools public wiki into the NG 'home page' and used it for administrative planning and group policy making. (forgetting the purpose of the wiki)

I offered the Google Groups list to the NG group to be used for member beta testing and I was ban from the group when handing over the 'keys'. Sure doesn't sound like 'your friendly neighborhood moderator' (RH. quote) to me. The NG group has no leadership or plans and all attempts to date to provide the services the original PanoTools group has been offering all along are a joke. A hurry up attempt to build a mailing list archive using raw posts. I spent two weeks cleaning up the archives before indexing them in the sites search engine. Thanks to the NG counter productive efforts, members doing searches will now get two or more copies of the same messages returned.

The NG group isn't even on the map in the search engines. Here is the latest index stats in Google for the two groups.

site:panotools.info = 75,500
site:panotools.org = 358

site:www.panotools.info = 25,600
site:www.panotools.org = 54

site:lists.panotools.info = 92,600
site:wiki.panotools.org = 304

The www.panotools.info site averages about 1200 visits a day with half referred from search engines. The NG group only has about 100 or so active (posting) members. The other 800 are causal visitors that lurk in the background.

The NG group has a lot of work ahead of them to catch up with the three years of effort put into the PanoTools group site. I laugh every time I see a comment how I'm using the PanoTools site to make money. I have over a couple grand of hard out of pocket cash contributed to the PanoTools group. This doesn't include all the hours I donated to manage the PanoTools group over the years or the time spent building the group site.

I would love to see a list of contributions made by the current management team. The only two members that have made any serious contributions is Erik K. and Bruno P. with the wiki project. The other NG managers feel talking about doing something and never following through is viewed as a service to the community.

John Spikowski 00:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


And how does this all relate to Wikipedia? If you are that overpresent in Google why do you care? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a link farm --Wuz 01:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


Agreed. Let's have one link each for the portal sites. The visitors of this page can find the wiki & mailing list from there. John Spikowski 01:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not up to you or me to dicide! Roguegeek changed back the article as a neutral person (after you have delete the links to panotools.org for no reason (remember, you started the war not me)) and you didn't accepted it so you have to confince the whole Wikipedia community. --Wuz 03:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Once again Thomas your spreading false information. I removed the NG wiki & mailing list links AFTER the PanoTools like links were removed by you. It was agreed long ago that only one link each to PanoTools group sites. You keep adding link after link over shawdowing the original PanoTools group. It would really be helpful if the NG group took the PanoTools reference from their name and came up with something original. Your half-ass attempts at copying the PanoTools group site is only wasting your time. You a good programmer and should focus it on your business and what you do best. There are no rewards for building yet another panorama portal site. This is not something profitable and requires a lot of your free time. We really don't need two PanoTools portal sites and maintaining the mailing list is a job in itself. (at least you have 10 people to help when Kevin and I did it alone) John Spikowski 03:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

21:45, 20 September 2006 Wuz (Talk | contribs) (revert to older version, Link-SPAM, violation of WP:NPOV)

John Spikowski 03:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe to stay with the facts would help? What's about

07:53, 18 September 2006 24.17.56.230 (Talk) (→External links - remove unrelated links)

--Wuz 11:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TimeLine

(cur) (last) 22:41, 20 September 2006 John Spikowski (Talk | contribs) m (PanoTools links were removed I assume to reduce the number of links pointing to group resources. The NG links were removed in the same spirit.) (cur) (last) 21:45, 20 September 2006 Wuz (Talk | contribs) (revert to older version, Link-SPAM, violation of WP:NPOV) (cur) (last) 21:43, 20 September 2006 Roguegeek (Talk | contribs) (added mergefrom template) (cur) (last) 19:54, 20 September 2006 John Spikowski (Talk | contribs) m (→External links - Fix PanoTools ML URL Typo) (cur) (last) 19:52, 20 September 2006 John Spikowski (Talk | contribs) m (→External links - Added PanoTools ML/Wiki to equal NG exposure - NG still has more links then PanoTools on this page.)

Thomas,

At 19:52 I added the PanoTools ML/Wiki links to match the NG like links. At 21:45 you removed them. At 22:41 I removed the NG ML/Wiki links.

What facts are you talking about? John Spikowski 16:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That the 18 September 2006 comes before 20 September 2006... look in your calender if you don't believe me --Wuz 17:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The way it was

Let's put it back the way it was before this all started. I'll remove the PanoTools ML/Wiki links (I added) and remove the NG portal link (Thomas added). I would like to end this bickering and stop the duplication of efforts. If the NG management will set their egos aside and think about what's best for the group as a whole, we may be able to solve some of these issue and help the panorama community grow. It's time to move forward and stop this nonsense. I suggest we have a Yahoo private chat session to work out the issues and see if we can come to some resolve.

Why don't you like to talk in public? What's about the copyright issues raised by Erik Krause some lines above this text (click here)? What about your PanoTools_Group article? Can it be merged/removed? So you like to stop the duplication. I am fine with that. Lets see how long this offer last and if you really remove your message archives. --Wuz 17:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Please read through the GFDL license the Wiki was created under and if you still are having a problem understanding how a public wiki works there are tons of pages on the Wikipedia that will help you along. Erik needs to refresh his understanding as well. If he has concerns about contributing to a public resource, he should refrain from doing so in the future.

When the Wiki on PanoTools was the primary copy, you guys were anal about backup copies. When I asked for a backup copy I was told to get lost. I don't care one way or the other if you want to work together or not. It's only a matter of time before the NG management group self destructs or the members get tired of all the smoke and mirrors and promises that never materialize.

As long as the PanoTools group is not bullied here on Wikipedia and representation of resources are evenly distributed, we shouldn't have a problem getting along. I can see I'm wasting my time trying to have conversation with someone so eaten up with bitterness that they have forgotten the reason were here in the first place. It's not about you or me but making sure the PanoTools members have a stable, professional enviroment to learn from and contribute to. John Spikowski 21:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So you like to stop the duplication. I am fine with that. Lets see how long this offer last and if you really
remove your message archives.

The PanoTools archives have been cleaned of OT, repetitive footers, ... and are well indexed in the search engines. Your sorry attempt using raw post needs to be removed before that crap starts getting indexed in the search engines producing duplicate messages on search results. The PanoTools wiki will soon be going through a navigation make-over with links to the PanoTools site index. The wiki was created on PanoTools.Info and is free of the NG OT crap you guys added. Just do one thing right and maintain the mailing list without the excessive moderation Roger Howard brings to the table. John Spikowski 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] No personal attacks

Wikipedia has a very strict no personal attacks policy. Please keep this in mind when leaving comments in the discussion. Thanks. Roguegeek (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop the edit warring

Please take your disputes to dispute resolution instead of edit-warring and sniping at each other. Thank you. Guy 12:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge of "PanoTools Group" article

Here we go again I guess. So I think the information about the PanoTools community in the PanoTools Group article may be important. There's, however, too little information for it to have a stand alone article and since the community is created around the software, I suggest we add this info to the Panorama Tools (software) article under a section called "community" or "group" or whatever. Even if there was a fair amount of info to not classify that article as a stub WP:STUB, it's important to have it consolidated here. I have added the merge tag to both articles. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think these articles should be merge for the same reasons. There is no real information in the PanoTools Group article. --Wuz 00:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. In fact, admins have already commented on this before (User talk:John Spikowski#Time to stop). They also feel like this subject doesn't deserve a standalone article and should be merged here. I'm with the mindset of keeping every article as consolidated as possible until it simply gets too big. Right now everything on Wikipedia dealing with PanoTools is pretty tiny. I say merge it. Roguegeek (talk) 02:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link decisions

I have archived the past conversations because they were getting long, repeatative, and very much off-topic. If you want past conversations, please feel free to check the archive. Going forward, let's keep the format of the discussion clean and on-topics. Thanx. Roguegeek (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to talk about those things in a different forum. Here, we want to only talk about why a link should or should not be here based on Wikipedia guidelines only. Don't need to know the history of why one site is better than the other or argue about off-topic things here. The history doesn't matter. It's the content available right now that does. Simply put, is a link being discussed here a valid external resource as defined by Wikipedia.

Try to keep messages in their related conversations also. Don't make a new one just to reply to another one. Roguegeek (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is a link I have forgotten to include, go ahead and post it. Keep it organized please. Thanx! Roguegeek (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.panotools.org

Alright, it's obvious this site is up-to-date. The front page news section of it is updated regularly so that one has my vote to be included. Roguegeek (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(+) second that --Wuz 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wiki.panotools.org

Wikis and forums follow different guidelines. They are user driven sites and require participation of those uses to be considered notable and valuable. This specific wiki has a large amount of users who seem to contribute regularly. It seems to me a majority of the PanoTools community use this. I would consider this a notable site to add to this article. Roguegeek (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(+) second that --Wuz 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] www.panotools.info

The front page on this looks good. Looks like there are constant updates to news about the PanoTools technology and related softwares. This also has my vote to place in the external links of this article. Roguegeek (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

(+) second that --Wuz 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wiki.panotools.info

Again, wikis follow different guidelines as I stated above. There is a good amount of content on here, but I kinda didn't find anything on this wiki that wasn't on the .org wiki. On top of this, there are literally 2 registered users meaning the chance of notable expansion of this site in the future isn't guarantied. We remove forum links on Wikipedia all the time because they only have a couple of users. I think this link falls under the same type of case and, therefore, I don't think it should be included in this article. Obviously, if that changes in the future and the wiki expands with more content and more users, it should be included. For now, let's leave it off. Roguegeek (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, don't include for now. It's only a rarely updated copy. No new original content --Wuz 00:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this wiki can be included when more user participation is there. Lots of good content on it. I might even be ok with it going up right now as long as it's not put in the external links as a wiki and instead just as a good reference. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I think its just confusing. It is in the same state now for 16 weeks and there is only outdated content from the current wiki. It is not possible to add a user account and the content would get overwritten if there are changes in the source. I vote for only include the source not the copy. If there is some day enough original content it can be included, no problem with that --Wuz 01:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
As a standalone reference, I think it's fine. I mean I wish some of the source WP:RS being used to cite facts in other articles I watched were as new as 16 weeks, ya know? It's not like there's a ton of references out there on this subject as comprehensive as wiki.panotools.info (granted .org has way more). What is wrong with having another source as long as it's not claimed an active wiki (which it isn't)? Roguegeek (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, if he really improves the page. --Wuz 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/

Current mailing list of PanoTools, >900 members, >2700 messages in the last 10 weeks. This currently is the only way to get in contact with the PanoTools group members. My vote is to include this link. --Wuz 00:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Roguegeek (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Continued

If you want to continue discussing this then quit your selective editing and add your content to the end of the thread. This dispute is with the NG managemnet and I don't understand why Roguegeek is even involved. Your biased help isn't needed or required. John Spikowski 01:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly why it shouldn't be here. It's an outside dispute. Everyone, please don't add to these conversations. It's simply not allowed to be here. John, if you insist on keeping these outside disputes brought here, I will have to report this, yet again. I really don't want to have to do that. Do the right thing and stay away from these types of discussions. Roguegeek (talk) 01:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
John, we discuss this now for years. This is Wikipedia and definitly not the right place. Look in your archives. There was enough discussion already about this issues hint. --Wuz 01:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The issue of the links have been resolved and I hope Thomas doesn't go NG link crazy again. I don't want to start this all over again. Are far as I'm concerned this topic is closed. If you want to archive this then remove all the text you archive and not only remove my comments. Try being fair for a change. John Spikowski 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The link to www.panotools.org is still missing and the issue with your PanoTools_Group article is still not solved --Wuz 01:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The PanoTools wiki was created on www.panotools.info and was never used as a front end to a website like the NG's forked copy. The reason the old 100 or so users were removed because Thomas and other were acting like children and trashed it with their old login ID's. (another example of Thomas's bitter personality) I have been spending my time with the mailing list archives and just now updating the wiki with current content. There wasn't any effort put into the wiki for easier navigation. This project is the next task on the list. The PanoTools wiki is very well indexed in the search engine and is 1/2 the traffic of the PanoTools site. If you want the NG link back in the portal section then I'm adding the PanoTools wiki and mailing list links back in. John Spikowski 01:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, how does your 435 indexed Google pages relate to Wikipedia? How does the history relate to Wikipedia? --Wuz 01:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
That's 71,000 indexes which 98% are the wiki. The NG wiki index numbers aren't even worth mentioning. <500 John Spikowski 01:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
And whats the point for Wikipedia? Maybe you should file this (again) at Google. This is OT here. It would help if you contribute to the topics above. --Wuz 03:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The NG group is a mailing list and a forked wiki project. Knock yourself out if you want to try and replicate the PanoTools site. All that I ask is you don't overwhelm the Wikipedia with NG links rather then spending your time attracting visitors on merit. The NG group has either stole or tried to copy everything the PanoTools group has done. Be original for a change. The NG group did not replace the PanoTools group. Your not doing the PanoTools members any favors by taking shortcuts. I haven't decided yet if you don't have the skill level to come up with something presentable or you just don't have enough pride in your work to care. I done with this thread. Change the links again and I will respond with the needed corrections. John Spikowski 05:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
John, don't play the victim. Everybody can see why it doesn't makes sense to talk to you. Do you really think that >900 people are all that stupid? Your personal attacks show me that you run out of real arguments. It would help much more if you contribute to the link discussion. Do you like to add forum.panotools.info or your bugtracker? These are unique features of your site! Bring some arguments. --Wuz 11:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thomas,

I'm using Google Analytics (Urchin) to track what features of the site are being requested. I put my efforts into those areas that are popular. The bug tracker, product release and announcement forum features where taken off the menu due to lack of interest. I have found over the years that it is almost impossible to get anyone to help in an administrative way and your on your own. If you wait for approval or recommendations it would be years before anything would get done. This really is a classic 'little red hen' story but that is just the way it is. I have tried to work with the NG group management but after getting burned over an over again I gave up. Let's leave the links as they are. I really think the wiki needs to be hosted on the this server. This is where it's been for the longest period of time and is the version that is in the search engines. The PanoTools site is attracting many new members so the loss of the old group isn't as devastating as it once was. Thanks to all the work I put in the search engines it is now paying off. I have had the cleaned up archives submitted with Google for over a month now and hope they finish with indexing soon. The old PTML archives were restored so the current indexes wouldn't 404 when someone clicked on a search result link for the list. Google approved the deletion of the PTML list posts from their indexes and I'm just waiting for the next 'Google Dance' to happen so the new PanoTools archives are used. John Spikowski 18:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Please John, look at the URL field. This is not a SEO site. It is not Google. Its not a link farm. This is Wikipedia! You say the only reason why you need this links in the article and PanoTools_Group are for Google to make money with the PanoToolsNG mailinglist? We are not talking about your copyright violations here. This is not a court but some answers about these articles would help. So PanoTools_Group can be deleted? Ok? --Wuz 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


The AdSense Ad's have generate $19.68 over the last month. How many times do you have to be told that making money off the PanoTools site is impossible. If I treated this project as if it were a client of mine, There would be a bill for over $20,000 for my time and out of pocket costs. Like I said, leave the links as they are. Right now there are four NG links to one PanoTools link on this page. If you add links I will even the count. Your choice. We are going nowhere with this and since you refuse to answer any of my e-mails, I don't want to waste the disk space on Wikipedia continuing this thread. Good luck with the NG site. The members will decide which resource works best for them. John Spikowski 20:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So PanoTools_Group can be deleted?

NO - Leave it alone, I'm going to do a history of the PanoTools group with that page. Feel free to create a PanoToolsNG Group page and edit it all you want. I will not touch that page and hope you will do the same with the PanoTools Group page.


Thomas,

Based on the long delays and spotty uptime, are you trying to run the NG site off a DSL conection from your PC to a managed DNS site? I can almost warm up my coffee and return to my desk before pages load. What's up with that?

John Spikowski 21:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'PanoTools Group' page has been discussed fully and I already told you what the plan is for it. You can ignore me all you want but the fact is I manage the PanoTools group whether you like it or not. I made this commitment in April of 2003 and will continue this role till others step up and offer to help with the group administrative tasks.

PLEASE stop chnaging the page every five minutes ! John Spikowski 23:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem if you call yourself "PanoTools Group" or what so ever. You didn't discuss it, you ruled it! I see no reason for a 5 line article. That's all. --Wuz 00:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The 'PanoTools Group' page was just added. Give me time to finish my work. Unlike you, I don't just slap something up on a site and call it done. Go have a donut and relax for awhile. You will have plenty of time to redo what I post. BTW: You're about to break the 3RR rule if you continue with all these snap revisions. John Spikowski 00:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


Stop this outside argument immediately! I'm very tired of it. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not care and neither do I. It's actually quite simple. Things going on Wikipedia must keep a neutral point of view WP:NPOV and have reliable sources to back them up WP:RS. External links as sources need to be notable and user driven external links (forums, wikis, etc..) must have a notable amount of users. Done. Roguegeek (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PanoTools.info mailarchive

FYI - The PanoTools archives have been purged of OT/Admin content as a prepartion step for the worlds search engines. John Spikowski 00:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

John, you know that you remove all footers and headers (against the Yahoo T&C), remove the original author, make the messages look like they come from your site (also against Yahoo's T&C) and you add comments to post, remove messages that you don't like or remove lines you don't agree to. For me this is "altering" and seriously breaking copyright laws like here, here and here just to pick 3. --Wuz 00:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Thomas, If you would like to talk about breaking Yahoo Group policy then we need to start at the theft of the PanoTools mailing list and using it to start your group. The wiki was also stolen in the process. I really don't think this is the place to air your groups misdeeds. I have sent you many e-mails to try to work out these issues but your only response has been here on the Wikipedia. I really think you should stop this before your ban from using the resources. John Spikowski 20:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW: I'm NOT removing the footers Yahoo is. Yahoo groups only sends the footers out to members that want e-mail delivery. Just look at the posts on the NG Yahoo site. Do you see any footers? Please stop posting things that are untrue. THX ! John Spikowski 20:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
But except for your personal attacks (for which you got blocked) you admit that you alter the messages and that you remove copyright information. So please tell me: What is not true in saying that the archive at panotools.org contains an unaltered archive? --Wuz 12:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to propose that the link mailing list archives is deleted from the article based on some of John's statements:

  1. "archives have been purged of OT/Admin content" tries to play down an ongoing copyright infringement: he alters mails from members of a group that he doesn't even belong to. Reason in the given example is to conceal the real source of the message.
  2. In fact the whole "mailing list archives" in question are altered and censored by the owner of panotools.info to prevent people from reviewing and criticizing his personal points of view as well as his habit of bossing people around. His accusation of a "theft of the PanoTools mailing list" is an allusion to the installation of a new group (PanotoolsNG) as a direct result of his qualities as a list manager. If this point is not clear enough I am able to add some more details. I only think this won't be neccessary since the reasons are not important for the wikipedia article.
  3. The main source of his accumulation (Oct. 2006: 790 messages) is actually the PanotoolsNG Yahoo group (Oct. 2006: 764 messages (see "Message History")) and therefore has no added benefit to be linked from this article.
  4. "Yahoo groups only sends the footers out to members that want e-mail delivery" implies that he is a member of the PanotoolsNG Yahoo group. He is not a member as he is banned from the group for several reasons that doesn't belong to this talk page. As a non-member he may use the RSS feed for his personal use and definitely has to follow Terms of Use that apply. Not linking back from a blog (or something similar) to the source (and altering content) is no good style... This is not a good External Link that the Wikipedia should link to.

If I don't find a message here from one of the admins pointing out that my claims are not good enough I will delete the link in question in 48 hours. If a non admin has a differing point of view I suggest to contact a wikipedia admin or find a mediator.

Carl

--Einemnet 14:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Carl,

The PanoTools group has been around since April of 2003. The new NG group started in July of 2006. The wiki was created on the PanoTools server and continues to it's caretaker. The NG group runs on private resources and the PanoTools site has always been funded by donations from the members. (non-profit group) Your management group convinced the PanoTools members to follow your leadership and many made the move. This is still a small portion of the panorama community. The PanoTools site averages between 1700 and 2500 visits a day. (80% from search engine referrals) The PanoTools wiki is the primary resource in the search engines. I feel the links as they are now are fair and correct. John Spikowski 06:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC) (PanoTools Administrative Support)

Mailing List Archive - About 80 percent of the posts in the archive the NG group hosts were generated from the PanoTools group. 15% are from Helmut's old Panorama Tools list. Many of the PanoTools members are also NG members. The resources of both group were intended for the the panorama community that uses them and not as a possession for a few with special interests. I have yet to be informed why my membership as a NG mailing list member was revoked. I never made a post to this public list and didn't break any Yahoo group rules. The was decided by a small group of self appointed moderators. The PanoTools group has a couple new members that said the same thing happened to them. One day they where no longer a member and were never told why. John Spikowski 10:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


It's easy to disprove all of your accusations as well as your efforts to twist the facts, but I will not discuss issues here that are not relevant to the wikipedia. I can only advise you to address
  1. the burning problem of copyright infringement and
  2. accumulated content originating almost completely from another list that is already linked. (see links in my earlier post to illustrate both points)
I don't question your forum as it is now. If it's your decision that dividing the communication of your own "group" into a 'PanoTools Discussion Forum' and a mailing list - why not? OTOH creating a virtual 'Mailing List Archive' construction that is also linked to from your homepage like the forum and looks to the innocent visitor as if it's originating from panotools.info that is indeed problematic. For the original content creators and also for wikipedia.
Instead of accusing people here of things that are not relevant for wikipedia please stay on topic, address the outlined problems, find a solution that doesn't provoke everyone else around you. We are all your virtual neighbors. Don't you want neighbors that respect you for the work you have done? Oh, and please stop sending me emails privately, thanks.
-- Einemnet 12:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Just another attempt to get this off the Wikipedia. John Spikowski 18:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
John, as a web consultant you should also know that not everything that is on a website can be copied and altered as you like. The messages are still copyrighted material. [1]. Your Archive clearly violates copyright so I see no reason why Wikipedia should support this. --Wuz 14:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thomas, As a NG manager, you have 'copied' the PanoTools groups archives. Only 5% of the post in the archives were generated by the NG group. As I mentioned before, the posts are added to the PanoTools archives as they come from Yahoo. (unmodified) Why is it okay for your startup group to host PanoTools groups posts but you are upset when we host the NG's generated posts? John Spikowski 18:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
John, the PanoTools Mailarchive shows the source of the posts. You remove everything that refers to the source and you make them look like as they where generated on your site. You also mix them with your own content and you remove messages and texts that you don't like. This is why there should not be a link in Wikipedia, because the content censored, is breaking the T&C of Yahoo and the Copyright of the original author. --Wuz 21:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

Let's move this to the PanoTools open forum. The Wikipedia is not the place to work out inter-group issues. I would join the PanoTools-List but I was ban there also for no reason. Until the NG management group realizes that they were unsuccessful at shutting down the PanoTools group and moves on to build their new group on it's own merit, this is never going to end. PLEASE take this off the Wikipedia and answer e-mails or join the open forum so we can move forward. John Spikowski 19:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

We are talking here about a Wikipedia article. You always talk about off topic things. Maybe you should try to stay on topic. There is nothing to be moved. --Wuz 21:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thomas,

In an effort stop this nonsense, I have removed all secondary links to the PanoTools group submission. A good idea may be to change your group name to something without the PanoTools name in it. The PanoTools members may take this as group identity theft. Let the members decide on which resources they wish to use and lighten up on the control thing you guys have going. John Spikowski 22:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PanoTools.info screenshot image

Thomas,

PLEASE leave the only entry for the PanoTools group alone. The NG management group are wiki bullies and wish to control every aspect of this page. You now have four links for the NG group to our one link. If you wish to change your link submission then have at it but leave ours alone. I will request admin intervention if you and your buddies don't stop this. John Spikowski 20:36, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at the link that Thomas left in his edit summary (Notability as a reason for deletion): wikipedia is not meant to advertise your page. I can't remember to have seen an external link from the wikipedia to a commercial site that is illustrated. Two points for creativity, but please delete the image. -- Einemnet 21:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Please describe why this image is important according to WP:N and WP:WEB. btw: You are also violating WP:NPOV and you may read WP:NOT --Wuz 21:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to fight with you guys on the Wikipedia. You have my e-mail address and are welcome to discuss any of your issues in an open forum on the PanoTools group site. John Spikowski 22:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
So this means you don't want or you are not able to explain why there should be a image of your site on Wikipedia? --Wuz 23:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thomas,

You are about to break the [Three-revert rule] and the one link per site rule. Please stop this and show some respect for the rules that are in place. John Spikowski 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

John, this is not funny. You are deleting links that were agreed upon earlier on this talk page. Try to add content to the wikipedia for a change, you seem to see this as a marketing platform. -- Einemnet 00:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Try being fair for a change. The NG group dominates the external link section even though your a unknown startup group. The PanoTools group has been around since April 2003. If the NG group would create something on their own rather then using other groups resources, it could be a source of new content for the Wikipedia. John Spikowski 00:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Original PanoTools site

Panotools.info is clearly not the "original" site. If you use http://web.archive.org you will find [2] dated back to 2001-04-21 where the first page at .info is listed 2004-11-04 [3]. You claimed that PanoTools.info was founded April 2003 so PanoTools.org is at least 2 years older. If you don't like the confusion maybe you should change your name to something unique and don't use the previous ideas? --Wuz 20:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how long you have been a member of the PanoTools group but when Helmut's list shutdown the PanoTools list I created as a backup was activated in April of 2003. The PanoTools.Info site was created in Nov. 2004 when the PanoTools wiki was created. I had planned to create a page on the Wikipedia about the PanoTools group and the contributions made by the members but the NG wiki bullies quicky redirected the page. Your spliter group and the methods used to start the NG group isn't the 'new' PanoTools group no matter what stories you tell here. John Spikowski 01:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"You claimed that PanoTools.info was founded April 2003 so PanoTools.org is at least 2 years older."

The PanoTools.org and PanoTools.net URL were donatated to the PanoTools group shortly after the PanoTools.info group site was created. Your splinter group convinced the member that donated the URL's to PanoTools to redirect them. Just another example of how low you guys have gone to promote your PanoTools wanabe group. John Spikowski 01:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

The commercial links are not suitable for inclusion in the article as they violate WP:EL. The inline link to Helmut's site is unnecessary and violates layout guidelines. It could be included as a reference, but it's already in the external links section. The Section with popular programs should only link to Wikipedia articles and not to external sites WP:NOT a web directory. The panotools.info site was my mistake, it is an acceptable link to include. --GraemeL (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The panotools.info site was my mistake, it is an acceptable link to include. --GraemeL

Thank you ! John Spikowski 04:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Having been asked to take a further look at the inclusion of the site, it seems that the wiki on the .info site is basically a copyright violation of the wiki on the .org site with references to the GFDL removed. As such, the site is in direct violation of Wikipedia policy which prohibits linking to sites with content in violation of copyright and I am going to remove it again.
Do not add the site back to the list of external links until such time as you either acknowledge the origin of the wiki content in compliance with the GFDL license of the original, or you can provide evidence that you own the copyright to the content in question. If this site is added again, I will end up blocking you from editing. --GraemeL (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Graemel - Once again, the PanoTools wiki was created on PanoTools.Info and is the caretaker. The NG group is running an unauthorized copy and have violated the GDFL license by trying to privatize a public wiki. The PanoTools group is non-profit and provides panorama content since 2003. I really think it's unfair you to remove the original groups link and leave the NG group link. This group was started in July of 2006 using the PanoTools member list and wiki. John Spikowski 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"The copyright situation is a problem though." Please see the license page. The PanoTools wiki is under the GDFL license.

By removing the copyright information from every page and displaying it only on a single page, you are violation their copyright. Do not add the link back again until such time as it is agreed here that you are complying fully with the license. If you do so, I will block you without further warning. --GraemeL (talk) 18:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Thomas,

You have broken the three revert rule and should be ban for 24 hours. Please use the group name and URL your group was founded under. Your group is using PanoTools group resources and misleading the public. The PanoTools group was established in April of 2003 and your new group was created in July of 2006. Please stop abusing the Wikipedia with posting false and incorrect information.

John Spikowski 19:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't break anything. Please read WP:3RR or look at the result of your report: [4]. You need to warn me and there have to be more then 3 reverts. Also reverts after WP:SPAM don't count for WP:3RR. --Wuz 21:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thomas,

Why don't you give this page a rest and quit removing the PanoTools group link. Thanks ! John Spikowski

[edit] External Links

Hi everyone. I have noticed that you seem to be engaged in a slow edit war over the inclusion of various links on this article. I would advise all editors involved to take a look at our policy on external links. Our guidelines say that forums/social sites (so yahoo groups sites etc...) should not be included. This also goes for mailing list archives. My advice on this would be that only the 2 panotools sites (.org and .info) be included as they both link off to the groups and vartious subsites (such as wiki's etc...). Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link directory. Thanks, Localzuk(talk) 13:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But its also not allowed to post links to content that violates copyright. panotools.info is clearly violation the GFDL and the Yahoo T&C. --Wuz 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Wuz, can you expand on that? Thanks/wangi 14:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in. Please see also my comments on Wangi's talk page:
- the issue about panotools. info is already filed as a Request for investigation.
- the wiki at panotools.org (as discussed earlier on this talk page) should comply with WP:EL: "Links normally to be avoided (...) Links to wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." the panotools.org wiki clearly meets those expectations and is an important knowledge source for PanoTools users.
--Einemnet 14:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
That RFI entry certainly helps to clarify things, thanks/wangi 14:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
We should not be linking to the wiki for one reason - it is linked to from an already linked to page (ie. it is a subpage of an already linked site). With regard to copyright violations, taking a look at the links in the RFI, it seems that we should not be linking to that site due to these problems. Removing the link is the sensible thing to do, until the site cleans up its act. Also, as the user John Spikowski is one of the team at that site he should not be adding it to any part of Wikipedia as it is considered spamming and a conflict of interest. I have seen various other users permabanned for less than this. BTW, I am not an admin so cannot block anyone, but I will lend my hand where I can to sort this mess out (although it does seem to be a simple mess caused by one user really).-Localzuk(talk) 16:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact the mess is caused by only one user (as the .info "group" consists only of one person [5]) --Wuz 16:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The NG group is hosting the PanoTools archives which is not their groups content. The NG wiki is a copy of the origianal PanoTools wiki which I mirror new edits from. The wiki is edited by many and I clean out old history every 6 months to a year as a maintenanace step. I have never removed an authors signature or claimed any contented post by someone else as my own.

If the Wikipedia admins feel I'm breaking some rule then my one link here isn't that important. John Spikowski


I agree with the page doesn't belong on the wiki. I sent Brion Vibber a e-mail asking if transferring the PanoTools wiki to the Wikipedia was a good idea and the answer was NO. The splitting of the group is still an open wound and this page is like the salt that keeps getting poured on it. 24.17.56.230

Hello 24.17.56.230. If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address. BTW who do you agree with, i.e. who else thinks "the page doesn't belong on the wiki"? I guess page refers to the Panorama Tools article and wiki to the WP, right? What's the connection to "the PanoTools wiki" (.org or .info?). Why should a debated software not be mentioned in the Wikipedia? I think the article is still growing and it's an interesting and highly specialised software for the creation of wonderful content. So just give it a chance! --Einemnet 14:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

The software PanoTools is mentioned and covered in several books, f.e:

and several books in other languages.

PanoTools has been the topic of several articles in the c't magazin like c't 19/02, page 160 [6], c't 23/06, page 130 and c't 9/05, page 112 [7].

Also several Wikipedia articles link to this article like Panorama, Panoramic photography, Fisheye lens, Hugin (software), Lanczos resampling, Image stitching, Digital photography, Pano2QTVR, PTgui, Wikipedia:Graphics tutorials. For all this reasons I think this article should be kept and PanoTools is notable.

--Wuz 12:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Then the information in the articles should be corroborated and cited through these external sources. —Centrx→talk • 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


I have some more sources:

The IPIX vs. Dersch issue is covered by several documents and articles:

The software PanoTools and it's GUI's are listed in an article about stitching and authoring panoramas on Panoramas.dk - a web site promoting full screen QTVR.

An Ubuntu HowTo is available about "How to install Hugin, Panoramic Tools and Enblend". --Einemnet 22:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thomas,

You and Carl have generated pages of text to have the PanoTools group site removed. Now your trying to use our group name. The name of your group that YOU establisted is PanoTools Next Generation. PLEASE stop trying to steal our identity. John Spikowski


A Howto shows how to calibrate a specialised panorama head with PanoTools related software.

Books (and reviews):

Sorry, no sources available for allegations by John Spikowski who has BTW a similar writing style like 24.17.56.230 --Einemnet 23:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Carl, are you saying in public you have no knowledge of the PanoTools Next Generation starting a new group in July 2006? Are you also saying that your not using the PanoTools groups identity to confuse and further advance your forked group? Please visit the orignal PanoTools wiki at PanoTools Wiki for a complete history and list of outstanding issues with the PanoTools Next Generation group. John Spikowski

Sorry, no time for bickering around, I'm busy actually contributing... quite interesting to see how you evade Wikipedia related questions here. So, are you 24.17.56.230? No offence, just a question. Do me a favour and add some constructive input to this section. Thanks! --Einemnet 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia logged me out and didn't notice it in the pervious post. Nothing sneaky or subversive Carl. Until you remove the PanoTools copyrighted material from your site, don't place a link to your group site here. John Spikowski

Carl,

Your group that was created in July of 2006 is based on another group copyrighted material. Remove ALL copyrighted material before adding your link to the Wikipedia. John Spikowski

John, please read the GFDL and you will find that panotools.org is not violating copyright but your site does. You have removed the complete edit history (which must be left attached to the article) and changed the author to "John Spikowski". You constantly repeat yourself without and evidence. Please prove your claims. --Wuz 03:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Not WP related but I will try to explain this in easy words for John: the group of contributors (who hold the copyrights to their own work) chose to find a new home. You were the reason. Now a group of 1100 people are protected from what Wuz and I have to go through here. And believe me, they like it. It really works when people work together, not against each other. You seem to be the only one in the panoramic world who has made only one single panorama, doesn't know how to work with the software but claims to hold all the rights. Strange, isn't it? John, please don't alter the links section in such a destructive way. I know you are not very active as a panographer, but let me tell you that Pano2QTVR has functions that are better than what was possible with QTVRAS. Count 1 and 1 together and you will notice that Pano2QTVR is for PC while QTVRAS is Mac only (up to Classic). There are Mac users who buy a PC only to be able to use Pano2QTVR. You certainly have no idea of panorama workflows. And I guess some other people also want to learn, so give us real contributors a chance to add this here and on the specialized wiki.panotools.org! --Einemnet 03:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Carl,

The NG group only has 100 or so active posting members. Your inflated 1100 number means nothing on a Yahoo Groups site. Before we moved to a forum format, the PanoTools group had 2700+ 'members'. After you sent your deceptive e-mail to the 2700+ members, less then 500 bothered to join your group. It's important to be truthful here as this is a reference document. John Spikowski

From John Spikowski Talk Page: In addition, removing the external link to the panotools.org website would only be a courtesy. Wikipedia contributors have no obligation to remove the link to this website even were it a copyright infringement, and I see no evidence of copyright infringement. Do not edit war. —Centrx→talk • 05:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Both sites have been added back which I hope will end this edit war. John Spikowski

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/n/Talk%7EPanorama_Tools_7ed2.html"