Talk:Panoramic tripod head

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comments

  • Adding the home built and automated (commercial and Lego powered) heads could make this page more interesting. John Spikowski 09:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] non encyclopedic tone

This seems to read like a brochure, not an encyclopedia article. Until(1 == 2) 14:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a technology list. The Wikipedia has hundreds of them. 24.17.59.171 18:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Technology lists don't list things such as the warranty terms, tripod mounting bolt size, etc. I've deleted the entire section. If you want to create a small list of "capabilities of common heads as of 2007", in the sapce of a paragaph, that might be considered a technology list... the previous section was just spam, and from the looks of it, copyvio spam at that. Bushytails 22:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
If your so bored as your user page suggests, then how about creating a new page or improving the work of others. There are enough 'page blankers' already on the Wikipedia. It's editors like yourself that have lost the concept of the Wikipedia and have scared others away due the the games like this being played. Stop It and find some other page to terrorize. John Spikowski 02:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, starting off with personal attacks is not a good way to resolve problems. Secondly, all issues of whether this content belongs on wikipedia aside, it is a copyright violation, and must be deleted for legal reasons. Thirdly, not ignoring that issue, this content really isn't appropriate for wikipedia, and its inclusion goes against a very large number of policies. Please do not re-add it. Bushytails 05:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Please don't quote me Wikipedia rules when you broke the 3 revert rule without bothering to investigate the history behind this page and the collaborative efforts by others to find common ground. I've have just about had it with editors that have nothing better to do then stumble on pages and remove content for personal reasons or a lack of anything worth while to contribute. John Spikowski 09:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, you seem to have a strong conflict of interest, which you may want to take into account with your further edits. Thanks, Bushytails 05:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC).
PanoTools is a non-profit group to help folks with panorama photography. Your a bit late to the party. The validity of this page and it's format has been discussed in detail by others for over a month. If you continue to vandalize this page I will ask that your editing privileges be suspended. You do understand consensus and how it works on the Wikipedia I assume. 24.17.59.171 05:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because I got tired of your personal attacks and re-adding links to your sponsors at Panorama stitchers, viewers and utilities and this article does mean that this was a consensus or it is now a good article, it just means that I have more valuable things to do with my time. --Wuz 11:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess if it doesn't relate to promoting Pano2QTVR, helping out here is beyond your limits. I have spent enough of my time giving and getting nothing but trashed for my efforts. Let someone else take the abuse for awhile. I have already moved the work I put in here to the PanoTools wiki so If the non-panorama editors here think this is a sales piece, then deleted the page as far as I'm concerned. (and the Panorama stitchers, viewers and utilities as well) The panorama folks are too bitter and lazy to contribute anyways. I can count on one hand the number of PanoTools members that made any significant contribution towards expanding on the group resources. John Spikowski 19:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You might want to consider starting a panoramic photography wiki, where such pages might be appropriate... The information may be helpful to some photographers, however it is not appropriate for wikipedia, both in terms of content and copyright. There are many free wiki hosts, a google should find them... Bushytails 20:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah, never mind, looks like you already did that! Bushytails 20:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The PanoTools wiki has been around since Nov. 2004 and forked at least once that I know of. John Spikowski 22:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(removing seven levels of identation)

Looking at this talk page, I see some quite simple consensus... Two people saying it's spam, one interest-conflicted editor with a history of being blocked saying it isn't. Nor did I find any sign of a consensus discussion about this article anywhere I looked. I would also like to point out that using meatpuppets and canvassing, as you're doing by asking your friends to revert the article for you, has a strong precedent for being counted as the actions of a single user when it comes to revert counts. As there has been no consensus discussion, the topic is moot, but just to make it clear, even if there were a discussion, no amount of discussion can override copyright policy. The contents of that table are a copyright violation, and all editors who are aware of this are obligated to remove it. Please do not get yourself blocked by repeatedly adding copyrighted material to the encyclopedia. Additionally, reverting vandalism, the addition of copyrighted material, etc, does not fall under the 3RR policy.

Here are some policies you may wish to read, as well as some quotes that may be relevant to this discussion:

  • WP:AGF "When you can reasonably assume that a mistake someone made was a well-intentioned attempt to further the goals of the project, correct it without criticizing." This is what I'm doing by helping you understand wikipedia policies, and what you should try to do when someone does something you dislike, rather than...
  • WP:NPA ... "[making] personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia."
  • WP:COPY "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project. If in doubt, write it yourself." The content of that table is copyrighted text lifted off the various maufacturers' websites. This text is not acceptable for use in wikipedia. "If some of the content of a page really is an infringement, then the infringing content should be removed, and a note to that effect should be made on the talk page."
  • WP:3RR "There are other instances where multiple reverts may not constitute a breach of this policy:" ... "reverts to remove clear violations of the copyright, spamming or non-free content policies". Your edits fit all three of those categories
  • WP:COI "COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted."
  • WP:MEAT "Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate."
  • WP:CANVAS "Canvassing (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting") is overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk pages." Please refrain from doing this.
  • WP:NOT Several policies apply here:
    • WP:NOT#LINK "Wikipedia articles are not:" ... "collections of external links or Internet directories"
    • WP:NOT#DIR "Wikipedia articles are not:" ... "Sales catalogs" ... "Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." "Wikipedia is not the yellow pages."
    • WP:NOT#INTERNET "Wikipedia articles should not read like:" ... "Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner."
    • WP:NOT#INFO "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
    • WP:NOT#SOAP "Wikipedia content is not:" ... "Advertising."
  • WP:SPAM "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website." Listing the warranty terms, for example, would fall under this.
  • WP:LISTV ... "concerns that such lists are sometimes used as subterfuges to bypass the Wikipedia content policies of No original research, Neutral point of view, Verifiability or What Wikipedia is not."

I hope these can help you understand the goals of wikipedia, and why content like that should be removed. Thanks, Bushytails 16:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

Bushytails, If you insist that this page violates Wikipedia rules then the Panorama stitchers, viewers and utilities page should go as well, otherwise please restore this sister page. John Spikowski 22:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this page acceptable Suzuki GSX1300R and the many like it but this panorama equipment list is considered advertising? John Spikowski 06:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting the page back to the way it was. The rule here on the Wikipedia is an article stays till a consensus of interested editors all agree it needs to change or be removed. User Bushytails hasn't responded to the last page blanking and assumed to have moved on to other pages. John Spikowski 16:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe I made the relevant policies quite clear. Additionally, no editor consensus is needed for the removal of copyright violations. Please stop adding them, you're only going to get yourself blocked... Bushytails 17:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do you feel your view of this page is correct when others involved disagree with you. The rule once again is that if a page is in question it's not to be blanked or radically changed till a consensus is reached. You broke the rules over the weekend with 3 reverts. You are in the minority and if you revert this page again I'm going to have you blocked from editing. It amazes me people with no understanding of the topic make sweeping changes without justification. Please move on to another page that needs your help. John Spikowski 17:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

John, Wikipedia is not a product guide or review site. The table that you insist should be in this article is exactly that and is unsuitable, IMO. You do not own this page and do not have any standing to say that you must get your way, in opposition to Wikipedia standards and convention. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete the pages if they have no value. It's almost impossible to contribute and not spend months defending every word and format used. John Spikowski 21:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

John, I can't see that it's that hard to realize that Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, cannot simply have a page be a copy of your website and cannot take text that's cut and pasted from manufacturers' websites. An encyclopedia is simply a different animal, with a different tone and a different audience. You come across here as effectively saying "If you won't play by my rules, I'm going to take my ball and go home", which is not really a very workable attitude on a collaborative work such as this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is suppose to be a place non-professional editors can contribute what they know and share with the community. The hope was that posting a few key pages here on the Wikipedia would be enough to help the newbie panorama photographer with a direction to go in. I see spec.'s for motorcycles, cars, cameras and many other products here. Why is a list of panorama heads have everyone so uptight? We went though a few iterations of this page to make sure it doesn't look like a line sheet for heads, hence no pricing and only the feature facts. This has nothing to do with getting my own way but just trying to create a foundation for others to build on. At this point I really don't care what happens as this has been nothing but a waste of time for me.

BTW: I created the pages here and then moved them to the PanoTools wiki, not the other way around. John Spikowski 00:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Table

Out of curiosity, I tried to figure out what the basic conflict was about. I see that it is about the inclusion of the table found in this revision:

I don't see a problem with that table being in a wikipedia article. Unless there is some copyrighted material in it. In that case it should be rewritten. There are thousands of such tables and lists on wikipedia. One can argue about the level and types of detail, etc., etc... But this type of table is normal, useful, and encyclopedic in my opinion.

I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists. There is more info there. I suggest asking there for advice at the talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. Also, on my user page, there is some wikipedia guideline and policy info about lists and charts.

I don't have time to keep up with this much, so I may not be able to participate further in this particular discussion. --Timeshifter 10:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with bushytails here. "Panoramic tripod head" needs to explain what a panoramic tripod head is, not advertise the features of the half-dozen types (out of many more, I'm sure) that one editor knows about. In an article called "List of panoramic tripod heads", I would find the table to be expected content - IF it could be shown that it was not a copyright violation. --Alvestrand 13:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
There are only 3 paragraphs of prose in the article. I would prefer any list or table to be on the same page, so that we know more about the topic. Also, regardless of the length of the introduction, I believe that it is unnecessary to spinout a separate list page if the list is not that long. See WP:SPINOUT.
As to whether some of the info on this page should be in list form or table form, it depends on the info to be included in the list or table. Please see: Wikipedia:When to use tables.
If the introduction increases in length, and there are many panoramic tripod heads (I don't have any idea), then it may make sense eventually to spinout a separate list or table page. And of course, there should be no copyrighted material. --Timeshifter 16:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)