Talk:Panorama Tools

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Notability

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

• Interactive Panoramas: Techniques for Digital Panoramic Photography,
• 360 Degree Imaging: The Photographers Panoramic Virtual Reality Manual
• Art of RAW Conversion: How to Produce Art-Quality Photos with Adobe Photoshop CS2 and Leading RAW Converters

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:

• A Template:PDFlink is filed at USPTO about the case IPIX vs. Dersch
• MIT offers a document about the case in an article about Software Patents
• Article (and scientific reply) by former Apple programmer Ken Turkowski about the behavior of ipix
• news article "Gung-ho US lawyers attack German Web man over holiday picture" in The Register - April 14, 1999
• news article "Immersed in controversy" - Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal - September 17, 1999
• article about "Creating spherical panoramas" on panoramic photography resource panoguide.com offers some more information about restrictions in PanoTools due to software patents which were not neccessary in "...Helmut Dersch's PanoTools version 2.2 or earlier I think (2 or more hemispherical fisheye pictures). Note the latest version no longer supports lenses wider than 160 degrees FOV"
• "Consumer Project on Technology" documents several facts about patents on graphical software mentioning the IPIX "Fisheye" Patent
• the Software Patent Work Group of NPO FFII has a list about problematic software patents and also covers IPIX ./ Dersch: German Mathematician silenced by US patent

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):

• The book mentioned by Wuz Interactive Panoramas: Techniques for Digital Panoramic Photography (by Jacobs, Corinna) is reviewed by VRMAG.
• Assembling Panoramic Photos: A Designer's Notebook, also reviewed by VRMAG

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)