Talk:Panorama Tools/Archive 1

message: 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. Qutezuce 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: STOP

message: 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)
thread_title:  Panotools.info links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: = The PanoTools Real Story 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  TimeLine 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The way it was 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No personal attacks 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Stop the edit warring 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Merge of "PanoTools Group" article 

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

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Ok, if he really improves the page. --Wuz 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Roguegeek (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link decisions 

message: 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)
replies: text: (+) second that --Wuz 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.panotools.org 

message: 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)
replies: text: (+) second that --Wuz 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki.panotools.org 

message: 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)
replies: text: (+) second that --Wuz 00:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.panotools.info 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Ok, if he really improves the page. --Wuz 01:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wiki.panotools.info 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree. Roguegeek (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/ 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Continued 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  PanoTools.info screenshot image 

message: Panotools.info is clearly not the "original" site. If you use http://web.archive.org you will find   dated back to 2001-04-21 where the first page at .info is listed 2004-11-04 . 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)
thread_title:  The Original PanoTools site 

message: 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)
replies: text: I didn't break anything. Please read WP:3RR or look at the result of your report: . 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)
thread_title: 3RR

message: 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 , c't 23/06, page 130 and c't 9/05, page 112 .
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)
replies: text: Then the information in the articles should be corroborated and cited through these external sources. —Centrx→talk • 22:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Notability