Talk:Panorama Tools/Archive 2

message: "The PanoToolsNG mailing list and wiki are the recommended forms by the SourceForge project[2] for support and to connect with the active PanoTools community. This group continues to discuss and promote the use of Panorama Tools."
This content is not factual. The PanoToolsNG group hasn't had a Panorama Tools related post to the list in months. The group covers all aspects of panorama photography. This page should be about Helmut's offering and other resources that are associated. John Spikowski
:It's actually completely factual and it seems clear you know this to be true also since you omited the reference I also placed in the edit. The reference is as follows:
::
:It's an important citation that references the claim of recommendation. I'm not exactly sure how this could be debated since the above comments clearly show the developers themselves recommend those links alone and not the site which editor John Spikowski operates. Roguegeek (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It may or may not be news to readers of the article. Verifiability is a core policy and it clearly states that attribution is required for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor. I'm not saying the link could be removed, but the claim can and, therefore, am still asking for a source on the claims you are placing into the article. This needs to be address in the same way I cited sources for the other link. I'm going to assume good faith in that when you removed the tag without addressing the issue, the policy simply was not understood. A second edit doing the same could be considered a bad-faith edit, though. I'm going to re-apply the tag now and hope that a reliable, third-party published source can be obtained on this issue. Roguegeek (talk) 23:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SourceForge recommended 

message: Please explain why the site panotools.info is notable for the Panorama Tools Software. As far as I can tell there is less connection to the software then Max Lyons Forums (who is an actual PanoTools developer and has >1000 users) or panoguide.com. Also John Spikowski stated on March 11th, 2007 in the forum at panotools.info:
:I don't see any reason to have a Panorama Tools forum as it would be treated just like any other panorama software  we use and discuss here.
''
Also the focus of the news is that wide that I can not see any connection to the PanoTools software. --Wuz 11:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a problem with keeping both in the article under the external links. Roguegeek (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But still a reason would be interesting to hear. panotools.info is not related to the PanoTools software. It just used the name promote the website. If the external links should also show any panorama related forum also panoguide, Max Lynos, the QTVR list, IVRPA, etc. should be added. Tu quoque is in my eyes not a good reason. --Wuz 17:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The mailinglist of panotools.org includes at least 8 developers (Bruno Postle, Pablo d'Angelo, Daniel M. German, Jim Watters, Thomas Niemann, Joost Nieuwenhuijse, Fulvio Senore and myself)  of the PanoTools software to give peer support. As far as I can tell no developer can be found on your closed forum so this makes it not different from dpreview or any other general photography page and worth then Max Lynos or Apples QTVR list where at least some developers can be found. The question is still: Why should panotools.info be in the list for the PanoTools software and not all the other panorama pages as well? --Wuz 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So which of the above reasons qualifies your page to be included in the Panorama Tools article and how is this related to the software? --Wuz 21:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of panotools.info  

message: Having kept track of this article now for quite some time it is blatantly obvious that several of the editors on here are having problems under WP:COI. If you are directly related to any website you should not be pushing to add it to any page on this site - it is a conflict of interest and leads to the over the top arguments that have plagued this page. Please can all the editors on here realise their own biases and try to not promote them? For an article about a niche subject (this is a niche subject) this article seems to suffer its fair share of silly revert wars, petty arguing and other similar behaviour.-Localzuk(talk) 21:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually referring to both of you. John, you are a group administrator the panotools.info site and as such you should not be posting any links to it on here - many would see that as a form of spamming. Wuz (Thomas) as you seem to be the admin for panotools.org you should not be posting any links to that site on here. Can you not see the reason why? Between the pair of you, you have added and removed each others sites quite a few times. It is not good for the encyclopedia so I would ask that both of you stop posting links to the sites - if either are really that popular, someone else will add them. Please take a look at the WP:COI and WP:EL guides. Until then, I am going to remove both until someone else adds them.-Localzuk(talk) 11:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicts of Interest 

message: For those who are interested, this section was brought about by myself due to the conflict of interest shown by several of this article's editors and external links. More details can be found in the archives.-Localzuk(talk) 18:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the mailing lists as they are not acceptable per our WP:EL rules. If they were sites with information then that would be ok, but mailing lists, forums and other such sites aren't allowed. Cheers, Localzuk(talk) 14:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: John, your attachment to this subject does not allow for you to remove this as per the discussion. We need editors outside editors for this, but your opinion is clearly understood by everyone here. I'm really looking to see what Localzuk has to say about this. I want to hear him before action is taken. Roguegeek (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: As I've already stated, your obviously biased opinion and close ties with the subject of the article make needing outside editors opinions much more necessary for a resolution. Roguegeek (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You said yourself that you were waiting to hear back from >User talk:Localzuk before making any changes to the external links section. Why are you adding back what was removed by him? Please remove your edit till this is resolved. John Spikowski 02:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why play these games? Show me where I said that. You wont be able to because, as it states above, I made the edit first and now await feedback from constructive editors such as Localzuk. I'm not going to just remove an edit I made without neutral feedback, especially since I find it to be a completely valid and valuable addition to the article. Let the neutral editors decide if it violates WP:EL. These games you're playing, they're just distracting now and counterproductive into making this article a good article. They're also obviously getting the attention from editors that could probably care less about the subject. I ask you to please tread lightly right now and please assume good faith. Roguegeek (talk) 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The PanoToolsNG group should create their own PanoTools Next Generation page and tell the world all the great things they do there. This page is about Helmut's Panorama Tools software and not about generic panorama portals and the services they provide. If the NG group can submit their external links here then the Panoguide, Max Lyons forum and a hand full of others are just as appropriate. John Spikowski 03:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exactly what we're trying to avoid here. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise anything like you are promoting above with a special article about it. Those other links you are suggesting may or may not add value to this article as well depending on compliance with WP:EL. Roguegeek (talk) 03:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wiki seems to be a comprehensive and useful resource for the PanoTools - with a large number of articles. It is acceptable as an external link but not as a reference. John Spikowski, your behaviour is very disruptive and proves that you cannot present an unbiased view to this article, either stop editing in such a POV manner trying to promote a single project or stop editing this page - if you continue to edit in such a disruptive manner the likely outcome will be a block. (Also, so you know, I am not an administrator - I am just someone who knows nothing about this suite of tools who is trying to cast a neutral eye over this entire situation). Localzuk(talk) 10:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: No, my comment (at 10:34) was directed at you John. Wuz has stopped adding links that he is involved in (or so it seems) but you are once again causing trouble by removing a link because your site shouldn't be added by yourself. Stop thinking about 'out external link' and start thinking about 'Wikipedia'. Arguing over your own little sites does nothing to help this site and as such should be left at the door.-Localzuk(talk) 17:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never added a link to panotools.org, I just removed the word "original" from panotools.info or alternatively change the link to the original group. Both changes have been reverted. --Wuz 17:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have been watching the history for quite some time and I believe I commented on this same issue a while back. My position is simple: any link is acceptable so long as it isn't added by someone with a conflict of interest and that it conforms to our external links policy. So any further argument over who did what is just churning up the same old complaints - it won't help anyone. The best thing to do here is simply work on the article in a neutral manner, avoid adding links to sites you are involved in and try and do so together. Wikipedia is a community and without civil and helpful discourse between editors with opposing views it will not be able to advance properly.-Localzuk(talk) 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, but don't bring the Panotools community here - as I said, leave it at the door.-Localzuk(talk) 17:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If you start deleting links to external sites due to your personal issues with them then that will be disruptive and I would be seeking a block against you for this behaviour. Just so you know. -Localzuk(talk) 18:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: This would be a good place to explain the principles of panorama stitching and the different approaches to panorama viewers. Migration and helper utilities could also be reference. External links to the offerings would then be appropriate. I hope the Panorama Tools page will stay on track and this new page will cover the solutions that are not Panorama Tools based. John Spikowski 07:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities

message: Is PTViewer not part of the Panorama Tools software set? Is Panorama Tools only the panorama creation part? I noticed that PTViewer wasn't in the list and I wondered if it was just missed or left out on purpose. John Spikowski 12:30, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PTViewer

message: Rich: The PanoToolsNG wiki only has one page dedicated to Panorama Tools and it was used to build this page. The wiki and the mailing list are referred on the Panorama Tools SourceForge page and on the Panorama Stitchers, Viewers and Utilities page where relevant. This general purpose wiki reference is not appropriate for this page. John Spikowski 02:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Link