Please clarify what your sources are for your edits claiming that Denmark attacked Germany. As of January 1864, Danish troops already occupied Schleswig, so your edit makes little sense. In 1863, Danish troops pulled out of Holstein and Rendsburg but not of Schleswig, which was fortified instead. E.g. on 1 January 1864, Christian IX visited the Danish army positioned at the Dannevirke. (Claus Bjørn & Carsten Due-Nielsen, Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie, (2nd edition), vol. III "Fra Helstat til Nationalstat" 1814-1914, Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 2006, page 235. These events are descibed on page 238-39:
(quote) "On 16 January 1864, Prussia and Austria presented the Danish foreign minister with a note stating as a fact that Denmark had not repealed the November Constitution, that Schleswig consequently had been incorporated into the Kingdom and that Prussia and Austria considered this situation a violation of the treaty [London Protocol], and the two envoys repeated the demand that Denmark should repeal the November Constitution. Should Denmark hesitate to do so, steps would be taken to return the situation the "status quo ante". (my italics) The two envoys stated that they would leave Copenhagen effective 18 January unless Denmark issued a statement prior to this date ensuring that November Constitution would be repealed." Monrad attempted to present a counterproposal to the Austrian envoy [stating that] he needed six weeks to overcome domestic difficulties. Both England and France raised objections when confronted with the joint German ultimatum and the Swedish government likewise protested. Russia remained passive. When the English envoy to Berlin stressed upon Bismarck that the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the Danish state now lay in the hands of the two German powers, the German Ministerpräsident replied that this depended on whether Denmark would resist a [German] occupation of Schleswig. The English envoy to Copenhagen continued to press the Danish government to make as many concessions as possible towards the German demands, and was supported in this attempt by the French and Russian envoys. In a circular dated 21 January [1864], the Copenhagen government declared that it would repeal the November Constitution following the legitimate procedure, also referring to the English assurance that Prussia and Austria would not move into Schleswig should Denmark make such a declaration. Given this background, the English foreign minister attempted a new proposal (effectively written by Prime Minister Lord Palmerston) - encouraging Denmark not to resist any German occupation of Schleswig in return for a guarantee from the signature powers of 1852, that a German occupation of Schleswig would be motivated only by an objective of seeing the "November Constitution repealed regarding Schleswig" and that these forces would vacate the province again after [the constitution had been repealed]. (...) "On 31 January, the two German powers reported through their ambassadors to London, Paris and Saint Petersburg that the Prussian and Austrian governments would now proceed with an occupation of Schleswig. Generalfeldmarschall Fr. von Wrangel ... delivered a note (sommation) in the morning of 31 January stating that he - citing the joint note of 16 January - would be forced to occupy Schleswig and demanded that General de Meza vacate [his army from] the duchy. The Danish general was given six hours to reply. General de Meza's answer - issued only late in the afternoon the same day - shortly rebuffed the German arguments and declared that "he was ready to meet any act of violence with force of arms". (unquote) (Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie, vol. III, pages 238-239).
No declaration by Christian IX is mentioned, and he couldn't conduct foreign policy anyway since Denmark was a constitutional monarchy, and I have never seen even the slightest indication in a Danish book claiming that Denmark issued any declaration of war against Germany. Denmark rebuffed two ultimatums, on one 16 January and one on 31 January, but it did not commence fighting and it did not declare war. The war started when Prussia crossed the border on 1 February. ValentinianT / C12:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not remove tags like "Accuracy" before any article disputes have been solved. Doing so constitutes vandalism and is not accepted by Wikipedia policy. ValentinianT / C15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Update: just in case you don't trust Danish sources, here is a description from Meyers Konversationslexikon. It confirms that Denmark simply rejected an ultimatum on 16 January 1864, and mentions that fighting started on 1 February: . Da der Deutsche Bund die Bundesexekution gegen Dänemark beschlossen hatte, rückten 12 000 Mann Hannoveraner und Sachsen 23. Dez. in Holstein ein, das die Dänen ohne Widerstand räumten. Bei Hamburg sammelten sich eine österr., bei Lübeck eine preus. Brigade, zusammen 10 000 Mann, als Reserve für die in Holstein befindlichen Bundestruppen. Österreich und Preußen aber erklärten sich jetzt dem Bunde gegenüber für die Einhaltung des Londoner Vertrags von 1852, verlangten daher die Ausweifung des Auguftenburgers aus Kiel und forderten 16. Jan. zugleich von Dänemark die sofortige Aufhebung der Verfassung vom 18.Nov. 1863. Als Dänemark diese Forderung abwies, ließen Österreich und Preußen 1. Febr. 1864 ihre inzwischen auf 45 000 Mann verstärkten Truppen unter dem Oberbefehl des Feldmarschalls von Wrangel die Eider überschreiten. Der Einmarsch erfolgte in drei Kolonnen ...[1]ValentinianT / C21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Translation: "Since the German federation had decided the German Bund's action against Denmark, 12,000 Hanoverian and Saxon men engaged on 23 Dec. in Holstein, which the Danes without resistance vacated. One Austrian [brigade] amassed by Hamburg, by Luebeck one Prussian brigade, altogether 10,000 men, as reserve for the federal troops in Holstein. Austria and Prussia however now explained themselves to me in a federation in relation to the adherence to the Treaty of London of 1852, required therefore the expulsion of the Augustenburg dynasty from Kiel and demanded 16 January at the same time from Denmark the immediate abolition of the condition of the 18.Nov. 1863. When Denmark rejected this demand, Austria and Prussia left on 1 Febr. 1864 their current troops under the supreme command of the field marshal von Wrangel [at?] to cross the Eider, strengthened on 45,000 men. The invasion took place in three columns.". Anthony Appleyard15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Meyers Konverationslexikon is wrong here. Facts:
The Bundesexekution is a discipline step only for members of the "Deutschen Bund", a follower of the holy roman empire of german nation, which was destroyed due to the Napoleon wars
The Bundesexekution is a discipline step, which includes the possibility of military actions, but again, only against members od the German Confederation
Denmark never was a member of the "Deutschen Bund"
So it is not possible to declare the Bundesexekution to Denmark, in fact it was declared to the german dutchy Holstein
You can declare it a trick of Bismarck, but in fact he only used the anti-german aggression mainly of denmark and france, which "destroyed" (the area shrinked drastically over the centuries due to attacks of neighbours) the holy roman empire of german nation since centuries.
The Bundesexekution can be seen as a first step to civil war within the "Deutschen Bund", which happened quite often, most times with other countries involved. Other countries could only win by supporting civil war within germny, even if they loose the war, germany is normally much weaker. See Thirty Years of war.
You don't cite any sources for your description of these events, and unless you do so, they constitute original research which is against Wikipedia policy. I see no reason to question the validity of two descriptions that are close to identical and written by scholars in respectively Denmark and Germany. Extraordinary stories require extraordinary proof. If you have such, please cite it. Wikipedia is interested in descriptions that can be backed up by relevant external sourcing, it is not a place for our own personal analysis. The organisation Meyers talks about is the German Confederation and the Danish king was indeed a member, since Holstein was a member of that organization. Same deal with the Dutch monarch, who represented Limburg and the British who represented Hanover. I've reverted your edit to 1864 which was total fiction. And how on earth should the King of Denmark be able to declare war on the Duke of Holstein since that person was himself? ValentinianT / C13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And here is an illustration of the Danish and German outposts standing on each end of the Rendsburg bridge. It was published on 31 January 1864 - the day before fighting commenced - and illustrates that Schleswig was occupied by Danish troops and Holstein by German troops, so it matches the descriptions in both Dansk Udenrigspolitiks Historie and Meyers. Notice the Schleswig-Holsteinish flag over Rendsburg, something that would not have been tolerated had Denmark been able to enforce physical control over Holstein. See also the official webpage of the Dybbøl Museum: German version, click Der Krieg 1864. The relevant paragraph is Der Krieg bricht aus. ValentinianT / C15:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a recent content dispute, I am watching this article as an admin, and not a content contributor. All articles relating to Scientology are on article probation. You removed referenced material from the article. While you also added referenced material, I urge you to use the article talk page from now on to discuss content disputes and different interpretations of sources. I also urge you to be more than civil in your discussion on the article talk page. Your changes may be incorporated to factor in all reliable sources and points of view. Please note that WP:3RR often does not apply to articles on probation, and 1RR often replaces it. --Moni3 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The referenced material was wrong referenced, i stated that:
"No boycott calls by germans: american homosexuals like Kevin Naff called for boycott. Read the reference." And that has nothing to do with germany. So i removed it.
I am german, i´ve seen a lot of the world and i know the situation here, and more, i can read german infos. There are a lot of wrong statements made probably by scientology members about germany. But i´m not investing hundreds of hours to correct it. Wispanow (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a content dispute, and it belongs on the talk page of Scientology in Germany. Unfortunately, even though you may have personal experience seeing the opposite of what a reference states, that does not allow you as a user to remove it. You can counter it with another reliable source, however. Please discuss your problems with the content on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read carfully: it is not the personal experience, it is that i can read german and the reference is WRONG cited. And there is no sense making a discussion about totally clearly wrong things. Wispanow (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read just as carefully: these issues need to be brought to the attention of editors on the article talk page. People are currently working on this article, discussing its sources and the information within. If you know that a source is not reliable or has not been reliably translated, that should be brought to the attention of the editors who are working on it: those who probably inserted the incorrect information. Articles on probation get that way because communication about the material is absent or has deteriorated into edit reverts and name calling in edit summaries. If the information is inaccurate, show how it is to the editors on the talk page. --Moni3 (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Wispanow, für den Fall, dass du dich weiter über den Artikel unterhalten willst, wir können dies hier (im Gegensatz zu der Artikeldiskuseite) auch auf Deutsch tun. Ich hab deine Benutzerdiskussionsseite zumindest mal in meine Beobachtungsliste aufgenommen, sehe es also, wenn du hier antworten solltest. Gruß, Jayen46615:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sach mal, lebst Du in Deutschland? Und wenn ja, in welcher Umgebung? Bist Du Scientologe? Ich frage mich, wie jemand solche extremen, irrationalen Standpunkte zumindest bezüglich Scientology und Deutschland vertreten kann. Scientology und die Scientologen sind durch das Grundgesetz mit Religions- und Versammlungsfreiheit geschützt. Und auch einige, dumme Politikersprüche oder sogar Entscheidungen können dies IM GEGENSATZ ZU ANDEREN LÄNDERN nicht ändern und die wenigen Diskriminierungen (imho ziemlich sicher erheblich weniger als hundert kleine Sachen wie Bürgersteigbenutzung etc. in all den Jahren?) wurden, leider zum Teil erst nach Jahren, von Gerichten für ungültig erklärt oder durch neue Gesetze ersetzt. Sie sind daher irrelevant oder zumindest von sehr untergeordneter Wichtigkeit.
Es gibt keine wesentliche STAATLICHE Diskriminierung von Scientology in Deutschland. Der Status, ob es eine Religion ist, ist bei den meisten Entscheidungen IRRELEVANT und wurde in manchen Entscheidungen zugebilligt. DEUTSCHLAND IST EIN Rechtsstaat!
Obwohl es einiges an gesellschaftlicher Opposition gibt, ist dies, wenn auch scheinbar auf einem hohen Pegel, vergleichbar mit anderen Ländern. Sie erscheint dagegen durchaus stärker, wenn man nicht die vielfältigen Möglichkeiten des Rechtsstaats berücksichtigt.
Deutschen ist verglichen mit z.B. den USA Religion und vor allem die Scientology ziemlich SCHNURZ!!! Ich wette, das viele Menschen noch nicht mal was mit dem Begriff anfangen können, die meisten werden ihn wohl gehört habe, aber sich NIE drum gekümmert haben. Also KEINERLEI BREITE ABLEHNUNG ODER DISKRIMINIERUNG von Scientology überhaupt möglich!!!
AUSSERDEM BERÜCKSICHTIGST DU NICHT DIE TATSACHE, DAS EINSCHRÄNKUNGEN VON SCIENTOLOGY FAST IMMER NUR DISKUTIERT WERDEN UND NICHT STATTFINDEN, IN DEN WENIGEN ÜBRIGEN FÄLLEN WURDEN SIE DURCH GERICHTE REVIDIERT ODER EINGESCHRÄNKT ODER LETZTENDLICH DURCH LIBERALE GESETZE ERSETZT. Die deutschen Politiker haben durchaus statements geliefert, die ohne Hintergrundwissen als diskriminierend gewertet werden können. Jedoch sind es fast immer NUR WORTE.
Der deutsche Staat ist aufgrund der Erfahrungen in der Weimarer Republik und des daraus entstandenen Hitlerreiches AUSSERORDENTLICH GUT GESCHÜTZT gegen einzelne Gruppen von Politikern, ja selbst die gesamte Regierung inklusive der Kontrollgremien Bundestag und Bundesrat ist vergleichsweise SEHR BESCHRÄNKT in ihren Möglichkeiten. Irrelevanz läßt grüßen.
Bemühe Dich um eine ausgewogene Darstellung, vor allem des Wesentlichen in der Einleitung, das Scientology FREI operiert. Scheinbar EXTREM notwendig.Wispanow (talk) 08:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Du wirst Schwierigkeiten haben, Quellen zu finden, die behaupten, dass Scientology frei und ohne jeden Versuch der sozialen Kontrolle operiert, und es ist recht leicht, akademische Quellen zu finden, die definitiv das Gegenteil behaupten. Es gab ja z.B. Versuche, Scientology-Vereinen die Rechtsfähigkeit zu entziehen[citation needed] und Scientologen am Öffnen von Bankkonten im Namen der Scientology-Kirche zu hindern.[citation needed] Aber wenn du entsprechende reputable Quellen findest, dann bring sie halt auf die Diskussionsseite. Auch der Sektenfilter, der Zulieferer und potenzielle Angestellte nach Verbindungen zu Scientology befragt, ist ja nun wirklich von vielen Unternehmen[citation needed] in Deutschland eingesetzt worden, zum Teil mit staatlicher Hilfe und Billigung. Zum Thema, ob der Durchschnittsdeutsche schon mal was von Scientology gehört hat oder eine Meinung dazu hat, siehe [2], [3], [4], [5]. Die Enquete-Kommission des Deutschen Bundestags zu sogenannten Sekten und Psychogruppen wurde laut Aussagen mehrerer Akademiker (einschließlich des oben verlinkten) primär wegen der in der deutschen Öffentlichkeit geäußerten Befürchtungen hinsichtlich Scientology ins Leben gerufen. Es ist nun mal Kritik an der deutschen Position von den Vereinigten Staaten und selbst den Vereinten Nationen geübt worden, und wir können das nicht unter den Tisch kehren. Jayen46612:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sach mal, was hast Du mit Scientology zu tun?
Weiter: Nenn mir irgendjemand, der ohne jeden Versuch der sozialen Kontrolle operiert. DENKE.
Habe manches mit fact garniert, und Du sprichst immer von VERSUCH. Himmel, ich versuche wie möglicherweise mehr als eine Milliarde Menschen, endlich reich zu werden, und bin ichs? Andere versuchen seit Jahrzehnten mit dem Rauchen aufzuhören.
Das alles ist kein Versuch im rechtlichen Sinne, wie z.B. der Versuch, jemand zu töten, der strafbar ist.
Zu der Allgemeinheit: Geh doch mal rum und frag "normale" Menschen. Und nicht Journalisten.
Zu der Treffsicherheit der amerikanischen Regierung siehe z.B. Irakkrieg. Des weiteren ist es eine Verletzung der Neutralität, nicht die Gegenstimmen zu äußern!!!!!!Wispanow (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether I am a Scientologist or not has nothing to do with our working on articles here, and I would appreciate it if you would stop asking me about this. As for your asking me to think about the ubiquitous nature of social control, there is really no need for this. If a host of reputable scholars, both German and foreign, consider it worth reporting that Germany has directed "strong efforts at social control" at Scientology, and that the fight against Scientology became a major political issue in Germany, then that is something our article should mention too. We should certainly not replace such statements with unsourced statements to the effect that the German state has not sought to limit or counteract Scientology's activities at all, or that the German public by and large does not care about Scientology one way or the other. If you want to contribute meaningully to the article, please bring sources to the table that make the statements that you consider missing for a balanced presentation. Jayen46617:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the "citiations needed" tags you inserted into my post above, here the requested citations:
Racism can be referenced, too. Isolated, for a specific viewpoint selected facts are not giving a neutral or balanced view. I am shocked about the lack of knowledge and the amount of racism (both depends) which is represented in this article. Final words. Wispanow (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You placed the POV template at the top of this article again with the edit summary "see reasons given and discussion". Which reasons are they? Please remember that the article cannot be made neutral without your explaining why you think the article is slanted. Please address the talk page of the article as soon as possible. If you decline to do so, I will remove the POV template within 24 hours. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it's a raster image, it's impossible for others to edit or update this image without recreating it (for example to adjust the font size and placement, or change the colors, or add a new sensor size).
It is very crowded and hard to read.
The foreground and background colors are very difficult to see in many spots, and it would be hard to print a legible hard-copy of this image.
For these reasons, I've reverted your use of this image. I do think, however, that it would be useful to have an image similar to this, showing various sensor sizes overlaid on top of each other. But it needs to be a vector image, so that it can be easily updated, scaled, and edited. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 18:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to read. And even a raster format can be edited. Vector is only preferred, and i do not delete the old svg-image. Both images are free to edit.
As I said, I do see the advantages of having an image like this. However, I also believe that this particular image is of a very poor quality, largely due to the hard-to-read fonts, poor text placement, and clashing colors. I would try to clean it up, but it's in a raster format, so I can't edit it. That's the point of vector graphics, the reason they are preferred. Also, you seem to be substituting this image for the previous one in a wholesale fashion with no regard to how they are used in the articles. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in this case, it's very, very clear that a vector image is the superior choice. The image consists only of simple line drawings and text, therefore a vector image is the clear choice. Unfortunately, it's largely a wasted effort to make an image like this in a raster format, since when it needs to be updated someone will have to completely re-draw it! Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 18:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When and why it should be updated???
Well, suppose that Canon comes out with a new image sensor size that's slightly bigger than 2/3"... how can I update your GIF image to reflect that without completely recreating it??? There's no way to move around the text or the colored rectangles on an individual basis, since the image is just an array of pixels and there's no way to manipulate individual elements. Why don't you try to create a vector version of this? I suggest Inkscape as a very useful, easy, and free tool for this. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not purely hypothetical. You left off several significant image sensor formats which are displayed in the SVG version (such as APS-H and medium-format digital). I would like to add them now, but can't do so. The point is not whether you can change it. Can other people change it? That would be much easier in SVG format. One of the goals of wikipedia is to have images and articles which can be edited in a collaborative fashion. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the fonts overlap the rectangles in ways that are very difficult to read, and the colored backgrounds are completely unnecessary and will make it difficult to print this image. If this were in vector format, it could be edited much more easily. You can continue to argue this point if you want, but I believe any other Wikipedia editors with an opinion on this will agree that this image should be in vector format if it is to be useful at all. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The colored background is one of the advantages. And for the FEW print purposes, the old svg-image can be used. It is not possible to make this image in the very limited svg-format.Wispanow (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how the colored background is an advantage. We could ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media to critique your image if you like: I am rather confident that others would find it to have serious flaws in terms of legibility and font usage. It is actually rather easy to remake your image in SVG format. Have you attempted to do so? SVG format is not "very limited". It is incredibly flexible. See thumb|this example of a complex SVG image, created by me. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem with your image: it uses the comma (,) instead of the period (.) as the decimal separator. This is not standard usage in any English-speaking countries, and is likely to confuse anyone who views this image. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you should know that yours is a pixel image. I don´t have anytging against if someone repaints it. The idea was a drawing which:
Incorrect. My image is a vector image containing an embedded jpeg raster image. The point was simply to demonstrate to you that SVG is capable of reproducing very complex drawings, much more complex than this example even. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shows all currently used sensor sizes exept medium format (very similar sizes not shown)
Some of the articles in which the previous image was used referred specifically to medium-format digital SLRs. Using your image removes useful comparative information from those articles. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Show all sizes in one stack, identified by color, to make it clear.
"Comma can be changed." No, it can't be changed, not easily. Because in order for me to make a new version with the commas corrected, I would have to completely redraw the image, as I've repeatedly explained to you. I believe you should not have replaced File:SensorSizes.svg with this image without more carefully considering its quality and usability first. In any case, I've posted a request for help resolving this dispute on the talk page of WikiProject ImagesMoxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In some points you are right. I will change colors to increase readability. Change Comma. Change size. SVG could not generated by the limits of the svg format and the program used. For printing old svg could be used. Okay?Wispanow (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate that. But you should use a program that can generate SVG images. Raster images like this don't really help Wikipedia very much. You may make a very, very good image... but then if someone needs to change or update it they will have to recreate it all over again. That can take up a lot of time. If you make an SVG image, others will be able to edit it and you'll really help others like me who care about having up-to-date and useful technical diagrams! Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comma can be changed by me. I am the author. SVG IS LIMITED! And do you ever tried Photoshop or Paintshop? I will not make a new drawing only for svg reasons. If you want, try.
Please stop saying that SVG is "limited". It merely shows your ignorance of the format. I'm well-acquainted with Photoshop and the GIMP, but they can only output raster images. No one can "force" you to make a vector version, but, as I've been attempting to explain to you for a while, raster images are rather unsuitable for diagrams of this type. Also, you do not "own" images or articles that you create on Wikipedia (this is an actual policy), which is why your contributions should be made in a format that others can edit. As that article states:
“
If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
”
I could easily create an SVG version of this image. I don't see much reason to do so at this point, however, since you and I seem to disagree extensively about what it should look like. I would create a version that is significantly larger, with much less use of color, and with simpler labels. What do you think? Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about I revert to the previous image in the meantime, so that other users don't see the current image, which I consider to be of an unacceptably poor quality? Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not much of an improvement: (a) you didn't replace all of the commas, (b) the colors are still glaring and don't add to the comprehensibility of the image (see Drilnoth's opinion on the Wikiproject Images page), (c) the fonts are still visually inconsistent, (d) the text placement makes it hard to determine what the labels refer to, and most importantly (e) you haven't addressed the issue of making it possible for others to edit this image. I don't have any more time to spend on this now, but I hope others will be able to continue this discussion in the meantime. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS- You still haven't replaced all of the commas, after two more edits. The fact that you don't immediately see them in this image might be a strong sign that it is not easily legible. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 20:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Third opinion
Moxfyre is right on this one - the previous SVG is much, much better. I agree that the GIF one gives you a different understanding of how the different sizes work with each other, but if nothing else, it should definitely be in SVG format. Oh, and for the record, SVG is far, far superior to GIF. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)20:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That might be true if you're writing the SVG by hand, but programs like Inkscape make it so much easier. Also, I don't get why you have to have the weird stylings on the side. This image doesn't need gradients or anything - just show the boxes in their original sizes and be done with it. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!)20:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You probably never used Photoshop or Paintshop. It is nearly as easy to edit pixel as vector. SVG is limited, you mentioned it too.
BUT: SVG FILE UPLOADED! You are free to change fonts and colors. Please upload changes under the same name, as a new version or:Digital camera sensor sizes comparison.svg. Wispanow (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Give it a rest. We've all used Photoshop/PSP/etc. There is no way to take this GIF image as you have uploaded it and, say, move the text around. You could upload Photoshop's proprietary format, but that can't be directly rendered on Wikipedia and is very proprietary, so it's strongly discouraged.
In any case, the editability is one problem. The aesthetics are another. I've made another version that has the same basic idea as yours, Wispanow, but much easier to look at and read, and visually consistent with the previous version. What do you think? Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 22:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
is even not printable. Use different greys or better colors
as difficult to read as mine. Use larger fonts
includes nearly only DSRL and medium-format, only one compact format, which are the most sold.
Leave away the very few used medium-format, which is not a standard-one, even on film: there is 60x45, 60x60 and 60x90mm. And a lot of digital formats. Too many "medium-formats" to show and too many to list here
Include most used compact formats and even 1/6" camcorder and cell-phone format, which are common.
The warning is 3 month old and was not related to this edit.
I tagged this text before Scientology_in_Germany&oldid=273629224 (Revision as of 14:02, 27 February 2009) and no changes or reasons were given to let this stay
Moni3 removed the tag
I never will be able to remove cited text???
Moni3 is IMHO biased in protecting a neutrality violating text and is working strongly together with Jayen466, which was accused by many Wikipedians to violating neutrality, see talk of Scientology in Germany
Moni3 is creating rules: Do not comment on other editors or you will be blocked. Why?}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
You are unblocked because the blocking admin was engaged in a content dispute with you, and the block consequently violates Wikipedia:BP#Conflicts of interest. I express no opinion about the merits of the edits at issue.
