User talk:Wispanow

Welcome

Please state everything about Scientology in Germany at this talk page, except statements directly related to WP:AE.

Second War of Schleswig

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1864, Prussia and Austria presented the Danish foreign minister with a note stating as a fact that Denmark had not repealed the November Constitution, that Schleswig consequently had been incorporated into the Kingdom and that Prussia and Austria considered this situation a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effective 18 January unless Denmark issued a statement prior to this date ensuring that November Constitution would be repealed."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. Valentinian ^{T / C} 12:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I're replied on my talk page. Valentinian ^{T / C} 17:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

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] Valentinian ^{T / C} 21:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• 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 Appleyard 15:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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.

As an answer, denmark declared war to the "Deutschen Bund", which was the first declaration of war between nations. Wispanow 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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? Valentinian ^{T / C} 13:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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. Valentinian ^{T / C} 15:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Done it. Wispanow (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• 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, Jayen466 15:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

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)

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 und Scientologen am Öffnen von Bankkonten im Namen der Scientology-Kirche zu hindern. 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 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. Jayen466 12:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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)

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. Jayen466 17:13, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

As for the "citiations needed" tags you inserted into my post above, here the requested citations:

• German local government trying to remove association status from an association of Baden-Württemberg Scientologists, this government action subsequently overturned in court
• A court in Stuttgart recently upheld a decision by the state-owned Postbank to close down accounts held by Scientologists.Postbank kündigt Scientology
• Use of sect filters: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Jayen466 18:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Digital camera sensor sizes comparison.gif

previous SVG image

the GIF you replaced it with

Hi, I see that you recently replaced SensorSizes.svg with Digital camera sensor sizes comparison.gif in a couple of articles. I don't think this new version is as useful as the previous one. It has a few problems:

• It's a raster image, which is very undesirable for a diagram that could be better-illustrated using vector graphics. Wikipedia strongly encourages the use of scalable vector graphics wherever possible.
• 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)

Don´t do that. Thats only your opinion. The image gives a far better comparison. Wispanow (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the replacement image is nearly impossible to read, and it can't easily be edited since it's in a raster format. Please read the Wikipedia:How to create graphs for Wikipedia articles for information on why you should use vector graphics for things like that. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 18:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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.

Try to see the advantages.Wispanow (talk) 18:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

Wikipedia:How to create graphs for Wikipedia articles: "Decide on a case-by-case basis."Wispanow (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thats simply hypothetic. Suppose Canon will stay at their image size. And even if, i can change it. Wispanow (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

And what is difficult to read for you? I can change it.Wispanow (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• Show all sizes in one stack, identified by color, to make it clear.

I don't know how the color makes it "clear". To my eye, the color makes it next-to-impossible to read the image. Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

• Show exact calculated figures

That are the points. Comma can be changed. Originally a german version, forgot it.Wispanow (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"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 Images Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 19:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

And if you please give me 1 day time? And stop your request on WikiProject Images and Media? Wispanow (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

First changes done. If anything is poor, than the svg image.Wispanow (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

It is easier to change colors in a gif than in a poor svg. SVG

released. You are free to change fonts and colors. Wispanow (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I like it; I think it gets the point across just as well as the other one. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

@Moxfyre: Your new image:

1. is even not printable. Use different greys or better colors
2. as difficult to read as mine. Use larger fonts
3. includes nearly only DSRL and medium-format, only one compact format, which are the most sold.
4. 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
5. Include most used compact formats and even 1/6" camcorder and cell-phone format, which are common.

After you done this, the image will look nearly as mine.Wispanow (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A380 ready Airports

Just to let you know I have nominated Category:A380 ready Airports for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_1#Category:A380_ready_Airports. your comments are welcome. MilborneOne (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

See my answer thereWispanow (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

new

What's with CKatz? He's going nuts deleting ProCon links. Check out the latest exchange I had with him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ckatz#Procon_as_source. Can he do that? User: Redondomax —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redondomax (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't fight with every ignorant admin going nuts. Wispanow (talk) 03:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Scientology controversies

Your edits to the article have been reverted. I invite you to provide a rationale and reach consensus at the article's talk page. Thank you. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wispanow, you recently placed a POV tag on Scientology in Germany, an article which passed a fairly thorough WP:GA review last month, but you did not make any comments on the talk page. Per Wikipedia:Tagging#Constructive_tagging, I would invite you to use the article's talk page to make specific improvement proposals or otherwise outline your concerns. Failing that, the tag will most likely be removed in a few days' time, per Wikipedia:Tagging#Removing_tags. Thank you. --JN466 12:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ken Rockwell

Out of curiosity, do you know if Rockwell has been published before in third-party publications? i just re-read WP:ELNO and it stipulates that external links should be written by a "recognized authority". hbdragon88 (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

He is a recognized authority. Wispanow (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of him having been published in reliable third party publications? hbdragon88 (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been published here and here so I guess so. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nikon D5000

Hi Wispanow, I just read your page on the Nikon D5000 and want to thank you. My husband just bought one of these for me and I found the Wikipedia page very useful. I was reading your userpage and was just wondering if you are an English speaking German or an Englishman living in Germany? NancyHeise ^talk 02:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice camera, congratulations. I nearly bought it by myself and mainly made the page List of Nikon compatible lenses with integrated autofocus-motor for that. My efforts on the D5000 page were small.

I'm a German, and as all Germans since over 50 years i learned English at school. As an engineer, i have a lot of projects all over Europe, so i trained it. Wispanow (talk) 12:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You speak English very well. Here in the USA we do not encounter many Germans except the descendants of those who immigrated long ago (like my husband - hence our last name "Heise"). Where I live the only other languages people speak are either Spanish or French. I speak neither well and can read them only at an elementary level. I had two teenage boys from France come and live with our family for a couple of weeks through one of my kids school exchange programs and I was so amazed that these kids were perfectly fluent in German, French, English and Spanish. German engineers are very well respected here though. Anything made in Germany is automatically preferred to anything made anywhere else and Germans are generally respected for being on time and hard working.

I was a bit disturbed by your user tag that says you are a scientist hence an atheist. There are a lot of believing scientists that might be disturbed by that sterotype. See page 111 of this book [14] that cites a study done both in 1916 and 1996 the percentage of scientists who were atheists was 40%, agnostic 20% and those who held religious beliefs was 40%. This BBC source describes the various possible points of view of different scientists from atheist to believers. [15] Are you really an atheist and not an agnostic? I find it shocking that anyone can be an atheist because atheism is a religion - a belief system that is certain there is no God.

I was raised in an atheistic family but became a Catholic after a religious experience. Full story here [16]. I invite you to share your experience of why you are an atheist if you like. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 19:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I read your story and your page. The best thing is that you stopped birth control and made nice children. Excellent. I think in some way like Albert Einstein or Werner Heisenberg. If you want to read about guys who understand something about the universe, try these.

Science handles reality. Atheism can be a religion. But thats not science. If someone believes in science, he is probably scientologist, but not a scientist in this point. Reality is not a religion.

You were something like "annoyed" about religion. But you had a religious education. At some point you throw away your atheism and got religious. When this helped you to get a child, well done.

The only religion i have any respect for is the Sumeric. 3500 years b.c. (and i'm shure its much older) they celebrated the birth of the son of god, Utu or Marduk, which was send to earth by god to help us, at the time we celebrate christmas. And later, his sister Ishtar (spoken with an I like "Intelligence", and a sharp s like in "easter"), woke him up 3 days after he was murdered. They celebrated that in the similar time-schedule christians do. I'm not responsible for the Wikipedia articles.

I know you wanted to help in Prostitution in Germany, but we in Germany do not connect sex&crime in the way it is handled in USA. And the relation is unreal. I have enough problems with the US "human rights reports", which are representing the same racist "truth" like the reports about weapons of mass-destruction in the Iraq. Stop aggressive believing and try to get some knowledge. Wispanow (talk) 01:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

But after some thinking there is only very little hope. Wispanow (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing Wispanow. I am always interested in why people believe what they believe. My mother used to take me to a place where anyone was allowed to talk about anything. On more than one occasion I listened to a "sermon" by atheists who brought out very good arguments for not believing in God. My personal question to God (Where are you?)when I was walking home from school - if left unanswered - would have made me a concrete atheist but it was answered most profoundly and loudly the very instant I walked into a Catholic Church for the first time in my life. I think it would be very unscientific for me to ignore that experience. It is part of my own body of evidence. St. Thomas Aquinas called this kind of experience "Divine Revelation" and said "There are some truths some people will not believe unless they hear it straight from God."

Regarding the Prostitution in Germany page - I am not going to edit it, I was just placing some suggestions on the talk page for those working on the page to consider. I think the page omits some serious discussion - both for and against- the organized crime/sex slavery issue. Why not give Reader all sides of the story instead of burying the discussion altogether? Wikipedia is interesting to Readers because it gives them all points of view on the issue. Right now, I think your page lacks this interesting and useful quality. NancyHeise ^talk 17:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Wispanow. Thank you. --JN466 16:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thread moved to WP:AE. --JN466 19:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Your unsourced talk of racism in this edit summary and elsewhere is surprising and upsetting. You should be aware that the article Scientology in Germany is subject to an Arbcom case which your recent edits seem to violate. If you join the discussion at WP:AE#User:Wispanow and promise to behave better in the future there may still be time for you to avoid sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It is upsetting, but appropriate. This takes time to prove. In the meantime i am sorry for any use of upsetting words. Wispanow (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I myself would not favor closing the WP:AE case through voluntary agreement unless you agree to make no further edits like this one. (It is the same edit as the one I mentioned above, where your summary was: "..This article is based on racism. And Scientology-Believers can source every racism. Removing this improves.") Besides the inappropriate edit summary, this edit removes a paragraph from the article giving the position of Brigitte Schön and Gerald Willms, apparently because you don't like the view that these authors express. We are supposed to leave our personal point of view at the door when we edit Wikipedia. When sources say things that you believe are in some way disrespectful to Germany, you seem to want those sources removed, or you tone down what they are saying so that it becomes more acceptable to you personally. Your taking offence on behalf of Germany is kind of strange, because some of our readers may consider the actions of the German government correct, and they may sympathize with some of the German popular opinions which are found by the surveys. Our mission is to use reliable sources that are correctly quoted. Our readers are then free to draw whatever conclusions they wish to. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comment. Due to lack of time today - And i want to give you a well-considered answer - i prepare an answer tomorrow. Wispanow (talk) 15:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your statement, that i delivered not enough reasons. It was more a revert of a revert, giving a reason which included a word which can be seen as inappropriate. I already wrote here WP:AE some things about it. Have you read and understood it?

I do not meant anybody special when i mentioned Scientology-believers. A quick and dirty summary, somehow inappropriate. I am quite sure politeness is not my strongest point. As a scientist, 1+1=2 is not polite and can be very unpleasant if i state that someone is wrong. But i can clearly see the need to improve, and it is not normal for me as the viewpoint of the Scientology in Germany page is not normal or mostly real.

I already delivered sources including many primary ones (additional ones in edits a year ago), which contradict or even disprove many others. Have you read it? The next days and weeks should be used to prove which sources state reality and which not. In that case, i like to read the source from Schön and Willms. Could you deliver the text, best under Talk:Scientology_in_Germany/sources? Thank you very much. Wispanow (talk) 15:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please state everything about Scientology in Germany at this talk page, except statements directly related to WP:AE.

Scientology in Germany

Thank you.

Transferred to the article talk page. Wispanow (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Wispanow. I've outlined one of the issues that you were unhappy with here: Talk:Scientology_in_Germany#Protection_under_Article_4_of_the_German_Constitution and would welcome your comments. If we work through your concerns one at a time, looking at what reliable sources say, then perhaps we can work through this so we're both satisfied the article is right. Cheers, --JN466 11:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Please state everything about Scientology in Germany at this talk page, except statements directly related to WP:AE.

Moderated discussion

The consensus of the Arbitration Enforcement Request is that I moderate a discussion between yourself and Jayen466 regarding your concerns about the point of view of the Scientology in Germany article. If the discussion breaks down, this matter will be returned to the Arb Request because there is a ArbCom sanction on editing within the Scientology topic. This topic generates strong feelings which can result in disruptive editing. Be aware that this ArbCom remedy is in place, and that if disruptive editing takes place on the Scientology in Germany article then a warning will be given, and if the disruptive editing continues a three month topic ban will be issued. Disruptive editing in this case would include placing POV type tags on the article without consensus, reverting any non-vandal edits, or making comments about other editors in edit summaries. This restriction applies to Jayen466 and yourself. If in doubt, ask me first. If I am not available, then leave the edit as it is until I am available.

If you agree to this moderated discussion please let me know. If you don't agree, please leave a comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Discussion_concerning_Wispanow, and the admins there will decide what to do next. SilkTork *^YES! 21:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree absolutely to discuss, and if moderated this can be improved. Thank you very much. That was the main thing i wanted.

In contrary to Jayen466, i have nothing against it discussing with him. We will see, if he is able to learn.

The first things i will do is to expand the statements i made, giving a rough overview of human rights in Germany and related facts. Than its time to prove that some sources using balanced, wrong or even mendacious statements and why Germans can valuate this viewpoint as racism. Although german politicians like to give statements which can be seen as a violation of human rights, it is necessary to show why some of them are just screaming little monkeys (and money-grabbing), unimportant and nearly powerless in this case, just dancing to the music the courts play in the background. After that, giving a lot of primary sources which will outperform unreasonable statements in secondary sources, its time to edit the article, which then can be quick by just listing my primary sources and reasons. Again, thank you. Wispanow (talk) 14:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please state everything about Scientology in Germany at this talk page, except statements directly related to WP:AE.

Talk space created

Hi Wispanow. Even though you and JN have started, I would like the discussion to take place here. This is accessible from a notice I have placed on the talkpage. Some of the comments that you and JN have already made can be moved into that talkpage. I would like it held there so it provides some protection from outside comments, yet is always visible on the Scientology in Germany talkpage. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts. I will use this page and reply to Jayen466 there within the next 12 hours or earlier. I have to write some statements first.

Because there is such a special discussion for us, it would be much more helpful to keep the comments from others on the standard talk page. Just as it was before. And other editors have some "right" to contribute, too. There is a lot of work to do in the next 2 weeks. The next milestone soon will cause a call for sources, also i am sure there can be nearly no violation of freedom of religion or human rights proven. Wispanow (talk) 22:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I am pleased that you are engaging in the discussion, and have shown a serious approach to the matter. Well done. I am, however, a little concerned by your language. I am wondering if English is not your native language. Statements like "This will not happen. See statement below and reply." are rather curt and are not conducive to a harmonious discussion. "This will not happen" would be interpreted by most readers as an aggressive challenge. A wording such as, "I am concerned that such wording as 'hysteria' is being incorrectly applied" would be calmer, clearer, and more likely to produce a response which focused on the content of your concerns rather than the manner in which you deliver them. "See statement below and reply" might be written as, "I have outlined the reasons for my concerns below. What do you think?" The aim at all times being to reach an agreement about your concerns in an atmosphere of calm and impartially. If we all treat each other with respect and consideration then we will make quicker and better progress. SilkTork *^YES! 10:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right. Politeness is probably not my strongest point. I am investigating Scientology's accusations against Germany for around 10 years and thought that even a little bit informed people could not believe this nonsense. But since about 3 years i am quite shocked about reading this nonsense in Wikipedia. And my english language skills regarding grammar, but also finding a appropriate vocabulary are limited. But i am much too disappointed and invested much to much time to accept even an only unbalanced article. We will see. Wispanow (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Marathon running

How many of the majors have you done? I'll be doing London in 2011 as I gone through the ballot system five times unsuccessfully so I automatically qualify for 2011. I intend to do Berlin the year after, in 2012. I love big city marathons. I have done Paris, Amsterdam and Prague. SilkTork *^YES! 10:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Look at that, another runner. After running many times in Berlin, two times Frankfurt and 1 time Hamburg i had been booked for the New York Marathon last year, but could not run it due to a Calcaneal spur i am suffering since end of August last year. Had completed Berlin with big problems last year and until then nearly stopped running at all. Instead i am watching TV (what i hate) while eating nuts or other things, getting fat (do not like it) and haven't deleted this info on my page because i am hoping for better times. But good luck! Wispanow (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I haven't done a marathon since doing the Hastings one in midwinter and locking up both my knees. I made the decision to finish the marathon despite the pain, and that meant that last year I was rather reluctant to take part in any run more than 10K because I didn't want to experience that sort of pain again! I am building myself up again, and have a series of half-marathons planned for this year, including the Marseille-Cassis which is quite wonderful! SilkTork *^YES! 18:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

In the past, i had a lot of problems with my knees, too. But around 20 years ago i started to use shoes with VERY soft damping like Nike Vomero (no advertisement, but i know currently only 1 or 2 others quite as soft) together with individual manufactured (medical) orthopedic inlays made of polyurethane foam which stopped any pain in my knees 15 years ago.

With me, i'm currently thinking if i should ignore any advices from doctors, not to run, stopping lamenting and start running as Bernd Hübner runs his 100th marathon Bernd Hübner has INTENIONALLY run a marathon with serious meniscous disease (with already having planned an operation two days after the run), a living legend with whom i trained many many hours. Incredibly hard guy (some may call him crazy, and i´m very sure they have good reasons, but we all have only one life to live), and highly respected especially because of his mentally skills including optimism. Wispanow (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

A strong and positive mental attitude is very helpful when running marathons! SilkTork *^YES! 18:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Scientology in Germany

Following your comments three days ago that you felt the moderated discussion is no longer needed, and your indication that you feel a GAR would be more appropriate, I have responded that I am willing to close the discussion and open a GAR specifically looking at NPOV. Please be aware that this changes the terms of the discussion on Arbitration Enforcement, and I would advise extreme caution if intending to edit the article. Specifically, reverting an edit on that article would likely mean a return to AE. I would like your confirmation that you understand the implications of the proposal before proceeding; however, we cannot delay things too long. I'll wait until this time on Friday, that's two more days, and assume - as this was your suggestion - that you are content with the GAR going ahead with me doing the reviewing. SilkTork *^YES! 18:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Some edit-conflict. Answered on the moderated discussion. Wispanow (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Dave1185

I'm not sure what is going on between you two, but please don't post to their talk page any further, at least for a few days. Thanks, –xeno^talk 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• I doubt he would listen to such simple request but who knows? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 18:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

• This is a two-way street Dave. Please don't post here for a few days, either. –xeno^talk 18:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
• If Dave1185 don´t stops his Trollish remarks/harassment, i will take him to ANI. I doubt he would listen to such simple request but who knows? Wispanow (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add my suggestion to Xeno's. Please, at least for awhile, just avoid interaction with Dave1185. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:13, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

He is insulting me and not stopping his trollish remarks/Harassment. Wispanow (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

I have removed the insults of another user you placed on this page. You were asked on several occasions by myself and another administrator to stop it, but since you have persisted I have temporarily blocked you from editing. When the blocked expires, please refrain from the same type of personal insults or you may be blocked for a longer period. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:12, 27 April 2010 (UTC)