Whether the logo is png or svg doesn't really matter to me. However, I've noticed an unfortunate tendancy by svg enthusiasts to replace existing images without carrying over all the information attached to the original file. Please, if you are going to make the change, carry along the category information which is Category:German football logos and anything else that might be useful or relevant. Wiggy! (talk) 10:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
that's fine, will do -- i was just surprised as there was no additional info provided with the revert. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ne razumijem Vaše motive za revert mojih ispravaka na stranici o Radetu Šerbedžiji. Mišljenja sam da je ispravno pisati njegovo prezime u originalu, dakle s dijakritičkim znakovima. Mišljenja sam da su moje ispravke oko teatra Gavella u Zagrebu korektne, tj. da riječi koje sam izostavio/izmijenio nisu imale nikakvog smisla. Ovo su bile moje izmjene, koje ste revertirali:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rade_%C5%A0erbed%C5%BEija&action=historysubmit&diff=364726357&oldid=364264552
Sklon sam moje izmjene ponoviti, ako se slažete, no bit ću Vam zahvalan za obrazloženje, ukoliko i dalje mislite da to što sam napravio nije ispravno. Pozdrav, Borut (talk) 12:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
apsolutno točno, izmijenio sam jedan drugi dio teksta a pritom nisam dovoljno obratio pozor na ostatak izmjena -- ispričavam se i naravno da pozdravljam promjenu teksta u izvorno i točno pisanje osobnog imena. -- esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not assume ownership of articles such as N.W.A. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. GunMetal Angel 20:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- i'm sorry but it is rather the other way round -- you have repeatedly removed correct information in the article along with its sources without providing either a reason for such edits or sources that could validate said changes.
esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
i reverted your edits as they appeared to be vandalism, i however realized you were having a content dispute with another user and restored your edit as well as removed the warning from your talk page. cheers WookieInHeat (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At Template:Infobox musical artist the instructions say that "associated acts" should be very closely interconnected in a business sense, that the acts share two or more common members, that they have collaborated multiple times or shared a stage as a single combined act, etc. It's not enough that the artists make similar music. That's why I reverted your addition to the NWA article. Binksternet (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comment. It seems you are not familiar with the group and how the acts I listed have collaborated. They have mutually featured each other on their respective releases, share producer credits and have toured together -- this was common policy @ Ruthless Records at the time. The reason I listed them is not because of "similar music" but for the very reasons you listed. I'll revert accordingly, because the edit meets the criteria. --esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Sharing a producer and label is not enough. Touring together is not enough. Please read Template:Infobox_musical_artist#associated_acts. If two groups collaborated on multiple songs, the article should say so, with a reliable reference. Binksternet (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- From the info box you quoted -> This field can include, for example, any of the following: For individuals: 'groups of which he or she has been a member' -> applies to Arabian Prince and DJ Yella. Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album -> applies to the other listed acts -- the producers are not only "shared" but members of one of the other acts or even one of the acts proper. The critera are not cumulatively mandatory as you have stated (e.g. "AND"), rather a single criterion is sufficient for inclusion ("ANY", "OR", according to the info box). I can certainly link the sources (credits printed on the released records, which are documented on the database discogs.com). I haven't seen that the associated acts have to be part of the article. If so, I can add them. Cheers. --esse quam videri - to be rather than to seem (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
