- If you promise not to do any reverts on that article again (i.e. to stop edit warring) until there's a clear consensus I'd feel comfortable unblocking. — Aitias // discussion 04:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- VoteSchiff Reply: Do you consider my original contribution valid? All I want is that the contribution stand, as is. But, yes, of course I will promise not participate in edit warring (ultimately undoing someone else's edit war against me). -- VoteSchiff (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- The point is not whether your original contribution is considered to be valid. The point is that you have to seek consensus for your changes if they are disputed. Do you understand that you must not use reverts to win a content dispute? — Aitias // discussion 04:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- VoteSchiff Reply: I agree with your statement and yes, I understand that I must not use reverts in cases of content disputes. This would also apply to Ajacreative, since they were actually reverting the content, to get rid of my contribution. They should have sought consensus instead. I hope that they will understand this as well and not take the first opportunity at another revert.
- Thank you Aitias! VoteSchiff (talk) 05:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. — Aitias // discussion 05:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
- ajacreative Reply: I do not think that the information added by VoteSchiff is valid or useful. It says that he created a new website which is not exactly true please do check it out for yourself: http://www.voteschiff.com. The current website is a coming soon page and nothing more. I believe this would be a valid entry in the wiki if the site were actually running and had some content. Is it really encyclopedia worthy that someone put a coming soon page up? Compare http://www.schiff2010.com to http://www.voteschiff.com, voteschiff.com is basically just a logo. That being said I realize that it was wrong of us to do an "edit war", I am new to wiki and am not fully aware of all of the intricacies of it. I understand this was in bad taste and will make sure to discuss things with the community before making changes.Ajacreative (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- VoteSchiff Reply to Ajacreative: Ajacreative, the quote says, "On January 23, 2009, yet another group of Schiff fans registered a domain, starting a new site with a new logo, to inspire Schiff for a possible run against Dodd." This is valid. It is a real domain, which is not merely a logo. It is being hosted, which is not merely a logo. Efforts are under way for more. The candidate has not even declared his candidacy. You prove my point. Your words show that this is about competitiveness and not facts. There's a whole lot more I can say about your ethics, but, I'll leave it there and I think you should too. VoteSchiff (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Super Bowl 44 logo
editI've noticed that the super bowl 44 logo has changed a little. I've noticed the super bowl logo wikipedia has is the wrong logo. On the super bowl 44 website the logo is different. The football between the field goal thing on wikipedia has the middle line of the football going all the way down while on the website the line doesn't go all the way down. also the logo should be darker. Here is the new logo:
Can you get rid of the white background?
Thanks,
Sedna10387Talk 19 September 2009 (UTC)