Conservapedia talk:Team Freedom

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Do we keep track of our own points? Who counts up what I've already done (more than zero)? --Steve 18:48, 14 January 2008 (EST)

Steve, you count your own points and them add them to Conservapedia:Team Freedom. You can copy my page where I keep my running counts, and then add your own numbers in place of mine: User:Aschlafly/Contest.--Aschlafly 18:51, 14 January 2008 (EST)
That's alot of work; whos the judge of whether Ive made a minor edit or a greater contribution? --Steve 19:07, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Simply decide what you think best for your entry and then put the points down. I will tell you my opinion(too high or low). As always, feel free to ask me questions! Thanks! --~BCSTalk2ME 19:19, 14 January 2008 (EST)
Right. Steven, this need not be precise. Usually one team beats the other by over a 100 points. If you think your range is 14 to 24, such estimate it at halfway between and go with that. The Judges will have the final say.--Aschlafly 19:22, 14 January 2008 (EST)

It appears our team is winning by, like, a thousand! --Steve 21:54, 15 January 2008 (EST)Never Mind --Steve 17:00, 17 January 2008 (EST)

I'm not sure the way i counted my 53 points is entirely fair. I searched for Atonement and, failing to find it, went to some articles where it was mentioned and created links from there to Atonement (which as yet didn't exist). Once it had 4 or 5 links, I knew it would be on the most wanted list, so then I wrote the article. I gave myself points for the links, for making the article, and for taking something off the most wanted list. too Sneaky? --Steve 19:19, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Actually... yes. Well, okay, it's not sneaky since you "confessed" it, but you get the idea. It counts as artificially creating Wanted Pages, and this contest introduced a new rule against this. That's why a static "Wanted Pages" snapshot is posted somewhere on the Contest4 page. Mind you, the new rule wasn't created for single-time cases like yours, but rather for systematic exploiting. But still, it's there (or at least it was the last time I checked).
Of course, this only influences the small bonus you get for creating an article from the Wanted Pages list. Your other edits (editing articles to create links, creating article itself) are completely valid, and the fact that you made sure that other articles link to the new one is helping the wiki a lot. :) --Jenkins 20:00, 18 January 2008 (EST)

Final Push

Alright everyone - we're almost there - but don't get too comfortable - BrianCo is making a huge amount of edits!--IDuan 15:49, 19 January 2008 (EST)

And we've lost the lead...--IDuan 16:29, 19 January 2008 (EST)

Well, not all hope is lost, I think that Ed has more points than his current page says, we just have to overcome fox's and brianco's images--IDuan 17:49, 19 January 2008 (EST)

That was fun; now we're done. My final points equal 74: more than I thought I would have gotten. Unless anyone wants to argue James McReynolds is worth more (or less) than 8 points.

Other than that this point total is just and fair and I had a lot of fun on this because I did my best. --Steve 15:57, 20 January 2008 (EST)

AAAAAUUUGGGHHH!!!!! ALAS!!!! WE LOST!!!! NOOOOO!!!!!!!!--Steve 15:59, 20 January 2008 (EST)

Again...Learn together and Fox are two amazing editors, who somehow always end up on the opposite team. This contest has been really great for the site! ~ SharonTalk 06:28, 21 January 2008 (EST)

And the winner is...

Do you guys agree that the Eagle Team won fair and square? Please respond ~BCSTalk2ME 12:44, 25 January 2008 (EST)