nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
675
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 61:
Line 61: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Team Supply Siders (view source)
Revision as of 02:08, November 14, 2007
, 02:08, November 14, 2007→Images
*I agree! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 19:21, 13 November 2007 (EST)
*I agree! --<font color="#1E90FF" face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:TK|şyŝoρ-₮K]]</font><sup><font color="DC143C">[[User_Talk:TK|/Ṣρёаќǃ]]</font></sup> 19:21, 13 November 2007 (EST)
==SSchultz' response==
Well, over the last 24 hours I’ve had the opportunity to observe the results of my first day’s entries in the contest. Note, I say “observe” and not “comment” because I was summarily blocked without so much as an email to ask for my rationale, or even so much as 90 minutes to respond to the first accusations of questionable behavior. If individuals that questioned my methods had approached me directly and asked my rationale I feel that a great deal of trouble could have been avoided.
Incidentally, I need only refer to a post on my talk page as to why I chose to use a unique way to maximize my point totals. In said post, I’m told in no uncertain terms that we need to act in a Machiavellian manner and do what is necessary to win. To that end, I took the post to heart.
The first points of controversy seems to be my copying and pasting from government sources, but I’m sure I could point to any number of articles on the site copied from such sources (including, as has been pointed out, the entire US Navy registry), and a number of statements from various sysops stating unequivocally that there is nothing wrong with copying. So, as far as that is concerned, I intend to continue to use government content (that my taxes have paid for) in order to write articles and gain points by that means.
Secondly, the concern was over my use of a template to create many Most Wanted Pages, which I then claimed for points. I would point out that if I had gone to five separate pages and wiki-linked the word “chair” and then written an article on chair, I doubt anyone would be kicking up as much fuss. The problem is that I found a way to do this very efficiently.
Now, I’m not a child; I recognize that I was using a loophole in the scoring system in order to gain extra points with minimal extra work, but I do not agree that I violated the rules in any way and I resent the statements suggesting that my contributions were bogus, deceitful, and cheating. But surely, if my creation of these articles in a “Most Wanted” status was questionable, then others taking points from un-deadending these pages was equally questionable.
It is clear that my method of gaining points is not looked on favorably, and so I will concede to the will of the group and not use the template exploit in order to gain points in this manner going forward, but I feel that it should be more explicitly stated in the rules what is in and out of bounds. For what it is worth, I apologize for causing so much stress and frustration over what should be an enjoyable contest.
Sincerely, [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 21:08, 13 November 2007 (EST)