Conservapedia talk:Team Supply Siders

Hidden Strategy Space!

• Team1:Strategy has been created by Andy just now. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 14:43, 13 November 2007 (EST)

---

Short "Most Wanted" Page Entries

How did SSchultz do 101 "most wanted" entries, for a total of 303 points, when the total number of 'most wanted" entries is less than two-dozen the total at the beginning of the contest?--Aschlafly 18:53, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Hmm, good question. I mean, the only way to figure out if the entries are legit is to go through them and see how many pages have 5 or more pages that link to them - but from a quick check I think all of them are accurate - though feel free to check more thoroughly.--IDuan 18:57, 12 November 2007 (EST)

It's bogus. Consider this a formal challenge to SSchultz's point tallies.--Aschlafly 19:04, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I think I see how it happened ... the template that I presume SSchultz created linked to all of those articles, so by putting the template on only 5 pages - then each of those 5 pages would link to every other article on the template - thus putting them on the most wanted list. Hmmm ... --IDuan 19:08, 12 November 2007 (EST)

I just saw a user decided not to add the multiplier as "most wanted" pages to those pages created by SSchultz, and made most wanted only by his template. I think that's a good outcome. Otherwise, I would see the "most wanted" multiplier of inviting bootstrapping - you know, create a "most wanted" page just to cure it - and I think that leads to the opposite outcome that the contest creator intended.-MexMax 20:04, 12 November 2007 (EST)

• What is "bogus" is creating a hidden space for one team, and not the other. What is indeed bogus is giving night editing to members of your team who didn't have it, but refusing to grant the same courtesy to the other team when it was requested, and even though every Sysop here would be patrolling their every move. And it is indeed bogus to make such challenges when the person making the challenges allowed the entire ships registry of the United States Navy to be copied to CP, even though those articles are of dubious benefit to this encyclopedia, and forced others to spend countless hours adding the needed links and categories to them, after the previous contest ended. Please don't be posting publicly as you have done, before contacting the person and asking for an explanation privately. It shows a lack of respect for others. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:29, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Actually - Andy, thanks for making me look over it another time. I changed the label from most wanted to "Short Pages" and then noticed something. Schultz multiplied by 3 - and gave himself 303 points. In reality - assuming he thought the pages were most wanted - he should have multiplied by 7. However, given your objections, I merely changed it to 4 - since the number of points per short new entry is 4 - which still gave him more points than before. I'm leaving it up to him whether to change it to seven or not though - but regardless, we wind up better either way - so thanks!--IDuan 19:58, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Sorry I organized poorly Iduan :-) -MexMax 20:10, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Haha, don't worry about it - you did fine except for 2--IDuan 20:11, 12 November 2007 (EST)

• I will remove the next team member who did what Iduan did. You will discuss such changes in advance, with me. Your solution wasn't something any of us should have acted on without consultation with the rest of our team. And I never agreed with Ed that all points for those articles should have been withdrawn. Andy is totally out of order here, and is in no position to act as a judge on this. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 08:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Copying Pages

Hello all, I also wanted to raise another controversial issue. Andy has said - and I respect this conclusion - that the goal of the contest should be to encourage results, to improve the encyclopedia, rather than effort. However, I'd like to add another way of looking at this issue. I believe that defining "results" as just "pages created" ignores the quality and distinctiveness aspect of Conservapedia. The reason I came to this site is because it's so unique; where else will you see content written by conservatives for conservatives, like this? I'm of the mind that our rules, accordingly, should encourage original creation of content far-and-away above copied content. Please don't construe this conclusion as "sour grapes" due to SSchultz's commanding lead, either - I'm about to do a copy/paste run myself :-).-MexMax 20:04, 12 November 2007 (EST)

While I have always used the old fashioned hand typing method, it has been a regular part of past contests to do cut and paste from outside websites where there is no copyright. The difference with this contest, that I see, is that SSchultz has raised it to a new level of efficiency. I'd imagine there will be rule changes afterwards, but let's be careful that he doesn't get raised eyebrows right now just because he's been better at it than anyone else. Learn together 20:14, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Touche! Ought we give more points to original hand typed entries though?-MexMax 20:48, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Copying a glossary into 100 separate articles - mostly stubs - is not worth 400 points. Let alone 3 bonus points for each supposedly being a "Most Wanted Article", simply because a template created by the competitor himself linked to the articles! --Ed Poor ^Talk 20:57, 12 November 2007 (EST)

Note that he never gave himself 7 points per article - which is what it would have been had he thought them to be most wanted.--IDuan 21:01, 12 November 2007 (EST)

• What I do know is, Andy permitted the entire Ships Registry of the United States Navy to be copied (verbatim) for the benefit of his own team in another contest. No one had the poor sportsmanship to bellyache about that. I have unblocked Schultz, and restored his original point count. This whole issue smacks of deceit. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 08:36, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Before I head to Bed

I just wanted to say you folks had a great day. Solid team performance like this and we'll take this contest handily! Again, great day everybody. It feels good to be a part of a devoted group of individuals who are so professional, so solid in their output. I think if we repeat today's work over the next few days team SS is going to produce a solid piece of work! Good job folks! ItMathers 00:11, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Images

I notice Joaquin claimed points for uploading an image (Short new entry) and then points for adding those same images to an unillustrated article. I'm not criticising the tactic just want to check if I could do it myself for the images I posted and used? BrianCo 01:47, 13 November 2007 (EST)

• It has always been my understanding the points are for ADDING an image to an existing article, not merely uploading the image to CP. Making a new, full article, with an image(s), the points are already included there. Joaquin, you cannot claim image points twice. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 01:51, 13 November 2007 (EST)

The rules are very easy to understand:

• Points for placing an image in an article that have none (new or old).

• If you make the effort to look for a good image a upload it here you are creating a new entry. A Short New Entry.

I see it quite claire. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 14:54, 13 November 2007 (EST)

• I think that smacks of being unfair. The rules forbid a sysop from taking two credits for blocking a vandal, and cleaning up his work, so the implication is, one cannot get double credit for pictures. This is why we need a judge! For things like this. --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 15:10, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I agree. From the very beginning I asked for a Judge. Blocking with tools of sysop is very easy. Uploading the right image is a hard work that may take 10 min or more. It is fair to get something for that. Don't you think, Terry? --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:32, 13 November 2007 (EST)

New images uploaded may be used by others, like here: [1] --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:43, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I never received a question from you about that, Joaquín. Sorry I missed it. However I do not think it fair to be given points for both. If you take points for uploading a picture, fine. But then I would say you should not take more points for adding that same picture into an article. Make sense? What do others think? --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 16:26, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I have not been adding points for uploading a pic. The points system doesn't allow for that.

I do see a situation where you can have multiple points for the same pic. I received 4 points for adding Image:Vetsday07.jpg to the Veterans Day article. I also received 2 points for adding the same pic to the On Veterans Day 2007, Remembering America's Sacrifice Breaking News article. I believe this was justified because I added the pic to different articles. I did not add extra points for uploading the photo though. I think that would be unreasonable. --Crocoite 16:39, 13 November 2007 (EST)

• I agree! --şyŝoρ-₮K^{/Ṣρёаќǃ} 19:21, 13 November 2007 (EST)

I have to agree but still thinking is not fair. --User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 21:38, 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, SSchultz 21:08, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Sschultz - I put that comment on each of our team members' pages - and yet you were the only one who acted as you did (for future reference - sentences with "lol!" in them should not be taken seriously). As you said - you're not a child - you should have had the maturity to tell that even if I was saying "win by cheating - go cheat sschultz!" - there is a fine line between right and wrong. And for the record - if you had linked to "chair" in 5 articles - you would have been reverted - as Dewey was for linking "goat" in quite a few (and to be realistic - the terms you were using would not be found that frequently in articles). You used an insane loophole - one that perhaps coincidentally (or more likely not) was detailed on RW - and the fact that you wouldn't even think to contact someone with more experience before you did so is childish to say the least.--IDuan 23:54, 13 November 2007 (EST)

Question

Not to undermine my own team's efforts, but I'm not sure I understand where all of TK's points are coming from... His point page only seems to add up to 411 (262 from categorizing, another 131 from United States Senates Terms, 18 for blocks/reverts). If I'm missing something, might somebody just explain it briefly to me? Feebasfactor 23:18, 13 November 2007 (EST)