Changes

542 bytes added ,  23:17, November 16, 2007
Line 26: Line 26:  
<br />
 
<br />
   −
==Wednesday, November 14 (43 as of 12:36 EST)==
+
==Wednesday, November 14 (124 as of 12:36 EST)==
−
*Short most-wanted articles (4+3=7 each): 3
+
*Short most-wanted articles (4+3=7 each): 6
−
*Medium most-wanted articles (6+3=9 each): 1
+
*Medium most-wanted articles (6+3=9 each): 2
−
*Long most-wanted articles (10+3=13 each): 1
+
*Long most-wanted articles (10+3=13 each): 2
 +
*Medium regular articles (6): 1
 +
*32 from random business.
 +
 
 
<br />
 
<br />
   −
==Thursday, November 15==
+
==Thursday, November 15 (153 and still going!)==
 +
*Minor edits (2p):
 +
*Major edits (4p):
 +
*Short wanted page (7p):
 +
*Short page (4p):
 
<br />
 
<br />
−
      
==Friday, November 16==
 
==Friday, November 16==
 +
*Minor edits (2p): III
 +
*Major edits (4p): I
 +
*Short wanted page (7p):
 +
*Short page (4p):
 
<br />
 
<br />
−
      
==Saturday, November 17==
 
==Saturday, November 17==
Line 50: Line 59:  
==TOTAL POINTS:==
 
==TOTAL POINTS:==
 
<br />
 
<br />
 +
 +
==Not Yet Totaled==
 +
(32 added above the line)
 +
 +
I'm now going through articles using "random page" and zapping red links where appropriate; creating needed articles otherwise.  I've come to the conclusion that Conservapedia's articles are of good quality, and don't need that much work!
nsAm_Govt_101_ta
862

edits