Changes

228 bytes added ,  23:17, November 16, 2007
Line 26: Line 26:  
<br />
 
<br />
   −
==Wednesday, November 14 (92 as of 12:36 EST)==
+
==Wednesday, November 14 (124 as of 12:36 EST)==
 
*Short most-wanted articles (4+3=7 each): 6
 
*Short most-wanted articles (4+3=7 each): 6
 
*Medium most-wanted articles (6+3=9 each): 2
 
*Medium most-wanted articles (6+3=9 each): 2
 
*Long most-wanted articles (10+3=13 each): 2
 
*Long most-wanted articles (10+3=13 each): 2
 
*Medium regular articles (6): 1
 
*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 54: Line 61:     
==Not Yet Totaled==
 
==Not Yet Totaled==
−
2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4
+
(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!
 
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