Conservapedia talk:Team Contest

He shoots! He SCORES!

It will be interesting to see the {{Welcome}} added to a user's page seconds before getting blocked but hey 3 points is 3 points, dammit. ~~ CЯacke® 13:58, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Keep in mind that after a ban, the user page normally gets deleted again. This creates a slight scoring issue.

I've been thinking about that, actually. Keeping track of the score should be interesting to say the least. Consider this (possible) scenario (names picked at random):

• User "XYZ" joins.
• Fox (Team 1) posts a welcome message - 1 point
• Andy bans XYZ - 2 points
• Andy deletes the user page (as usual) - what happens with the 1 point Fox earned?
• Two days later, Andy reverts his ban, giving XYZ another chance - what about the 2 block points?
• Andy posts a welcome message and one of his little "Another chance, godspeed" speeches - 1 point? Is he even allowed to do that (since the "article" had originally been "owned" by Fox)?
• Karajou bans XYZ - 2 points?
• and so on

The judges will have a damn hard time, methinks. --Sid 14:09, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Intentional errors

Whilst creating a stub article they could make sure to misspell a few words and then fix them, one-by-one, so a stub article would easily be worth a quality articles in a short amount of time and work. ~~ CЯacke® 14:04, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Like I (and others) feared during the 90/10 debate, this may lead to longer articles being created by posting each section in a separate edit. For example, a new five-paragraph article could be made into "First paragraph (create any: 6 pts) + second (edit: 2 pts) + third (edit: 2 pts) + fourth (edit: 2 pts) + fifth (edit: 2 pts) = 14 points"! Plus corrections! --Sid 14:11, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

And why did I (unintentionally!) reproduce the exact sequence you had as your edit summary? *only noticed the edit summary now* --Sid 14:44, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Five paragraphs!? That sounds like work. How about editing one word (or letter!) at a time? Then a one sentence stub could easily be worth 20-30 points. By the way, WP editors tend to edit that way, from the old "edit count brags" races. human^{be in} 19:29, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Good point (And they really did that on WP? Ye Gods...), but you'd have to hope that the judges don't notice that style. On the one hand, in an ideal world, they would check all edits of all participants and evaluate the worth of each edit. In the real world... yeah, it'd work. Or they'd just figure that something miiiight wrong and simply ban you. :P --Sid 19:41, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Heck, you could spend an entire day re-editing one article... who needs to create stubs? Oh, yeah, the 6 points... human^{be in} 19:45, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Coding assignment: Write a script that randomly and gradually changes one version of an article into a full rewrite through X edits... and then back again. All steps only changing random words, so that each diff is basically different. :D --Sid 19:50, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Team RW

Would be especially hard since all members would be in danger of being banned (thus giving points to the official teams, ironically enough).

Of course, it would be cool if the sysops gave us a sort of temporary license to edit for the duration of the contest ;) --Sid 19:17, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Maybe, if there isn't a Team RW this time around (isn't there?), someone could suggest to Andrew Spazzfly that he make the next round an "invitational" type of tournament, where teams from all over the world compete to, um, make CP better. By the way, wouldn't the fastest to score points be to have a setup where a buddy creates user accounts as fast as possible, and you sit at the computer next to them banning them (but leaving the IP open)? human^{be in} 19:26, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, there was apparently talk of a "non-sysop contest", so they would maybe welcome such a suggestion.

And hmmmmmmmmm...

First of all, it's risky. If you get caught (and if a user creation vandal hits CP only when you are there, it may cause a few raised eyebrows), there will be trouble. Additionally, all it takes is one other sysop being online to IP-block the buddy (which in turn may lead to questions why you didn't block the IP in the first place). And even if the other sysop doesn't block the IP (not really much incentive to do so when you look at it from the scoring angle, I agree), there would be a direct competitor for the points all of a sudden.

Aside from the risk, you'd have to make a calculation about points per hour. What is faster: Creating a stub or blocking three users? I don't have experience with either (at least not with speed in mind), but I'd guess that the two sorta get to the same result. Only difference then would be that the "create stubs" method could be done without direct competition (unless another guy picked the same glossary letter by chance).

Then again, it's 2.30am right now, so I may be missing something. I'll think of strategies like that tomorrow and come back here if I got new results. --Sid 19:37, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Hahaha... you're taking this way too seriously! human^{be in} 19:40, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Hey, taking it overly seriously like that (and just stopping short of grabbing a calculator and plotting graphs) is my way of "relaxing". I feel that I achieved something (even if it's a completely senseless analysis that goes WAYYYY beyond the normal needs), and that makes me feel good. Besides, it's good training for economic principles (evaluating incentives, determining first-best and second-best solutions, predicting outcomes, and so on), which I need because a fairly general Economics exam will be waiting for me in a few weeks.

So yeah, it's over the top, but I get lulz, training, and the option of having a very smart-sounding way of telling CP people "You suck and your project will backfire like whoa!". ;) --Sid 19:48, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

Seriously, though, shall we make a 'Team RW', whose sole aim is to wandalise/improve/rewrite CP articles, and then find our score? --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Play by Play

I'm so excited I peed myself! They start right after the Colbert show airs! Sweet. Sid, you've done most of the work on the article (right?), are you going to give us play-by-play updates a few times a day? In your best breathtaking sports announcer style? human^{be in} 18:58, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Does anyone have a good idea as to where the best seats to watch from will be? Will the new articles in the secret namespaces be listed in recent changes? human^{be in} 18:58, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Not sure how/if I'll handle the updating. Depends on how much the teams actually do and on how obvious they be. I guess I'll make a few updates each day unless something comes up in real life. If the sysops use their individual record sheets (like Hoji suggested), it should make my "job" easier. However, Andy apparently will only make a team record sheet in a secret namespace (HOORAY, TRANSPARENCY! YES! THIS IS TRULY A CONTEST EVERYBODY CAN ENJOY!). And the "secret" namespaces (for sysops, judges, and the teams) appear in the Recent Changes, but you can't even (directly) access things like the article histories. --Sid 19:10, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Clarification: I seriously doubt I will go through all edits of all team members to see what they did. So unless they keep some sort of open team/member score, I'm not sure exactly what I'll do. Let's wait and see. My next online phase will be in roughly 17 hours, so if somebody wants to cover the grand opening (which will be at 6am local time), be my guest, I won't be there. --Sid 19:14, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Ladeez and Chintlemen, fire up your keyboards, get your notes, poise fingers over ctrl-c and ctrl-v - Go!!! human^{be in} 00:00, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

scoring, fairness, "cheating"

Since they are all conservatives, I take it that by definition cheating is impossible, right? Since that would be "deceit"? Or if someone cheats, does that out them as a "liberal"? Burn the liberal! human^{be in} 20:35, 9 July 2007 (CDT)

Are we going to have a section in this article about cheating? Because I think replacing an existing, sourced article with a copy/paste unsourced article[1] then counting it a new article is a little deceitful. Not to mention getting extra points for going to the incredible effort to add categories to the new articles she created.--Brian 12:28, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I added that to the play-by-play. Good catch! human^{be in} 12:54, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Maybe its all the drugs I am on at the moment...

But damn this is funny, its like barely one step above vandalism. And KooKoo is banning users before they even make edits! But then again I am in the midst of Nyquil Euphoria so everything is great. Tmtoulouse 00:14, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

You gotta check out the first 8-10 minutes, when martinez was welcoming new users left and right! Even one called "Funnny". It's hilarity. Hope you like my play by play... I think we might not be the only people who've been waiting for this. human^{be in} 00:24, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

My favorite is the discussion on Accelerate where Mtur calls out little Bethany for her bad copy-and-paste job, and after Colest recommends that she block him because she can get extra points, she promptly does [2], and makes sure to record that on her Contest record.--Brian 11:11, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

*comes home* *reads around here* *reads that discussion* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA-*wheeze*-HAHAHA! --Sid 11:29, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I want to know if I can get a half point for recommending a block. :) --Colest 12:02, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Probably not at CP, but here at RW thats worth a point, and your points go up by the Fibonacci sequence...Tmtoulouse 12:11, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh ye of little faith [3], although you're scoring system seems to benefit me more. --Colest 12:16, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I can't believe they still read us over here, you would think they would get sick of all the heaps of well documented and funny abuse we toss at them. But I guess you can't edit CP if you are not a masochist. Tmtoulouse 12:21, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

They wouldn't catch 99% of their mistakes and false information if it wasn't for RW. I think they should start adding RW as a reference. Jrssr5 12:23, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm... looks like CP is going to be the definative source for shipping terms... (except, of course, the website that Fox is getting them from.... whoops!) ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 11:54, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

If you cant beat em, join em :)

Its like they have just given up on ever becoming anything more than fodder for trolling right-wingers. This is the clearest sign yet of just what a joke this place is going to be. This whole contest has done far more harm than all the parody entries combined. 24.141.169.255 12:01, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Hahahaha, they're putting up more trivial articles than I could ever hope to. Perhaps I should edit the sausage article to include "Conservapedia Sausage - mostly fillers with the odd scrap of mechanically recovered meat". _liessmoke^mirrors 12:18, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

And now we have, wait for it, an actual image of a shipping container, just what every good encyclopedia needs. Well, if it's trivial articles that they need, perhaps they should reverse my (many) bans...XD _liessmoke^mirrors 12:23, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

LoL - yet when Wikipedia does it (eg [4]) you hail it as diversity, I'll bet. You lot will never realise just how hypocritical you really are :D This site is by far the most humorous of all the bitter-envy sites.

Wow, you found a "trivial" article on WP! At least they mark them as "stubs". Oh, and, "hi TK" human^{be in} 13:36, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Ah, but Wikipedia doesn't have to demonstrate why in the world someone would want to use it. They do so all ready! CP has to prove why anyone in the world would goto CP instead of WP, cutting and pasting a bunch of stubs is not the way to do that. And CP is failing at that, you can see everytime they get publicity they get a bunch of people to come to the site....how many come back? Compare the traffic growth of WP to CP.....in its early days WP would get publicity and a traffic boost and people stayed, their growth was exponential. CP..its a sin wave, people come, look around, leave. The more reasons you give people to leave, the worse off you will be. And this contest is all about providing plenty of more reasons for people to just go back to wikipedia. Tmtoulouse 12:33, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I'm not a fan of wikipedia either, it simply is what it is. And envy would insinuate that there would be something to be envious about. Much as I always wanted to be the author of the definitive shipping container article... _liessmoke^mirrors 12:32, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

YOU lot keep coming back :D Obsessed, obsessed... 89.240.235.126 12:37, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Freak shows have always been popular...I figure we should get as much out of this parade as we can before Schlafly closes it up and starts charging. Tmtoulouse 12:39, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

ah, but we go back for humor's sake, not to learn anything, we all know to look to better places. Jrssr5 14:31, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

I wouldn't characterize CP's traffic "pattern" as a sine wave. It's exponential decay punctated by brief interest when an audience notices it. Most significantly, it's almost never really growth. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 13:12, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Side note: I'm currently working on a "First 12 hours of new articles" piece, kinda like the June 23 summary. Spoiler: Team One created 156 new articles, Team Two created 30 new articles, unteamed people added 4. At least assuming that my many grep replaces didn't fuck things up. I'll double-check later. --Sid 13:26, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Read and weep. CP is really turning into Glossarypedia. (And I so totally won't do that every day - WAY too much work if you're thorough.) --Sid 16:59, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Get back to work!!

You can't say no...

You Baal-damned junkies! (well, i spent some time too..)--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 13:36, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

It would be fun to track our edits over the course of this contest - I bet we drop off a good 10%! Does anyone have a score update worked out? human^{be in} 13:38, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Score update would be HARD, I think. You can track blocks and new articles fairly quickly, but tracking edits (that are not Talk or new articles)... much work. --Sid 13:48, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

How many times do you need to cite the same source anyway??162.82.215.199 14:00, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

(Moved the image to the right, it apparently killed the indents.) Fixed the link (the "cp:" style doesn't seem to like special characters like "?" and "&"), and argh. *goes blind* --Sid 14:06, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

45, obviously [5], Doc. Wait, they used 4 sources! human^{be in} 14:09, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

"two homosexual newspapers called for a protest". How can a newspaper be homosexual? human^{be in} 14:09, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

It won't date magazine's, no matter how glossy.--PalMD^-Goatspeed! 14:10, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Obviously, we all must have the wackopedia ubx on our userpage. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 15:00, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

This user reads Wackopedia Conservapedia for amusement

Hell--I'd just range block people. If you could block >65,000 people at once, would that give you 130,000 points? ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 15:10, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

A Contest Question

How many points do you get awarded for using "Godspeed"? Do you gain different points by what method you use "Godspeed"? Do you lose points for using "Goatspeed" or "Gods Peed" or "God's Pee" (Last one would rank with watersports and such, wonder if the rainbow over the ark was preceded by a "Golden Shower")?--TimS 14:20, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Do you think KDB is going to add some other type of activity to his score card?162.82.215.199 15:36, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Working link is this since Conservative deleted that section again one edit later. --Sid 16:58, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Do you think Big C is gonna face some sort of reprimand for messing with Andy's "castle"? --Kels 17:15, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

More Contest Awesomeness

Just another note about the contest: Joaquín Martínez has been working hard to welcome new users. Unfortunately, most of them are already blocked forever before the welcome. For example:

• MoreLiberalism blocked 09:29 [6] welcomed 09:54 [7]
• Thissiteisasham blocked 23:48 [8] welcomed 00:30 [9]
• Stalin blocked 20:27 [10] welcomed 21:01 [11]
• Hotdoh welcomed 1:15 [12] and blocked 2 minutes later by JM because of his name [13]; got to be sure to get the extra points for welcoming before the block.
• It seems like at least 90% of his welcomes are either blocked users or users who are blocked within 30 minutes of welcoming.

Fox seems to be the king of welcoming immediately before blocking, but I suspect that's because he's the one creating the "vandal" users so he can increase his total.

My personal favorite of the JM after-the-fact welcomes is 123 who has been blocked since April [14] but who was graciously welcomed as part of the contest [15] --Brian 10:07, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Rule Changes

Hoji just changed/clarified the rules [16][17]. Now it is more clear what a "quality" new entry and edit of existing entry is, as well as adding bonus points for having more than 6 citations, and using the <ref> tags for references. It looks like a quality new entry can now be worth up to 16 points:

• 10 points for creating at least a 2 paragraph article with 3 citations
• +1 point for having more than 6 citations
• +2 points for using the ref tag
• +2 points for using sections
• +1 point for putting a category on the article

However, if you wanted to use the rules to your advantage, you could build the quality entry slowly and you would get a lot more points:

• 6 points for any new entry
• +2 points for using sections
• +2 points for a small edit to the article

• +1 point for adding ref tags

• +1 point for adding a category
• +4 points for each "quality" edit of the article

• just do this 7 times to add 2 new sentances and a new citation each time

This method gives the exact same article as the "quality new entry" while winning 40 points instead of a lousy 16.--Brian 11:22, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

And they're still forgetting that wikilinks should be included in the article to make it more accessible. Jrssr5 11:32, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

But, but, but... Fox will have to do more to get good articles about shipping. DeborahB will have to do real research about Naval ships. Rob S won't be able to blindly add more KGB agents. SharonS won't be able to steal from the NIH website. What a bizarro world. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 12:04, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Or will they. Stubs are still overpowerd. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 13:22, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Agreed. No matter if you get one or two bonus points for a great article, it will still be easier (and more rewarding) to simply create a flood of stubs via copy-paste. --Sid 13:29, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

<- Man, if I were there still I could be expanding on my building trades series! A, um, list of tools (how appropriate!). Every article identical except the name of the tool, "A foo is a tool used in bar" where bar changes once I can't think of any more tools for a given trade. All copy and paste, and nicely categorized. human^{be in} 13:31, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Gee-- Now Joaquín Martínez is just putting the same references in all his new baseball articles. ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 08:15, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Oh--can't watch any more. There are now 200 articles in cp:Category:KGB Agents and Sources, 116 in cp:Category:Shipping and 158 in cp:Category:Ships. Maybe someone should point out to them there are only 93 in cp:Christianity ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 15:35, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Does it bother anyone else that lawyer Andy is copying and pasting from an on-line legal dictionary? (And--at least the other eds. gave references... he gives nothing...). ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 16:15, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Nah. That's probably how he made it through law school. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:24, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

The saving grace is that he doesn't practice law, he plays big boy over at Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and then seems to spend the rest of the time fondling the young nubile minds of homeschool children. tmtoulouse ^annoy 16:25, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Copying is bad, unless it's for OUR encyclopedia!

Anyone catch this gem from Andy way back in April (before this contest was ever a glimmer in anyone's eye)? Read the third paragraph, but if you still can't find it, it says, "Moreover, is copying OK to "kickstart" a project? No, of course not, especially when attribution is not prominently given for such wholesale copying." Can anyone come up with a better description of what is happening now than 'copying to kickstart a project?' No? I didn't think so. Now let those quality baseball articles flow! Sandman 18:39, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Yeah, some of us have been pointing to that quote for a while now (including at least two emails to Andy). There's no response at all, ever. It's like we're invisible. --jtl^talk 19:17, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Man, JM's baseball "articles" (as pointed out by gutsy sid on CP) are crap! Each one should score -2 points for his team. He can manage to be unclear and illiterate in two sentences about a simple sports term! And he used to be such a productive contributor.... human^{be in} 20:30, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Then there's the Foxpuppet with his glossary of pointless and obscure freight shipping terms. This is industrial strength stupid at its purest. _prettydilettante^lies 20:33, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Someone should point out to them that JM's baseball terms are being copied from pbs.org [18] which is a copyrighted website (marked " Copyright 2003 WETA. All rights reserved."), and thus doesn't qualify for their "I own it because someone smarter than me in the government created it" excuse. Someone could probably also report it to PBS...--Brian 22:49, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

Even JM sorta admits that the baseball articles may be bad and can be deleted after the contest. And to help illustrate the idiocy of andy's "taxes paid for it, we own it" line, I can guarantee the work I'm doing for the army (tax payer funded) will never be accessible to andy and his minions. Jrssr5 07:37, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Wow thats idiotic. Thats pretty much the same as creating contentless articles. - Icewedge 10:47, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Have you looked at some of them? It is the same thing as creating contentless articles! Heck, our ACDs, when they were stubs, were better! human^{be in} 12:29, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

POPCORN

Get yer popcorn here, nice and hot. Dagomar 19:51, 12 July 2007 (CDT)

"Lack of politeness"

I don't want to flood "Best of CP", but this one has to be mentioned somewhere. And since it seems to be connected to the heightened trigger-happiness thanks to the scoring rules...

Anyway, "Todds" just got a one-month ban for one talk page comment with the reason "lack of politeness", which seems to be a new fad:

• 23:59, 13 July 2007 Joaquín Martínez (Talk | contribs) blocked "Todds (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (lack of politeness)
• 23:16, 13 July 2007 Joaquín Martínez (Talk | contribs) blocked "Wumps (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (Lack of etiquette)
• 02:07, 13 July 2007 Joaquín Martínez (Talk | contribs) blocked "Methalene (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 week (Lack of etiquette)
• 01:40, 13 July 2007 Joaquín Martínez (Talk | contribs) blocked "AManInBlack (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (Lack of etiquette)
• 15:30, 12 July 2007 Joaquín Martínez (Talk | contribs) blocked "Christianlove (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 day (lack of politeness)

I hope I'm not the only one who sees the irony in these "lack of politeness" bans on CP... --Sid 17:05, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Edit to add: Holy cow, the last 500 block messages only cover the last 7-8 days... --Sid 17:06, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

I am continually amazed CP has any users left. Anyone know what the average register-to-banning lifespan of a CP editor is? --Gulik 17:10, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Shouldn't be too hard to compute. From http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/newusers and then http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Log/block - grab the time stamps, match up the names. I would almost be tempted to suggest doing this on a regular basis and having a chart of the information (just a chart, wouldn't want to point out any sleeper socks (these are warm things you wear to bed to keep your feet warm if you lack cats - if you have cats, they are protective things to keep your toes from being shredded as they wiggle) there). Break it down into charts by number of edits? --Shagie 17:19, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Say, speaking of bans, that might not be a bad strategy. Given that you're awarded points for banning, why not make a bunch of socks, then ban them immediately. They won't complain, and it's free points! Then again, Foxpuppet and Mr. Martinez may have gotten there before me... --Kels 20:47, 13 July 2007 (CDT)

Fox's new strategy: revert edits.

Apparently "reverting edits" counts for an "edit of an existing entry" according to Fox. [19] ŠтΈṜȳŁЁ^and...? 14:22, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Argh, yeah. I noticed that on Andy's talk page. Happy fun redefining "editing". Added it under Misc. --Sid 15:01, 15 July 2007 (CDT)

Finished

Wasn't the contest supposed to end last night? I haven't seen anything about who won or what they're gonna do with JMs awful articles. Jrssr5 11:13, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Yup, midnight last (EST). But of course now the judges have to sift through all the "evidence" and tally the points. That could take days... human^{be in} 11:15, 17 July 2007 (CDT)

Or, weeks... "JUDGING STATUS: 14/16 CONTESTANTS JUDGED 87.5% COMPLETE PROJECTED COMPLETION DATE: JULY 21, 2007 UPDATED 01:58, 21 July 2007 (EDT)" I just copied this now. Check my timestamp. Prediction: They'll give up and not bother to crown the winnerz. I'll be wrong, but it wa fun to say that. human^{be in} 21:47, 23 July 2007 (CDT)

Yep, you are wrong :P

However, it took them a full week to evaluate the scores, and the actual scores were not made public (from what I see right now). So it's the usual CP-flavor of transparency: None. --Sid 05:34, 24 July 2007 (CDT)

Penalty points

Apparently, penalty points are given for listing edits you didn't do[20]

Hey Hioj - you forgot to look at http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:DeborahB./Contest - Mtur listed 3 more edits for DeborahB. that were not her edits. --Shagie 12:51, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I think those are just examples in his message - 75 points sounds like a chosen penalty and not like "negative value of x article creations" or something. But still, slight WTF at Deborah apparently trying to *gasp* deceive the judges (or being too... erm... "un-smart" (to avoid using words like "dumb") to properly keep track of her own stuff). --Sid 12:55, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Here is a full list of the edits she claimed to have done [21] which she didn't do:

1. Adelaide
2. Barbados
3. Bear
4. Belleau Wood-II (doesn't even exist)
5. Cost
6. Outlays
7. Rescission
8. Sequester
9. Subsidy
10. Supplemental Appropriation
11. Surplus

Good thing homeschoolers (unlike public schoolers) are taught that deceit is wrong. That's at least 66 "new article" points she tried to get. --Brian 13:01, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

I wonder if he'll do anything for BethanyS for listing Acontius twice. [22] (not to mention the ship renaming confused Acme deleting the redirect). --Shagie 13:50, 18 July 2007 (CDT)

Andy - The Army of One

Spotted on Andy's talk page:

Team Two's total score is 5384, but Andy's individual score is 3363 - easily more than half of what his entire team did! I should've gone to law school - those lawyers seem to have a lot of free time! ;) --Sid 00:38, 27 July 2007 (CDT)

He's like Rambo on steroids. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I think it's only lawyers of Andy's obvious skill and caliber that have plenty of free time. The less competent probably suffer from having clients who demand they do actual work. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 16:07, 29 July 2007 (CDT)