Talk:Project 200 plus
From Conservapedia
Contents |
Why the reversions and protection?
I thought my edits were constructive, but since no reason for removing them was given I thought I'd ask. WilcoxD 16:31, 8 November 2012 (EST)
Hmmm, apparently there's no record of my changes at all now, so in case anyone else is wondering what I'm talking about, my contribution was as follows:
Progress
As of November 9, 2012, there are reportedly four groups that are part of this project. Thus, the project has reached 2% of its goal in 6 days and is expected to grow at an increasing rate. Even growing at only a steady rate the target should be achieved in August 2013.
The current groups are as follows:
- Question Evolution! (founded Nov 4 2012)
- Unnamed group from Texas (joined Nov 4 2012)
- Unnamed group from Texas (joined Nov 4 2012)
- Unnamed group from West Virginia (joined Nov 7 2012)
WilcoxD 16:32, 8 November 2012 (EST)
- Wilcox, less than 6 days passed and there was too much editorializing. Conservative 17:16, 8 November 2012 (EST)
- Ok, although in my opinion it was no more "editorialized" than, for example, the Question Evolution article itself and I still don't understand why it is locked. I was kinda hoping you'd take up the reins and fill the names and possibly web sites of the groups in as well. WilcoxD 20:42, 8 November 2012 (EST)
- User:Conservative, you may have missed my questions. Also, I'm happy to keep this article up to date for you if you can show me where to find the information. WilcoxD 16:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)
- Any updates? I can keep this page current if you are too busy, User:Conservative WilcoxD 16:35, 13 November 2012 (EST)
- Again, any updates? This page is starting to become out-dated. Point me to the source information and I can keep it going WilcoxD 16:55, 26 November 2012 (EST)
- Any updates? I can keep this page current if you are too busy, User:Conservative WilcoxD 16:35, 13 November 2012 (EST)
- User:Conservative, you may have missed my questions. Also, I'm happy to keep this article up to date for you if you can show me where to find the information. WilcoxD 16:20, 12 November 2012 (EST)
- Ok, although in my opinion it was no more "editorialized" than, for example, the Question Evolution article itself and I still don't understand why it is locked. I was kinda hoping you'd take up the reins and fill the names and possibly web sites of the groups in as well. WilcoxD 20:42, 8 November 2012 (EST)
- Wilcox, less than 6 days passed and there was too much editorializing. Conservative 17:16, 8 November 2012 (EST)
What happened to the fifth group?
I thought there was a fifth, am I imagining it? According to the page's history I must be. Are there still only 4? WilcoxD 22:09, 29 November 2012 (EST)
- According to the RSS feeds, there was a fifth organization that was described as "a Filipino American church," with http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/11/project-200-now-have-5-pro-creation.html given as a source. I have no idea why this was removed. GregG 22:29, 29 November 2012 (EST)
- Has there been any significant progress with this recently? This project was formed two months ago and has four groups in it according to the article. At this rate it'll take over eight years to reach its goal. Is this even notable enough to warrant an article?--RobertDW 10:26, 4 January 2013 (EST)
More specifically, Project 200+'s goal is to create the world's fastest growing and most powerful coalition of Christian creationist organizations.
More than half a year later, Project 200+ seems to have failed to hit this goal. So, what should be done with this page:
- Delete it or
- Keep it as a monument of failure or
- Rename it, perhaps to Project 20 minus
--AugustO
It can take a while for these things to take off. IMO It is a little too early to declare it a failure.--Patmac 15:02, 16 May 2013 (EDT)
(moved to User talk:Aschlafly#@User:Conservative according to Conservapedia:Manual of_Style#Talk pages and_Archiving: „Sometimes discussions lead off to other matters. If the discussion is no longer about the article, move the discussion elsewhere. In discussion remember to always be civil. Personal attacks should be replaced with the Personal remark removed template.”) --AugustO 02:28, 17 May 2013 (EDT)