Conservapedia talk:New Page Challenge

Conservative

You really should communicate your intentions before just changing things. You are breaking links.--Jpatt 16:57, 31 July 2016 (EDT)

Sorry, I had a few projects today to do and was in a bit of a rush. My apologies for not checking to see if any pages were linking to the old page. Conservative (talk) 00:59, 1 August 2016 (EDT)

I sent an email to Sysops about the contest. I suggested having the minimum page size be at least 5 paragraphs.

Internet users generally don't like stub articles. And when you look at the search engines results for various searches, generally speaking stub articles are not listed on the first page of results. So if we want new readers/editors, I think we should have contests which encourage editors to create articles that are least 5 or more paragraphs long. Conservative (talk) 01:30, 1 August 2016 (EDT)

October articles question

Hi, I'm not trying to complain (I seem to be ahead anyway at the moment) but is there any particular reason that Microsoft PowerPoint and Digital projector were disqualified? Thanks! --David B ^(TALK) 21:16, 27 November 2016 (EST)

Or have I been misunderstanding, and the other users mentions didn't have their pages disqualified, but only didn't make first or second place? --David B ^(TALK) 21:32, 27 November 2016 (EST)

A majority of new pages do not qualify for the contest due to the 5 paragraph minimum. Only a few contributors, such as yourself, have made the cut in new pages. The pages you mentioned I do not recall being disqualified. At the end, I will display a break down of 'all' contributions by 'all' users. --Jpatt 22:11, 27 November 2016 (EST)

Okay, I was just confused then--thanks. Those two do have over five paragraphs, so they'll probably be on the "all" list. Thanks for doing this! --David B ^(TALK) 22:59, 27 November 2016 (EST)

This contest is over: where are the results?

I don't wish to be pushy, but it's January 2 and not even the November results have been added. It would be great if an admin would update this article and add the full results. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2017 (EST)

I apologize. I am back from the holidays and will post the results tonight. --Jpatt 07:41, 3 January 2017 (EST)

Thank you. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2017 (EST)

December results: inaccurate

Thank you Jpatt for updating the results. The December results, however, seem very inaccurate. I, for one, created 15 articles that month that fit the criteria, and several other editors created two or more qualified articles. Please look over the December log again. Thanks. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2017 (EST)

I see what you mean. For example, Scriptural geologists seems to qualify. --David B ^(TALK) 21:50, 3 January 2017 (EST)

Also, only three editors are listed as having created any articles whatsoever: the top two and Progressingamerica. I created 15 articles, and many other editors also created articles in December, including Ambassador, Firestarter, and DavidB4. --1990'sguy (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2017 (EST)