I've just sent out an email to 15 supporters (ie,
donors, current members etc) who are from the Monmouth area.
Hopefully we can get them involved too - they'll be contacting
John or [hidden email] if
they want to help.
> On 31 December 2011 21:54, Gordon Joly<[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 31/12/2011 21:20, Roger Bamkin wrote:
>>> Notability is still an issue Gordon. However the rules for places are
>>> "its on a map" and we will do histioric buildings but not every 1960s
>>> Church. AGF I think .... you will be surprised. We pulled out 100
>>> items at Derby Museum and none were challenged on notability.
>> OK. Sure. So why is Monmouth so different from.... London (UK)? As a
> Turn on the Wikipedia articles option on Google maps while looking at
> London. Its already well covered.
Yes, I know. My question is this. What makes Monmouth different from
London or Cardiff as a Wikiproject?
I found many geo-specific projects (including Cardiff on the English
I've just seen this article. I'd somehow missed this is the planning stages (I was vaguely aware of some discussion about qr codes, but hadn't realised anything had progressed this far) - it looks like a great idea.
It's a good article too, I particularly like the quote from John about being told he should implement his idea himself - that's exactly the attitude wmuk should have and we should make everyone aware of that.
The only thing I don't like about the article is that it makes it sound like a Wikipedia project, rather than a Wikimedia UK project. It's not a big deal, but we should try and get the chapter's role more emphasis.
> Seconded - that's fantastic news!
> Also, I might as well put it on record that I am more than happy to help
> with any bot programming that might be of use during these sort of
> initiatives. (I was reminded by the idea of scoring, having spent this
> morning updating the WikiCup bot to a 2012 specification, but you name, I'd
> be happy to contribute.)
> Harry (User:Jarry1250)
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:45 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 31 December 2011 11:32, Roger Bamkin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > We have the Archaeological Society "signed up". They tell me that we can
>> > "have the lot" - they are convinced that CC by SA beats (c) 2011..
>> HUGE WIN! What was the process of convincing them? That's definitely
>> one to duplicate!
>> - d.