Talk:Reports/2012/August: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(membership numbers) |
(New + Current) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Something doesn't add up with those membership numbers, given that right now we've got 258 'current' members and 5 renewals so far this month... Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 13:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | Something doesn't add up with those membership numbers, given that right now we've got 258 'current' members and 5 renewals so far this month... Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) 13:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC) | ||
: Ah, I know what's happened - 'New' members also need to be counted as well as 'Current'. Thanks. [[User:Mike Peel|Mike Peel]] ([[User talk:Mike Peel|talk]]) | |||
Revision as of 14:27, 14 September 2012
I'm not 100% convinced that a long-running spat between two bloggers is really worthy of inclusion here. LibCon (and GF for that matter) probably fail WP:RS which, though not strictly relevant to WMUK monthly reports is worth treating as a useful guideline. LondonStatto (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there, thanks for your comment. Do you mean the piece about Guido Fawkes? If so, it's only in there as a piece of press coverage that might be of interest, rather than a summary of any of our own activity. We tend to record these press cuttings as a matter of course as it's helpful for us to have a record. I do hope this makes sense but if not please do let me know and I'll do what I can to further clarify. Thank you. --Stevie Benton (WMUK) (talk) 14:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Something doesn't add up with those membership numbers, given that right now we've got 258 'current' members and 5 renewals so far this month... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)