Talk:Irish Mensa

From Mpedia
Revision as of 01:33, 21 December 2007 by Andyfarrell (talk | contribs) (Geoff's inter-alia comments moved from the article to the discussion page, with replies)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is it a "Region"?

There has been disagreement between contributors over what standing the entity known as "Irish Mensa" has. I'd like to invite debate so that we can accurately describe it in this article.

The British Mensa website describes Irish Mensa as a region [1] and includes the text "Irish Mensa (region 1)" and "Regions Ireland" and mentions Impress having a "Regional Newsletter Editor". It is also listed on their Regions page as a region [2], in the Regions drop-down menu selector as a region, and appears in Region Searches.[3]

This all appears to say IM is currently an administrative region of BM.

Has anyone an alternative view to put? Andyfarrell 12:43, 16 December 2007 (PST)

Geoff's inter-alia remarks on the article page

Geoff Owens has added some side remarks during an edit to the article - he also says "oh and apologies for having to write this on the actual site but I couldn't seem to reply to your message" - so I'll try to move your side comments here where they belong and amend the article into a form that you want. Each article has both a main article and an associated discussion page for these remarks, to edit the discussion page you first go to the article "Irish Mensa", then click the "discussion" tab, then click the "edit" tab, and that goes into editing the discussion page where you can add to this conversation amongst editors in the same way that you edited the main article. - Andyfarrell 01:33, 21 December 2007 (PST)

Geoff said "Message to Andy Farrell your stating that the position of british mensa "seems to be" is quite clearly not based on any fact whatsoever but your own personal supposition"

Using "seems to be" was my way of trying to show I wasn't claiming to be authoritative but just making my best stab at it. These Wikis are expected to be edited on an ongoing basis into more accurate and comprehensive articles, and the philosophy the owners advise is to pitch in and add as best you can, and someone else in the community of users will improve it. Sounds less than perfect, but it seems to work. - Andyfarrell

Geoff says "again to Andy this appears to be personal supposition, AS a Director of Irish MENSA I can refute this as untrue and therefore by you stating it on a website puruorting to be factual is a mistake, I'll leave you to correct this"

I'm happy to try to correct it, but I suggest after I do you look over it and tweak it to read just how you want it. - Andyfarrell

Geoff: "I have known you Andy for some years now,I have always thought of you as an honest and dilligent worker who would be precise in your facts so I am somewhat surprised that you would insist on publishing untruths on this website, I only edited them out to save you face, i know as well as you that to publish factual innacuracies is difficult to avoid but to then republish them when you know them to be wrong is astounding to say the least but I'm sure you have the fortitude and honesty to re-edit to reflect the actual facts"

Well I wouldn't call it republishing; from where I am sitting someone didn't agree with some details so they just removed everything; you later repeated that. On a wiki that is vandalism. You're meant to improve things you edit. So their edit was reverted - rolling it back to the earlier version - while asking that they add what is their idea of a more accurate version. I think I trod gently, explaining my actions and asking for discussion to form a consensus, which I think was pretty tolerant given that the person was simultaneously blanking other stuff and declaring ownership of the page and claiming a right to censor information. The site owner said pretty clearly that she was out of order. I think your approach is far better - to come here with an improved version. That's in the spirit of the project.
As I'm about to remove your comments from the body of the article, as I've now moved them here instead, as part of that I'll have to have a crack at putting your version in text as part of the article. The ideal would be if you can look over it soon and ensure it's what you're trying to say, and if not, go ahead and amend it. - Andyfarrell

Geoff: "one other thing I've just noticed you have left my name out of the list of past directors of BM, was that another error or a deliberate omision?"

Neither an error nor a deliberate omission. Articles on wikis are works-in-progress and individual editors aren't expected to have any responsibility for making them complete. If you come along and see an omission you are free to add the missing item, or change any error. I'm sure there are loads of former directors still not listed - by all means add some if you know them. - Andyfarrell
  1. (member login required)