→Buildings: thanks for nothing |
|||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::I do resent the imposition by the first editor, which requires the involvement of other editors and this discussion, and which does not improve the Wikipedia. All cost and no benefit. And, I don't suppose the first editor, or you, SarekOfVulcan are going to disclose any other buildings of the Order of Women Freemasons, which were asserted to exist. As far as I know, there are local chapter groups but no such other buildings. Are either of you actually going to bring anything at all to the table, here? I think the involvement of the other editor and you so far provide, in total, a small detraction from quality of the contribution that I made in the article, and no contribution to understanding in this Talk space. --[[User:Doncram|doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
::I do resent the imposition by the first editor, which requires the involvement of other editors and this discussion, and which does not improve the Wikipedia. All cost and no benefit. And, I don't suppose the first editor, or you, SarekOfVulcan are going to disclose any other buildings of the Order of Women Freemasons, which were asserted to exist. As far as I know, there are local chapter groups but no such other buildings. Are either of you actually going to bring anything at all to the table, here? I think the involvement of the other editor and you so far provide, in total, a small detraction from quality of the contribution that I made in the article, and no contribution to understanding in this Talk space. --[[User:Doncram|doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::If you grant the existence of local chapters, you grant the existence of other buildings, unless you think they meet out in fields. Of course, most of them are not notable -- likewise, you're unlikely to find my local lodge building in the NHRP, even if it survives another 100 years, because it's just not that interesting.--13:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
:::If you grant the existence of local chapters, you grant the existence of other buildings, unless you think they meet out in fields. Of course, most of them are not notable -- likewise, you're unlikely to find my local lodge building in the NHRP, even if it survives another 100 years, because it's just not that interesting.--SarekOfVulcan 13:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::The title "building" implied that there was only one building used by the OWF..... the one used by the OWF as their headquarters. Their website gives a list of local level lodges in multiple cities... as Sarek notes, they have to meet ''somewhere''. So... I changed the section header to account for this, and to note which building the section was about. I do not insist on the section title "headquarters"... that was simply the best word I could think of that describes the specific building and its relationship to the OWF. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
::::The title "building" implied that there was only one building used by the OWF..... the one used by the OWF as their headquarters. Their website gives a list of local level lodges in multiple cities... as Sarek notes, they have to meet ''somewhere''. So... I changed the section header to account for this, and to note which building the section was about. I do not insist on the section title "headquarters"... that was simply the best word I could think of that describes the specific building and its relationship to the OWF. [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::My apologies to other editors of this article, for bringing the attention of editors Blueboar and SarekOfVulcan here, by their following my edit contributions. I don't agree with either of you. I reiterate that I think you have made the article a bit worse, and you have not provided any value in the form of identifying any other building, notable or not, which could be said to be an Order of Women Freemasons building. You don't know whether any such building exists. There are no other buildings mentioned in the article; "Building" as a section title was fine. You take away from my enjoyment of making the contribution of describing the building. Thanks for nothing. --[[User:Doncram|doncram]] ([[User talk:Doncram|talk]]) 14:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:09, 14 October 2010
Freemasonry Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||
|
Semi/demi recognition
Obviously, this order is not officially recognized by traditional (male only) Freemasonry ... however, I do know that there are a few bodies of women's (co-ed?) Freemasonry that UGLE has acknowleged as being "Masonic". Is this order one of those bodies, and if so we should mention something about this acknowlegement. Blueboar 13:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Buildings
I added discussion of the significant building of the Order of Women Freemasons. An editor revised the section title, by the way breaking links to the section, and I reverted that. An assertion was made in an edit summary that there are other buildings, but only one is discussed here and there is no ambiguity. What other buildings? If others are known, please provide documentation. It remains a subjective point as to what is the best wording for the section title, but I chose one wording and built it into links to this section, and a different wording is not clearly better, so I think this should stay. Given a recent history that has been labelled as edit warring and led to blocks of other editor and myself, I don't appreciate being followed by same editor and having my wording quibbled with, for no serious improvement. --doncram (talk) 05:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Comment on edits, not editors, please, Doncram. "Headquarters" is clearly better in this case, and I've fixed the redirects to point there as well. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do not agree that "headquarters" is clearly better, in part because it makes the wording in the article repetitive. I agree that "building" is not really very clearly better either, although I do prefer it. If another editor agrees with me I will be inclined to switch it back.
- I do resent the imposition by the first editor, which requires the involvement of other editors and this discussion, and which does not improve the Wikipedia. All cost and no benefit. And, I don't suppose the first editor, or you, SarekOfVulcan are going to disclose any other buildings of the Order of Women Freemasons, which were asserted to exist. As far as I know, there are local chapter groups but no such other buildings. Are either of you actually going to bring anything at all to the table, here? I think the involvement of the other editor and you so far provide, in total, a small detraction from quality of the contribution that I made in the article, and no contribution to understanding in this Talk space. --doncram (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you grant the existence of local chapters, you grant the existence of other buildings, unless you think they meet out in fields. Of course, most of them are not notable -- likewise, you're unlikely to find my local lodge building in the NHRP, even if it survives another 100 years, because it's just not that interesting.--SarekOfVulcan 13:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- The title "building" implied that there was only one building used by the OWF..... the one used by the OWF as their headquarters. Their website gives a list of local level lodges in multiple cities... as Sarek notes, they have to meet somewhere. So... I changed the section header to account for this, and to note which building the section was about. I do not insist on the section title "headquarters"... that was simply the best word I could think of that describes the specific building and its relationship to the OWF. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies to other editors of this article, for bringing the attention of editors Blueboar and SarekOfVulcan here, by their following my edit contributions. I don't agree with either of you. I reiterate that I think you have made the article a bit worse, and you have not provided any value in the form of identifying any other building, notable or not, which could be said to be an Order of Women Freemasons building. You don't know whether any such building exists. There are no other buildings mentioned in the article; "Building" as a section title was fine. You take away from my enjoyment of making the contribution of describing the building. Thanks for nothing. --doncram (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- The title "building" implied that there was only one building used by the OWF..... the one used by the OWF as their headquarters. Their website gives a list of local level lodges in multiple cities... as Sarek notes, they have to meet somewhere. So... I changed the section header to account for this, and to note which building the section was about. I do not insist on the section title "headquarters"... that was simply the best word I could think of that describes the specific building and its relationship to the OWF. Blueboar (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- If you grant the existence of local chapters, you grant the existence of other buildings, unless you think they meet out in fields. Of course, most of them are not notable -- likewise, you're unlikely to find my local lodge building in the NHRP, even if it survives another 100 years, because it's just not that interesting.--SarekOfVulcan 13:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- I do resent the imposition by the first editor, which requires the involvement of other editors and this discussion, and which does not improve the Wikipedia. All cost and no benefit. And, I don't suppose the first editor, or you, SarekOfVulcan are going to disclose any other buildings of the Order of Women Freemasons, which were asserted to exist. As far as I know, there are local chapter groups but no such other buildings. Are either of you actually going to bring anything at all to the table, here? I think the involvement of the other editor and you so far provide, in total, a small detraction from quality of the contribution that I made in the article, and no contribution to understanding in this Talk space. --doncram (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)