From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello - leave me a message! I'll answer it as soon as possible.
[edit] Signpost updated for January 2nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 8th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 22nd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] World's Smallest Political Quiz userbox
You may be interested in User:Audacity/Userboxes/WSPQ, which is a replacement for the old Political Chart userbox. The new userbox takes the two variables (economic and personal freedom), calculates which political alignment they place you into (Statist, Libertarian, Liberal, Centrist, or Conservative), and links your userpage to the appropriate category.
Please reply to User talk:Audacity, as I will not be watching your talk page. Λυδαcιτγ 07:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I'm Ral315, editor-in-chief of the Wikipedia Signpost. It appears that you have not edited in at least three weeks. To avoid spamming your talk page any further, should you be on leave, your name has been removed from the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to continue receiving the spamlist, please leave a note on my talk page to that effect, and I will restore your name, and keep you on the list indefinitely. Ralbot 08:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Filmogs
 |
|
The Original Barnstar |
| Hey, Nice work on all those filmographies!
82.2.139.211 23:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
|
- Woo! I got my first Barnstar! Thanks, 82.2.139.211, whoever you are... talkGiler S 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your message
hi, thanks for the msg about the MOSLOW tags. i'm tagging them to keep track of all the oscar nominees I can find. i'll try to do the short ones myself. Nespresso 17:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Arms of George IV of the United Kingdom
Thanks for the references! DrKiernan 13:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Busy Day
What a busy day you've had! I really think you should get some gold braid around your user page... :-) I see you're intending to shorten your name too.
Anyway, apologies for not replying sooner, but I have been rather plagued by poor health of late. It has kept me from Wikipedia, and many other places too. Nonetheless, thanks for your notes 'Pedantry' and 'Further Pedantry'.
Concerning the former, I am prepared to go as far as acknowledging that this is a legitimate debate! However, with a historical hat on, I am still searching for any justification for the 'No IV' affectation - it appears to be a very modern development. Having grown tired of "dipping into" Oxford, I am currently reading it right through, cover to cover, but every reference that I can see, both in Oxford himself, and in the texts he quotes, renders the lodge number as "No 4" [or historically "No 2" etc, as appropriate]. The same is true of my copy of the by-laws - not a roman numeral in sight! However, there is another aspect to all of this. British Lodge does appear to have used roman numerals for a very long time, indeed the style "No VIII" is incorporated into their lodge badge. I fear that by adopting the style of a very much more junior lodge, No 4 may be demeaning itself. Ah well, after all that, you're the boss - I'll get around to changing it sometime.
The other matter is, I feel sure, much more clear cut. Nobody could imagine that "(London)" in this context implied membership of the Metropolitan Area's masonic jurisdiction, because the next lodge in the list (357) is followed by "(Oxford)" and the next one after that (388) by "(Halesworth, Suffolk)", thus making it clear that the name in parentheses refers to the meeting place of the lodge. If it were an indication of the local masonic jurisdiction, then these two would be "(Oxfordshire)" and "(Suffolk)", and indeed the first named lodge would be "(Unattached)".
Don't stay up all night. Timothy Titus 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
