Why did you remove the the Jan 20 EKOS one-day polling from Canadian federal election, 2006 with the comment "Fake EKOS? Who knows"? It looks okay to me, and the numbers are in the link that was referenced? Nfitz 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I get it now, one of the polls was the one they intended and the other one was their daily data. I didn't notice that the same had been done for other dates, the last doubley one was spread out. I don't know why we would want to include both really but ok, sorry about the confusion. Also, there must be a better way to divide up tables than an empty row. I didn't even realize that it was supposed to represent something, assuming that it was. It just looked wrong. Fratley 12:53 AM, 22 January 2006 (EST)
Some days, Ekos only produced daily data, rather than anything else. On those days, the daily data at least gave some idea where the polls were shifting. The daily data has been included only for continuity on the most recent event (same thing happens on on Jan 12 in the main article). Not perfect, I admit. The extra rows. Yes, someone had added them to show the break between the recent polls and the older polls and to offset the last election. I don't care about them one way or another really, and someone else had restored them; I had finished doing that. But I'm just noticing now, that they look different depending on which Browser you are using. Using IE, they just look like a thick line; quite a nice effect. But I just fired up Firefox, and they do look a little odd there! Someone else has partially restored already, but if you want to delete that, I can see why! Nfitz 16:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fratley, What kinds of occasionalism do not require a God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eteb3 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, hi there. Sorry I didn't answer you sooner, I'm currently on a trip. My edit to the occasionalism article was probably Schopenhauer-related. Schopenhauer's ontology posited an impersonal striving force - which he called the World Will or the Will to Live - as the basis of all observable reality. His form of occasional causation should be treated as distinct from any religious version of occasional causation dealing with a rational supernatural entity, such as al-Ghazali's view on how the laws of nature relate to Allah. The current version of the article does make this distinction, but as far as I'm concerned it does it in a confused and dismissive way. If you can think of a good reason why occasionalism and occasional causation are "similar but different" instead of just two flavours of the same thing, then let me know. Fratley (talk) 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Red Warrior. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Warrior. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Fratley. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
