User talk:WikiFair1

Comments about me
Please don't go around saying that I am "a known harrasser of Cultural Freedom and other Americans" - this is totally untrue and I find it somewhat offensive that you would say such a thing. violet/riga (t) 19:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to offend you. I just wanted to give people a warning (the truth of which they can investigate on their own). --WikiFair1 08:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * violetriga is indeed an adimistrator of dubious integrity. Not having ever contributed an edit to a particular topic (see the Talk archive for the article about theater for example), she will suddenly appear to oversee voting in favor of British spellings, contribute nothing to the discussion of the vote, state no reason for her vote, and simply vote for the British spelling. She's obviously part of the revisionist British spelling clique or network some of whom, such as 20 year-old Esparantist Czech ESL student, Darwinek, are responsible for giving Wikipedia the appearance of being a "British" online publication. W.C. 09:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's amazing how many of these mindlessly acting anti-Americans there are on wikipedia. By "mindlessly acting" I don't mean mindless. They might be bright people, and might be "mindful" in other spheres of their lifes. But they obviously don't think about their anti-American votes on wikipedia. "A chance to Say No to U.S. 'cultural imperialism'? Righto!!" --WikiFair1 10:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You two just look for bias don't you? LOL.  I was the admin behind Requested moves which is where Theatre was listed as an ongoing discussion.  The decision was clearly to move to the -re spelling, so I did so.  But you just go on thinking that there is a secret cabal that is grouping against you.  violet/riga (t) 11:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * First, my views aren't necessarily precisely the same as WC's. Secondly, no one said it was a secret cabal.  Finally, the decision about "theater" was clearly an example of people voting without thinking.  Extraordinarilly careful research was conducted by one user who was interested in a sensible spelling choice.  You, Violetriga, might not have been one of the thoughtless voters in this case, but it's patently obvious that most people voted without thinking.  "Kill those fat noisy Americans!! Vote 'theatre'!"  Something like that, often in milder versions, to be sure, is obviously what's motivating many wikipedia users.  It's disturbing.  --WikiFair1 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but from "our" point of view there are lots of Americans that do the same. The theatre move went through the correct process for a move, which, while it might not be ideal, was the fairest we had (have).  violet/riga (t) 16:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * VIOLET'S MINDLESS VOTE
 * Violet, with blatant POV I might add, characterizes any criticism of the Move-aholics fringe folks as "paranoia about a cabal". I'd challange her any day to a reassessment of the Theater vote. I present all the data that shows how a lot of the voters (among those who gave an opinon) were wrong about the "international" spelling, and how they never bothered to check, and how even among the Americans on the -re side involved we find later had wrongly thought it was spelled -re and never -er anymore in California (in other words, these people just didn't know what they were talking about.) And Violet gets her best shot at showing how, no, these people (the -re voters) really did make a sincere effort to present evidence to support their case. Violet herself voted without giving any reason, without participating in the discussion, and without doing a single bit of research on the topic. As for the vote itself, I am well aware that this all was in accordance witht the "Letter of the Law" (and the guidelines at Wikipedia are in their infancy and far from what they need to be--that's why criticism of this sort is very much needed--even if people (i.e., violet) who exploit the current "rules" try to dismiss it as "paranoia". I don't think, however, the way that vote was conducted could ever come close to passing anyone's standards for "The Spirit of the Law". It is instructive to point out that while violet showed absolutely no hesitation to leap in and vote in such a manner on the spelling of theater, that now, when that article really needs the participation of an admisitrator (see the Talk section for the discussion of a foul-up with the archiving caused by the -re spellers trying to hide the spelling debate, Jooler was the root cause, as he should have just left the Talk section alone if he did not know protocol (i.e, you are not supposed to archive everything, including the current discussion which is the one he wanted to "hide"), which led to Dramatic technically having been the one to "lose" that archive), to fix the archive, she's nowhere to be found.


 * UNPROFESSIONAL, UNETHICAL, UNSUPERVISED "ADMINISTRATORS" RUN AMOK 
 * And can you imagine any professional website where a so-called administator, has the gall to go over to a user's talk page and basically call them "paranoid"? I can't. But then I can't imagine any professional site that would let some 20 year-old Esperantist and ESL student from the Czech Republic like Edwinek as an adminstrator have a major influence on English language issues that impact millions of users, either. These people may not be actual professionals, but isn't that what we users should expect them to aspire to, at least? I don't expect anything I write here to make these people rectify the wrongs they have done (by hiding behind the "rules") in the past or in ongoing issues they've already committed their bogus votes to (and by that I mean by doing as Edwinek does and saying, Gee, if my guess is right about X then lets move all the articles to the spelling I like, i.e., votes based on guesses). In the future, I would hope these so-called administrators can actually act as leaders, and lead by example, by engaging in sincere debate, and producing a shred of evidence now and then to support their views.


 * THE ISSUE: LACK OF EVIDENCE, NOT BIAS
 * Everyone on both sides of the issue has their biases, of course. Please, let's not be naive, Violet. Bias is not the point. The point is that the British spelling voters in all the cases I have seen, and most blatantly in the Theater case, produce very little, and often no evidecne to support their case. They often support their case instead with "If...(i.e., they don't know for sure if their case is really supported by any evidence), or other kinds of non-evidence on the order of--and Edwinek recently pulled this line--"Gee, we managed to get some other regions to move to our way of spelling, let's see if we can add a couple more to that..." This is probably what Wikifair means when he says "mindless". Most people would be at a loss to call it anything else. In her message above, Violet seems to grudgingly admit that maybe the rules on voting were really in need of improvement at the time of the Theater vote, but note that she has done nothing to help improve them since, and shows no hint that she will make the slightest effort to do so in the future. If these primitive rules happen to provide a useful loophole (from engaging in serious debate, including the presentation of evidence) for the move-aholics then why should even an administrator among them bother improving them, after all?W.C. 19:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Spend an hour going through my contributions and you will see that I have used American English in the appropriate articles, reverted changes from AE to BE, and ruled (as part of WP:RM) in favour of the AE spelling. You are merely basing your accusations on a tiny subset of what I have done.  violet/riga (t) 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What is in question is not the way you write in other articles. What is in question is the way you and others like you go about voting (i.e., appearing suddenly at articles you have no previous connection with, producing no evidence to support your case, etc.) and then trying to stifle and dismiss valid and fully justified criticsim of such irresponsible actions as "paranoia about cabals." I stand by my criticism of your voting, regardless of your first naive attempt to write it off as bias, and your second to divert the issue to how you write in some of the other articles, instead of your irresponsible abuse of the voting "rules", such as they are. W.C. 20:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't respond to the voting comments because I simply don't participate in many votes and it is thus not relevant to me. violet/riga (t) 20:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care what is relevant to you or not. I don't think Wikifair, or any of your critics do care what you think is "relevant" to you. It's like someone on trial telling the jury well, let me tell you about all the nice community service (that's "relevant" to me) I did, before I allegedly committed the crime (that's suddenly not "relevant" to me) you nice people are dicussing. Anyone else could see why this "flawed" logic doesn't work. So it looks like you struck out. One, trying to sidestep the issue with bias, two, sidestepping your voting by going off on a tangent about some articles you wrote, and now three, dismissing the whole voting thing (the central issue Wikifair raised--how most of the British spelling voters vote in the mindless way as specified above, i.e., without presenting evidence, in so many cases) as just not "relevant" to you. Look, if you want to opt out of the discussion, because you sincerely think voting isn't relevant, fine. We can continue to criticize you and others like you and your dubious voting patterns here, with or without your participation. One does wonder though why you entered into a discussion about voting in the first place if voting really didn't matter to you. I think readers of this thread will conclude that you started out "caring" (enough to insult others with "paranoia") but ended up in a corner unable to defend your behavior and thought "relevancy" sounded like a neat way for you not to back out of the discussion. Maybe your a apology would be a more graceful way of concluding this discussion instead. The way you sidestepped the issue a number of times above probably makes people wonder though about the "logic" and the character of these Wikipedians who dare call themselves "administrators". W.C. 20:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read what I said? No, more than that - did you think about it?  Let me say it again: I very rarely participate in votes.  People are going on as if there is some conspiracy whereby BE supporters are collaborating to swing votes.  I couldn't care less about any of this - I just comment on my view if I ever happen across some discussion/vote.  You're asking me to defend my actions when I really have neither the need nor the inclination.  violet/riga (t) 21:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And did you read what I said? No, more than that - did you think about it?  Let me say what I said again: Nobody cares whether you very rarely participate in votes.  (Kind of like if you said "I only burn down libraries occasionally--so that one library I burned down you're talking about--sorry, but I don't have the need or inclination to comment on it.") I'm not asking you to do anything, as your irresponsible actions that are already on record for anyone to view themselves in the voting you have done plus all of the text of your evasive messages above, are together more than enough to inform us as to how carelessly and casually many of the BE voters (and a so-called "administrator" to boot) ) vote, and how trivial they think discussing voting and the voting process itself, actually is to them. As for need and inclination, it is pretty obvious you to have plenty of need and inclination as you keep coming back to make excuses for the "mindless" (as characterized above) voting that you have done. W.C. 15:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * At the end of the day none of what you are saying and doing bothers me at all, but clearly you have an issue with what some people here do. When you've made a decent contribution to Wikipedia I might bother to listen to your rants.  Until then, just be quiet and live with the horrible people that are out to get you.  violet/riga (t) 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody is out there to get anyone. (I mean, you're the one who tried to inflate your activities by calling yourself part of a "cabal" and a "conspiracy", after all. I'd call it more like "seven clueless voters in search of a reason why they voted"). However, there are people such as yourself that cast "mindless" votes (as described above.) Nobody cares if you comment or not. And I'll be quiet when I wish, and comment on the "mindless" voting records of you, Edwinek, other "adminstrators" and just about anyone I wish, with or without your "permission" thank you very much. I do live with (and pointing out when people behave irresponsiblly is part of how I do that) what others do, but by the same token they have to deal with (or make whatever evasions they wish about) criticisms that are leveled at them here. That's just life at the big Wiki. W.C. 17:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You keep using the word "mindless". Funnily enough people are allowed to have opinions that differ from your own.  And you know what?  You don't have to say a damn thing to justify a vote.  Call it "mindless" - it still counts equally to yours.  Unless your vote is discounted as being from a user with too few constuctive edits.  violet/riga (t) 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is that "rule" that is being questioned here. Simply because an insufficient rule exists, doesn't make the situation either funny, or necessarily acceptable to all users. This is why we are criticizing it, as well as those, such as you, who exploit it. When you do so, i.e. vote "mindlessly" it says a lot about you as a voter to others. Notice, neither I or WikiFair, ever said your vote was or was not discounted, or would or should be discounted. I don't really care if you say a "damn" thing or not about your vote. I'm simply pointed out that in the eyes of others it degrades the integrity of the overall vote, and of the term "administrator" in your case. What you do as far as voting is up to you. But how you will be seen and judged by others as they attempt to sort things out and assess the deficiencies of the current Wikipedia voting setup is in no way up to you. Except perhaps if you improve your behavior in the future. Your continual trivializing of issues raised by those who see the need for sincere debate in these matters simply adds more to the documentation upon which the case can built against you, as well as some of the other voters, such as a 20 year-old ESL student and Esperantist from the Czech republic, or a couple others who cast votes based on "If, blah, blah...". So it is duly noted that you feel people who vote based on misinformation or no information--a pattern others might find disturbing, or a trivializing of the voting--to be something that is "funny" to you, and an adminstrator, of all people. Also, no one said people can't have various opinions. In most discussions, those who make a good and strong case based on evidence tend to win more esteem that those that don't. Those such as you are certainly permitted to have their own opinions, but they (and you) ought not to then be so surprised that others may then characterize such votes without supporting evidence as "mindless". W.C. 16:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Shame. Points still stands though - my votes count as much as yours.  But anyway, voting is evil.  violet/riga (t) 16:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, how much an individual's vote happened to count under an inadequate system was never the question raised in initiating this discussion. The point that still stands is that voters such as yourself who vote either presenting no evidence, or based on misinformation, undermine the quality and professionalism some Wikipedians hope that Wikipedia might one day aspire to. W.C. 17:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's a shocking thought - what if all the arguments have been presented and I was merely showing that I support them rather than repeating the same thing again? Oh dear, that shoots down all your theories.  violet/riga (t) 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, what the real shocker (for you) is, is that any reader who reveiws that discussion will find that exactly the opposite happened. Oh dear nothing. That shoots down still another of your evasions regarding your irresponsible voting record. W.C. 19:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh well, I guess I'll just have to live with such ignorant people. I'm going to stop replying here now, as I wouldn't want to keep you from your ongoing contributions to making decent articles.  violet/riga (t) 19:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ignorant. Yes, that is the appearance you give when you don't give evidence or reasons for your vote, and after the fact imply all arguments were made (they weren't) and properly made (they weren't), and that you were secretly, "maybe" agreeing with them--which one of them we can't really know, for sure, if any at all. So, yes, you do have "yourself" to "live" with (your words). People judge you by your actions or lack of action, not by what you claim later after the fact about your intentions. In the same way that you keep claiming you're going to stop replying yet continue to make a liar of yourself by returning to reply, not only once, and not only after a day has passed, but multiple times in a single day. W.C. 07:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the first comment I have made after saying that I wouldn't reply, so that messes up your last comment. And I too will quote you (remember, these are your words) "I" "am" "an" "ignorant" "ass[]", which I must say I agree with.  I think I'll have to take back the no-reply thing if you are going to keep me amused in this way.  violet/riga (t) 07:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The first? Maybe you can't count, in addition to your inablity to research the issues you vote as has been demonstrated. We can be sure it will not be the last non-reply reply, at any rate. As you say, you are an ignorant "administrative" place where the sun (of logic and reason) don' ever shine, so what else should we expect from you in the math department. You've alluded to not replying again or feeling no need to comment (same thing) more than once before. In fact, you've clearly shown that you actually will reply and do feel much need to comment, no matter how many ways you try to spin your intentions about your non-reply replies. You found issues about your "mindless" (no evidence or reasons given) voting to be "funny" earlier, now you find your being ignorant to be a thing which might amuse you. Fine. W.C. 22:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I've found the root problem here - your ability to read and understand English is clearly poor, as evidenced by your belief that I've said (or alluded to) things that I simply haven't. The written word is a medium that can be taken several ways and I think you need to understand that concept before assuming that you know what someone is saying.  violet/riga (t) 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. the correct shortform is "maths".
 * No, math and maths are simply two valid variants of the same word. The latter is a British variant. W.C. 02:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Transport in... moves
I have reverted your moves as per my comment at Requests for comment/Darwinek. This needs discussing. violet/riga (t) 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-American
Can you please not go around accusing people of an anti-american bias or attacks, as you appear to be doing. You appear to be seeing what you want or looking for trouble where there may not actually be any to find. Aswell as Assuming bad faith You are also likely to make more trouble for yourself than actually help any purpose. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 11:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you call Americans "ignorant", you are engaging in anti-Americanism. You appear to be looking for "bad faith" where there isn't any to be found -- there is just an objective report on the facts. I recommend thinking about your own prejudices before you start telling others how to behave. Good luck, WikiFair1 (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not what i said and you are misinterpreting the facts to see what you want.
 * I stated the spelling was a case of American ignorance, not all Americans ARE ignorant.
 * Now leave the matter alone, accept that i did not mean this how you think and stop Assuming bad faith
 * Thanks  J e n o v a  20 09:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)