User talk:JamesTheNumberless

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Discussion

I'd appreciate it if you stopping vandelising articles. Ban is imminent if you current 'behaviour' continues. Thank you. Jimster 260 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A very odd (not to mention defamatory) comment given that I have never vandalised an entry. Please get on with contributing to Wikipedia and find another outlet for your harassment. --JamesTheNumberless 09:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
After challenging this user's actions on his talk page, he failed to explain the reason for his above comment here and subsequently blanked the page! I consider the matter closed, and the user a coward. --JamesTheNumberless 10:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel the matter isn't closed at all. In actual fact I have tracking your recent edits and have not only found them offensive but also distasteful. Please refrain from titling this discussion 'And some dozy plonker said' thus I have changed it to Discussion. I believe you're a negative person spreading negative energy to fellow Wikipedians JamesTheNumberless. There is no need of a reply but I'm sure you will because I suppose that's the sort of person you are. Possibly quite intelligent but when they go to bed at night reflect on their life and cry. Jimster 260 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all you leave a comment on my talk page complaining of vandalism without citing any example - which came as a rather large shock to me and caused me to assume you either had me confused with another user or were just randomly picking on people, just to be a bit of a tit. You have still not cited a single example of my vandalism. If you really have been tracking my recent edits you will have noticed that the last time somebody legitimately misunderstood my comments, I not only apologised on their talk page but also engaged in dialogue with them to try to better explain my intent. --JamesTheNumberless 11:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I have the wrong person. Sorry... for any confusion caused. Friends? Jimster 260 16:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Gary Newman for president.

[edit] Potentially Personal Attack

One of your recent edits [1], while including some good content, and a good suggestion, unfortunately also suggests that "some people here are considerably experienced wankers". This may be interpreted as a personal attack. And I would like to inform you directly that such behavior and language is not typically accepted by the Wikipedia community, and has even been made a policy under WP:NPA. Please, in the future avoid commenting about editors themselves (generically or specifically), and comment about the content of their contribution. --Puellanivis 16:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair comment to a certain extent, my criticism was intended to be upon the practise of habitually removing the contributions of others when slight alteration would suffice, it was not indended as an attack upon any individual or group. Moreover, it was meant in the spirit of mischief, directed as much at myself as at any other Wikipedian and is born out of personal experience, double entendre notwithstanding. --JamesTheNumberless 16:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me if I'm wrong

Are you the person with whom I've been debating on the Jade Goody page regarding the mixed's ethnicity? If so I believe your user page would be a better place because since the argument has moved on from being purely about Jade Goody I'd like to debate this belief of yours further.

82.20.18.237 20:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Willem,

Please excuse me for asking but if you're only 26 you're awfully young to having children are you not? Where did you say you were from again, I understand that you live in Britain but you're Indian- black or Irish or something aren't you?

82.20.18.237 20:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think there was a debate, I added one comment. Are you the user previously known as WilliamDevino? I think I also left a comment on your talk page but in relation to something else. I'm English and so are both of my parents but I grew up in Scotland and my ancestry goes back to various parts of ex-empire including Ireland, Guyana and the South of India - I am not married and don't have any kids so I'm not sure where that idea came from. Unless you have someone else's comments confused with mine. I always sign comments though. --JamesTheNumberless 10:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've just seen the history, there were a lot of comments posted but the only one by myself is the one which is still there - hope that clears things up. --JamesTheNumberless 10:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with your statement that for most people 90% of their friends will be the same race, for cultural reasons, however I disagree that this is a matter of race and I disagree that having a diverse background makes it more difficult to relate. It's about belonging to a culture rather than to a race. Clearly if someone is half English and half Pakistani and their Pakistani parent insists on teaching them Islam, taking them to Pakistan every summer, speaking Urdu in the house and feeding them nothing but curry then they're going to have a big problem fitting in to either culture. However if the same person grows up in an Entirely British household they will have no problem fitting in with British people and probably great difficulty identifying with any other culture. Most likely 90% of their friends will be white.
My family tree reads like a history of the British Empire - minus the African bits - however my family is entirely middle class, English and Christian. Easily 99% of my friends are white and British and do not identify with any other culture. I have an easier time relating to my girlfriend's family (who are half Czech and half German) than I do to English speaking Indians. And that's without them speaking any English. I think culture transcends race and is more important. Perhaps in the past, due to narrower sexual selection it was impossible to preserve a pure culture without preserving a pure race, but it was never the race that was important. --JamesTheNumberless 11:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attack

Don't, ok? Or you may be blocked. (re User:87.194.87.212). Thanks/wangi 14:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a fair cop. --JamesTheNumberless 10:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the insults

Try moderating your language - you're starting to sound racist. Guettarda 16:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article you're refering to. All I am trying to point out on the Indo-Guyanese and Indo-Carribean articles is that I think researchers into either subject would benefit from a merger of the articles, since not only does a lot of the information overlap but a lot of very important information to the topic of Indo-Guyanese is found only on other pages. I would include all the Indo-Carribean information (including that in Indo-Carribean Americans) in one entry. I don't believe it serves the purpose of Wikipedia very well to have sub-categories of sub-categories of sub categories of sub-categories popping up when there isn't sufficient volume of material to justify them. Personally as I am part Indo-Guyanese myself I'd love it if there was enough information on Wikipedia to justify it but as things stand I don't see how anyone can argue that there is. Please let me know if you were referring to any other posts I've made, so I can address those issues, and please accept my apology if I have offended anyone. --JamesTheNumberless 16:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Calling an article about an ethnic group "An utter waste of bandwidth" is pretty close to calling people "An utter waste". I find that comment offensive. There's a featured article about the British Afro-Caribbean community, so the idea of having articles about twice-migrant subgroups has a solid precident.
I don't see why there should only be a single article about Indo-Caribbean people - after all, there's more than enough material to write about the distinct populations in Trinidad, Guyana and Suriname. The Indo-Caribbean populations of Guadeloupe and Martinique are, again, notable and different from both the Anglo-Caribbean and Surinamese experiences (and notably different from one another). The Jamaican Indians, like those in Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Vincent are largely acculturates and mixed, but they remain distinct and notable ethnic groups, again, each with their own path of cultural development and relationship with the Afro- majority.
Again, communities of Indo-Caribbean origin in Canada, the US and the UK are distinctive communities. The Indo-Caribbean community in Canada is perhaps the most notable, with a number of important political figures. Like in the US, they find themselves in an in-between space, neither Indian nor Afro-Caribbean. Nor can you conveniently lump Indo-Caribbeans in Canada, the US and the UK.
All of these are viable articles. If you find the small size of the articles so disturbing, why not expand them? There's lots of information out there. Guettarda 04:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, yes and yes. I agree with you 100% on principal. However, they are presently mostly tiny articles and it's all very well forseeing that each is worthy of its own article - and I don't doubt that there's enough material outside Wikipedia - but currently they are not long enough to justify being split up so much. Obviously I'm not suggesting every article relating to Carribean peoples be merged together but entries such as Indo-Guyanese, I thought might benefit from being hilighted for their small size. Rather than merge them (as befits their size and common topic) I would much prefer to see someone come along and make the Indo-guyanese entry worthy to stand alone.
Please realise that these talk pages are for discussion of the entries, and not their subjects. I believe you have misinterpreted my criticism of the entries for a criticism of the enthnic groups themselves. --JamesTheNumberless 09:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A WikiProject you may be interested in...

Hi there! I notice you're from Surrey - please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Surrey, which I started earlier this afternoon. Cheers.--Vox Humana 8' 21:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)