User talk:Jack Upland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Carlot Ophuls[edit]

Jack, you really have to stop this. Why do you have to be such a meanie? Turnbull had every right to do what he did. And these people are all over the place with things that are happening.

Well, as King Caractacus's court astrologer said to the Nizam of Hydrabad's grand vizier... Um, I forget. (But you get the gist.)--Jack Upland 08:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Jack, it isn't spelled, "Hydrabad," but, Hyderabad. See that you don't forget it.
I like you, Jack, but you really have to stop this nonsense about Carlot Ophuls and the chancellery of Fitzsimmons Oenschwelleier having had anything whatsoever to do with the Kennedy administration.
Apologies. When I wrote Hydra I must have been thing of your behaviour.--Jack Upland 21:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Turnbull[edit]

I'm sorry, Jack, but Turnbull had every right to stipulate that those actions performed by Elizabeth's court STAY in Elizabeth's jurisdiction.--66.65.63.154 17:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry too, because I have no idea what you're talking about.--Jack Upland 00:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Magdoff[edit]

Sorry to bother. I saw your comments regarding the Venona Project and the the need to be skeptical about government intelligence files. I have posted a Request for Comment for the pages Talk:Harry Magdoff and espionage and Talk:Harry Magdoff. Endless revert wars and edit conflicts. Input welcome.--Cberlet 09:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Bulls[edit]

Tas Bull and Ted Bull were two different people. I don't think Tas was ever a communist. He certainly wasn't a Maoist. Adam 06:13, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

My mistake. I did immediately check and changed it back, but I think you then changed it again! It's right now (I think). Tas was a Communist (weren't all the wharfies?!).--Jack Upland 06:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

No. My good friend Bunna Walsh was always an ALP member, as was Charlie Fitzgibbon. The DLP had a presence on the Melbourne wharves too. Tas Bull may have been a comm in his youth, but I don't think so. I will check when I get back to Oz. Adam 06:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I can research it here in Bangkok, I find there is quite a lot about Tas online. Adam 06:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

You are correct, he was a CPA member 1951-59. Adam 06:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Clearly (?) Wikipedia needs an article on Tasnor and you've just done the research to write it.--Jack Upland 01:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've done the best I can from here. There are probably better sources to be had in print from the time of his death. Adam 06:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

LTV[edit]

Jack Apologies for the unsolicited post: I see you have contributed a great deal to the discussion of the Labour Theory of Value, and clearly have spent a lot of time reading and thinking about it. I'm researching for a project on markets and politics, and it strikes me that the LTV (which is fairly new to me) may explain the dichotomy between those of a broadly capitalist/laissez faire stripe, and those of a broadly socialist stripe (in each case, for want of a better word). That is to say, if you buy the neoclassical idea that the only relevant expression of value is the amount counterparties are prepared to buy and sell for, you'll tend to fall on the capitalist side of the divide. But if you accept the proposition that there's an intrinsic value to labour, then you will tend to see the machinations of the supply/demand equilibrium as having a distortionary effect on prices, and value - from thence the notion of proletariat exploitation - and indeed of there being classes of "workers" and "capitalists" arises.

I should own up that my own perspective is broadly one of accepting the neoclassical paradigm, but it seems to me much of the criticism "from the left" of capitalism, globalisation, free markets etc. relies on the sentiment that someone is being exploited, which is understandable/explainable in terms of LTV, but is harder to rationalise in terms of neoclassical theory. Would you agree?

As a second observation, and if that first assertion is right, would you agree that LTV ultimately sheets back to some sort of objectivism - in that there is an intrinsic value for labour? Neoclassical theory, on the other hand, is a more relativist reading - ie there is no value other than what one assigns to it. Would be very interested in your thoughts on this. Best regards ElectricRay 10:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Posting's what this is for! I think there is some truth in what you say. However, many people would argue that regardless how you explain them, global poverty, inequality etc, are bad in themselves. A few points of clarification though:

  • Adam Smith & co accepted LTV but were pro-free market.
  • LTV does not imply that supply and demand are a source of 'distortion' of prices, but rather that they generate the equilibrium which corresponds to labour value. Nor does Marx for one see price distortion as the source of exploitation.
  • LTV is not a 'just price' concept, such as promoted by campaigns such as Fair Trade (though they could argue in terms of market economics that they were resisting 'oligopsony').
  • Marx for one portrays capitalism as 'falsely ascribing supernational creative power to labour' (Critique of Gotha Programme), so the LTV's view of value is not necessarily as 'intrinsic' and 'objective' as you make out. But it is certainly objective (within limits of the system) when compared with marginalism.--Jack Upland 01:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Jack, thanks for your reply. Your second point in particular interests me. If supply and demand set the value of labour, then how is LTV any different to classical economics at all? It seems that the criticisms of Marginalism (taken from the Wikipedia article): Marginalism has been criticised for being divorced from reality... While classical economics attempted to find an objective explanation for prices, the theory of marginal utility is content with subjectivity. According to its critics, the theory concentrates on the exchange between individuals, ignoring the larger economy, and concentrates on the marketplace, ignoring production only do any damage if you think that being content with subjectivity is a bad thing: a Marxist (I think) would think that; a classical economist wouldn't necessarily. Would you agree? A neoclassicist would certainly say that his paradigm dealt with global poverty and inequality as well as (and better than) any objective-value theory. Once again, sorry to trouble you, and thanks for your time. ElectricRay 16:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

No trouble. While it might go against the common impression, LTV doesn't deny supply and demand. Marx, for example, citing Adam Smith, said:

It suffices to say the if supply and demand equilibrate each other, the market prices of commodities will correspond with their natural prices, that is to say with their values, as determined by the respective quantities of labour required for their production. But supply and demand must constantly tend to equilibrate each other, although they do so only by compensating one fluctuation by another, a rise by a fall, and vice versa.[1]

The difference is explaining the equilibrium, which marginalism can't do. Hence the criticism of being 'content with subjectivity'. A theory which doesn't explain things is easy to defend but hardly worth it. (Of course, neoclassicists now start mutter about 'cost curves' etc, leading them closer to the LTV, but it is for them to justify why they reject the LTV, not the reverse.) By the way, the quotation you give is from me! And it's been criticised as inadequate, as you see in the discussion.

My point on global poverty is that I don't think you would convince many protesters with your 'neoclassical paradigm'. Many 'antiglobalists'do have their own economic theories - and some of these like Fair Trade, as I mentioned, are incompatible with LTV as well! But it's fundamental a basic reaction to grinding poverty etc. And I think the issue goes beyond interpreting the world towards changing it. We've seen enough of the 'free market solution' to know it's not going to be short-term. And as Keynes said, in the long term we are all dead...--Jack Upland 05:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I've added a few words in reply to your comments about the bar where the price goes down as one drinks. --Christofurio 19:44, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed reorganization[edit]

Hi Jack, Hope you saw my replies to your posts over on the LTV Talk page. I'm glad you're around to bring some sense to this point-scoring back and forth debates within the article. Perhaps WikiMedia needs a better mechanisms for discussions and it might take some pressure off ot he articles themselves to serve as that space. I guess in the mean-time we'll just have to stay vigilant. Anyway , thanks for your contributions. Take care, Rob (--Cplot 04:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Hornet's Nest[edit]

Can I see what you were sent? Always fun to see what is circulating.  :-) --Cberlet 12:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, the Wilcox / George book. Center/right authors pissing on anyone on the left who studies the right. Lot's of red-baiting. Tiresome. Makes assumptions about my political ideology that are simply false. Sigh.--Cberlet 13:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the title sort of gave that away...--Jack Upland 08:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edit to Jim Byrnes was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 05:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy[edit]

Jack I have just commenced this page and (shamelessly) lifted a part of your text from Hindmarsh Island. I would appreciate any editorial imput you may have. Thanks. Joan Gos 03:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Crime in Australia[edit]

Can you explain why they have anything to do with law enforcement? They certainly look like crime to me, or at least alleged crime. They certainly are out of place in the law enforcement category, which is for matters specifically relating to law enforcement agencies and procedures, not to investigations of specific incidents. -- Necrothesp 10:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Paradox[edit]

"[The marginal theory of value] also supplies an answer to the so-called “diamond-water paradox,” which economist Adam Smith pondered but was unable to solve. Smith noted that, even though life cannot exist without water and can easily exist without diamonds, diamonds are, pound for pound, vastly more valuable than water. The marginal-utility theory of value resolves the paradox. Water in total is much more valuable than diamonds in total because the first few units of water are necessary for life itself. But, because water is plentiful and diamonds are scare, the marginal value of a pound of diamonds exceeds the marginal value of a pound of water. The idea that value derives from utility contradicted Karl Marx's labour theory of value, which held that an item's value derives from the labour used to produce it and not from its ability to satisfy human wants." -Encyclopedia Britannica TheIndividualist 04:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So what?--Jack Upland 10:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
So you're claiming in the article that the LTV was a solution to the paradox. That's not true. TheIndividualist 17:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
You're making 2 assumptions:
  • Battlestar Britannica is always right. (If you read the passage from Wealth of Nations you'll see that Smith did not merely 'ponder' the paradox but proposed a solution based on his distinction between 'value in use' and 'value in exchange'.)
  • Wikipedia should simply record the truth and ignore controversy.
In fact, Wikipedia has an NPOV policy. As you are well aware, the theory of marginal utility is not universally accepted. I merely propose that we outline several proposed solutions to this paradox, briefly mention the pros and cons, and allow the readers to make up their own minds. Any objections?--Jack Upland 05:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hillary Bray[edit]

Thanks for getting stuck into the expression in that section Jack, it was a semi-POV shocker which was hard to read. Usually I am good with expression, but sometimes it completely fails me. Grumpyyoungman01 01:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter[edit]

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Australia newsletter[edit]

WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

Your KAL 007 comments[edit]

Very interesting!! I wonder what your take would be on the Conservapedia article on KAL 007 - http://www.conservapedia.com/Korean_Airlines_Flight_007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.123.110 (talk) 23:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the name "Conservapedia" says it all, doesn't it? There's nothing wrong with a thinktank or book that takes a rightwing point of view (apart from the fact that rightists are wrong, obviously!), but to set up an encyclopedia which from the outset screens out anything no support of such a view is monumental bias...--Jack Upland (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jack! But I think that in this case, the conservative bias of Conservapedia did allow a few facts to trickle through that does not seem to have penetrated the wikipedia article on KAL 007 - until you and some others started contributing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.123.110 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I must admit I didn't read it closely... What were these facts?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

They must have a heck of a time trying to spin Iran Air Flight 655 and Cubana Flight 455 LamontCranston (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Synarchism[edit]

Jack Upland, do you approve of the current version of the Rule by a secret elite section? Your answer is requested at the Talk:Synarchism page. --Loremaster (talk) 04:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008[edit]

The December 2008 issue of the WikiProject Australia newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. This message was delivered by TinucherianBot (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

KAL 007[edit]

There's currently a push to get this article to GA status. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a large number concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Julius and Ethel Rosenberg/GA1. Consequently I have de-listed the article. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

North Epping murders[edit]

Hi, seeking support to keep regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Epping murders. Do you have an opinion on that? Thanks Ajayvius (talk) 09:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

St. Petersburg[edit]

Hello! I left an answer to your comment on St. Petersburg's talk page. In short, the answer is yes, people still refer to the city as Leningrad. --Ericdn (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Jim Byrnes[edit]

He is a moron, he interferes in peoples lives and submits rubbish that he copies out of Newspapers, clearly he has no life. He it would seem is young, a fool and a disingenuous person. Whilst not said In Terrorum, but when i find this little nuisance he is going to regret the day he interfered in my life.' to publish defamatory information is likely to see him bankrupted for his trouble , one needs to ensure that what they print and publish is both true and in the publics interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Big JWB (talkcontribs) 11:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you sue Fairfax?--Jack Upland (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Jack Upland fan club[edit]

Dear Mr. Upland, I'd like to join the Jack Upland fan Club, perhaps as its charter member. In recognition of your great services may I suggest you read A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole. You'd love it A2ndFlyintheWeb (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC) A2ndFlyintheWeb

Thanks, I've read it and it's a great book. I'd like you to appoint you as the Vice President of my fan club and my official autobiographer. Please give me your credit card details so I can deduct the membership fees.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Are the membership fees obligatory? I'm a retiree on a fixed pension with a wife and too many pets. Buster Seven Talk 13:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they are obligatory. It's a question of priorities.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Will you accept food stamps? Buster Seven Talk 03:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The position of honorary secretary is vacant. You can take that so long as you answer my fan mail for me.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I accept. I've always wanted a job where I didn't have to do anything. So what? Check your talk page every 6 months or so? Buster Seven Talk 19:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Just read what you write.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. 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/Inaccuracies in The Da Vinci Code. 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) 01:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Inherent Vice[edit]

Thanks for fixing that. I was almost certain that was wrong (or that I'd been under the influence while reading) but hadn't had time to check. Not his best, but I enjoyed it.Jimintheatl (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not his best. Sort of money for old rope. I kind of did a double-take reading what you'd put, thinking that I'd missed something. The intricacies were hard to follow, especially given the extensive cast of minor characters.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

James Earl Ray talk page[edit]

Thanks for your question on the James Earl Ray talk page following a lengthy observation I made. Considering the incomprehensible and insulting response I received from another person, I would have thought my comment needing rewriting if you hadn't asked your question.--TL36 (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your "User" page is contradictory[edit]

Your "User" page starts:

"Jacques Egregious Upland is a child progeny born on 1/4/1998. At the age of 18 he had already almost completed high school, ..."
The problem is that you would be only twelve years old at this time, and you would not "almost" complete high school until 2016. Unless you meant to say "At the age of 8..." instead. Then your being 12 years old would make sense. — Glenn L (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You could well be right. My undoubted genius does not extend to arithmetic. I will consult my astrologers and amend the page as they advise.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

J/K[edit]

Don't know how I stumbled upon this, but LOL at this dude trying to correct your date of birth, but missing the joke made obvious by the fact that you misuse the word progeny. Hopefully meaning to be ironic. Jbohanon (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Jules

No, it wasn't ironic. I'm definitely a progeny. Now "prodigy" - that would have been ironic.

Thank you[edit]

Modest Barnstar.png The Modest Barnstar
Thanks for your recent contributions! Mike Restivo (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

International Communist League (Fourth International)[edit]

I strongly feel this page should be renamed/re-oriented. I do not know if this has been discussed before but this page is really about the Spartacist League of the United States, with only a few tibits about the other sections of this "International". I think it would be more accurate to split this page into one for the original Spartacist League in the US and one for the ICL(FI), and then create pages for the other spartacist leagues in other countries. I do not wish to do this "unilaterally" however and would like the input of others who have participated on the articles discussion page to respond on the discussion page before I take this step.--Dudeman5685 (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

There is already a page for the SL/US. The point is that the ICL, and the other sections, exist very much in the shadow of the American parent. I guess the task is primarily one of separating the history which is truly international from the national one. However, the nature of Wikipedia is that two articles which have so much in common (the SL/US and the ICL) will inevitably grow together in terms of content. I think the best outcome would be a smaller article on the ICL, outlining its international nature, and linking back to the SL/US for any political detail, but inevitably this smaller article would start growing and duplicating material on the other article.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Transformation Problem[edit]

Jack --

As a newly registered user of wikipedia I am hoping I can get some help from you with the finer points of etiquette on the site.

I've read the Transformation Problem article numerous times now. My first visit was over a year ago and like others I found the article completely opaque mainly due to the heavy bias you and others have commented on. However, from the age of the comments on the Talk page it looks like this battle has been fought and lost. How to handle such a situation?

I've had a few ideas:

  • post my proposal to flag the article as biased under the bias section on its Talk page (done)
  • add a “bias” flag to the article (not sure if this is a task only “uber-users” can perform)
  • start editing the article to remove/fix the most obvious examples of bias

As you see, I started with the first item over a week ago, but it hasn't generated any comments. It's my primitive understanding that I've now given those who care fair warning and at this point it is proper to start making changes as I see fit (of course NPOV, light touch, etc.). But I may be mistaken in this. Given your comments that there is resistance to fixing the article, I'm concerned that the best this would come to would be an unproductive edit war (or whatever it is called).


This leads me to the thought that starting a new page might be a more productive approach, and it could result in a more thorough coverage of both the topic and its critics than is possible in a single page. While I suspect that this is frowned upon in general, I think there is an argument that could be made for it in this case:

The existing page is mainly devoted to presenting the arguments against the Marxist understanding of the transformation problem. Perhaps this is fine. With very little editing (mostly a few deletions) this could become the page describing the positions of the theoretical opponents to the theory. Ideally it could be NPOV in those descriptions.

Then alongside that, the proposed new one would be devoted to explaining Marx's presentation of the theory and plus a survey of theoretical elaborations since his time, similarly presented in an NPOV way.

Each page could reference the other, as companion pages do on closely related topics.


In writing this, I assure you that I know that you're not “President of Wikipedia”. I'm appealing to you as a more experienced user who has some understanding of the problem that I'd like to see fixed. Ejrd1993 (talk) 07:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A few points:

  • I'm far from being in the top echelon of Wikipedians.
  • We can't have two pages on the same topic.
  • Signposting the bias is a good idea.
  • You have a right to edit as you see fit, but it's probably better to start with minor changes as they might be reverted.
  • I will look at the page.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack--

Thanks for your help. I saw you made some improvements on the NPOV front, and since then I have also made several changes. I am wondering again about the finer points of etiquette. It appears that the page was of significant interest a few years ago, but less so today. I was thinking that it would be polite to ping a few of the bigger contributors in the past the way I pinged you, just to alert them to the fact that I'm making changes. Is this something contributors do in a situation like this? I don't want to catch anyone who cares about the page by surprise. Thanks. Ejrd1993 (talk) 00:37, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it matters. If people care, they can put the page on their watchlist.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Jack Upland. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Shirt58 (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Wilfred Burchett[edit]

I am glad somebody else is watching this. The smell of deja vu gets stronger with the appearance of the mysterious Chulsky.Joel Mc (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for chiming in and for your vote to allow the sentence. For the record, I'm new at Wikipedia, therefore I didn't smell any deja vu. There might be a coincidence here. Karl Kuzmich (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I just think there's something about WB that inspires obsession...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

David Gonski[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to David Gonski. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I apologise. I was vandalising my own work, and I have no excuse.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Lee Rhiannon[edit]

It's provable that Rhiannon has lied about her parents and her own past. Her mother Freda accepted a Lenin Peace Prize from the Brezhnev regime at the height of its' repression in the '70s. but Rhiannon claims that her parents turned against the Soviet Union after the invasion of Czechoslovakia. A person who no longer supported the Soviet Union would not have accepted a Lenin Peace Prize from them. Paul Austin (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. I think this issue should be canvassed on her article, but I don't think it should be a forum for a witch-hunt. I'm not clear on what Rhiannon herself has said, but I think some people are confused about the issue - because Bill and Freda Brown split from the CPA over the invasion of Czechoslovakia. However, they split because they refused to condemn it. They went on to found the Socialist Party of Australia, which was Soviet-loyal. Rhiannon herself was a member of this pary for a time. I think this is made clear in the article, but seems to be obscured because people have a McCarthy-like fixation with CP membership.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

An article of mine[edit]

Just figure you'd find it interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet-Albanian_Split

I plan to rewrite the tiny Sino-Albanian split article in a similar vein. --Ismail (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I rewrote it months ago, BTW, but forgot to inform you. Since you commented on the Soviet-Albanian article, I'd be interested in any comments on its "sequel" article as well. --Ismail (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

December 2012[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Parramatta, without verifying it by citing reliable sources. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 00:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact is Parramatta Gaol is closed which is stated on its page.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Beginning of Korean War[edit]

hi Jack,

Please take a look at the Korean War talk page regarding edits on the beginning of the Korean War.

Thanks, Hanhwe.kim (talk) 04:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC:Infobox Road proposal[edit]

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to {{infobox road}}. Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 22:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#North_Korean_denier_and_BLP[edit]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Juche talk page[edit]

I've responded at the Juche talk page. --TIAYN (talk) 11:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Freda Brown[edit]

I just saw your posts on the talk page. You're right that the whole article was designed to minimise her Communism. Even her obituary in the SMH said ... elected President at its Congress in Berlin in 1975 instead of the accurate "in communist East Berlin". Paul Austin (talk) 09:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

North Korea[edit]

Hi, as you've also commented on Juche article, I'll inform you that I've opened a relevant fringe theories noticeboard thread here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Workers.27_Party_of_Korea. --Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

see the reply at north korea talkpage![edit]

can you please respond to that? Dannis243 (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

South Yemen[edit]

Hi Jack Upland. Noticed you have been dealing with User:Trust Is All You Need's semantics over at Talk:North Korea. Wondering if you could give me a hand dealing with him over at Talk:South Yemen? Keep up the good fight. GrahamNoyes (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Juche[edit]

Juche is not portrayed as a development of Marxism-Leninism. North Korea progressed from Marxism-Leninism to Juche (an ideology which is portrayed as completely independent and made in Korea) and Marxism-Leninism at once to Juche alone and purging ALL references to Marxism-Leninism. Zozs (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You may find info and sources about this at the Juche and Workers' Party of Korea articles. Zozs (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's what I would call a development!--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Then reliably source it and say "it is a development of Marxism-Leninism". Zozs (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Juche section "Juche in practice[edit]

I literally don't get the point of that section, as it stands now. The article is about ideology, and how ideology influence practical policy, but that section is about practical policy and does not tell how Juche influenced those decisions. I consider the defense section superfluous considering that the reason for why the DPRK has a large army can me mentioned in the Songun section, diplomacy section could easily be merged in a "Imperialism" section (it seems to be topic NK ideologes write most about, if we forget about the Kims). These are just some thoughts, but as it looks now the "Juche in practice" section is redundant since a, it doesn't connect to the topic at hand (it fails to explain in the "Diplomacy" and "Defense" sections how the ideology led to those decisions, the same could be said about the econoics section), b that information could easily be merged into the existing structure and c "North Korea has not relied on alliances for its defence" I'm pretty sure is false, the Korean War? China? The USSR? Not having any alliances is the reason for them trying to create nuclear weapons. --TIAYN (talk) 10:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a valid issue how an ideology is put into practice.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Thats now what I meant. What I tried to say is this, you fail to explain how , for instance in the Defence section, how those policies have anything to do with ideology. Not everything the Soviets did was rationalized by ideology, and I don't think theres a difference here. You actually have to connect the two, and it stands now, the Songun section actually better makes that link then the Defence. For instance, that section explains why the military was turned into the main revolutionary vehicle and the sudden decision to elevate the NDC to top decision-making body fo the state. This is not say my version is much better, since its clearly not, as the article in a whole is not very good. What I'm saying is this, the Juche in practice is failing to make a link between the North Korean states ideological rationalization and actual policy, as already mentioned not everything the North Koreans do is rationalized by ideology. --TIAYN (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it would be better to discuss this on the Juche page.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe, but since you are the one who has made the changes, and since we are the two most active editors on the article, its easier to talk directly to you. --TIAYN (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Redundant thank yous[edit]

Hi! This happens sometimes when I am editing a lot and I forget whether I made a thank you or not, as the "thanked" notification disappears after a few hours. It doesn't happen that often but you're not the first I thanked more than once and probably won't be the last. Yours, Quis separabit? 12:57, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I am always happy to accept the occasional bouquet along with the obligatory brickbats, and I think an editing mistake that results in excessive gratitude is much better than the errors which I have been guilty of. Thank you, and thank you.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Tolkien[edit]

I suppose my response at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien's influences will come off as a bit sharp; I hope it does not come across as unfriendly. I am honestly sincere about the last bit: you are helping to improve the article. But it is hard to avoid the conclusion that you are ignorant of, or just ignoring, a large swath of the basic critical background (e.g., to come to the conclusion that The Silmarillion was not the center of Tolkien's oeuvre). I do not approve of the tone that PauloIapetus takes, but he does make this point and you have not really answered it. -- Elphion (talk) 21:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all, my dear @Elphion:. I missed the sharpness completely - or did it miss me? Such is the agility of an half-elven ranger! I think you are wrong about Christopher, but would be glad to be wrong. I believe him to be a Gollum-like character whose "Precious" is posthumous publications and who is destroying his father's legacy (by publishing Mr Bliss etc to use your example against you!!!). This is based on the account of someone who knew him, and observation of his behaviour over decades. Thankfully, his father sold film and merchandising rights to his two non-posthumous bestsellers to United Artists, cashing in and quitting Oxford for Bournemouth. Clearly the Prof did not share his evil son's purported concern about the purity etc of his creative vision!!! For the record, I thought the Sil was not as bad as I had been led to believe, when I read it many years ago. As you might have gathered, I have not read The History of Middle Earth, and I have no interest in doing so. At least Mr Bliss was short. As I have said, I do not believe that Christopher is a faithful and reliable source. His motives seem to be not just growing the family fortune, but also aggrandising himself as the trusty keeper of his father's genius, and co-author of his most recent works. I believe I have amply and repetitively dealt with PauloIapetus' points. LOTR and The Hobbit are inherently more notable because they were bestsellers in the Prof's lifetime. This is in contrast with Sil, Mr Bliss, or The History of Middle Earth which derive their commercial success (such as it is) from the popularity of those novels.
What I was doggedly driving at with my quirky and enigmatic comment about the "Long Expected Party" was how different the LOTR actually is from the LOTR that many of his ardent fans, students of mythology, and Tolkien scholars are talking about! The style is conversational. The narration issubtly modernist in a way that is reminiscent of Graham Greene (or am I imagining that?). The passage certainly recalls the whimsical blend of suburbia and fantasia of Alice in Wonderland, Wind in the Willows, Winnie the Pooh etc. As fellow inkling C S Lewis said very aptly, "Gulliver is commonplace little man and Alice a commonplace little girl". One of the strengths of LOTR is the dark and fantastic world of the later chapters is contrasted with this homely simulcrum of Edwardian England. Of course, this is a very naughty excursion into original research, point of view etc. But this is my talk page! That's very different from treating a Wikipedia article as a fansite, which I fear is being threatened at J. R. R. Tolkien's influences. Once again, glad to be shown wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Darling Mills Creek, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Watershed. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not OK. I apologise to you and all the other robots. When you take over, I know my opinion will not matter, but my opinion will be that it was overdue.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

North Korea's main subway system[edit]

hi are counted Ojanen stops to not allow the tourists to come to the surface of somewhere because he hath curious travelers to the assembly station for all uploads

Sorry, I do not understand. I'm not an expert on the Pyongyang Metro: I just happen to think it is real.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

metro north korea[edit]

I do not consider extremely unlikely that Pyongyang is where other metro north korea also choose not to have more than one line of ketones Hamhung Pyongyang metro but I also go underground but the spec- trum Matters andthe semi korea info but do not give up if you think the metro Hamhung a land animal electricity

I refer you to my earlier comments.--Jack Upland (talk) 15:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


Hi Jack[edit]

I read a lil through your funny profile history and editing history and I very much like your contributions. What I am curious about is how you deal with the bureaucracy of Wikipedia. Doesn't it stiffle you? It sure has made me stop editing on my account and I rarely come by anymore.

Also curious about why you seem so interested in North Korea as of recently, it being such a bureaucracy. 213.100.108.117 (talk) 00:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been interested in North Korea for a while, having visited there a couple of years back. I found it far less bureaucratic than you would think. For example, at the DMZ, the tourists on the South side had a dress code, had to stand in line, and were allowed to wave. We could do anything - or so we were told. I didn't push the envelope, but I probably should have. I think the Wikipedia bureaucracy is getting worse by the day. Maybe it will kill Wikipedia, but at the moment much of the pages are trouble free. It's still interesting, anyway. And can be funny.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Oh my god Jack, just because the assholes in the north know how to do propaganda a little bit better than the assholes in the south doesn't make them any good. In the North they depend on improving their image as a friendly country. In the South they depend on worsening the image of the North as a dictatorial, dangerous, paranoid country. Thus the different types of show they put up at their stupid DMZ213.100.108.86 (talk) 16:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
No, I think the North wants to look scary, so as to deter attacks. It's the hedgehog strategy. I really don't think the North know how to do propaganda well. I think most people would agree with that. But the military reality is that the North would win against the South, so in reality the South is dependent on American aid. In any case, our job in Wikipedia is just to tell the truth and not to stifle other opinions. I wish the regime here was a bit more flexible!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
No! N. Korea would inflict incalculable damage to the areas of S. Korea as far south and including Seoul, but the S.Korean military, while smaller, is vastly more modern/infinitely better trained and equipped, and N.Korea would ultimately be defeated even without the US military's aid. However, both countries would be ruined. And with the S.Korean economy so badly hit - it being a modern, civilized industrial state - well, no one in S.Korea wants that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.25.178 (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
But if that's their purpose, doesn't it mean that both countries are presenting self-defeating propaganda? The North with its super polite (but ever so watchful) guides and DMZ tours and the South with its super scary tours? 213.100.108.86 (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
1. If the South could defeat the North without US aid, why is the American force there? It's too small to stop the initial damage.
2. I think the North's propaganda ultimately aimed at its own population, at boosting morale. It doesn't think much about the opinions of Westerners. I guess the South is trying to whip up sympathy and ensure American support continues.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

On the topic of Shin...[edit]

I noticed you posted on Shin Dong-hyuk's talk page about the same time I was making a few small edits. I wanted to ask if you could copy and paste the article into a sandbox and create a version that you feel wouldn't violate NPOV, perhaps incorporating some content from a previous edit. If the issue is simply that Harden's book is unreliable, then that would be different than NPOV. That's what it seemed like you were saying from reading the talk page and archives. I want to resolve the dispute without endlessly going in circles like what has apparently been happening for years, and this would help. Tonystewart14 (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I can do that. I find the entire article very problematic, as I have said, and I'm not a proper person to determine what is neutral. The only answer is to adopt a neutral approach, acknowledge differences of opinion, and diversify sources (which is very hard). I think the Criticism section is important here. I don't intend to have a running battle about this. I raised issues some years ago, and only returned to the page when I found a reference in Felix Abt's book. The problem is that the article largely relies on Shin's account, as told to Harden. I think this should be signposted in the article:"According to Shin..." The reliability of sources is different from neutrality, but it's related. With citation of Harden, they need to have page references, and they shouldn't be cherry-picked. For example, if Harden says Shin went to primary and secondary school, that should be in the article, alongside the brutality. If his parents were married (allegedly) and he had an older brother, that is also worth mentioning. I had assumed the article was a faithful summary of Harden's book, but having read the book I don't believe that it is. I accept other editors' right to change my edits, and to challenge me to produce sources. But that cuts both ways.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Some peoples' attitude toward the opinions of others...[edit]

... really annoy me. Our comments on the talk page of Kim Jong-un were, obviously, considered "disruptive" and "a personal attack". However, did you see me mention anyone in person? No, I didn't. I just told people to take it a bit easy with the rules. Sometimes rules simply don't work and then they shouldn't be applied. In that case a new solution ought to be found. Well, and as you may have noticed (you saw we were "reported" to an editor) some opinions are less welcome than others. People then are VERY ready to claim that there is no free speech on the Wikipedia. I strongly disagree with this, very strongly, coming from a nation where some decades ago dissenting opinions were ruthlessly suppressed. Well, and SOME of the arguments I read on the Kim Jong-un discussion page against my (and your) opinions and against saying them somehow reminds me of how Goebbels tackled the German opposition in 1933. Those people just stop short of "... once our patience will run out and we'll shut up your lying ... snouts" as Goebbels said about the opposing press in general and the Jewish one in special in 1933. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_-qMs8BS80 Yes I know, this comparison is a little harsh, but nevertheless, that's how these things start and then they get a dynamics of their own... You know, when the Wikipedia was young editing and contributing was fun. It isn't any more today. What a pity. --Maxl (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather hear someone else's opinion than a long-winded lecture about Wikipedia policies and procedures which I could read about if I wanted to.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey you two, I started a little discussion on Snows page on why he gets so shocked at our way of presenting things but is far less shocked with the people who (even according to him) hold a completely indefensible position. 213.100.108.86 (talk) 16:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I think we have to accept that the protocol drones who run the empire might be shocked about human rights in North Korea, but have no problem censoring their own sector of cyberspace.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
It's a bit funny when you look at this in a broader sense. Recently The Mayor of Paris threatened to sue Fox News for their slanderous lies which defamed to honour of the great city of Paris, a crime according to some old French law. Heh, Je suis Fox News? lol 213.100.108.86 (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Je suis Jacques.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

About that spammy stuff...[edit]

You've pasted the same comment speculating about an article subject's ancestry on three different bio article talk pages. It is spamlike as, not only is it the same text, but if you would take the time to go back into the history of the talk pages and thoroughly read the articles in question, you would see these issues are resolved and sourced in the articles themselves. If you have new sources that are up to WP:RS standards, bring them up on the talk page for the community to evaluate. Personal opinions based on evaluating a person's physical appearance are not WP:RS. - CorbieV 20:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's spammy. It's just that the same issue is raised in at least three different cases. I think on those pages the issue is dealt with in a way that is not neutral.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Proxy War Complaint[edit]

You were complaining about the article proxy war recently. It was recently completely redone: what do you think of it now? Compassionate727 (talk) 13:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Gerald Shields leading the masses to improve Wikimedia one cosmetically fashionable photograph at a time. North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar
The Ministry of Fun awards you the North Korean Fashion Watch Barnstar for your continuing efforts leading the masses to improve Wikimedia by adding reliable and poignant text in North Korean articles, such as Juche. Geraldshields11 (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I will wear this like a badge of Kim Jong Il.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:DPRK-Cuba Propaganda Poster.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:DPRK-Cuba Propaganda Poster.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jack. Regarding File:DPRK-Cuba Propaganda Poster.jpg, is this a photograph of a poster which was on display in a public place in North Korea? If so, while the poster may not be in the public domain, it can be used here under the doctrine of freedom of panorama. (See Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Korea (North) for further details.) If this is the case, please let me know and I will replace the deletion tag with a move-to-Commons tag. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
No. I thought it was a free image. Evidently I was wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

North Korea[edit]

Cho Myong-nok and Bill Clinton.jpg

Top image, Jack! B. Fairbairn (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a good picture, and belongs on the page, but beyond that it has nothing to do with me.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Kim_Jong-un#Rfc:_Use_of_non-free_image[edit]

I've restructured this RfC with sectioning for people's views, to allow for a better understanding of the arguments being put forth. This format is similar to the RfC from 2012. You may want to review this (2015) RfC again if you have not already done so. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Kim Jong Un[edit]

Thanks for informing me on the Rfc! I already took part, also in the discussion. I've seen some arguments by Masem and Hammerfest which are inconsistent to say the least and I understand that they still don't see reason. What a pity. --Maxl (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. They repeat the same arguments year after year. The vote is currently 5-7, so change is possible.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
And still the old arguments... they never learn, those folks... sophistic arguments is all they have. I explained in depth why it is not possible to take a picture of Kim and they still claim it's possible, completely disregarding my arguments. They don't see how far they're besides the point. There must be something else behind their obstinacy to uphold rules that don't fit than just the rules as such. If there is one thing I learned in my life it's that there always two reasons to something. One is the actual reason and the other is the public reason. Much of the time the two reasons are the same but sometimes they aren't. But I guess it would be difficult to find out their actual reason to block all attempts for a sensible solution to the problem because they simply won't say. --Maxl (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Some people like saying no.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Leader's Greetings to you![edit]

DPRK London embassy[edit]

Hello Jack, I'm curious if you live near the DPRK's London embassy and could visit to either ask about the image of Kim Jong-un or even take a picture of one there if they have one on display inside (as it would count as freedom of panorama). This was suggested when I asked someone else to contact a photographer in North Korea in their native language, so I thought I'd ask you since I remember you living in the UK. Tonystewart14 (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

No, Tonystewart14, I live in Australia.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Ah, in that case I'll ask someone else if I can't get anything directly from the DPRK. Tonystewart14 (talk) 10:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Information icon Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to USS Pueblo (AGER-2), did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. - theWOLFchild 10:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know that Operation Werewolf was still ongoing. Barnstar to you! I will attempt to re-educate myself towards the understanding that "spy ships" are really "environmental research ships". Thank you!--Jack Upland (talk) 10:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Invoking Godwin's Law and calling me a Nazi will get you nowhere, except in violation of WP:NPA. I don't need any barnstars from you. In fact, stay away from my user-pages altogether. - theWOLFchild 10:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, I don't think I went to your user page. You came to mine.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Yup. And now I'm leaving. Bye. - theWOLFchild 10:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Auf wiedersehen, or should that be aloha!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

DRN on communism[edit]

The noticeboard will be where the recent talk page discussion will be negotiated: here. Σσς(Sigma) 05:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiki-wide Rfc[edit]

I noticed that articles Australia, Monarchy of Australia, Governor-General of Australia & likely many related articles as well, don't show who's Australia's head of state. Therefore, I'm planning on asking the Wiki-community to figure out (via Rfc) who the Australian head of state is & whether or not this identified individual should be presented as such, across Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 02:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Australian head of state dispute[edit]

I reckon the creator of that article, will put up a spirited fight to save it. A parent never reacts well, when they're in risk of having their child taken away. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No doubt. Of course. And in my limited experience, it is hard to get an AfD through. That's why a merger is a better option.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Things are kinda getting a tad messy there. I just might end up in a rubber room, yet. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting the impression that 2 editors are gradually ignoring the Rfc results at WP:POLITICS & will continue to be problematic around the Australian head of state topic. I'm fed up with the pointy BS, they're continuing to push. It's up to the rest of you, as to how to deal with them. GoodDay (talk) 11:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Puntastic[edit]

In tears, already, lol. You deserve a prize. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, Martinevans123, the political football is now over to you, to trump my punt with a kick that makes it seem puny.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
You might have to wait while I dig something up. Martinevans123 (talk)
The archeology of the Punic Wars?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:47, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
"Friends, Republicans, Southern rednecks, lend me your spurs". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Trump might have started on the wrong foot, but he's obviously well-heeled now.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I feel like I'm back in school and I'm not sure what to do. Should I pull that pigtail or stick it in the ink well? Buster Seven Talk 13:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Holt[edit]

Hi Jack, sorry if my edit on the talk page was misleading. I wanted to emphasize the length of unnecessary discussions we were sucked into, because the same editor followed me to the Henry Gibson page, effectively starting the same chain. I'm not sure how to get rid of this without being accused of breaking civility. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 11:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Template:U?EauZenCashHaveIt, I understand. I just think it would confuse people in the future. I would hope that any newcomer looking at the page would see the issue. However, as our recent experience has shown, it is hard to avoid being misperceived as the person who is at fault. The best strategy is probably to let it blow over and re-emerge from the storm shelter when the hurricane has passed. But that's not easy to do sometimes.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

What's going on?[edit]

Looking at this? --Pete (talk) 10:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, Skyring, I would assume good faith. Maybe it was an accident... I'm baffled in any case.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how, but yesterday, a paragraph of your writing on the talk page was removed. I apologise! Maybe I managed an edit conflict incorrectly. I am going through to make sure no other such mistakes have been made. I have reinserted the paragraph. Travelmite (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Possibly an edit conflict. In any case, I was curious, not furious.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

POV templates[edit]

Hello, I have reverted your restoration of the template. If you look at the template documentation, you will see that it should be removed "in the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." A post you made eight months ago, and then followed up on two months ago does not count as an ongoing discussion. If you would like to have a discussion, you might try asking for opinions at relevant Wikiprojects. Or you could start an RFC. Parsecboy (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

How ridiculous.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Louise and Charmian Faulkner disappearance[edit]

Louise and Charmian Faulkner disappearance. This was brought to my attention. I have to agree with the comment on the article's talk page - The Faulkner family or friends of the victims created the article as a way of bring attention to their campaign for justice. Nuke the article? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Gustloff[edit]

Why do you insist on "military" – ? The Gustloff was constructed before the war as a sort of low-budget cruise ship. During the war it was used primarily as a barracks ship. In the final months of the war it was used to transport refugees, mainly women and children, from what was then eastern Germany to the West. The phrase "military ship" implies that it was a naval vessel, i.e. a warship, which it wasn't. That's why the phrase is misleading. Sca ([[User talk:Sca|

We should keep the discussion on the page.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

ARBEE[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Stickee (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully the above boilerplate can give you more info on arbcom discretionary sanctions. Stickee (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Jack Upland. You have new messages at David J Johnson's talk page.
Message added 23:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The 1st year is year 0[edit]

Of course, there is no "0th year" (CE), since any 0th can not exist at all. Everything starts with the first, so there is the 1st year (ordinal), which is the year 0 (cardinal).

This is, because
the third millennium includes four-digit years with the first number is two: 3rd⇔2
the 21st century includes the years with the first two digits are 20: 21st⇔20
the 202nd decade (2010s) includes the years with the first three digits are 201: 202nd⇔201
...
the third decade (20s) includes the years with the first digits are 2: 3rd⇔2
the second decade (10s) includes the years with the first digits are 1: 2nd⇔1
the first decade⇔0s
...
the third year is the year 2
the second year is the year 1
the first year is the year 0

In addition, the first six months CE is marked as a decimal 0.5, that is zero whole (year) five tenths. (If the first year would be the year 1, the first six months should be marked strange incorrectly "1.5".)

--85.76.1.90 (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverts on this page[edit]

Please note that comments on this page were recently reverted. Travelmite (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Turd-polisher Extrodinaire Award[edit]

Pile of manure on a field.jpg Turd Polisher Extraordinaire Barnstar
You mentioned Turd Polisher at the Trump article which reminded me of this old Award I had in the closet. It was not meant as a derogatory or slanderous term as it relates to the polisher. The malapropism, turd, is used to describe the article that was left behind to rot in the field like last years potato crop. Polish away, my friend. Buster Seven Talk 13:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Voting for lead picture at Donald Trump[edit]

You are invited to participate in the talk-page run-off voting for the lead picture at Donald Trump. --Dervorguilla (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

David Horowitz[edit]

Your edit here is concerning. Horowitz's parents' extreme ideology is incredibly relevant and I cannot understand why you would even consider removing such sourced text as "not that important". Quis separabit? 15:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Kim Jong-un picture discussion[edit]

Hi! I've noted that ten debate about the image of KJU is still not resolved, largely because of the obstinacy of a few users whose account names I needn't mention here. You called one of them a judge I think that isn't fitting. A judge would listen to the argument of both (all) sides and base his decision on those arguments. And: Shouldn't a judge be impartial? The user in question, however, only sticks with his own view and vigourously defends it, always using the same arguments over and over. So "judge" is not likely the best description. Anyway, he showed that he didn't understand your irony. And while this ridiculous debate is going on we still haven't got a sensible image of KJU. --Maxl (talk) 13:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's any point in arguing about it as that group has said they will never accept a fair use photo.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
You may be right. They are not ready to accept that this is a special case. --Maxl (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

AGF, playing the ball[edit]

Hi. Re [2], see [3]. The only difference being that you do appear to be doubting good faith. There are "rules" against this, but I'll skip them and just appeal to reason. I don't think we should start down that particular path, because there is nothing good at the end of it. Bye. ―Mandruss  10:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

SPECIFICO talk 19:42, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Jack Upland. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Voluntary student unionism[edit]

Interested in tackling the Voluntary student unionism article? I'll try and see if others are interested. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 12:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Sagecandor (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I need a Pinochet[edit]

Stop the inflation, stabilize currency, and sentence the all the leftists to die. Regards, --Pudeo (talk) 04:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC) As of this year

Talk:Donald Trump[edit]

Hello, Jack Upland! Regarding your recent comments at Talk:Donald Trump: What you have been doing is inserting commentary and jokes based on your own opinion of Trump. Please don't do that. Keep in mind that the article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. It is not for general discussion about the article subject. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN:: what is my opinion of Trump?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
This comment was what struck me as expressing your opinion of Trump, and as out-of-place on a talk page. The rest of the comments I objected to [4] [5] [6] were just succumbing to the temptation to make jokes about one of the allegations in the dossier. There were others who couldn't resist joining in. I see that those threads have been hatted as off-topic. --MelanieN (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I tried to keep it in, but it just burst out.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, MelanieN! You rein us in. --Pete (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Now MelanieN is making jokes on the talk page of Bowling Green massacre. Sad!--Jack Upland (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you (re: Bowling Green massacre article)[edit]

Your reply was very sensible and well-reasoned. I have to remember that patience is a virtue (especially on Wikipedia). 71.55.143.121 (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Mad Monk madness[edit]

Hi there. It seems to be the opinion of most that a reversion really is the best first step for Rasputin. (Not for Rasputin himself of course, because he's dead, but for his article.) Anyway, for reasons which at this point must be painfully obvious, it's important that we have the broadest consensus possible before doing this, so I wonder if you can review the situation again and weigh in in the !vote section. Thanks. I do feel sorry for Taksen, but I don't know what to do about that -- he just won't learn. EEng 14:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Fiscal liberalism[edit]

Since you know the difference, you have just volunteered to write a separate article for it! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

No, thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


Brezhnev and such[edit]

they would feel the point of my poisoned umbrella - <grin> about the veiled reference. Wikipedians of the world - unite! Zezen (talk) 11:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Whataboutism[edit]

Relevant illustration of the problem with the term 'whataboutism' by XKCD: Citogenesis Larkusix (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

D >> E[edit]

D is a sketch. 🙂 Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. My mind is obviously taking a holiday.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Chronological order[edit]

My comment at Talk:Kim Jong-nam wasn't meant as a challenge but I'm glad you're hacking away at this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)