User talk:Jack Upland

Jack, thanks for your volunteerism, but why would you not simply reach out and request an explanation for concerns you had with updates that I pained to add on this page?

Edward Tilley, has composed six thesis in sustainable societies (^[1]) - each are 550-600 pages.

Maturing Monetary System cycles is a theme that recrests every sixty years throughout our history, so I took some time to update wikipedia with the best and most recent cited research - by an expert in this field. Per your comments, did you imagine that I was going to use another account name, one that was not my own, to make these updates?

There are socialist slurs? on Depression (economics) and Late Capitalism which don't belong there too - but now I am quite gunshy of wasting time and insisting on credible corrections realizing that a librarian might wipe them out.

I don't keep a copy of updates that I made a year ago, can you restore the deletions you made so that I can address any concerns for readability?

We all want Wikipedia to be credible. FYI - This particular learning material is very important in mature capitalisms like our's today. FYI #2 I've had an entire page - Transition Economics - removed by an editor as well - see http://transitioneconomics.info. Wikipedia appears to be a frustrating place for an expert - a place where anyone with an opinion can discard hours of your well-intensioned time and contribution.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edtilley4 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond on the Talk page of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response on the Talk page as well. Thanks for quick response Jack.--Edtilley4 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Juche is a libertarian ideology created by Kim Il-sung. The Juche idea is the belief of self-ownership and in an anarcho-capitalism system, where true individual liberty can be achieved. I totally understand when the North Korean government got a problem with that, and is working hard with an army of intellectuals day and night to make Juche sound like socialism(they still FAIL miserably), but I do not understand why you need to join them and remove real criticism of the Workers Party interpretation of the Juche idea in the criticism section. What is this criticism section for if not to show a different view? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JucheCapitalist (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merely because this interpretation has very little support in sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cf Rolf Harris.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Was this about the Spycatcher case and Malcolm Turnbull? Who knows...?--Jack Upland (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cf ACP.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

See Tas Bull.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cf. Police--Jack Upland (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"[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)[reply]

So what?--Jack Upland 10:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC) [reply]

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

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, they are obligatory. It's a question of priorities.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Will you accept food stamps? Buster Seven Talk 03:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Just read what you write.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I be the guy who comes around every eight months to bother you for a swanky magazine interview? Don't worry, it's not Swank. It's Club Confidential, we've got potential! Ah, who am I kidding? It's just me. I don't even have any good questions. What were, uh...who influenced you to become a cherished American author and if so, what would you change differently? Obviously something a real fan would already know. Sorry for even asking.

I'll be back on July 10, disguised as a meter reader. You'll know it's me because I flat suck at infiltrating revolutionary literary circles, and if eight months couldn't turn Bob Guccione into Gore Vidal, they sure as hell can't make an old dog like me the next Jennifer Garner. Or can they?

Keep your secretaries close and your receptionists closer, Mr. Jack! InedibleHulk (talk) 07:55, November 10, 2019 (UTC)

I don't know what has kept this thread going for 10 years...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No earthly idea. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:51, November 11, 2019 (UTC)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, that's what I would call a development!--Jack Upland (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then reliably source it and say "it is a development of Marxism-Leninism". Zozs (talk) 07:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think it's a valid issue how an ideology is put into practice.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think it would be better to discuss this on the Juche page.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Congonka

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)[reply]

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

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Congonka — Preceding unsigned comment added by Congonka (talk • contribs) 10:59, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

From how I see it, just like Nguyen dynasty, Kim dynasty's root is its Kim population(22%) I believe Nguyen is 40% of total population. Nobody(Kim Jun Un and Kims in South Koera) wants another war like Korean war(1950). I doubt the war will occur again unless either side has the certainty of victory with as few casualties as possible. And it is true that South Koreans(especailly people who are in favor of Kim dynasty) whip up sympathy and ensure American support continues, because strong American military power can act as a precautionary measure to stop the war and give time for North Koreans to be well nourished and prepare for its future expansion. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And if war breaks out, I don't know which country will win, but I don't think South Koreans who have already experienced the taste of capitalism will live their miserable life under Kim Jung Un. They will either try to revenge(assassinate) or commit suicide. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you truly believe that North Korean people are worshipping Kim Jung Un because they want to? Willingly? Think about this for a moment. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 02:06, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never said they were. And I really don't think comparing NK to Wikipedia makes much sense.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

... 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)[reply]

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Je suis Jacques.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Johnny Cash, Elvis Presley, & Johnny Depp?--Jack Upland (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

Thank you. I will wear this like a badge of Kim Jong Il.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No. I thought it was a free image. Evidently I was wrong.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How deeply did you think? Jack Upland (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some people like saying no.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, Tonystewart14, I live in Australia.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, I don't think I went to your user page. You came to mine.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. And now I'm leaving. Bye. - ^theWOLFchild 10:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Auf wiedersehen, or should that be aloha!--Jack Upland (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"Friends, Republicans, Southern rednecks, lend me your spurs". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump might have started on the wrong foot, but he's obviously well-heeled now.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Possibly an edit conflict. In any case, I was curious, not furious.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:24, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You may be right. They are not ready to accept that this is a special case. --Maxl (talk) 14:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Back when I was accused of being anti-Trump...--Jack Upland (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Thankyou, O, Sage! Needles to say, Candor the Condor was blocked as a sock...--Jack Upland (talk) 12:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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^[update][reply]

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)[reply]

@MelanieN:: what is my opinion of Trump?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I tried to keep it in, but it just burst out.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MelanieN! You rein us in. --Pete (talk) 10:13, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now MelanieN is making jokes on the talk page of Bowling Green massacre. Sad!--Jack Upland (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside, I donated $150 to Trump's re-election campaign today under your name, courtesy of Australia.

So IOU?--Jack Upland (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Whataboutism. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! DeadEyeSmile (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Rhiannon's involvement in the Socialist Party of Australia is one of the most controversial aspects of her life. A brief reference noting that she was a member is not sufficient for readers to understand the importance. Gumsaint (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I can see you have some engagement in the topic from an earlier talk edit. I can respect that, but the entry needs expansion on this point if anything - far too little is said of her formative adult years. Gumsaint (talk) (talk) 04:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack. A while ago you mentioned the idea that the Vladimir Lenin lead might work better if, rather than stating that "Lenin is viewed by supporters as a champion of socialism and the working class", we mentioned him being regarded as a champion of liberation or emancipation. That idea has been rattling around in my head for a while now and I have to say that I think it is a good one. As you pointed out at the time, opponents of Lenin also tended to portray him as a "champion of socialism", usually as a means of demonising the latter, so the wording at present does not work perfectly. Are you aware of any reliable sources that we could use to back this point? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Kotkin's 1st volume on Stalin Paradoxes of Power provides essential insights on Lenin. Gumsaint (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midnightblueowl: sorry, I can't provide any at the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Upland Not a problem; ping me if you ever do happen to come across anything. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not assume bad faith and violate WP:No personal attacks, as you have done, here DIFF.

Please redact your personal attacks.

Please do it now.

Thanks ! Sagecandor (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the Sage?--Jack Upland (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we will be alive to report on the latest events?MickeyCheeky (talk) 16:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, MickeyCheeky, there are 3 possibilities: (1) this is merely a war of words, which only warrants passing mention, if that; (2) this is a major incident, which deserves its own article; (3) this is the beginning of a cataclysm, in which case it hardly matters what we do on Wikipedia. The only answer is to wait and see. But I think, given past history, 1 is most likely and 3 is highly unlikely.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Upland, I sure hope you're right. I know nothing about politics so I don't know how this whole affair is going to turn out. I just hope it will be over as soon as possible.

Read the article, MickeyCheeky. That's why I wrote it. This conflict has been going on since 1945. There was a war 1950-53, and no one wants another one. Every now and then there's a flare up, and some of them a lot worse than this...--Jack Upland (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right, Jack Upland. Still, let's hope this ping-pong game will be over soon. It's not benefiting anyone.MickeyCheeky (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stalemate and has been since 1953...--Jack Upland (talk) 07:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, I got that. I guess it's just my anxious nature. Thank you for replying, anyway.Jack Upland MickeyCheeky (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The situation only seems to get worse and worse.. I'm really worried right now. Jack Upland MickeyCheeky (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, MickeyCheeky, I agree, the rhetoric is getting more and more heated. But - put it this way - no one has been killed (as far as I know). The DPRK's nuclear arsenal is developing but is still puny. I think Trump is a chickenhawk, and the North Koreans are very logical game-players. War is unthinkable. It will not happen.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope these are not our "famous last words".. I don't like this situation. Jack Upland MickeyCheeky (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not good. But President Moon is committed to return to the Sunshine Policy so there might be brighter days ahead, MickeyCheeky. My feeling is that the DPRK is on the cusp of developing a nuclear arsenal that can be a viable threat to the USA as part of a hedgehog strategy ('bite us and you'll be spiked'). When it reaches that point I believe that this 'crisis' will subside...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:33, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope none of the leaders involved will take stupid decisions. Jack Upland MickeyCheeky (talk) 09:30, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Second Korean War—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. PackMecEng (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you've made a few useful contributions to the Burgess talkpage recently. I've been researching Burgess for a while, with a view to expanding the article – it is currently very incomplete – and hope to have something to show very shortly. In view of your past interest, you may wish to keep an eye on the page. Brianboulton (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I watch the page anyway.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J, I saw you already commented, but for your records, here's the link to the DRN discussion regarding Useful idiot: [7]. All best, -Darouet (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your error, Sirrah, was to imply that I used the Oxford Living Dictionary, which I have never seen. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pmanderson, I think it is quite clear from a reading of the Talk page that I am replying to someone else, who has repeatedly used the "Oxford Living Dictionary"/"Oxford Dictionary of English" and claimed it is the OED. But if there was confusion, I apologise for my part in it.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was not at all clear, then or now. But I accept your account. I find the present text of the article acceptable - although if I were Jimbo, I would use "recorded" for "documented". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think it is clear that a comment made by me on 6 January could not have been a response to a comment made by you on 30 January.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:32, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack. A courtesy note to let you know I have just closed an RFC you initiated, at Talk:Useful_idiot#Request_for_Comment_on_Oxford_English_Dictionary. Apologies for the delay in closing this request for comment, there is quite a backlog and I am working my way through it as best I can. Kind regards, Fish+Karate 13:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you accused 86.133.84.69 of being a troll on Talk:Battle of Stanigrad. Could you specify why? You have been editing since 2006, so I'm sure that you have read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack, can you please look over Roger East (journalist)? Please? Thank you. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 23:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your response on on ANI [8], you blame me of something. Well, I already explained my view on this matter on the ANI [9], with supporting diffs. In brief, I do not mind including the reference to OED on the page, as the closing of RfC required. What else do you possibly want? Please explain. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is explained at the ANI, and all discussion should remain there.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, if you feel the ANI is not constructive you could close it yourself and return to the article talk page, DR, RSN, or some other forum. With a simple clear statement of what you would like to accomplish there. SPECIFICO talk 12:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I do that?--Jack Upland (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because you have something better to do than spout off passive aggressive ornery remarks? Oh wait, you don't. 129.6.250.102 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Help more sources and expand the newspaper Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.171.248.246.158 (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know who she is...--Jack Upland (talk) 17:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Owl Of Accuracy and Integrity
	Awarded for your detailed sourcing work and improvement of many articles on historical and political topics. Your efforts are appreciated and make this encyclopedia a better place to work for editors, and a better source of information for readers! -Darouet (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I hope I live up to this honour.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...why was the note removed in World War II concerning the naming conventions for Hirohito ([10])? I'm not going to revert to re-add it (not yet anyway), but I was interested to know why it was done. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk page.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A new source emerged yesterday which disproves the "torture" narrative by outlining that there was an internal scan after his death which found no fractures. Also reveals the additional information that his death was caused by a decision by his parents to remove the feeding tube.

The article further elaborates detail on these claims being purely political opportunism by the Trump administration to justify foreign policy.

I've added in these updates yesterday, but it is absolutely crucial that they survive on the article so that people know the truth and not the political narratives.

https://www.gq.com/story/otto-warmbier-north-korea-american-hostage-true-story

--217.196.231.122 (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should read this:

The military unit from hell: https://fas.org/irp/world/rok/hid.htm

Add this, modify if you want, correct grammar errors that I made. [[11]]! In 1950's the CIA attempted to create resistance networks in North Korea^[2], and since then South Korea sent over 7000 "North Korea demolition agents" to the north by the 1970's^[3], there were attempts to worsen North Korean relations with China and the Soviet Union by targeting its advisers with explosives in the country.^[4]

Please discuss at the article's talk page.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then please dont ignore the talk page of that article thanks! 77.217.233.160 (talk) 14:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no obligation on me to have anything to do with the talk page.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the sudden you don't want to have discussion nor to reach census. 77.217.233.160 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll join the discussion when I want to.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. A Rfc has opened at Monarchy of Australia concerning the topic head of state. GoodDay (talk) 20:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

London Bridge is Falling Down, My Fair Lady!--Jack Upland (talk) 17:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your edits and references on this page, but the overall tone of the article lends more credence to the alleged phenomenon than I think it deserves. The citations during the actual medieval period, with St. Odo of Cluny etc. are a bit extrapolated, and the mass of allegations after are from at least the Renaissance. Up until as late as the 1960s, the western academic view of the Middle Ages was....prone to bias I would say lightly. Prima noctis just reeks of the same demonization of the past that gave laypeople the myth of the iron maiden. And to be frank the concept of some conspiracy of hyper-lascivious nobles making forced love with their vassals universally across Europe for a thousand years, when even the notion of feudalism itself being universal as we know it is wrong, is just comical and naive in my opinion.--Sıgehelmus (Tålk) 23:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is balanced. It's probably better to discuss this there.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Economy of North Korea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Voice recognition (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We obviously have a common interest in the Warmbier case. I did the Seoul-Kaesong coach tour back in 2008, but I haven't visited Pyongyang (or anywhere else in NK). --Muzilon (talk) 08:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stayed at the Yanggakdo Hotel, but was never tempted to do what Warmbier did.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, did you go with YPT, or another company? Muzilon (talk) 08:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, Muzilon, I went with Koryo Tours which I think are the best. There do seem to have been issues with YPT.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may have seen the Atavist article about Jeffrey Fowle, the detained "Bible-smuggler" who travelled with Koryo. Interesting to read that his NK interrogators simply refused to believe he acted alone, so to placate them he made up a fictitious story about being in league with a secret Chinese missionary organisation. I suspect Warmbier spun his jailers a similar story about that Methodist church. Muzilon (talk) 08:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't seen that. I think there's a general impulse of investigators — not just in North Korea — to try to find how else was involved. I think that part of Warmbier's story is bogus. However, Sharon Webb was a deaconess of the church, and her son Stefan Webb was a friend of Otto's. No one seems to have explored this angle and it is BLF.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Fowle spoiled Koryo's perfect record of "no tourists detained on our tours". As to the Webbs, I'm sure they are real people (there's a photo of Warmbier with Stefan), but the church's minister told CNN he "did not know" Sharon. Muzilon (talk) 09:28, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is some kind of cover-up about that. Certainly, no one seems to have spoken to the Webbs. It was also weird that the judge said the confession got Otto's father's employer wrong when that isn't true.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that Warmbier misstated the name of his father's company during his press conference. Unfortunately the YouTube channel that hosts all those NK videos has recently been "purged", but I found another copy here. At the 2-minute mark he gets the company name wrong and then says "excuse me". I took that as a sign he was trying to subtly signal his family that he was speaking under duress. Like how Merrill Newman later said he deliberately emphasised the unnatural language of the speech his interrogators made him read out on camera. Or the Pueblo crew doing the "Hawaiian Good Luck Sign" (ha ha). Muzilon (talk) 01:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I've just discovered this transcript of the Warmbier v. DPRK hearing. I haven't read through the whole thing yet, but on p. 21, Fred Warmbier tells the judge that the Webbs denied any involvement. Muzilon (talk) 04:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that many sons would get their fathers' employers' names "wrong". The problem with the default judgment is that the judge is just taking the Warmbiers' word for everything. Fred Warmbier doesn't say whether Sharon was involved or not. In any case, a lot of what Otto said was clearly factual. These are real people. And only he would know the Webbs etc. I would wonder why he would drag in a friend and that friend's mother when he could just have invented a fictitious character.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well, I believe Fred is the founding manager of Finishing Technology rather than a mere employee. Also, Otto had worked in his father's business for 3 years.[12] It seems a stretch that Otto could somehow completely mangle the name into "Finishing Cincinnati Black Oxide." Fred quotes Stefan as saying "My mom didn't do this", and that Stefan had told Otto "if you ever get into trouble, Otto, you can use my name." So, my hunch is that these things were a coded "dog-whistle" by Otto to let his friends and family know it was made-up BS. Kenneth Bae and Merrill Newman said they made up half-true stories for their interrogators too. Bae actually gave them the name of a recently-deceased acquaintance as an "accomplice". Maybe Otto couldn't think of a plausible deceased person offhand? Muzilon (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But "Black Oxide" is a kind of finishing they do. What exactly is BS?--Jack Upland (talk) 22:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is one of the company's services, but it just seems unlikely that Warmbier would "accidentally" get the name wrong in an otherwise carefully-scripted confession. (I couldn't help thinking of that scene in Capricorn One where the astronaut tries to tip off his wife that he's speaking under duress by misstating a detail that only his family would know about.) BS is short for bullsh*t, and Warmbier's confession was full of it. At this point I'm leaning to the probability that he simply wandered into the staff-only corridor half-drunk, took down the banner as a minor form of protest/prank (the GQ article said he was rather shocked to learn about the Pueblo incident when his tour group visited it), and left it on the floor where the hotel staff discovered it a few hours later and raised the alarm. In his confession he said he "at the start of the investigation, I tried to falsely state that I was drunk and did not remember." In fact that's probably exactly what did happen. The "conspiracy" story grew in the telling, like with the other NK detainees. That's my two cents worth, anyway. :) Muzilon (talk) 01:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know what BS is! I was asking what was BS in his confession. With regard to the company, I think this seems to be over-analysing it. It doesn't seem to me that what Otto said was exactly wrong: [13]. The conspiracy claim seems made up to make the North Koreans happy. But this was made up by Otto because there is no way the North Koreans could have known all those details. I think he was certainly drunk, but I'm not sure that he didn't remember.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to learn "BS" is also a known abbreviation in Australia :) (which is where I see you are located). Btw, did you see the remarks of your compatriot Dr Ben Habib about the case? If he were in the USA, he could have ended up like Katherine Dettwyler! Muzilon (talk) 12:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I've seen that, but I don't see anything unreasonable about what he said.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just added him to the list of experts who voted guilty, since one or two people on the Talk page seem to think such views were confined to "nut jobs." Muzilon (talk) 13:30, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We have to correct this perception.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I recall reading an online article by a Western tourist who took the train from China into N. Korea and was briefly detained because she'd forgotten about a Chinese magazine in her suitcase that contained an article critical of the Respected Leader. Now I can't find it. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks, Muzilon (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Muzilon, I have no recollection of the article.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, finally managed to find it again: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/detained-north-korea-kim-jong-un-otto-warmbier-propaganda-a7804316.html

Muzilon (talk) 01:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound much like Warmbier.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just a while ago I completed my second article on Wikipedia namely Aurat_March - a Women's Day related article. while I was amidst to make correction and review request on various Wikipedia women projects. Some one has placed speedy deletion notice on the article for perceived copyright issue.

While most of the places I have tried to write in my own language, some of the third person statements reported by news portals may still need little corrections. While personally I do not think that is a serious copyright issue which can not be dealt with little more paraphrasing. But frankly I do not know how to deal with situation. Please help me either in necessary update or help me in transferring it to my sandbox page.

Bookku (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bookku, I think it's OK. Just keep working on it.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- MrX 🖋 20:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just want to let you know that I have reverted one of your removals on Assassination of Kim Jong-nam. While it seems to be trivial Wikipedia isn't a paper encyclopedia whatsoever so I don't see any harm if we're being comprehensive on small but interesting details like that.

Hi Jack, can you review my last edit ^[1]and check if ok and help if possible adding refs, oh and btw, thanks for the thanks, 08:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

you kindly explain this edit of your's? Regards, ∯WBG^converse 08:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained it on the Talk page.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:28, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can revert my editing if you have a valid reason to maximize majority's interests. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What???--Jack Upland (talk) 20:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said you can revert my editing if not showing the hangul name of North Korea meets the best interestes of public. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just showing the hangul name for North Korea because it's widely used in South Korea. Seriously.. please google 북한 and click on the news tab. Also regarding North Korean usage.. if you don't like 북조선, how about 북조선인민공화국? I think it's much better than 북조선민주주의인민공화국. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine either way. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just read through your editing history and you seem to be very interested in North Korea.. As a South Korean who lived in South Korea for more than 20 years now, I can tell you that even if the war occurs, it will be difficult for Kim Jung Un to brainwash 50 million South Koreans, because some of them(like me) are in totally different level.. Kim Jung Un will have to massacre many many people(like me) in order to secure his regime. For North Koreans, as you know, people's bongwan, personal property, rights to access information, etc are all taken away and suppressed, so revolution cannot be made. However, South Koreans have bongwan, personal property and rights to access information. I hope this can clarify how some South Koreans think about Kim Jung Un and its regime. B2V22BHARAT (talk) 01:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What??? B2V22BHARAT (talk) 08:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for diligent work for fixing issues, and improvement idea in Wikipedia. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know your thought from link below on Tea house when you are convenient. Link: ^[1] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Recovery of US human remains from the Korean War, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images from either web sites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from https://www.ncnk.org/resources/briefing-papers/all-briefing-papers/korean-war-powmias, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Recovery of US human remains from the Korean War and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Recovery of US human remains from the Korean War, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Recovery of US human remains from the Korean War. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Recovery of US human remains from the Korean War with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Recovery of US human remains from the Korean War saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt appear you were involved, but as an FYI you can comment. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Snooganssnoogans_edits_on_Julian_Assange Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack Upland. I restored your comment, which appeared to have been accidentally deleted. In doing so, I removed our discussion about that removal; as it didn't seem needed anymore. If you'd prefer that to remain, please feel free to restore it. - Ryk72 ^talk 08:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :> Let me know if I can help. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LOTR--Jack Upland (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hold that thought, please. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you haven't created the actual discussion yet. Maybe that's good, because if you do I got a couple of book links that I'm going to drop there, including discussion by Jane Chance and articles from edited collections like this one. Drmies (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A few pages that Tolkien wrote in draft form are trivial. The character doesn't not get substantial mention.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way. Drmies (talk) 01:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping to clean fancruft, but for this one I think the Tolkien Encyclopedia is sufficient. Not everything TE discusses is notable, some entries are pure plot or such, but this one seems solid. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps Piotrus. I think this information belongs in an article about the development of Tolkien's fiction, not about a character that never really saw the light of day.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:16, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Niche, but per my rule of thumb as explained in the AfD that's where I draw my border for such topics, and for me he falls just over the notable threshold. There are plenty of worse fancruft to tackle, just go to any fiction-stub category... we can re-review entries like this in 5-10 years, see how our standards evolved then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Piotrus, but my opinion at the moment is to take the opportunity to cut through the fancruft. It's not about winning or losing; it's about doing damage. If you spent time considering whether or not this piece of fancruft should be spared, another fungus is growing behind your back. Inevitably, somethings will survive AfD, and that's OK. In some cases, the best option is a merge.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and I don't blame you for this nom, I just pointed out that why I think most of the time we agree, in this case I respectfully disagree. But in the great scheme of things, yes, prune away, there is a lot of stuff that needs to go (not just fancruft, it's the 'fun' part... see WP:CORPSPAM I wrote a while back). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ælfwine (Tolkien).--Jack Upland (talk) 17:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for questioning my short description on Kwalliso. Actions like these are important to ensure the accuracy of information on Wikipedia. However, I stand by my decision in this case. The fact that it is long term is evident from the opening section, and the "Part of a series on" box on the right describes Kwalliso as a concentration camp. Furthermore, in the "Camp locations" section, three of the four camps have Wikipedia articles with "concentration camp" as a part of their titles. I have added back my short description, but if you have any disagreements, please let me know. Thank you for your contributions. William2001^(talk) 00:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, just wanted to clarify some of your comments on the talk page for the 2019 Hong Kong Protests article. I'm not sure how the article breaks WP:NPOV, so I wanted to ask for some examples. You said that the article "downplays some of the violence" by protesters - how does it do so? Could you give demonstrations of such that are deliberately showing the bias of the article? I'm just not following what you mean, as it seems to accurately portray things IMHO.

Thank you! Kobentori (talk) 08:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy at the moment, so I will get back to you later.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kobentori, I think the article has improved a lot in recent days.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Jack Upland

Might I trouble you to re-view the content of the Leninism article? I have completed a clean-up whereby I removed anti-Communist easter eggs and off-topic false statements piggy-backed onto sources that do not substantiate such anti-communist vandalism. Let me know, if you might, because I sense a looming edit-war.

Regards,

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy at the moment, so I will have to get back to you later.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comments here, I would like to comment too and say that the whole page was rewritten/reworded by Chas. Caltrop, always making false or misleading edit summary claiming to "improve" things, or reverting things that change Chas. Caltrop's favorite version (its own) (reverting this or this, making false claims in the edit summary again; there's no "Americanisation" in using the country's common name or fixing the wikilinks to link them to the redirect, etc.). I also redirect you here and here. This isn't something new either (check the history revision since it has deleted warnings and hasn't learned from it; see here). The "too many dates in brackets" seems to be a thing of Chas. Caltrop, who has done the same on all related pages. That's why I hope someone can check Chas. Caltrop's edits because it uses misleading edit summaries, edit/delete other users' comments and use wesel words or falsely accusing users of "harrasment"; and also because, exactly like I believed/thought, it falsely use misleading edit summaries to push its own POV in articles and make either unnecessary or not-improving edits.--Davide King (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Korean War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 38th parallel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, I've rewritten this article. There are indeed several 'oppose' !votes, but aside from that, the number of reliable critical sources now used and cited in the article actually far exceeds that of the merge target. Perhaps we could close the merger proposal, which has been open a while now. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Chiswick Chap, opinions appear to be evenly divided. It complicates matters that you have dramatically changed the article since the proposal was launched. I have a problem with your edits because Tolkien clearly stated that LOTR was not an allegory and was not influenced by WW2, and also that the "Scouring of the Shire" was envisaged early on, and there is ample evidence in the novel for this. In any case, since some members of the "Keep" faction have been so devious, I see no reason to hand them an early victory.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Well, "evenly divided" certainly means a merge cannot be conducted. Actually, as you say, the merge proposal and some of the merge votes were made before I rewrote the article, so they must be considered outdated as the situation has changed. I had of course no part in the early keep !votes; but I have used some of the sources that seem to have been provided by one or two of those !voters, so they were not wholly wrong and useless. On Tolkien's claims, these are noted, discussed, and interpreted non-literally -- not by me but by critics such as Tom Shippey; on allegory, nobody is suggesting that the chapter is directly allegorical, but in one of Tolkien's own words it is "applicable" to the 20th century. A direct allegory would (as Tolkien also in fact explained) map people, objects and events one-to-one to things in the world, e.g. Aragorn=Churchill, Sauron=Hitler, Ring=Atomic Bomb, etc etc, and Tolkien quite rightly denied this. But the "fair sharing" of the chapter is clearly applicable to socialism, as Shippey and others cited have stated. So there is no contradiction there. On Tolkien's envisaging a Scouring early on, I agree and so do the critics, and the article says so. I think we should close the merger, given the current situation: it is quite wrong to keep it open to annoy the early !voters, and since the thing has been open for well over a month now, it isn't early either. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:06, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest that we ask somewhere appropriate for someone neutral to effect a close of the discussion? There is another discussion that also needs closing (the Radagast one here). I will see where is suitable to ask. Carcharoth (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, but now see that requests there might take weeks to be actioned. Jack Upland (is it OK to call you Jack?), shall we ask there for these two requests? Carcharoth (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to rewrite the article on Theoden to align with this statement

"Works of fiction are generally considered to "come alive" for their audience. They therefore exist in a kind of perpetual present, regardless of when the fictional action is supposed to take place relative to the reader's "now". Thus, generally you should write about fiction using the historical present tense, not the past tense. (See WP:Manual of Style § Verb tense and WP:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction § Contextual presentation.) Examples:

Homer presents, Achilles rages, Andromache laments, Priam pleads. "Holden Caulfield has a certain disdain for what he sees as 'phony'." "Friends is an American sitcom that was aired on NBC."

However I am facing being reverted and thwarted by two heavy handed undying supports of Tolkien cruft who will not let the text be changed in any way. This is frustrating, and the exact process that gives us the worst possible LotR related articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, please leave off the personal attacks and insults immediately. Policy WP:NPA is quite clear on this matter. As it happens, however, I have voted to delete, merge, and redirect numerous LOTR articles, and have improved others with reliable secondary sources. That is exactly the opposite of supporting cruft, which I freely delete. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you could have a look at the Gondor article and talk pages it might help. I have tried to improve it a little. I am still astonded that there are only 8 non-primary sources, and I am not even sure all 8 of those are no-primary. The article has gone crazy in endless detail and now there are attempts to stop any editing or reformating or cutting back the unending absurdity and length of the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jack Upland, I’ve just thanked you for the last (of several) edits you made to this Article, as after following the wikilink to Ian Milner I thought it was pretty amazing. But!!! The citation has his supervisor as one Andrew Milner. Are they one and the same? Pinging coz this could be very important if it’s wrong. Boscaswell talk 06:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, sorry to cause excitement. Wrong Milner.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:02, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [14]

Hijack! See WP:REDACT. Merely changing the word "state" to "government", with no clear indication of the change, means that subsequent readers can make no sense of Space4Time3Continuum2x's reply (it's never just a conversation between two editors). And I actually follow my own advice, as seen in this edit on Thursday. Thanks. Byejack! ―Mandruss ☎ 22:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack, I think that if various prominent figures continue to lobby on Assange's behalf, and their efforts / publications / statements receive press coverage, these incidents should be in Assange's biography. I appreciate your consistent efforts to 1) maintain concision in text added and in the article generally, 2) maintain neutral wording, and 3) promote rational discussion on the talk page. But I fear that if we begin instituting a principle where public and well-documented campaigns relevant to Assange are simply ignored, we will both violate Wikipedia policy (ignoring events and sources) and per something like Godwin's law begin to break down dialogue on the page. Concise recapitulation of material appearing in reliable sources, with good editing, can be consistent with policy and help avoid this problem. -Darouet (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by stating I was "in a posse with a sockpuppet" comment at the Donald Trump talk page? I have no idea.

I've never seen you misbehave in any respect, and I am surprised to see you start with that kind of a talk page violation. After you explain whatever you meant, I think you should redact and recant it. SPECIFICO talk 13:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I have removed the comment as it was inappropriate and related to events of years ago.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So you mean "recently" is your speculation about some unnamed sockpuppet from years ago? What was that about? Were you saying I enabled or abetted a banned editor? I don't know what you were talking about and although you've protected yourself by erasing the remark, I'd still appreciate an explanation. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It related to Sagecandor.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I looked that up. I see the account was blocked in 2018 during an extended period when I didn't edit. What was the connection that you had in mind between that account and mine? Was there some interaction with you? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Jack Upland, I didn't make much of a big deal about your false accusations on that article talk page, and I have not fully responded to your false disparagements and misrepresentation at the ANI thread on Thucydides411. But I was apparently mistaken to think you'd made a one-time good faith mistake, so please be aware that the next time you misrepresent or disparage me without full, accurate factual support, I will seek to have you blocked. I hope you'll disengage. SPECIFICO talk 17:48, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this had any element of seriousness, I have never claimed to be neutral on Trump. Do you? Editor bias and article bias are (or should be) two different things. And the vote comment was obvious humor. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think there's been a misunderstanding - I wasn't suggesting that it was deprecated or such, but that some people thought it should be (as comes up from time to time in Australian discussions).

Personally, I think there's not a bad argument for starting a discussion about it not being a reliable source for culture-war issues (because it is extraordinarily bad on those even by Murdoch media standards) but I'm not sure how you'd actually clearly frame that. I personally wouldn't support it being considered not a WP:RS more broadly because it'd blow a hole in our ability to cover a bunch of non-controversial topics. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that correction! I had a good giggle. Clearly I was very tired! The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	lmao This was a genuinely hilarious comment. The fact it has gone thus far unnoticed is a tragedy. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't joking.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of removing your good-faith response while removing some WP:NOTAFORUM posting on this talk page. Admin Antandrus also believes that the original post was made by a WMF-banned user. Meters (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Julian Assange, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi jack, what does the edit summary ce mean? i see it often and you used it recently so i wanted to ask. kindly ping me if/when you respond. thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:50, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jtbobwaysf, it means "copy edit" and I have seen it used widely...--Jack Upland (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I too have seen it widely used and never knew what it meant. Thanks! :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted this addition to the page: "One of the women interviewed by Melzer in relation to the rape accusations against Assange later sharply criticized Melzer and demanded his resignation. She claimed that by defining how a "proper rape-victim" would have to act, Melzer was enganging in victim-blaiming and that his report was partially "untrue and defamatory".^[1]"

I do agree that it belongs in the article Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority. I can't help but think it would be appropriate to also mention it in the context of the report as "the woman" (feels weirdly Clintonian to call her this, but her name is not reported afaik) raises doubts about the veracity of the report, no?

Let me know what you think if you find a minute.

Cheers - XInolanIX (talk) 07:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XInolanIX, I don't think we should confuse reports. The Swedish accusations have been dropped, so discussion of them shouldn't happen in "Imprisonment in the UK".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Jack, thanks for the quick reply. For what it's worth: The report being questioned is the only one written by Melzer though afaik. He specifically referred to the handling of the case by Swedish authorities. I get your point though and it's well taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XInolanIX (talk • contribs) 07:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Division of Korea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 38th parallel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryugyong Hotel, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Σανμοσα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 08:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've previously warned you to stop making aspersions and harassing me, and in particular you've been warned by me and others about the "comrade Specifico" bit. Next time you do anything like that, I will request you be blocked for violating the Arbcom decision at AP2. @Awilley: SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, I have called you "comrade" only a few times. It was intended as a light-hearted reference to your political ardour. I was not intending to harass or defame you. I will try to steer clear of such language now that I know you find it so irksome.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I get your point... El_C 01:35, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What am I missing about your removal of the recent death banner on RBG? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple fact that her death is not likely to change.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read the notice? Its purpose is to inform editors that the subject of an article has recently died and so there may be frequent changes to the article. It has nothing to do with whether or not the subject is going to stay dead. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the {{recent death}} template. Although her death is not likely to change, the article is likely to change significantly because of her death. Mz7 (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't misunderstand it at all. I'm just pointing out that the story isn't likely to change. This is unlike the case of an unfolding disaster or incident. This is a misuse of the template and is highly misleading to readers, especially heartbroken American liberals.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first line of the template says "This article is being heavily edited because its subject has recently died." What about that is a misuse...? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been here since 2005 so you should understand something this basic. - Jon698 talk 2:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether the story changes or not is irrelevant; but the article is definitely going to see lots of edits as a result of her death – and so the template should be there. — Blablubbs ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The only reasoning for removal is that when there isn't an uptick in editing caused by a recent, per the documentation of {{recent death}}. We need to keep in mind WP:NOTCENSORED even if that breaks peoples hearts. I dream of horses (Contribs) Please notify me after replying off my talk page. Thank you. 02:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wording says, Knowledge about the circumstances of the death and surrounding events may change rapidly as more facts come to light. Initial news reports may be unreliable, and the most recent updates to this article may not reflect the most current information. This is clearly not applicable. Placing the template on the article is clearly inappropriate.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability (talk) 01:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jack. There's plainly but not surprisingly an edit-war underway at Julian Assange to put his rape allegation/extradition narrative in the lead. It's obvious to me that there is no consensus for that and that it should not have been reinserted yesterday. It also seems clear to me that the reinsertion was a violation of WP:ONUS WP:CONSENSUS WP:WEIGHT and the Discretionary Sanction on that page, "consensus required". I'm here just as a check on my own judgment of the situation. Basically, once you identiifed the issue a while ago, I saw that this did not belong in the lead and that -- with at least the two of us sharing that view -- your removal was appropriate. Not sure what's to be done. I think it's clear it should once again be removed, but the responses in the talk thread don't give me much confidence that will be the end of it. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: Assange is the subject of the BLP. It is important (and required) to include his "narrative" (meaning his response to the allegations) in the lede. I restored the long-standing material to the lede, since it was clear that three of the four editors participating in the discussion opposed its removal, and the only serious objection to its inclusion - the fact that the sources did not use the word "pretext" - had been addressed. You have since joined the discussion, though all you've said so far is that it's UNDUE, without any further explanation of why you think that. I've showed that plenty of sources describe this as Assange's response to the allegations, indicating that it is quite DUE. I'm concerned that you are trying to remove this material because of animosity you feel towards the subject of the BLP, as evidenced by your edit summary calling Assange's statements, Typical nonsense conspiracy theory pandering to his fans and the ignorant. -Thucydides411 (talk) 14:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's discuss it at the Assange page.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page discussion has exhausted the arguments and there's no cooperation there. I am about to go to AE with this stonewalling and the DS violation. Just please let me know if you have had a change of view on this, in which case Thuc could plausibly argue there is now consensus for his revert. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is your second comment about Lafayette Square and Kristallnacht. Just letting you know that that kind of hyperbolic rhetoric (there is no such consensus and you know it) is more likely to get you topic-banned than have a positive effect on the article. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss, can you please explain what the problem is and on what grounds I would be banned. I think my comments do reflect the sentiments of some editors in this discussion: Causing protesters to be assaulted in the streets, threatening to use the military against Americans, waving a bible in a photo-op in a very Christ-unlike manner, and retreating to a bunker like a bitch are familiar images from a very dark and not so distant past. I assure you, this is far more important than golf courses, wrestling, reality TV, recognizing Jerusalem, and Trump's comically failed attempts to contain North Korea....I predict that the images of park police using shields to shove protesters out of the way while the protesters are being pelted with pepperballs amid smoke will have the same enduring values as images from 1968, and perhaps even 1933...Never have I seen a politician hold up a bible outside a place damaged in the aftermath. Let alone disperse and injure peaceful protestors to do so. If you can’t realize how historic this is, it only means you’re lacking imagination....Trump is an Authoritarian. Not a Republican, but an Authoritarian....it is a major, pivotal event...This latest episode of the absolute insanity that has become part of our everyday lives leaves me just totally dumbstruck. The NYT called it something that's going to go down as a memorable event in Trump's presidency and I firmly believe it....BTW, while the Bible waving may not be the main thing right now I believe that that photo of Trump waving that Bible will become a historical image because it so well illustrates the picture of what it looked like when our democracy, which was built on the very idea of a separation of church and state, failed. Think about how one may look at a photograph of the ayatollah waving a Quran while the government troops savagely attack their own people and what that means. It has made a lot of people glad to be from America. And now the same thing happened right here and there it is documented in that photo. Maybe I am just being starry-eyed but I believe that Wikipedia, through documenting what is happening here and around the world, is helping us to preserve our freedom. I don't think my reference to Kristallnacht was that hyperbolic. These editors were clearly drawing parallels to Hitler and the like.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that some editors have serious difficulty checking their POVs at the door with respect to Trump. I've recently said as much on that talk page. One might actually make a case that saving the country world from another four years of Trump is more important than the integrity of a silly encyclopedia, and I suspect that's what is at the core of their thinking whether they can admit it to themselves or not. But it's a logical fallacy to focus on the most extreme examples and conclude that the consensus resulted from that kind of thinking, simply because those editors got what they wanted. It's at least equally possible that the consensus largely resulted from good-faith application of vague and confusing Wikipedia policies that regrettably leave an enormous amount to interpretation. All editors have a bias, including you and me, and our policies fail miserably to protect the encyclopedia from its effect even when all editors have the best of faith. This is mainly a problem with the policies, not editors.

As for on what grounds I would be banned, I think you would have to do a lot more of that kind of commenting, and the grounds would be persistent failure to assume good faith on the part of fellow editors. Whether you're right might be beside the point. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had the following "micro-essay" buried safely in my fairly long user page since May 2018.

The product of 17 years of self-selected self-governance, Wikipedia PAGs are a tangled labyrinth of watered-down and self-contradictory principles. For any proposition A, A and !A can usually be argued with equal PAG support. That renders PAGs useless as a guide. So-called policy-based discussions are in reality nothing more than editor viewpoints, and might as well be democratic voting. We are suffering from mass self-delusion, my friends.

―Mandruss ☎ 09:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mandruss, I don't see that it's the fault of the policies in this case. I have noticed a change in Wikipedia since Trump's presidency, including editors arguing that the Oxford English Dictionary is not a reliable source on a page tangentially related to Trump. I think creating a anti-Trump encyclopedia is counter-productive.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, do you really still not hear references to that meme being made? Nick Carner just made a reference to it less than 18 hours ago on SB Nation: The Tennessee basketball team is going to be really, really good next year. Yeah, yeah, I know. The sky is blue, water is in fact wet (I don’t care what you say — it is) and Jeffrey Epstein didn’t kill himself in prison.
–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I don't live in the USA.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.scidev.net/global/environment/news/yemen-s-forests-another-casualty-of-war-amid-fuel-crisis.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.189.99.6 (talk) 09:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is silly. It is also silly not to discuss on the article's talk page.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think, should I go ahead and start a draft now? Or wait until after the inauguration? BD2412 T 00:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um, probably when there are efforts...?--Jack Upland (talk) 00:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There has been talk already, though. BD2412 T 00:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems hypothetical. I think it would be better to wait for something more definite.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that's reasonable. I'll let you know when I do. BD2412 T 01:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here we go. Assuming Greene follows through, I'll move the article to mainspace immediately thereafter. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I just commented elsewhere that in the future every president will be impeach at least once... Looks like coming true...--Jack Upland (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's the trend of our time. It looks like this will end up being a long series of articles. BD2412 T 04:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now live. Cheers! BD2412 T 23:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abide with me.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the page has now been nominated for deletion. It will probably in fact be deleted, and then restored in another year or so, when something else pops up. In the meantime, I would be interested in your thoughts on Matthew Whitaker, which is presently the source of much dispute. BD2412 T 00:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't feel competent to comment...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Cheers! BD2412 T 05:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely embarrassing mistake, but uh thanks for catching that. I thought I read over it but in the article it's already written word for word my edit. Thanks. Vallee01 (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why Korean Peninsula should be redirected to Korea rather than Geography of Korea. Regardless of the result of the recent RM, which do you think the better redirect?―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

Let's discuss it at the page.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a discussion at Talk:Korea#Redirect of Korean Peninsula. I would appreciate if you could comment there.―― Phoenix7777 (talk)

Hello, I'm Chaheel Riens. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Donald Trump that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. I'm templating a regular, but with good reason. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaheel. I don't know who you are, but I think your intervention on the Trump page was inappropriate. Contact me by carrier pigeon if you agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all you had to say, but you didn't. That's the point of the above. Inappropriate - even if accurate - is not the same as being an idiot. I might add that your continual conversation on the talk page is also inappropriate in style, if not content. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no style guide for talk pages. If you were offended, I apologise. If you weren't offended, I'll try harder.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, be respectful and lay off the attitude. I'll be obliged to give you a break from the talk page if you cannot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jack Upland

Thank you for creating Immigration to North Korea.

User:Whoisjohngalt, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for adding this article to Wikipedia. I checked out the references and all is good.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whoisjohngalt}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Whoisjohngalt (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack, you've violated the 24-hour BRD restriction at Donald Trump. The edits are 1 2 3, a violation. Please self revert and engage on talk if you wish. I've noticed that your participation at that article has been somewhat erratic and flippant recently. Please slow down and reflect. Thansk.@Awilley and MelanieN:. SPECIFICO talk 21:41, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted. I felt that inserting the word "threat" dealt with your concern.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Foreign relations of North Korea into Korean conflict. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you wouldn't mind, please go to the talk page after rereading the sources and tell us which part of the article text you think fails verification. Of course there are many many sources that verify the text, so as an alternative you could consider upgrading the citations. Thanks. @Geogene: SPECIFICO talk 22:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack Upland!, I was wondering can you go back and edit Ri Sol-ju and Please Semi-Protect First Lady of North Korea. I've been having issues with a person with constant disruptive editing, vandalism and false info.

Thank you!

I can't see any evidence of vandalism etc, and I don't have the power to semi-protect a page. Please make any comments on the Talk page of that article.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted this with the reason "Pro Assange text" and "Not proper English". I shouldn't have to tell you this, but these aren't reasons for removing content. You seem to be heavily invested and involved with Assange articles. If by any chance, you find through introspection that you have a biased fixation, maybe move to some other topics. - hako9 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hano9, that wasn't a good edit summary, and I have discussed the issue on the Talk page there.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, I spelt the name wrong! OOPS!--Jack Upland (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Stephen Pile requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 03:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a mistake? You made a page with just ;, I assume you forgot something. Oh well, CSD'd. Do it again when you can. 👍 WhoAteMyButter (📨_talk│📝^contribs) 03:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Etymology of elves, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify. I understand & support what you're recommending for the Donald Trump article. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying GoodDay...! Irony is a two-edged sword...--Jack Upland (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Assessments of Julian Assange. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Julian Assange. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Julian Assange. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cambial — foliar❧ 09:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cambial - don't you have a conflict of interest???--Jack Upland (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? What are you talking about? Baseless accusations of bad faith are not cool, Jack, on your talk or elsewhere. I have no connection to Assange, and you have no basis on which to make such an accusation. I will appreciate you explicitly withdrawing it. Cambial — foliar❧ 11:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't retract what I didn't say, Cambial .--Jack Upland (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest reading the WP:COI page. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assange spilled the beans on the corruption of powerful people. Doubt he'll ever see freedom, again :( GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think Wikipedia is not exactly neutral regarding USA presidents - and about a lot of other topics even remotely related to them. I was thinking about opening a RfC on this topic: liberal bias of Wikipedia. I am not trying to prove that I am right, I think the conclusion of the Wikipedia consensus about this topic is much more interesting and important than my own view. Maybe you might be interested to participate in such a debate? Maybe you know other editors who might think Wikipedia is biased? There is/was conversations about the topic already at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The bias of the liberal media - Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Independent journalists -- Barecode (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the RfC about the redacted cables at Assange. I don't understand your comment

Are you saying I should provide a plethora of sources to support the relevance of something I don't think should be included? But what the hell was going on with the rattlesnakes?

You don't say what it is that you think should not be included and I don't see where I was expecting you to put in sources. I never mentioned snakes and can't be expected to say anything about them. If you could make what you said a bit clearer I woud appreciate it thanks. NadVolum (talk) 10:11, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australia

Can I ask you anything? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at the article. Jack Upland (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

jack, my edit summary was facetious. Of course its not a court here, but we cannot say what was demonstrated in wikivoice. Your reinsertion violated Consenus is Required, so please self-revert. SPECIFICO talk 09:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text seems OK so I won't revert it.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its under Discretionary Sanction page restriction Consensus Required, so even though you disagree, you need to selfz revert and use the article talk page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thank you for helping shortening down the lead on the Soviet Union page, would you be interested in writing a lead for History of China–United States relations? It's been laying empty for over a year. Aaron106 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very good at leads.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean expanding leads. Trim I can do.--Jack Upland (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove your off-topic attempt at humor from the Reagan talk thread. See the reaction to it on that page. SPECIFICO talk 13:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, thanks.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the clowning and you will find your "contributions" completely disregarded by other editors. SPECIFICO talk 13:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, pilgrim.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there is no edict of Wikipedia against the use of humour. My response was valid and relatively brief.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leonardo Puglisi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Victoria.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam Dismissal, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged CIA involvement in the Whitlam Dismissal until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Land of Oz (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, what!!!--Jack Upland (talk) 06:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Compusolus. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Paul Hogan seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Compusolus (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Canterbury Tail talk 12:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What for???--Jack Upland (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Take, your, pick. And your constant use of talk pages as irrelevant forum pages and continual disruption on talk pages. Canterbury Tail talk 14:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about Danny McGee. I got overexcited. I don't quite remember writing that. Bear in mind its nighttime in Oz.--Jack Upland (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are responsible for all edits on your account. If you're making disruptive edits you don't remember then maybe you shouldn't be on Wikipedia late at night. Canterbury Tail talk 14:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And yet you went ahead and continued your disruption. Use talk pages like this once more and you'll be blocked for your disruption. Canterbury Tail talk 15:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will attempt to leave the Julian Assange article behind, but first I will bequeath my literary masterpiece to Burrobert, who suggested previously that it belongs really in the Reception of WikiLeaks article. I agree now. It needs to be cut down, but really it is relevant that Aussie Assange is a 'hero' in his homeland and that the government is now pressing for his release. I agree with Slatersteven that this is irrelevant from the US viewpoint, but give us Aussies a break. Don't kill the dinosaurs!--Jack Upland (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my defence, I would also like to say that this is all about Julian Assange. I have been a gnome, diligently working to improve Australian wikipedia and rarely using my sandbox. But there are now so many eyes on Assange, and Assange is so controversial in the USA etc, that I've been caught. Last time there was displinary action the "pro-Assange" crowd got rid of the sock, they tried to get rid of Specifico, and they tried to get rid of me. I believe they are sincere, but as Comrade Burrobert said, they believe that Assange is the Son of God. I beg to differ, but I am committed to Operation Samsonite, which means if you can't beat them join them, and if you can't join them leave. I was the one who initiated the RfC on whether JA was a journalism, and I think that was positive. It took a lot of heat out of the endless debates. But if the 'wikicops' think I'm disruptive I will leave. And I trust I will never become a sock.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:59, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've never mentioned Julian Assange. Canterbury Tail talk 16:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not you. It's they.--Jack Upland (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be at all sorry to see SPECIFICO go but I've no particular feelings about you. I believe I reported you once when you seemed to be involved in disruption by starting to talk about snakes in Australia in an RfC unrelated to anything like that. As to Assange I most certainly don't think he is particularly admirable but when I came along there seemed to be an active campaign to strongly slant the article against him using disruptive tactics - and that is definitely against Wikipedia policy. As it is at the moment if there is a bit of disruption it is because different people have different ideas about developmen. There is definitely some POV but I don't think it is an undue amount for a divisive article like that and I don't think anyone is actively trying to use disruptive tactics. NadVolum (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. It is a very divisive topic. And I think there is a problem with people censoring information because it doesn't fit their side of the debate.Jack Upland (talk) 01:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, NadVolum rattlesnakes are not Australian snakes.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I don't remember mentioning rattlesnakes but yes that would be silly of me. NadVolum (talk) 00:25, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In which it says: "scholars universally agree that the cause of the famine was man-made". (my emphasis) It also says that current estimates of deaths are 3.5-5 million. Forced collectivisation with elements of red terror: peasants refusing to comply were shot or had all their food reserves stolen from them. Those revolutionaries *were* bloodthirsty. It’s of little surprise if you think about it that when the Blitzkrieg rolled in, so many Ukrainians welcomed them at first as liberators. After all, that happened only 8 years later. All the very best to you. Boscaswell talk 08:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true. However, isn't all famine man-made? Weren't the famines that occurred under the Tsars man-made?--Jack Upland (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I'd flag the fact that my Internet connection is intermittent - and my computer is playing up - particularly with special characters... So I might take a while to respond to any comments on this page, and I might not be able to refer to the article in question and make the thoughtful response I would like. Jack Upland (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for nothing undoing the edits that a living legend made to improve the Jonathan Swift (judge) article. 🙄 Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You must be joking. The material Jack removed was an egregious example of POV editing. -- Elphion (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jack Upland. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Assange and Australia, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Immigration to North Korea has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 10 § Immigration to North Korea until a consensus is reached. ==

Apokrif (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. You reverted my removal of an advertisement from this article with the comment "It's a notable pop cultural mention of the bear". Unfortunately, the only "reference" is just a link to the ad itself on YouTube, which of course is not a reliable source (perhaps an amusing watch, but not RS). I think this would need some sort of third-party source discussing the ad to support a claim that it is notable, otherwise it's just another thing that we can merely verify exists. The Terry Pratchett and band items similarly lack anything establishing notability. Admittedly, Wikipedia is full of non-notable trivia and I'm not going to lose sleep over it. But the advertisement bit strikes me as especially egregious as non-notable trivia given its length. Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jack Upland Actually I want you to create an article page about a Ramkripalyadavg , can you please do that Golhdd58 (talk) 12:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to decline as I know nothing about the subject. I don't know why you're asking me.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Luddite#Requested_move_12_August_2024

— Jruderman (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jack, When I was checking my notifications just now I had 13 notifications for the RFC. Your comments were 7 out of those 13 comments. Please be mindful not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion. Regards, TarnishedPath^talk 04:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I perhaps was overdoing it. Jack Upland (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I think we should thrash out the issues as fully as we can. This debate has been going on since before 2019. In any case, some of my comments were deleted by me, and they don't really count.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]