User talk:Vufors

User boxes

This user comes from Australia.

This user uses Commonwealth spelling.

LE-1This user's been known to screw up the occasional sentence and make the occasional typo, but is otherwise pretty accurate with regards to English.

This user assumes good faith.

This user tries to do the right thing. If they make a mistake please let them know.

This user reverts vandalism on sight.

This user is a member of WikiProject Paranormal, which is dedicated to improving articles on paranormal subjects.

,

.

Common Criteria For Limits

Too keep the page within a workable state, reflect only historical events, groups and people, the cut off should be equal to the current Australian Government Copyright (Template:PD-Australia) - expired rules of 25 years. This will remove and or stop the large amount of current events from swamping the page.

Current limit is 1981

Public domain	This image was created in Australia and is now in the public domain because its term of copyright has expired. According to the Australian Copyright Council (ACC), ACC Information Sheet G23 (Duration of copyright) (Sep 2005), generally copyright has expired as follows:	Australia
Type of material Copyright has expired if ...  A  Photographs or other works published anonymously, under a pseudonym or the creator is unknown: taken or published prior to 1955-01-01  B  Photographs (except A}: taken prior to 1955-01-01  C  Artistic works (except A & B): the creator died before 1955-01-01  D  Published editions1 (except A & B): first published more than 25 years ago  E  Commonwealth or State government owned2 photographs: first published more than 50 years ago
1means the typographical arrangement and layout of a published work. eg. newsprint. 2owned means where a government is the copyright owner as well as would have owned copyright but reached some other agreement with the creator.

Notable Criteria

Some Wikipedians hold that articles need to be of sufficient importance to be included in Wikipedia.

An article is "Important or Notable" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

1. There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community).
2. It is an expansion (longer than a stub) upon an established subject.
3. Discussion on the article's talk page establishes its importance.

See: Wikipedia:Importance

Statistics

Date	Citations	Images	Books	Sources
2006 Jan 23	22	1	12	8
2006 Feb 10	73	3	30	10
2006 Feb 14	75	4	30	10

.

Headline text

Hello. You should probably be aware that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit. Please do not feel like you have to stay in your userspace - in fact, you probably shouldn't use Wikipedia just to edit your userspace. Have a look at any of our main articles - perhaps you could add something to UFO? Or some other article?

Also, your image uploads lack copyright information - can you please be sure to provide this so that they are not deleted?

Thanks. Phil Sandifer 17:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:AFSB1955.JPG

Can you provide some sort of explanation for why you tagged this as copyright free use and as self-created public domain? The latter tag only can apply if YOU created the MAGAZINE (not the scan). The former can only apply if the MAGAZINE PUBLISHER has specifically said they have licensed it for free use. Do either of these situations apply? --Fastfission 18:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

ACTION: See the current copyright tags.. they have been updated.

In this case it comes under Australian copyright Act and or the 25 or 50 year rule.

[1]. For published editions of works the duration is only 25 years from the end of the year of that publication.

REF: COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/

Also Ref: National Library of Australia Canberra, ACT 2600 AUSTRALIA http://www.nla.gov.au/copiesdirect/help/copyright.html

Vufors 07:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello Vufors, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:

• Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
• Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Create a User page
• Be bold
• Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax ^τεχ 15:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

For The Record

I have been adding historical on the record Government statements etc (from the National Archives of Australia) into the body to show the subjects historical significance and or cultural penetration.

re. Wik. article Physical information

Dear Vufors, I appreciate your words of support for 'Extreme physical information' made in July, and wonder if you saw my recent note below, of Sept. 26, 2006. Someone added a lot of invalid, defamatory material to the Physical information article. This material claims that the information approach is wrong. Worse yet, that person is erasing all explanatory material I subsequently add in response to these invalid claims. Is this not unethical behavior? The explanatory material is all from a very valid source - a book published by Cambridge Univ. Press, and based upon 20 years worth of publication in refereed articles in well-known journals such as Physical Review and Journal of Theoretical Biology. Is Wik condemning me to engage in a never-ending cycle of insert, erase, insert,... What can be done? Any help you can provide would be much appreciated.Friedenr 23:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)Roy Frieden

Interesting

A very good read. I see what your trying to do, this is more a history of the groups and the administration geno line. Bringing together 60 years is no easy work. As you fill in the missing spots with details I would think (?) some 'very very very good' case examples would also help the page.

The Plan

Yes the task was bigger than I was expecting it too be. But as noted the general idea is to work this page up with better data, links and references over time. If you have seen the 'million and one' Wikipedia rules and the host of so called experts that like to input, you soon realise that the correct/right way is not as easy as it looks. - Vufors 07:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Oz Ufology debate

Hi Vufors - I am happy to accept what you are trying to do on Australian Ufology. I don't claim to be one of the experts that you are referring to above and perhaps this is just a comment born out of frustration. Yes there are a lot of rules - but they are there to assist readers and editors. I have suggested on the delete/keep page that you put in an opening paragraph. I note that the Wikipedia:Guide to Layout suggests that Normally, the first paragraph clearly explains the subject so that the reader is prepared for the greater level of detail to follow and most articles do this. With respect, in the case of your article, I think an opening paragraph on such a controversial topic would start readers on the right track and cease some of the debate. Keep up the good work on your continued editing and linking! VirtualSteve 11:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Hi VirtualSteve,

Thank you for that... Yes, I have a few drafts for that intro… I am wrestling with trying to keep out “my waffle” ;).

I first try and get the:

- Minimal idea/detail in place, no padding then

- Reference it and then

- Refine it

But yes I think I have a good idea on how to open the page. I hope…

Some of the very early documents have official Government homes, but it’s very hard to link a reference out to them so that the reader can cite the original… I am trying some new ideas to get quality reference into the text, but it’s not that easy.

Mind you the large entry on Ufology is where I hope readers will go, for wider explanations; I am trying to keep it in Australia.

Please, jump in when you can. :) Vufors 11:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Can You Help?

Dear Vufors... I have started a new entry to Wiki called the Australian Disclosure Project, I have material for recent time but lack any info or knowledge for past records or events. My request or invitation is this, Sir, would you assist me and have a look, and consider closing the early parts for me. I would appreciate your assistance on this project. Auforn4u 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• I hope you don't mind but I have also added a link to your entry Australian Ufology. Thank you. Auforn4u 14:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the invitation. I am at present in a log jam with other projects at Wiki, however, I will take a look and see what I can do for you. Vufors 05:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

.

Reason For Removal

Bill Chalker

His clame to UFOIC

KEYWORD Criteria - Wiki Notable ---> Must be Prominent.

The reason why this entry [1] removed as it list an entry into UFOIC:

• No record of any Head administration office (Founder, Chair, Director) with UFOIC.
• I used the reference - Boyd, Robert D., International Who's Who In Ufology - Directory, Southern Press, 1988, ISBN 0-9620197-3-9, p62-63 - No entry for UFOIC under this name.Vufors 07:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
• I used the reference - Moravec. Mark, The UFO Phenomenon in Australia, Fortean Studies Vol 6, Edited Steve Moore, 1999, ISBN 1-902212-207, p155 - listed only as a "co-ordinator" Vague non-specific. Vufors 03:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• I used the reference - Basterfield, Keith, UFOs: Close Encounters of an Australian Kind, Read Books, Melbourne, 1981, pp111, ISBN 0-589-50285-9, p76 - No UFOIC listed. Bill Chalker is listed as Investigator for UFOR NSW.Vufors 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• I used the reference - Seers, Stan, UFOs: The Case for Scientific Myopia, Vantage Press, 1983, pp224, ISBN 533-05271-8, p220 - No listing for UFOIC. Vufors 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• See http://ufoic.blogspot.com/2006/02/ufo-research-new-south-wales-stole-my.html

UFO Research New South Wales Stole my name.

Dec 8 1991

"I have been associated with UFO Research (NSW) since 1977

when I helped form it from the UFO Investigation Centre (UFOIC)."

&

"As of November, 1991, my UFO Research (NSW) group (formerly known as UFOIC),

will be known as the UFO Investigation Centre (UFOIC), the ORIGINAL UFO RESEARCH (NSW)."

Article assessment

No problems. I don't have any problem with the article, but I have been combatting a few editors adding a high rating to their article when it hasn't been recognised as such by the community at large. I'm working on making the assessment process clearer as time goes on, so if you have any ideas feel free to let me know where I can make things clearer. Thanks for your understanding, and I hope to see your work progress to Good article standard or beyond shortly. -- Longhair 07:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Colour Patches - 39BN.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Colour Patches - 39BN.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Fixed, I think - Thanks for the Heads Up. - Vufors 15:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

From B.R. Frieden, Sept. 26, 2006

Thank you, Vufors (a pseudonym I presume), for your supportive comments. By the way, I am in the 'Dictionary of UFOs', edited by Ron Story; used to do image interpretation on alleged UFO photos for APRO (Aerial Phenomenon Research Organization), based here in Tucson. If you knew Richard Greenwell, formerly very active in APRO but recently departed, he was a close friend.

• • Hello Roy - Yes Vufors a pseudonym, the net is murder when you deal with the subjects I like to look at, so I flow low and quitly. APRO… what a small world, and No I didn’t realise you were in Ron Story book. In fact I had a bit too do with APRO and with James E. McDonald http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_E._McDonald. Vufors 05:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know who deleted my changes made yesterday to the item titled "Physical Information", under the subtitle "Extreme Physical Information"? I added in detailed responses to the criticisms that were levelled. Eliminating them was truly underhanded. I request that they be put back, of course.

• • Yes Roy I have just got back on the subject, have been away for some time. I have noted the constant removals, but I will try and fix the problems, as I see them. By the way, just drop me a line (like below) if you wand a hand, I will be happy to help. The Wiki system does work, but one has too deal with a host of characters who think they know better. Your wonderful subject is very important too me and it will prevail. Vufors 05:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

For the record, here is the subject matter that was so erased:

Frieden claims in his book that "EPI is a general approach to physics". However, his work has been criticized on such ground as these [rebuttals to each follow parenthetically; cited page numbers are in the "Science from Fisher Information" book cited below]: 1. Frieden's alleged method for obtaining Lagrangians appears not to be well-defined. [It is defined generally on p. 3 and pgs. 86-88.] If so, one might suspect that this "method" is in fact merely a tool for constructing ad hoc "hand-waving" derivation of known results. [(i) The derivations are rigorous. (ii) Of course any proposed new approach to physics must first be verified on known effects. (iii) New effects are predicted -- Just a few are: The "I-theorem" Eq. (1.30); that thermal physics should follow from Fisher with minimal need for Boltzmann entropy (p. 47); a new, Fisher temperature (p. 45) and Fisher time (p. 44); physical law as a reaction to measurement (pgs. 89-90; quasi-incompressible turbulence theory (pgs. 301-308); economic fluctuation laws (pgs. 348-352); cancer growth law (pgs.399-410) ]. 1. The desired extremum of I − J may not always exist. [True, but it has existed in all problems tried so far.] 2. Frieden appears to be trying to follow the model of Edwin Jaynes, who applied Shannon's notion of information to physics in 1957 (following an even earlier observation of John von Neumann), which led to the principle of maximum entropy. [It is rather a combination of Jaynes' variational approach and Wheeler's idea of a 'participatory universe' - that measurement begets effect, J --> I] However, while Shannon's entropy has a clear non-parametric rationale, the "information" interpretation of Fisher information is less clear, particularly in the context of Fisher's claims, and apparently limits Frieden to one-parameter models. [(i) Fisher's information clearly arises out of seeking the limiting accuracy in estimating a parameter (pgs. 29,30). (ii) The information is extended to use on multiple-parameter problems, via Stam's information (pgs, 61,62)] 1. Shannon's entropies obey several extremely useful identities which not only justify the interpretation of Shannon "information" but play a crucial role in the success of classical information theory. Fisher information does not obey these identities [Of course it obeys its own system of identities, including additivity (pgs. (50)-(52)), and relation to entropy(!) pgs. (37),(38)], which may render a theory based upon Fisher information less powerful than one based on Shannon information. [The scope of physical, and other scientific, effects derived by EPI in the open literature appears to far surpass that by the use of maximum entropy.] [General comment: The above criticisms were easily rebutted citing specific pages of the book. This suggests that its writers read the book a bit more closely.] Cordially, Roy Frieden

• • Thanks Roy, will follow that up. Regards Vufors 05:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Invitation

You're cordially invited to join Wikiproject Paranormal, a collaboration of users dedicated to creating, expanding, updating, improving and standarizing Wikipedia articles related to reported anomalous and paranormal phenomena: collaboration with the Victorian UFO Society would be extremely welcome. --Chr.K. 16:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Red: 39 BN

Yeah, well I just tweaked the style and layout of an article that you did all the groundwork for. I'm proud to have helped, 39th Battalion is a good entry. Delta Tango • Talk 07:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 30 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Phenomena Research Australia, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 20:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter

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 22:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC).

WikiProject Australia newsletter

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 22:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC).

hi

hi vufors. i've seen you on the ufo article and discussion. may it be possible to bring some more neutrality to this article? we anon users can't edit it and are afraid that we will also get attacked and ridiculed if we participate and create a account. i know it's may be a very hard task with all these debunkers and pov people, but maybe it's still possible for some of you to REALLY IMPROVE the article, rather than to let people delete and censor. thx in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.84.19.26 (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for kind comments, yes the whole place seems to be in a POV pushers fram of mind these days. Not very helpful or wiki at all. But I think I may add my bit into page and wiki it up. Best Reagrds. Vufors (talk) 15:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

duplication on the lead of article

See WP:LEAD style guideline on the lead section. Since it's a summary of points already explained on the article, it will have some duplication of points that are on the body of the article.

Concretely, see the providing an overview section "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" --Enric Naval (talk) 16:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)