User talk:Vufors

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

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: Importance

Statistics
.

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, 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 (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * 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  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 &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 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 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 removed as it list an entry into UFOIC: UFO Research New South Wales Stole my name.
 * 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

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:
 * Image use policy
 * 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 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)

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).

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)


 * Hello User:Enric Naval, Thanks for the comments []. I was aware of the wiki conditions, my problems was that User:Kwamikagami was being specific with just one postulate when there is approximately 12 listed in the “Popular UFO hypotheses” section. By focusing on just one  User:Kwamikagamiwas is slanting the alien postulate, thus to his end slanting the page to the alien view thus its an anti POV. Best regards Vufors (talk) 03:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Use of Template:PD-Australia
I've removed the "PD-Australia" from a number of publications apparently uploaded by you and tagged as "public domain". They're all dated from 1966, they're neither artistic works nor "published editions", and are for the most part produced by identifiable sources. As such they're in copyright. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A response to your post to the Help desk
I am writing in response to your recent post on the Help desk. While Teratornis‎ is right that you need to learn the rules, there are some things about the way Wikipedia works that I think I can explain here.

If you have an idea for improving an article, Wikipedia encourages you to “be bold” in making it. But that doesn’t mean you have a right not to be reverted. (Do I perceive correctly that you believe otherwise?) If someone disagrees with your change, they have as much right to change or revert it as you have to make it in the first place. And if you do get reverted, it’s not a good idea to boldly reassert your change. Reasserting your change doesn’t improve things; it just makes you appear stubborn. And if you are outnumbered (as you are on the UFO article) you will lose a revert war.

So instead of reasserting, talk to the other person/people, and find out why they object to your change. When you find out what their reason is, you will be able to explain the reason for your change more clearly, and you will be more able to propose a mutually acceptable compromise. Assume good faith is not merely an official Wikipedia guideline; it actually works: When I have a content dispute with other people, I find they invariably have a reason for their position. Learning that reason helps me get what I really want.

And when you talk to them, most importantly do not attack them or complain. Talk about content not people. If you attack, you will likely make them defensive and uncommunicative. What’s more you will not be presenting your content ideas effectively. If you are upset, give yourself time to cool off. No personal attacks is not merely an official Wikipedia policy; it actually works. —teb728 t c 09:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - See Vufors (talk) 03:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:1966 - Landing Area.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:1966 - Landing Area.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now fixed. Vufors (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:1966 - Westall High School Staff.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:1966 - Westall High School Staff.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 09:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now fixed. Vufors (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:1966 The Clayton Calendar.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:1966 The Clayton Calendar.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, now fixed. Vufors (talk) 11:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

39th Battalion (Australia)
You created the "39th Battalion" entry in Wikipedia. I did not know about the Kokoda Track campaign before this; it is an excellent article. I ran across it when creating disambiguation pages for WP:MILHIST project. I moved this article to "39th Battalion (Australia)" because there are units from other countries which share this generic nomenclature. Also, this new format standardizes it with the other Australian battalions (see Category:Australian World War I battalions). I have worked out many of the redundant Wikilinks. If anyone "owns" this article you do, and I wanted to advise you of the change and solicit your feedback if you do not agree. Pen of bushido (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Vufors (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Kokoda Track campaign
I've just reverted all your recent changes to this article as they mainly involved changing 'track' to 'trail' without prior discussion (including an instance of changing a reference to the Macquarie Dictionary to mean the opposite to what the dictionary states). Given that this is a substantial change on a somewhat controversial issue, could you please discuss your rationale for making these changes on the article's talk page? Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed Vufors (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just reverted your changes to the article. Could you please wait for discussion of these changes on the talk page before just re-doing them? Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that I've posted notifications of the discussion at Australian Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia newsletter,December 2008
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) 07:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:1966 The Clayton Calendar.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:1966 The Clayton Calendar.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed Vufors (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Dandenong Journal - 1966 21th Apr - page 1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:The Dandenong Journal - 1966 21th Apr - page 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.


 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.


 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.


 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.


 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin Delete
Could use some help on Arthur Rubin delete request. Euro-Voice (talk) 14:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, just letting you know that the above canvassing single purpose attack account is been confirmed as a sockpuppet of another single purpose attack account. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

July WMAU Melbourne Meetup
Hi, At last month's June meetup we discussed the idea of setting up a Training Course at a University of the Third Age (U3A) to be held in 2013 and named Becoming a Wikipedia editor. In order to get this course up and running we are calling for volunteers to help develop the idea, and either tutor part of the course, or provide one on one help to students in the class. All local Wikipedians are welcome to discuss this at our 11am meetup to be held this Sunday on 22 July. Please add your name to the attending list at Meetup/Melbourne 23. Food and beverages are provided. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Argus - 1947July7.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Argus - 1947July7.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• the newspaper was published before 1955, AND • every author (other than a photographer) whose identity can be ascertained died before 1955. Vufors (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Its fall within the http://www.nla.gov.au/how-long-does-copyright-last see http://www.copyright.org.au/admin/cms-acc1/_images/16227869304f39aff399393.pdf Page 8 "Copyright in a newspaper has expired if:
 * It is now free classed under this http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/title/13 "Electronic reproduction. Canberra, A.C.T. : National Library of Australia, 2008-2012. (Digitised newspapers and more). Sept. 15, 1848)-Jan. 19, 1957. Mode of access: World Wide Web."
 * And this http://guides.slv.vic.gov.au/content.php?pid=50118&sid=368103

RfC:Infobox Road proposal
WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to. 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) 22:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Darylgolden ( talk ) 04:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion
Hello, Vufors. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:PRA1953.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:PRA1953.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion
As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

Orphaned non-free image File:AFSB1955.JPG
 Thanks for uploading File:AFSB1955.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)