Talk:AUFORN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the AUFORN article.

Contents

[edit] Editing AUFORN

Hi all,

until we sort out the difficulties with vufors concerning the Australian Ufology article please feel free to edit the current AUFORN article's Disclosure: An Australian Perspective which will eventually go into a section of Australian Ufology where it belongs. The AUFORN page could then become a short history of the network and its relation to other groups if anyone wants to contribute to that. Also feel free to jump in here to change these proposals, this is Wikipedia and none of us are admins as far as I know, least of all me. Remember Wikipedia guidelines regarding the neutral point of view and journalistic style, there's editing help, and don't react to any 'troll baiting' by other contributors and things should work out fine. -Zeug 20:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Name of this page?

I have just noticed that this Australian UFO Disclosure page (Now Article:AUFORN) whould be called just that Australian UFO Disclosure - AUFORN does not fit the idea? Because its about Australian Disclosure... I think it need to be changed. Right? Auforn4u 06:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, that's correct vufors/auforn4u/ 202.83.73.188. As explained in the editing section below this will be a short history of AUFORN and the Australian disclosure article will need to be moved to Australian Ufology at some point. It's all here at the moment because of the difficulties some of the users here had when they added content to the Australian Ufology article that you seem to mistakenly believe somehow belongs to you, which of course it doesn't as this is Wikipedia after all.
I'd prefer to leave it as is for the moment until the new Wikipedia users here become acquainted with the structure. --Zeug 06:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Why? Please explain Auforn4u 08:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So the new Wikipedians here can edit the article through one link? Once they're acquainted with the way everything works here we can move it but I'd like to give it a few days yet. And please don't edit out my comments to you pointing out thatyou are using several aliases here vufors/auforn4u/ 202.83.73.188. --Zeug 08:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Personel attack - pure speculation. Auforn4u 10:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • One would get the impression that you own this page? Auforn4u 10:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • As I have said the AUFORN article header is grossley wrong. It sould reflect the "Australian Disclosure" idea. Auforn4u 10:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Please stop editing my comments, it's not a personal attack but a common Wikipedia problem concerning eidtors registering multiple usernames, you haven't actually denied it so far either. Is that because you're uncomfortable having added the anonymous 'keep' vote to the Australian Ufology vote? Cheers mate, Zeug 11:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user vufors ipblock

As per Australian Ufology

You have repeatedly been warned to stop vandalising articles on Wikipedia when you came here using other IPs. You have returned and continued that vandalism. You have now been blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you make further attempts to vandalise articles when the block expires, you may be subject to a longer block. All vandalising edits you make will be quickly reverted.

Vufors 01:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

could the contributors here please stop spamming me with these IPBlock notices and accusations of spamming. This area is where we negotiate edits of the public wiki page for AUFORN which should also have a link from Australian Ufology, a link which was deleted without any negotiation whatsoever. Please follow the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines for all content on this article and its talk page. All further abuses will be reported.

--Zeug 12:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi D

The "Australian Ufology" document on the Wikipedia site appears to be an effort at creating a version of history. Much of it is correct, and much of it replicates the information that has emerged through the recent Disclosure project.

However as you point out there are many omissions, so much so that it is difficult to argue that it is an accurate history, rather a skewed history that seems to spend a lot of space offering a history that approximates what we know but with some aspects few of us are familar with, in particular the alleged history of --- to what is now known as ---.

If we go to the sources section to confirm the documentation for the claimed history it becomes clear that that particular aspect must be described in the 2 documents few of us have seen, let alone have access to - namely --- 34 page 1985 --- document "The Roots of Australian Ufology" and the 6 page -- document "The Early Years: From Saucers to UFOs". As -- left --- years ago it seems doubtful, on past performances, that he is likely to share this material. It would be extremely useful if he would, as they might shed light on some of these early aspects of Australian Ufology. Without this primary source material (including the "non-government meeting minutes" of 1949 that apparently led to the formation of ---) we are just left to the declarations within this anonymous Wikipedia document.

I say "anonymous" document because I don't think the well known UFO group --- is the author of this document. A person with the user namer --- is the originator who seems to be highlighting --- connections. If --- is the author it would be surprising as some of the history claimed in the document conflicts with group history described on their own web site, which I found seems to accord with the history I am more familar with.

Given the document content, style and direction it seems remarkably reminiscent of the anonymous fragmented content and style that often appeared on the demented --- "Australasian Ufologist" blog site, which happily seems to have expired in July 2005, except for a brief gasp in late November 2005. Given the form of that blog appropriating yours & --- name, it seems underwhelmingly unsurprising to ponder the possibility that the --- might have been appropriated as well.

I've written to the --- committe as follows to try to clarify this matter, as follows:

Dear committee,

I am curious to know if the on-line document "Australian Ufology" which has recently appeared on the Wikipedia web site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Ufology and prepared by a user or account operator ---, is actually created by your group.

I am very interested in Australian UFO history and would be keen to know if the article is the efforts of your group or an individual identifying their self as "Vufors".

I note on the history of your group on your web site it identifies the Australian Flying Saucer Bureau (---) as Australia's first group, with your group beginning early in 1957.

Congratulations on your 50 year anniversary coming up next year.

The Wikipedia document identifies a group - the Aeronautical & Meteorological Phenomena Research (AMPR) - forming in 1949, that published a quarterly called "Interplanetary Saucer". Are you familiar with the group and the publication, and do you agree with the history it describes for the group?

The article indicates AMPR became the Aeronautics & Phenomena Research Victoria (APRV) in 1951, which in turn formed an auxiliary group (Australian Flying Saucer Investigating Committee - AFSIC). Further the article indicates APRV changes its structure and becomes Phenomena Research Victoria (PRV) in 1956, then Phenomena Research Australia (PRA) in 1961.

One of the sources to this article's history is indicated to be "The Roots of Australian Ufology" by ---, dated 1985 and indicated to be a 34 page --- document. Was this item published anywhere? Do you have a copy of the article and is it possible to get a copy? Also are you able to comments on its accuracy?

The opening paragraph of "The history of VUFORS" that appears on your web site was I thought a reasonably accurate reflection of the facts, as is the rest of the VUFORS history statement. Thus I would be grateful for your comments on the alternate history provided by the new Wikipedia article, which indicates the --- to --- history.

I thank you for your time,

Regards, ---

If the --- committe replies then perhaps we can clarify the authorship of the Wikipedia document.

In the meantime given the --- owner of the Wikipedia "Australian History" entry is censoring efforts to correct and edit this skewed and incomplete history it would be appropriate to highlight the questionable nature of the document and its attempt at whiting out a lot of history and contributions, seemingly in an effort to create a biased and sometimes flawed history.

With my book back in 1996 I try to provide a modest popular history. I would be the first to admit its incompleteness, but this was not due to intent, rather it was the result of trying to get a book through a commercial publishing process. Clearly it was just the "tip of the iceberg", however I did my best to provide a primer of sorts that was anchored in documentation, referencing and transparency. Clearly many additional sources have surfaced, but some seem rooted in a lack of transparency, and seem more focused on obscuring or manipulating history in an agenda or ego based way.

The Wikipedia site claims that it allows a kind of democratic and open editing process to produce accurate entries. The "Australian Ufology" entry and its manipulated and controlled editing, through censorship, via what seems to be an anonymous entity identifying itself as is a poor example of the Wikipedia objective. Itstead it seems to approximate the skewed and agenda based efforts that dominate anonymous blog sites.

Characterising your efforts at adding more content to address gaps and oversights etc, as "Vandal & Commercial spam" is absurd in the extreme. Instead the "Australian Ufology" Wikipedia effort seems more like the efforts of someone trying to put into place a limited version of history. While much of it replicates the history that has already been well documented openly by others, it is its ommissions, errors and distortions that should concern all who are interested in legitimate, documented and transparent history.

Regards,

---

  • Hi B,
as regards the Wikipedia philosophy this is indeed an open site and all comers are welcome to edit and revise the Australian Ufology article. The User:vufors member is treating it as their own website, redirecting the talk page to their user talk, is breaching the '3 reverts' rule, is refusing to enter into negotiations and attempting to intimidate users with fake banning and vandal alerts.
They are required to negotiate with editors who add or edit content, so if you are interested in taking part in the Wikipedia project then engage them fairly and reasonably on the talk page without resorting to ad hominem to give them a chance to change their obstructive behaviour. Also continue to add sections to the Australian Ufology article, every reversion is evidence of their obstruction. If this negotiation fails then we can take the problem to mediation. Check the Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution policy to see how Wikipedia works, keep everything civil and work towards open collaborative teamwork and the wider community will respect that.
--Zeug 14:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


  • I find this logic very strange... "civil" & "respect", and off Zeug go's and report me for doing what DH of our auforn wanted too be done???? And then you go and attack me with false accusations... respect???? Auforn4u 02:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't post other users personal details

  • Thank you Zeug for supporting the best ufo group in oZ

I have listed the names [of] the vufors gang [who] do not want us all to see [list].

I took them off the links also because the dont want us, so why should we let them put their link to our auforn page.

Also being a Doctor I think you should keep on their tails, how can they cut Diane off when she wants to put the real infomation to about Oz history.

I can not wait untill --- add his bit I will also help him.

Listen to the good Doctor.


  • I think you meant to say...

(info deleted see history) etc.

Auforn4u 08:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Disclosing personal info is generally frowned upon at Wikipedia so I've deleted the reference to the good doctor. It's also best not to resort to ad hominem with other contributors as the community at large values a professional style and conduct. As far as I know AUFORN is one of many excellent ufology groups in Australia which also of course includes VUFORS.
I've added the link back to the Australian Ufology article as there is no 'us' and 'them' with regards to editing content on Wikipedia. The previous content on this page belongs in that article as well with this page reserved for a short history of AUFORN. Also your edits adding personal contact lists and advertising books on Amazon are grossly inappropriate and could lead to you being banned by an admin. Please don't vandalise the information provided here.
--Zeug 14:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Hello M-- what should we do about the private info up about B-- and the others? I thought your information would add weight to our drive to get the AUFORN page up and going... ? I also thought it was ok by my reading... should we also clean that up and take out the provate bits...???

I have some great material about AUFORN to go up as soon as I finish it.

Auforn4u 14:33, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


  • Considering it was you who added the offending material I would prefer you not add anything else. You have also been reported and . If you persist in this ridiculous behaviour you might find yourself banned from contributing to Australian Ufology which would be rather unfortunate don't you think?

--Zeug 15:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


  • "would prefer you not add anything else" WHAT???? Auforn4u 06:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A reminder about some Wikipedia guidelines

This article is fairly far from the Wikipedia ideal at the moment, but I think this more a product of newness to Wikipedia than of maliciousness. No one is getting banned any time soon, but a reminder of standard Wikipedia practices might be helpful.

Firstly remember to present a straightforward and neutral account. Words like great, foremost, and enormous should be avoided, as they all express opinions, rather than concrete facts. What amounts to advertisements for certain books is also not acceptable. Also remember to refer to people by their last names rather than their first names, as this adds more academic distance. Any article should also make sure to present both sides of any issue.

Copying large chunks of text from other websites, such as Amazon or ufosociety.com, is also not permissible as these works are copyrighted and all Wikipedia content must be compatible with the GFDL. Providing phone numbers, e-mails, and addresses is also not standard practice on Wikipedia. Such information changes rapidly and is hard to keep up to date, and it also runs into privacy concerns. It is much better to simply add a link to a directory site. - SimonP 15:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

---

  • Thanks SimonP,

I do hope auforn4u's previous edits weren't malicious and they have been removed. The other content here is provided by researchers with many years experience and they are keen to add to the Wikipedia knowledge base.

--Zeug 15:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Zeug "provided by researchers with many years experience" Mmmmmmm.... so that rules out the rank & file members of auforn DOES IT???????????? Auforn4u 01:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • DianeH here: Aufor4u I have no idea who you are??, but if you have any history relating to Australian Ufology post it up.

And I agree with Zeug, test your information on Australian UFO history here first . But be prepared to have anything that is incorrect brought to your attention by AUFORN members.

  • Gee DianeH here:(202.94.83.36) Who can tell who you are????? Auforn4u 06:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CONFUSED

I thought we wanted all the pages put back that had been taken down?

I dont get you Zeug????

So the private names need to go also... OK if we need to work as a team...

Auforn4u 00:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • What you need to do is discuss changes here before deleting other's text and uploading personal details trawled from user links. And please don't delete my own remarks here on this talk page. As I said I think you are the user vufors on IP 202.83.73.188 and if so your use of usernames and aliases related to ufology organisations is confusing the matter. --Zeug 05:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ZEUG Reverting DH material?

DH told us (in her mail list) that she wanted this stuff up and listed it and I went over to the other group’s page to get DH lists that the other group had reverted…. I put it up, like DH wanted and you have reverted it??????????? And now your calling me names???? I thought you were on our side Mmmmmm I am NOW very suspicious… your not from the other group are you???? Don’t overstep you position we at auforn (as members) by the rules, can put info into this page without your approval, so called expert edits or reverts. Auforn4u 01:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • I have no position or authority either in AUFORN or here at Wikipedia and neither do you, I am group neutral. This page is open to editing by literally anyone with an internet connection and we can discuss the edits here. What do you think of the proposed structure so far? I agree it needs a lot of work in regards to the neutral point of view but it should make an interesting addition to your good work in Australian Ufology --Zeug 03:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Mmmmmm then what is with all the pushing????? Are you telling me your NEUTRAL???? You seem to have another agenda? I thought this was going to be a auforn page... leave the other do what they want to do... lets get on with life and make this a goos page... rather than YOUR constant need to fight?????? Auforn4u 05:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • DianeH here I informed M----- I would like to leave the link to Australian Ufology on the AUFORN Wikipage as BC--informed us, some of the information on this page is interesting, [however BC did point out the Australian Ufology history wiki page is flawed with mistakes].
  • The Pope Here? Gee what does that tell us???? Auforn4u 06:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some clarification

All DH tried to do was add omitted researchers, DH thought the Australian Ufology page was a real encyclopida for anyone to add and edit. DH wanted AUFORNs history added along with the Australian Disclosure Project. M-- has been kind and tried to re-enter the information which was deleted by V----- in doing so M---- has been called vandal.

It has since been brought to DH attention, the person using VUFORS name is doing so without permission of the real VUFORS = Victorian UFO Research Society, the real VUFORS is now looking into this matter.

  • It's Wikipedia policy for users to have non confusing usernames that don't misrepresent others. I agree that the User:vufors is confusing the issues here and have requested they consider changing their nickname and not redirect the Australian Ufology article's discussion to their 'Vufors' user talk page. If you'd like to add your name to that request you can go to their discussion. --Zeug 04:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Who cares?????? Get on with life!!!!! If your so smart then get this page up and going. Auforn4u 05:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm assisting the ufology researchers here interested in adding content to the Australian Ufology section of Wikipedia. I'm here to facilitate their access and deal with the negotiations. I'm pretty sure you are also the wiki user vufors on IP 202.83.73.188 and I think you're going about this the wrong way. No one wants to lock you out of the Australian Ufology article or drive you away. Wikipedia is not an adversarial space but collaborative, that's why it's grown so huge. --Zeug 06:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Your not assisting, your being dogmatic and a pest. Reporting and checking isp and so on... thats not assisting!!!!! Fix the auforn page for us or go away with your personal attacks!!!! I may even report you with all the evidence around the pages with your isp signature you seem to have a lot to do about nothing... get a life. Auforn4u 06:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course feel free to report any actions of mine you consider to be against Wikipedia guidelines and policies. You can help me be a better Wikipedian in the process. For the moment however I reckon you should chill and reconsider your options. Adversarial and proprietary approaches simply don't work in collaborative networks, you can't get your way that way. A friendly collaborative approach working towards truth and honesty actually does work because it's the way the network infrastructure was originally set up and how it has evolved. I love wikis :) --Zeug 06:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Interesting.... You might like to take your own advise. Stop being a sherif. Auforn4u 06:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Original Message from the VUFORS Organisation

From: VUFORS - To: BC Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:26 AM Subject: Re: VUFORS authorship of Wikipedia entry on Australian Ufology?

Hello BC

Thanks for your email. I have checked with the other committee members and none were aware of the Wikipedia entry that you have pointed out.

It has not originated from the committee of VUFORS.

I too, am perplexed by the mention of organisations that I have never heard of before. We will attempt to find the "Roots of Australian Ufology" article in our archives and let you know the result.

Regards, TC VUFORS Secretary

[edit] MORE CONFUSION

I thought you hated that group?????????????? Auforn4u 05:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Is Auforn4u also the wiki user vufors on IP 202.83.73.188? If so then you are yourself confusing. As far as I know no one here hates anyone and you should probably keep these off topic diatribes off Wikipedia. --Zeug 05:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What are you a sherif??????? Grow up and stop looking for trouble. Auforn4u 06:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • No one's a sherif here except the admins, sysops and bureaucrats and I'm none of those. This is also a discussion page for the AUFORN related article and your ad hominem isn't helping. Why not just chill out and get to know people instead of trying to stir the pot? By the way I think it's against Wikipedia policy for you to go around with multiple usernames so you might want to ditch one or both. Cheers, Zeug 06:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And your discussing what...? You did the reversals on what auforn wanted - NOT me, your the person doing all the checks - NOT me? Your the one with the conspiracy ideas (them & us)....? I put up what the other group too down and then you took it down???? Fix this page if your rather than all the attacks. Auforn4u 06:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you please stop editing my comments here? I'm not attacking you by asking you why you're using two different usernames associated with real organisations, I'm actually interested in an answer. You're not being very transparent and you are trying to hide your tracks which is pointless. --Zeug 08:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • This is pure speculation and has no place on this auforn page. Auforn4u 10:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree entirely of course, and this is at least the fourth time today you've tampered with my own comments, please stop. So anyways, I'll ask you again - Is Auforn4u also the wiki user vufors on IP 202.83.73.188? I think you are vufors and you have been deliberately trying to disrupt this discussion for the last couple of days after I wasn't put off by your banning threats. I also think you might have to change your usernames as both VUFORS and AUFORN are independent organisations and both of course have an interest in Australian Ufology. You can either assign a nickname or request to have vufors username changed to settle this matter.
As I've already tried to make very clear, no one wants to push you out of the way, you obviously have a keen interest in the subject matter, and your initial article has attracted the interest of a number of experienced researchers in the field who would like to contribute. We can all work together on this and you might be surprised what a difference collaboration can make. --Zeug 10:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] ATTACKS

Wikipedia:No personal attacks

From Wiki Page Above: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia."

AND

Ad hominem

From Wiki Page above: "An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument to the man") or attacking the messenger, is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself."

Please STOP!

Auforn4u 11:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse. Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded."

Please STOP!

Auforn4u 11:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Hi auforn4u, I understand perfectly the meaning of abusive personal attacks and ad hominem argument in an internet context. If you could please give me an example anywhere where I have personally abused you I will apologise. My references to your relation to vufors and IP 202.83.73.188 are not personal attacks but genuine requests for clarification of just who you are. It takes 4 mouseclicks then a google to identify me from my signature as you yourself know having pasted personal information about me here. Who are you? --Zeug 11:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NO Disclosure At This Place

I DO NOT like what you do and I DO NOT like what you are doing with this project. I have found your persistent attacks and malicious intentions rather disturbing and on observing your actions think that I may have been mislead in thinking that this page of yours was pro disclosure. The above record (see history page) should show any administrator or Wiki member that your have another agenda. The enemy looks much more decent than anything you stand for or profess to do for disclosure. You have the mentality of a conspiracy theorist and see things in places that do not exist. I now believe that you have a bias against the other groups, that is close to manic and I have, after consultation with Wiki admin, taken another path to disclosure. Good day to you sir.

Auforn4u 13:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/f/Talk%7EAUFORN_5a68.html"