Talk:Andrew MacLeod

Fair use rationale for Image:HOSM.jpg

Image:HOSM.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would think it is fair use to use an image of a public award medal in an article about a person who received that medal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.193 (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

It seems this page has been the victim of counterfeit as the so called 'close relation' actually seems to be a vandal.

all the changes by this 'close relative' seem to be abusive.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpmcewen (talk • contribs) 11:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Considerable Misleading and Inaccurate Information

This article appears to be plagued with misleading or wholly inaccurate information. After beginning to edit the entry I am finding that considerable portions have no supporting basis or even worse are wholly misleading. Articles indicating to have been published in The Age, a Melbourne newspaper, instead were published on an open online forum. Published book was in actual fact a self-published novelette. I don't want to delete all of the unsubstantiated work but I'd appreciate it if someone who is associated with this page clean up the misleading or unsubstantiated sections. --Ddragovic (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Ddragovic, I googled all of the articles in the Age and they are ALL there..... Which ones do you say are false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.193 (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned, if you Googled them then please show me where this article appears, "A Challenging Time for Labor Too". This was on the page as having being published in "The Melbourne Age". This was the one which I refer to as not being published in The Age, which is NOT The Melbourne Age. The article actually appeared on an open online sourced site. Please correct me if I am wrong but I also checked on the The Age's archive and it doesn't show up. --Ddragovic (talk) 11:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The several pieces repeatedly offered as "publications" exist but are in fact biographically and encyclopedically insignificant without some indication of importance through an unrelated third party. This is especially true of the partial contribution and op-ed pieces. This is not a WP:RESUME, and primary sources are not acceptable to show anything meaningful about the publications. This person does not appear to be an WP:AUTHOR or WP:ACADEMIC, so there's no real context for the list of publications. So not only is it insignificant, it's WP:UNDUE as well. Let's keep them out, please, unless third parties have given treatment or there is some clear indication of significance. JFHJr (㊟) 14:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Another very misleading point that I didn't pick up on before. The reference as written by the author of this article and repeatedly re-entered by IP editors is to Mr. MacLeod being founding chairman of the United Nations Global Compact Principles for Social Investment. This would suggest, as I believed, that it was a body of the United Nations, just as the United Nations Office of Project Services or the United Nations Industrial Development Organization. But in looking through the website it is actually a collaboration with the United Nations Global Compact. In other words its a locally established operation that has an Memorandum of Understanding with the UNGC to undertake certain tasks. Even on its own website on the main banner it says, "A collaboration with the United Nations Global Compact". To suggests that Mr. MacLeod was the Chairman of the United Nations Global Compact Principles for Social Investment is wholly misleading. I'm not going to change it on the page as it'll just be reverted by the interested party but this is just one more example of misleading information.--Ddragovic (talk) 08:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor commented below in the notability section that, "UNGC PSI and PSI are the same organisation." Despite both websites suggesting that they are clearly independent from each other I went to the UNGC website checking to see if PSI has a subsidiary status under UNGC by looking at the membership of the board which may suggest an overlap because at the moment I can't see any suggestion that there is one, but I'm trying. Not one member of the PSI board is on the UNGC board nor vice-versa, which goes along with what is clearly suggested on the PSI website which states that it is, "A collaboration with the United Nations Global Compact." The International Rescue Committee collaborates with the UNHCR, they have a memorandum of understanding that gives IRC the responsibility of meeting short term staffing needs of UNHCR. This does not give IRC the right to call itself UNIRC. They are NOT the same organization. We must be clear here not to allow people to borrow the legitimacy of international organizations for their own ends by playing with words and tying the two acronyms together. This is explained clearly (having read it now for the first time) in WP:SYNTH. --Ddragovic (talk) 15:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Following your comment, this info should be nuked from the article, it is outrageous to mislead people with this type of puffery claim, please make the changes necessary (as you see fit), or I will research it myself and do the same (imho there is a lot of vainglorious self-promotion that went on here and it needs to be definitively removed). CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If you all take a look Here which is the global compacts own site, you will see that the UN Global Compact created the Principles for Social Investment. More detail is deeper in the site showing the 'four principles' we endorsed at the Global Compact meeting in March 2010. Looking at the P4SI site Here you can clearly see the description of how the global compact created PSI. You may not be aware that it is common to have formal UN agencies that derive their mandate and legal personality from the Vienna Convention, and others such as this one that derive their legal personalities from the establishment as UN 'backed' organisation deriiving structure from local company or corporate law. A search od ASIC reveals that P4SI is a registered legal Australian not for profit corporation, but gets its operational mandate from the above referenced UN Global Compact site. My view therefore is neither of you are right. It is not accurate to call it a formal 'UN organisation, but nor is it accurate to say that it is not such. The most accurate form of words is to say, as it does on the P4SI site, that it is a"United Nations Global Compact Initiative". Googling MacLeod and "United Nations " brings up enough hits that I don't think this guy or his friends need to 'invent' any as seems to be your assertion. I think, respectfully, you guys should learn more about the very complicated structures of the United Nations, it's Agencies (like UNRWA), Funds (like UNICEF) Program's (like UNDP), Organisations (like WHO), and backed organisations (like PSI, PRI and others) before you unilaterally start condemning a guy. I don't know him, I dont know which bits are puffery or not , but just getting off his rear end and going to p,aces like Rwanda, Yugoslavia and Pakistan deserve a bit more of a pat on the back than your insinuations. Read th above information and amend as you see fit. Somehow I dont think you guys will. Perhaps you are too lost in your rules to see that this guy has actually done some good work.--192.148.117.97 (talk) 09:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of subsequent reviews by outsiders I'll rebut the relevant points here. You note WHO above so I'll run with that example. The World Health Organization may well be a United Nations body but it is not formally known, nor colloquially, as UNWHO. (See also example of WFP). Its registered name is World Health Organization and it is referred to as such in formal documentation. Similarly, it is not a subjective issue, that requires insider knowledge to decide whether PSI can be called UNPSI, it is a point of fact. You have noted yourself that it is registered as Principles for Social Investment, as such we must call it Principles for Social Investment and not add personal subjectivity into the process of deciding when one can use the UN name, that is for others to debate. When they allow PSI to use the UN within its name, and it changes its registration as such, then we'll change it here. You are right that others attempt to conflate the UN and PSI such as on Andrew MacLeod's LinkedIN profile and other bios that he has produced, but for the purposes of Wikipedia these are not credible sources. Whether the conflation of the two names as applied in these cases is considered acceptable on those sites is a point that his employers will have to decide, in particular whether it was misrepresentation, but for the purposes of an encyclopaedia it is only the facts that matter. I hope that this suffices in ending the debate on this matter. --Ddragovic (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Too many pictures?

Besides the general promotional tone, does anyone else think seven pictures is a bit excessive for an article of this length? Even if they are all freely licenced, Wikipedia is not meant as an image gallery (that's what Wikimedia Commons is for). We only really need one or two to show what he looks like, the rest can be removed. Robofish (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with caution. I'd actually removed some superfluous images in a recent edit. An WP:SPA appears to have produced them, though many are of good quality, and at least one, with the Australian PM, is most clearly worth transferring. Otherwise, images in question seem of decent quality, though I'd call into question the authorship/ownership of any and all. Given the editing practices in operation, I wouldn't doubt that at least a few have fudged licenses. JFHJr (㊟) 05:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

They do seem superfluous. I'm reluctant to delete what seems a lot of work put in by someone, but yes, wholly unnecessary relative to the apparent level of notability. --Ddragovic (talk) 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and notability

Several editors who volunteer at the BLP noticeboard have edited this article, removing substantial content largely because it violated guidelines on living persons' biographies. Editors at the noticeboard have also raised concerns regarding this subject's encyclopedic notability. This subject should meet general notability criteria, or alternative criteria at WP:ANYBIO, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:WRITER, or any other existing guidelines. The encyclopedic notability of a subject is best demonstrated through substantial coverage by independent third-party reliable sources. Below are some links that might lead to such sources in order to demonstrate this subject's notability:

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Happy editing! JFHJr (㊟) 05:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor has undone the BLP-related edit. Because sourcing is still problematic, I've reverted. Please see comments above and WP:BLP for contributors' concerns over content, and leave a note here or at WP:BLPN for discussion. JFHJr (㊟) 00:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly where Wikipedia credibility is threatened when people use it as an opportunity to enhance their own standing or views at the expense of facts (third party confirmed) and notability. Many of the references remain first party, namely, they reference the person's own writing about himself. Once you take out the fluff and puff I would even question the notability of the entry all together--the only position of note is the CEO of Committee of Melbourne, the rest is standard run of the mill positions with the ICRC and the UN. I'll start deleting sections that aren't verified by third party. I'll do this in small doses so that anyone who objects can easily undo them.--Ddragovic (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This page is getting awfully thin as I'm going through it. I have a few questions to the more experienced editors: Are opinion pieces and articles in newspapers worthy of note on these pages? They are not peer reviewed nor ground breaking investigative journalism nor opinions held by anyone of substantial notability or influence so as to be prominent for their ability to influence. Secondly, as noted above, the prominence of this person could be argued based upon his former position as CEO of Committee of Melbourne, nothing else in his back ground is particularly notable, but as a notable his back ground is of interest. So at what stage does the back ground outweigh the notable parts? It seems to me this article is heavy on the background to what should otherwise be a two or three section article on someone who formerly held a notable position.--Ddragovic (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for lending a hand. I've followed up at WP:BLPN. In short, I think you're pointing out valid issues that seriously implicate WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, and notability in general. As I noted above, I've removed further content that has absolutely no apparent significance. If it's WP:UNDUE or WP:PUFF, remove it. If cites are added to the {cn tags, check them carefully. They've been fudged and faked repeatedly. It really makes this subject look bad. JFHJr (㊟) 14:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the "anonymous" IP editor is back with new material. I'd like to raise it here for discussion. Firstly, under the United Nations section a new sentence was added: "The ALNAP study into humanitarian leadership described MacLeod’s leadership on the international side, as UN Cluster Coordinator, as 'critical' and that he was credited with successfully building relationships with the Pakistani military, the major actor leading the government’s response." Firstly, that one accomplishes one's job doesn't seem noteworthy, especially if the job itself is not particularly noteworthy. As the chief of operations one would expect, sorry, require, that he successfully builds a relationship with the military. As for the 'critical' part, I looked through the report and this is an accurate description of the reference. But I'd like to throw out the point that this is just another puff statement. The report also lists Ross Mountain as being critical but we don't find any such mention on his much more restrained, dignified and worthy Wiki page.

The second issue is, which quite frankly I find really amusing and I'd imagine others might as well, is the newly added sentence, "In that role MacLeod secured the UN Principles for Social Investment Secretariat for Melbourne". What is particularly funny is that the reference provided by "Anonymous" quotes McLeod himself contradicting the entry: "Andrew MacLeod says a group of Melbourne business leaders and the St James Ethics Centre executive director, Simon Longstaff negotiated the deal and developed a memorandum of understanding with the UN Global Compact Office." While it may well be true that Mr. MacLeod brought the Secretariat single-handedly to Melbourne the reference provided, from Mr. MacLeod himself, does not back it up.

Thirdly, following that sentence there is a list of things that MacLeod called for. Is it really of relevance what he called for. Do we include ever aspiration even truly notable people have? I would suggest that only actual accomplishments should be included.

I also took out a reference to the ICRC work that isn't verified by a third party and replaced it with 'citation needed'. So, in conclusion, while its been fun having this to and fro it is getting repetitive and while I initially zeroed in on this page with the intent of cleaning it up as it was so obviously fraught with so many puff pieces, inaccuracies and just outright wrong pieces of information, it looks like its become a battle with an interested party which I don't want to continue. Open to suggestions on the above three points and what would be a more worthwhile use of my time vis-a-vis this page. --Ddragovic (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this has moved beyond a content dispute to the land of repeated disruptive editing by an unregistered user or users. There's been virtually no discussion by the IPs regarding these problematic edits. I've requested temporary semi-protection at WP:RPP. JFHJr (㊟) 03:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a look on the WP:RPP page but no reference to a request? I will stop editing the main page until further guidance is given. --Ddragovic (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Saw the request and response. Not sure what it means as I haven't been through this before. I've made my thoughts known throughout the talk page on several sections--I'm particularly up in arms about the attempted association of the UN in the PSI's name (see above comment under Considerable Misleading and Inaccurate Information section). Happy to participate in the clean up but not sure how it proceeds after the semi-protection. --Ddragovic (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read the article in question a couple of times and it clearly says Macleod AND Longstaff negotiated the deal. So I called the St James ethics centre and spoke to Longstaff directly. He tells me that Macleod negotiated the financing and location and that it is Macleod's signature on the MOU and funding agreement. Sorry guys, but theclaim that he negotiated the deal stacks up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydisperse (talk • contribs) 07:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree and I'd love to see the section which says MacLeod AND Longstaff, but this is a superfluous argument at this point, as per below comments. As to the phone call, I would love guidance from you on how to reference a phone call, but that aside, can you give Mr. Longstaff another call and ask if he is the CEO of the United Nations Global Compact Principles for Social Investment or is he CEO of Principles for Social Investment. --Ddragovic (talk) 09:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Longstaff is the Head of the St James Ethics Centre and is now acting Chair of the PSI. Following Macleod stepping down from Chair. UNGC PSI and PSI are the same organisation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.163.175.193 (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

See response above under Considerable Misleading and Inaccurate Information.

While I agree with your points on puffery, having studied natural disaster responses there is a strong view across many sources that the Pakistan Earthquake response was run exceptionally well. Many authors have referenced the unusually good response of the Pakistan military. The fact that Lt Gen Nadeem Ahmad and Macleod have co-written a number of pieces is unique in that I can find no other example of such close cooperation between civil and military actors in Natural disaster responses. I therefore think, with respect, that you are u der estimating the rarity of the role in creating the collaborative framework. I do not think this was 'just doing his job'.

Good work getting rid of the other fluff though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydisperse (talk • contribs) 06:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Re Principles for Social Investment

Whilst the editors have removed some clear puffery, I think removing the PSI link is a bit too much. given the PSI website (p4si.org) is a credible primary source and it states under the 'about us' and 'leadership' section that Macleod is a member of the Board. Until recently it showed him as chairman.

The other sources, such as the Herald Sun article clear,y refer to Macleod and Longstaff as having negotiated the PSI Secretariat for Melbourne.

The fact that a distinguished. university (Deakin) had Macleod give their major annual oration (searby oration) and in the publicity mentioned MacLeod as FoundRion chair, as did Australia's primary philanthropic peak body, as did the Aistralia African NGO, is a clear weight of evidence, taken with The Heral Sunarticle, gives enough weight to substantiate the claim that Macleod was the first chairman of this new organisation and remains a board member of same.

This reference should stay in.

Other examples of puffery though have been cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydisperse (talk • contribs) 06:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, see above under "Considerable Misleading and Inaccurate Information" for additional comments on the topic of PSI. As for the Herald Sun article. Great. No one is disputing that he was or wasn't responsible or participated in the process, the point is that the reference did not reflect as such. This Herald Sun reference says that he participated in negotiating with the UN along with Simon Longstaff and as such any update should correctly reflect this i.e. include words such as "contributed to the" or "jointly" or "in collaboration with Simon Longstaff". --Ddragovic (talk) 09:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

According to Longstaff, Macleod did all negotiation with the Victorian Government to obtain the funding, and brought together the coalition of businesses to support the organisation coming to Melbourne. Longstaff says he was inNew York facilitating the exchange of information. In the words of Longstaff: "to be clear, if it wasn't for Andrew PSI would not be in Melbourne. period.'

Feel free to call st James Ethics Centre to verify.

You raise a good question though: how does one reference primary research? Just because something is not widely known does not mean it is neither factual or significant. Many significant things are done without our knowledge.

While I do have better things to do, I will take some time over the next few weeks to do some primary research into the claims of earlier versions. While I agree with your removal of fluff, I think perhaps the removals have been a tad heavy handed.... I would value your guidance though on how to reference primary research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydisperse (talk • contribs) 11:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your original research is not usable. Please find a publication by a reliable source, preferably a third party or a very good primary source. Phone calls won't do. Please see WP:RS, WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPSPS for information on how to use primary sources appropriately. I'll further note that WP:BLP guidelines, on which content removal was predicated, must be followed on talk pages as well. JFHJr (㊟) 18:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion... First time I have ever heard of primary research being BAD!! Any PHD student will tell you primary research is the best research! On PSI, all above authors are a little wrong. PSI is a UN 'backed' organisation. All very technical, but the lack of detailed knowledge of all the so colles 'editors' above really shows that the editors probably Y do not have enough knowledge on the subject to have made the decisions on substance that they have. Moving language and puffery is one thing, but displaying a clear lack of knowledge on the UN whole still making accusations against a guy or his friends who have actually done good things is shamefu by these so called 'Editors'.--192.148.117.92 (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You've severely misunderstood the function of an encyclopedia. The only clear lack of knowledge is yours regarding relevant guidelines. PhD students perform and publish original research. Not encyclopedias. You can have your opinion about the matter, but that doesn't change the applicability of guidelines. The information in this article isn't supposed to come from editors' understanding of the UN. It comes from reliable sources. Best of luck to you. JFHJr (㊟) 13:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

east Timor

I called the NSW parliament to get the Contact details of Janelle Saffin, the State politician whose Hansard speech in Parliament was a reference to MacLeod's ICJ work in East Timor. Saffin is no longer a State member of Parliament but is now a Federal Member of Parliament in Australia. She has confirmed to me that MacLeod did do the ICJ mission to East Timor, and also did two others, one to Sri Lanka and another to train election monitors in Timor in 2000. She is quite effusive in MacLeod's role in Saving Abel Gutteres life at Dili Airport in 1999 by staring down the Aitarak Militia. I have put in a call to Gutteres who now is the Timor Ambassador to Australia. assuming Gutteres backs this, how does one reference this. --Boydisperse (talk) 11:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You are performing original research, which is categorically unacceptable for an encyclopedic biography. Call whomever you like, but the information does not belong here unless it's verifiable and citable. An unpublished conversation is not citable. It's best to stick to publications. JFHJr (㊟) 18:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

more sources

The more I dig the more I find. Here is an interesting articleHere in both the Melbourne Age and the Sydney Morning Herald that seems to validate many of the things you guys cut out. I'd suggest we redraft it taking out the puffery but put a lot of it back in.... --Boydisperse (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC) — Boydisperse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Tagged by CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 12:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Read through the article. I'm not clear on what needs to be added that is of note that isn't there already. As noted repeatedly on this Talk Page, this isn't an opportunity to present a resume of an individual. I'm not an expert on all of the Wikipedia guidelines but I've made the effort to read some, here's one that I suggest will help clarify why most of what is being presented is not appropriate (along with all the other WP pages suggested above) : WP:RESUME. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddragovic (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

— Boydisperse (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

For the other editors involved in pruning this article down to what is considered to be an encyclopædic entry, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that this user is an SPA, having edited only three other articles besides this one, and all the other articles concern the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan. "Curioser and curioser" said Alice!
I am also wondering about the rather involved IP, who traces back to Australia [1] [2], I am not very knowledgeable about SPI stuff, but I do get "hunches".
Boydisperse, it would be in your interest to disclose any conflict of interest that you may have in editing this article. In good faith. CaptainScreebo ^Parley! 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Heard of him of course but not met him. According to media reports Here he now lives in London. IP should therefore calm at least one suspicion ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydisperse (talk • contribs) 23:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It would do you well to know that the internet is not as anonymous as you might think. Consider the 'paper trail' of the photos that have been uploaded related to the subject in discussion. If you do not know him and you have never met him then it would suggest that you or someone who is using the same IP address over the past six years has stalked him over the past thirty years to places such as East Timor, Pakistan, his primary school days and even at events in Melbourne. When you uploaded these photos you gave the rights to them to Wiki Commons upon the assumption that you had the authority to confer such rights, presumably you did or should we be looking at deleting the photo that currently stands as you may not have the rights to it. --Ddragovic (talk) 08:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to advise everyone to discontinue this discussion. A somewhat reasonable question was raised and answered. Please see WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:OUTING for more reasons not to continue this discussion. I encourage Ddragovic to raise these concerns at Commons, where as I recall many images are stored. Fair warning: fudged image licenses are a serious issue. But this simply is not the forum. Please, let's stick to the subject of the article. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Editing during semi-protect period

I went through the article, as noted in the comments of the "View History" tab, separating the changes for ease of undo. Relative to the notability of our subject I think that this is a fair representation of what is relevant. It does appear stilted with a few too many headings. Personally I favour crisp multiple no-headings paragraphs for people with this much to be said, but I'll leave it to others to amend further. Happy to be corrected on any part of what I've done, but as it stands seems appropriately detailed and importantly, accurate.--Ddragovic (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The question mark over whether a course guide from the University of Tasmania is a reliable source: I think that it is as far as whether he was or was not a graduate. We can only presume that it did its due diligence just as much as any journalist would. Yes, it is an interested party but the weight of the institution versus the matter at hand (graduation as opposed to the rest of the bio) would lend towards taking this point as fact in my opinion. --Ddragovic (talk) 08:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on that. I removed the tag I put in place. The assertion it supports isn't puffery, though the source itself is clearly an advert for prospective students. A better source should be available, but I've removed the tag so as not to ugly the article up. I think a more neutral source should be available, even from the university. JFHJr (㊟) 04:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Andrew MacLeod. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://p4si.org/leadership.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150621101629/http://www.3008docklands.com.au/article/neighbourhood/1862 to http://www.3008docklands.com.au/article/neighbourhood/1862

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)