User talk:Michael J. Mullany

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Benon 02:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hi
Hiya. No probs on the cognitive style editing; I just did a little tidy-up to fit some Wikipedia conventions. No doubt others will do the same, add sections, chop, change, and so forth (ala WP:BOLD and WP:OWN), and it's all in good fun. I am in fact associated with Massey University, but I generally keep my private life separate from my Wiki profile. All the best, Ziggurat 19:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Computer user satisfaction
I've nominated Computer user satisfaction, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Computer user satisfaction satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Computer user satisfaction and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Computer user satisfaction during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Tevildo 20:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:AdrianFurnham.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:AdrianFurnham.JPG. Wikipedia gets hundreds 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. 22:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject 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. Thank you. Mocko13 22:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007
The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography 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. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive
 WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive! WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive! The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award. There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards,  Psych less Type  words! .

Image:AdrianFurnham.JPG
Hi. When you uploaded Image:AdrianFurnham.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with GFDL-presumed and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually GFDL-self or PD-self. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 07:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5
To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC).

Adrian Furnham
You aren't Adrian Furnham are you? Travb (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:NorthTec_MainBuilding.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:NorthTec_MainBuilding.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Jusjih (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Computer specialist shortage crisis
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Computer specialist shortage crisis, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
Hi, You changed the time line in Crucifixion of Jesus, referng to Mark, but provided no specific reference. Please do provide one, for as is, that statement can not remain there with no specific reference. Thanks History2007 (talk) 08:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding the references. Now you do have exact refs. In fact, even if evidence to the contrary shows up, your sentence needs to remain now because it has exact refs. Next question: what is the source of the claims for the 3 hour period, that I had always heard about? Do you know of any such other refs? I will post on the talk page about it. Thanks History2007 (talk) 09:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, thank you. History2007 (talk) 09:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Mark
Hi, You seem to know the Gospel of Mark. There is a statement in the intro of Crucifixion darkness and eclipse that says:


 * "Mark's chronology of Jesus' crucifixion and death is apparently artificial..."

It has some references for it. Do you have references that rebuke that assertion? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Christian Science
Hi Michael--I'm replying to your invitation to post on your "Talk" page. I'm certainly "for" Christian Science, but I'm also "for" producing a good Wikipedia article within the given parameters! BTW I don't recall the presence (or removal) of the references to "absent healing" but I'm sure I could pull out several dozen such claims for such from the literature of the CS Publishing Society (not to mention personal experience, which is of course not appropriate for Wikipedia). All the best, Paul.89.100.37.108 (talk) 19:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Response to Paul
Hi Paul. Many thanks for engaging in discussion. Nobody can object to or help the truth, so whether contributors are supporters of CS or otherwise, should make little difference.

The passage I removed read:

It should be noted that there is no physical manipulation, or laying on of hands, in a Christian Science healing treatment, and that the event is often accomplished without a Practitioner meeting the patient who may live a great distance away from the Practitioner.

I would imagine that somewhere in the CS periodicals you should at the very least find accounts of healings which vindicate the last clauses of th paragraph I removed. While I am aware that Christian Science practitioners don't lay hands on or physically manipulate their patients, you may find it quite challenging to find a sound reference which says they don't. You might try 'The Cross and the Crown' by Beasely and 'We knew Mary Baker Eddy', or references like that.

All the best, Mike Mullany.Michael J. Mullany (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for improving Cognitive style so quickly after I tagged. Superp (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Court Ruling on Christian Science
Michael, that's not what the court ruling says. Jehovah's Witnesses vs. Washington King County Hospital says only that "the constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion do not sanction harming another person in the practice of one's religion, and they do not allow religion to be a legal defense when one harms another." This is not in the context of alternative medical care, but in the context that Jehovah's witnesses refuse blood transfusions for religious reasons (no medical care vs. alternative care.) There is nothing in either court ruling that even begins to question that efficacy of established medical treatment. Digitalican (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Michael, I'm aware of the editor in question's point of view. I might even agree with it. I have two problems: the first is really with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. The truth is what is NPOV depends on where you stand. This is what we're dealing with. Using weasel-words around medical procedures is actually -- to me -- a Christian Science POV. While I might personally agree with it it is not encyclopaedic and it makes the pro-CS argument look bogus. I'm in the opposite fight (of sorts) on the Mary Baker Eddy page fighting off the word allegedly.

I do not, as we in the states say, have a dog in this fight. I was raised in the CS Church, am no longer a member, but hold no animosity. What my particular skill is here is that I understand the CS point of view but am not an advocate for it or against it. That's how I'm coming into this edit fight.

Not to worry. I keep an eye on these pages all the time and am aware of some of the tricks people pull to get their personal opinions onto pages. Why does Wikipedia have to be this way? :) Digitalican (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Near Death Experiences
I really think you're wrong here, Michael. I've not edited it, but looking at your addition the modern interest in near death experiences has little to do with Christian Science and adds information in a way that makes the article unencyclopedic. Encyclopedia articles, to my mind, should be somewhat terse and to the point and not include every seemingly relevant bit of information you can throw in. (There's actually a logical problem in stating that Christian Scientists believe in a hereafter as they don't really believe in a "here" for something to be "after.) Let's not get our egos involved, OK?  Digitalican (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 08:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Christian Science Page
Hi, I'm watching more (and participating less) in the new developments on the Christian Science page and it's associated talk page. I think engaging in argument is futile and a huge waste of time. What I've tried to do (and you seem to be doing as well, and possibly better) is to get the editor(s) in question to explain their thinking as clearly as possible -- just to put things on the record.

I remain unconvinced the interpretation of rules we've gotten serves either the subject matter or Wikipedia well. I understand that the emphasis on secondary sources is an effort to insure NPOV. It makes the bizarre assumption that writing about something is the same as advocating, it and thus restricts contributors to "neutral" secondary sources. It's a programmer's solution. :) We create an algorithm and it supposedly yields truth.  It seems to miss (and the editors are either deliberately and genuinely blind to) the point that there are two aspects of the subject at issue:

To use a less loaded subject look at Astrology: One comes to the Wikipedia astrology page not just to find out if it works or not, but to find out how it is supposed to work whether it does nor not. (I do not believe Astrology works but I might like to understand the way it see the Universe.) Those currently editing the Christian Science page are focused on the former -- whether it works or not -- an area I've tried to stay out of. They're do not know (by their own admission) what it is or how it thinks it works.

Christian Science is tough to document in secondary sources because it has a history of not allowing commentary on its literature from secondary sources (that's probably a good thing to document through secondary sources and insert in the article. It at least alerts readers to the notion that there are things unsaid or that must not be said according to Wikipedia rules.) In that sense it has approached discussion a little like Scientology -- and not to its own benefit.

That's a great deal of discussion but my approach to this is going to be to sit back and watch what these editors produce and then decide what, if anything, to do about it. I've always been uncomfortable getting into edit wars over incomplete rewritings of articles. What is NPOV and what is not, is ultimately in the tasting not in the brewing. If the article appears to be more of an attack on Christian Science than a description, that speaks to the credibility of Wikipedia.

So, I recommend chilling, documenting and being amused. How this all got to be an adversarial procedure I really don't know. It seems really, well, unwikipedian. It's certainly considerably less than scholarly. Digitalican 17:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * On the subject of the astrology page; what do you think about how it is presented? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * On the whole I found the article to be well-balanced, thorough, and encompassing most opinions and findings on the subject. In fact, my only difference is over the use of the term, ‘Pseudoscience’. The first statement is:
 * ‘Astrology is a pseudoscience, and as such is rejected by the academic and scientific communities.’
 * First, let me say that I personally agree that Astrology is indeed a pseudoscience within the limits of my understanding of the term. However, I am not so sure about the latter half of the statement, as I know academics (including scientists) who read their horoscopes and investigate the claims of astrology.
 * The second statement:
 * Astrology is a pseudoscience that has not demonstrated its effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity.
 * is better in my opinion, because it at least tries to show the reader why scientists reject astrology as a pseudoscience. I am however, bothered about the word, ‘effectiveness’, because this to me suggests phenomena rather than predictions.
 * To me, a more accurate statement in both cases would be,
 * ‘Astrology is dismissed by many(?) physical scientists and academics as a pseudoscience because its principal claims have not been demonstrated in controlled studies. Until it meets these criteria, it has no proven scientific validity.’ Michael J. Mullany (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The scientific mainstream rejects astrology; you will find a few scientists who believe almost anything, so it wouldn't surprise me, though I haven't seen any sources about any. In terms of the mainstream perspective, it's not so important what someone holds as their personal conviction, but what they publish about in reliable scientific publications that counts. Most people treat looking at your horoscope as a bit of fun rather than an actual prediction. The level of rejection is so high as to be ubiquitous and that further clarification would actually violate WP:NPOV by giving undue weight to the few dissenters. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What is your view of 'respected' psychological and sociological literature? Would this, in your view, also reflect the scientific mainstream? Michael J. Mullany (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * It depends what you define by respected. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Literary sources and journals upheld by psychologists and sociologists, such as, 'The journal of applied psychology' as top in their fileds.Michael J. Mullany (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no requirement that original research articles in any journal reflect the mainstream in any field. Read WP:FRINGE. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Christian Science. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ''Don't try and force your changes through. See WP:BRD.'' IRWolfie- (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

malformed RfC
I've gone ahead and closed your malformed RfC. You are meant to discuss your changes on the talk page. Not head off and start an RfC somewhere else. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Original Research
Almost every comment you make is based on your personal interpretation of things. None of it is actually directly related to article content. Can you please stop treating wikipedia as a forum. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:08, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean. It is YOUR interpretation that I base comments on my own interpretation of things; and that is OR. You claim that you want to turn the CS article into a 'good' article. So far, you have stripped it of a lot of information, which was both of interest to readers and pretty NPOV. It was, after all, largely the product of non-Christian Science editors. It is now a watered down travesty of what it was. I strongly advise you to read the current Encyclopaedia Britannica article on Christian Science, which would be a good model for you to emulate, and which you simply cannot argue is a primary source. In addition, your refusal to accept that CS is a religion not only denies the factual position but may well be hurtful to its adherents. Why this has not invoked complaints by them remains a mystery to me, except that I am aware that members of their First Church are prohibited from the public debate of CS. Michael J. Mullany (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * On wikipedia we don't copy and paste text from sources into articles. WP:COPYPASTE and WP:PARAPHRASE. Don't do it. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, so as I have it now is acceptable, as per:

"Limited close paraphrasing is appropriate within reason, as is quoting (with or without quotation marks), so long as the material is clearly attributed in the text – for example, by adding "John Smith wrote ...," together with a footnote containing the citation at the end of the clause, sentence or paragraph."


 * No, you should be paraphrasing it further or adding quotes. But this material isn't suitable anyway, because you are attributing something which is a statement of fact, not opinion. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at Christian Science. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience
The term is not at all "contentious" when backed up by relaible sources. The fact that you apparently don't like it is your problem, for you to deal with in your free time off site. Here, we go by policy, and your appeal to WP:LABEL is pure wiki-lawyering. If you think otherwise, discuss and gain consensus on the talk page. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, so what makes you think that your sources are reliable? I have read them all, and they have huge holes from an academic point of view. Just because some are printed by well-known printing houses certainly doesn't make them academically reliable. As an academic, my students and I spend hours critiquing literature from such sources. The declaration that Christian Science is a pseudoscience is certainly not a universally held fact. Physicists and other scientists who belong to this denomination would disagree, as would most post-modernists. It strikes me rather that you like the term pseudoscience, and are determined to use it, come what may. Suggestion: tackle the article on Scientology for some real fun! Michael J. Mullany (talk) 08:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Computer Specialists - Trend in demand.JPG listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Computer Specialists - Trend in demand.JPG, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Kelly hi! 03:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Crucifixion
Before we get into an edit war about whether Jesus was a victim or not I figured I would put something here. I will explain myself first. I like the wording example over victim because it strikes me as being more neutral. Victim has become a loaded word and using it implies some level of disapproval of the practice, that is what I meant by saying victim is editorializing. I would actually prefer this language: “Jesus Christ, who is the most well-known individual that was crucified.” Instead of “the most famous victim of crucifixion.” That is the text I am going to insert. It seems to me that said text gets the point across without making an implied judgment call about the practice of crucifixion one way or the other.Scout1067 (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you and think the term victim implies that an injustice has been done. That is neither here nor there though. I agree with you that the language I chose is strained and awkward. Victim is definitely not a neutral term when talking about judicial punishments in particular. Regardless of personal opinions about right and wrong as regards to punishment crucifixion was a legal form of execution in the Roman Republic and Christ was therefore not a victim having been legally condemned. Would you then say that say Timothy McVeigh was a victim of execution as well? I could maybe buy suffered the fate of crucifixion as there is no doubt it is painful, but a victim, he was not. How about "the most famous person to suffer crucifixion" as an alternative?Scout1067 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NorthTec Marae.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:NorthTec Marae.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 11:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NorthTec WCampus.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:NorthTec WCampus.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NorthTec FineArts.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:NorthTec FineArts.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NorthTec AreaMaps.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:NorthTec AreaMaps.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NorthTec Boatbuilding.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:NorthTec Boatbuilding.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NorthTec Classroom.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:NorthTec Classroom.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NorthTec HybiscusMBuilding.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:NorthTec HybiscusMBuilding.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NorthTec Library.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:NorthTec Library.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NorthTec Trainee Nurse.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:NorthTec Trainee Nurse.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NorthTec WCampus2.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:NorthTec WCampus2.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

File source problem with File:NorthTec Automotive.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:NorthTec Automotive.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. B (talk) 14:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of New Zealand actors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tangle ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_New_Zealand_actors check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_New_Zealand_actors?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You have been pruned from a list
Hi Michael J. Mullany! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 18:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)