Talk:Cornell University

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Cornell University is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 20, 2006.
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Cornell University is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Cornell University at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 

Help[edit]

I am a student at Cornell University currently working on developing a Wiki page for Ithaca Bakeries. I was wondering if you would mind looking over what we had already or would be interested in linking our page to yours. Here is the page under construction now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jrb374/Ithaca_Bakery_and_Collegetown_Bagels --Sckim125 (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Boosterism removal[edit]

These are examples of academic boosterism.

Cornell is usually ranked among the top twenty universities in the world in a variety of rankings.
Many of Cornell's schools have been consistently ranked as some of the top schools in the United States.

The claims make conclusions not explicitly stated in any of the sources used, and include weasels and puffery. On Wikipedia, claims should be fully substantiated and stated simply and neutrally.
Despite clearly noting this issue in the edit history, Johnny Squeaky is insistent on keeping these claims. The only argument he has offered in support for keeping them is that he believes they are true, which is irrelevant to the issue. --Coolbb (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you're taking this a little far. The comments are no different than on many university wiki articles. As "boosterism", it's exceptionally tame, *IF* it even qualifies as that.

Cornell is usually ranked among the top twenty universities in the world in a variety of rankings.

This is a factual statement.

Many of Cornell's schools have been consistently ranked as some of the top schools in the United States.

This, too, is a factual statement. References can be found, but until then, maybe I'll add the [citation needed] template. I mean seriously, simply because a ref needs to be found has exactly zip to do with "boosterism", and these statement hardly qualify if at all. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
The sentences don't really add much value to the encyclopedia, and Wikipedia:Avoid academic boosterism invites us to "assert facts, not opinions" and to "avoid vague terms of praise" in pursuit of establishing a NPOV. Saying the university "is usually ranked" well is weak prose, as is saying "many of Cornell's schools" rank well [emphasis added using italics]. —Eustress talk 03:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
First, there are many short sentences in many Wiki articles that "really don't add much", which is clearly a subjective statement in any case. However...
Saying that something us "usually ranked..." at a certain level is not a random opinion. Likewise, pointing out that Cornell's various colleges/departments are consistently ranked at a certain level is not a random opinion, but rather a statement of something that exists as a fact or in this case some type of ranking or evaluation by a known and respected publication or organization that does such rankings. All that is missing is a proper reference, which can almost certainly be found. =//= Johnny Squeaky 04:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
This game of parroting rankings to the point of undue influence within the article (above and beyond the fact they're statistical abstractions that are trivially gamed) and introducing peacock words into the article ignores the desperate need for attention to other glaring holes in the article. For instance, is there an undergraduate core curriculum that students take, or do they simply learn whatever's ranked highly in a magazine? I'm of the opinion the ranking section could be removed in its entirety and the quality of the article would actually be improved. Madcoverboy (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Your view is classic POV. Rankings are a matter of public record just like every other subjective thing at Wikipedia. I'm sorry if you have a personal problem with Ivy League schools, that's your issue. I attended the University of Oregon, a public school. But I'm not carrying any chips about those more fortunate than I who went to the "snooty" schools, and your issues have no relevance here. =//= Johnny Squeaky 07:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Yawn, personal attacks, what a surprise. For the record, I went to MIT which "outranks" Cornell on almost any metric one might find, and although you'll find there is no fetishization of rankings on that article as on this one. Take a gander over there if you're actually interested in improving the article rather than attacking other editors. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Good grief! "Yawn"??? Talk about "personal attacks". Apparently you are incapable of actual discussion where people have views different than your own. Good bye. =//= Johnny Squeaky 22:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Enough. You've both made your points now move on. ElKevbo (talk) 23:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
If those statements are supported by sources or are summaries of slightly longer, well-sourced sections then they're fine. If they're unsourced then they are indeed very minor forms of puffery but only because they're unsourced (in which case they can be removed on that basis without even bothering to decide if it's puffery, POV, etc.). ElKevbo (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you posting under more than one account? =//= Johnny Squeaky 23:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
That is an unwarranted personal attack. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Let's make this clear, since Johnny Squeaky claims there is no consensus for the changes. Coolbb, Eustress, Madcoverboy, ElKevbo, and now Drmies agree that the "boosterism" should be removed. On the opposite side, there's Johnny Squeaky. How much more consensus can one ask for? In addition, I am reverting Johnny Squeaky's revert of another edit of mine, where they reinstated a bunch of chit-chat about Tae Kwan Do and broomstick polo, sourced to some campus profile and the website of some local club: the text is chatty, the references are not reliable (enough to establish notability) or independent--and there is a main article where such minor things could conceivably be reported. In all, I think there's evidence enough of disruptive editing and edit-warring, probably enough to establish POV editing. Drmies (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Admissions selectivity[edit]

I removed the following statement from the article: "Cornell is one of the most selective schools in the world." It might be true but it's not supported by any sources. Such support would have to be quite explicit to support such a strong claim and, of course, such support would have to have a world view and not merely be limited to comparing the university to others in the U.S. ElKevbo (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Template of faculty[edit]

Well, i tried, but i dont have a cropping tool that works here. If someone wants to fix the image, great. if someone wants to remove it for aesthetic purposes, i will understand, but i do request that they make an effort to fix the image eventually. facts trump style here, and Carl Sagan is easily a more notable face of Cornell than John Cleese.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Assertion that Cornell is a " is an American private Ivy League research university"[edit]

Cornell is a unique hybrid University consisting of 4 Public (SUNY affiliation) and 5 Private schools: (http://www.cornell.edu/about/facts/stats.cfm)

"Cornell is the federal land-grant institution of New York State, a private endowed university, a member of the Ivy League/Ancient Eight, and a partner of the State University of New York. It has been described as the first truly American university because of its founders' revolutionarily egalitarian and practical vision of higher education, and is dedicated to its land-grant mission of outreach and public service." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.104.67.221 (talk) 19:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cornell identifies itself as a private AND public university. See "Identity" section on Facts about Cornell: http://www.cornell.edu/about/facts/stats.cfm "Identity: Public and private" Stilman01 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:23, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
One caption saying public and private does not mean that it is both. If there is more detail about being both, then it can be discussed. I think that an affiliation with a public university does not make Cornell itself (which is private) a public university. It should stay off the article until a consensus is reached on this talk page. Thanks, Bahooka (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Cornell is a private as well as a federal land-grant university. The article has been updated to reflect this. See http://www.cornell.edu/about/facts.cfm for reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.184.243.33 (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Environmental Record text[edit]

I recently undid an expansion of information about the university's environmental records (see diff) since I believe this expansion violates WP:UNDUE, offering too much coverage of the issue on this main uni article. Such detail might more appropriately belong in one of the Cornell campus articles, or a few important details might be able to be integrated into the current body. Regards. —Eustress talk 19:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE applies to viewpoints, not information. --The Cunctator (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Not quite. The publishing of information in an encyclopedia article itself is a viewpoint or a propagation of a viewpoint that the information is of such importance and interest that it is essential to understanding the subject of the article. Another way to put this is that it is necessary but not sufficient that information be published in reliable sources; we must also have assurances that the information is sufficiently important and interesting (akin to notability but not quite the same as that applies to article subjects and not content in an article).
That is a very convoluted way of saying: Just because it's published in a reliable source doesn't mean we have to include it in an article. It's gotta be important, too.
(I'm very glad you brought this up, Eustress; I've become increasingly uncomfortable with how environmental sustainability information has been and is being added to U.S. college and university articles as it feels like Wikipedia is being used to promote the views of a very vocal minority who believe that environmental sustainability is a topic of overriding importance in these articles.) ElKevbo (talk) 21:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
(A recent edit linked to this external webpage documenting a push by Campus Climate Challenge to add this kind of material to Wikipedia articles about U.S. colleges and universities. As far as advocacy organizations using Wikipedia to promote their cause, it's well done with good recommendations on what and what not to do here. ElKevbo (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC))
Following up on our discussion over here, we did attempt to slow things down a bit, and specifically encouraged students we're talking to keep their contributions concise and keep the overall context of the article in mind. Some could probably use more editing. Still very open to advice from folks here, on how we can best guide students to participate in this community in a constructive way. JeffM2001 (talk) 22:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I have again reverted drastic edits to this article, which were implemented without community consensus. I encourage editors to review WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD to learn about the editing process here on Wikipedia if they are not familiar with them. If editors continue to try to force content into this high-visibility and long-standing article, it may be necessary to request intervention of an uninvolved administrator. However, allow me to explain further my objection to the drastic change and the need I see for a community discussion.

I agree there is a need to improve the article's coverage of the university's environmental impact. However, the proposed changes (see diff) introduced several other problems:

  1. The information belongs under the Campuses:Ithaca section, not under Academics, since it only really covers impact of the Ithaca campus -- if content about other campuses were mentioned, it would probably best fall under the appropriate campus subsection, but definitely not under Academics, unless the information has to do with Cornell curricula on environmental issues
  2. The proposed text violated WP:OR by presenting a synthesis of research about fracking in order to advance a certain viewpoint
  3. The proposed text presented unverified information (e.g., Black Oak Wind Farm) and had an inoperable link to a Forbes article by Skorton
  4. The proposed text was unnecessarily wordy and broke out small paragraphs into several subsections, when Wikipedia strives for succinctness
  5. The proposed text referenced a decline in Cornell's performance in the STARS review, a statement which again had no explicit backing from reliable sources
  6. The proposed text mentions an unnotable vote on fossil fuels (covered in Cornell Daily Sun) and then an irrelevant mention of efforts at Yale, which is also not supported by reliable sources

The current coverage of environmental issues in this article is not perfect, but the proposed changes only seemed to make issues worse (à la WP:UNDUE). I would encourage interested editors to build upon the current text -- not wholly replace it -- and to propose notable strings of information one-by-one here for the community's approval. Several editors are active on this page and happy to collaborate. Cheers. —Eustress talk 15:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for thinking through that detailed list Eustress. Very helpful! I'm not the author of this section, but as someone who works with Energy Action Coalition/Campus Climate Challenge, I followed up with the student who did write it and encouraged her to jump into the conversation and collaborate with the editors here to hopefully reach an outcome that works for everyone. She said she could work on it tomorrow. If I can ask a favor, would you mind taking a look at the toolkit we have here and let us know if there are ways we can improve it so that students who want to engage with this community can do so as constructively as possible? Thanks! JeffM2001 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Jeff. For a high-level discussion on this, I've initiated a thread at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Universities#Campus_Climate_Challenge. Regarding this particular article, I don't think a stand-alone section dedicated to Environmental Record is merited. If the student, or anyone, wishes to try to re-add any of the purported facts alluded to above, I suggest proposing them here one at a time with supporting sources so experienced editors can assist with copy editing. Cheers. —Eustress talk 22:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Instead of deleting the work of contributors, Eustress should have productively edited it. But then, if this is the impression that admins now want to give new contributors of Wikipedia -- that their valid, accurate, well-cited work will be summarily deleted, and re-deleted on the summary judgment of a single gatekeeper, then they're welcome to it. Eustress' understanding of "the community" is quite troubling. --The Cunctator (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
It's a reasonable response to a coordinated campaign to push an agenda in this encyclopedia. Your incessant smears and agitation are growing wearisome. ElKevbo (talk) 19:30, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Cunctator -- campaign aside, this article in focus -- I'm trying to first allow time for the original author to come back and to collaborate with us here. Do you believe any of the proposed text should be integrated in the article? If so, why? I think the editors here are a reasonable bunch, eager to assist newcomers. But for a newcomer to make major changes to an established article without discussion and expect it to stick -- for it to be written in such a way that adheres to guidelines and gels with the rest of the article right off the bat -- is a bit unrealistic. As Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page#Major_edits states, "All editors are encouraged to be bold, but there are several things that a user can do to ensure that major edits are performed smoothly. Before engaging in a major edit, a user should consider discussing proposed changes on the article discussion/talk page.... A major edit should be reviewed to confirm that it is consensual to all concerned editors." Regards. —Eustress talk 19:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I am the original author of the edits. I am very open to your advice on how to make it the post better. I think the main things I would like to remain in the articles is the information on the endowment and our investments. Divestment from fossil fuels is being actively discussed and debated on campus. For the sustainability section of this article to be comprehensive I believe that information on where the endowment is invested should be included. I am very new to wikipedia but I would love to learn how to actively and constructively contribute! How does this edit look? (see below) Tydtsgch34 (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Cornell has an endowment of over $5 billion.[1] The University does not disclose the details of its investments however it is known that it invests a significant portion of its endowment in the energy sector, thus profitting from coal, oil, and shale-gas extraction. Cornell received a 0.41 / 9.00 on the STARS review for Positive Sustainability Investments, a decline from previous years[2] . Students are currently calling for divestment of the university endowment from fossil fuels by 2020, passing a student government resolution with a vote of 22-2 [3] . However the university has indicated that it does not plan to divest [4]. Cornell currently has $60 million invested in alternative energy, sustainable forestry and environmental credit investments[5]

Thanks, Tydtsgch34. Allow me to comment on the content one line at a time:
  • "Cornell has an endowment of over $5 billion." -- The endowment amount is already listed in the infobox of the page. Any reference to it should be glancing and use the same reference used using WP:REFNAME (I can help with this)
  • "The University does not disclose the details of its investments however it is known that it invests a significant portion of its endowment in the energy sector, thus profitting from coal, oil, and shale-gas extraction." -- I feel this statement is a complete WP:SYNTHESIS and should have no part in the article.
  • "Cornell received a 0.41 / 9.00 on the STARS review for Positive Sustainability Investments..." -- This is a possibility for inclusion, but it's meaningless without any context. What percentile does a 0.41 rating equate to?
  • "...a decline from previous years." -- Any evidence to back up this claim? Over how many years? How significant a decline?
  • "Students are currently calling for divestment of the university endowment from fossil fuels by 2020..." -- Per WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS, a single student vote covered by the student newspaper does not seem noteworthy enough for inclusion here.
  • "Cornell currently has $60 million invested in alternative energy, sustainable forestry and environmental credit investments." -- This is also a possibility for inclusion, but is there any notable coverage beyond the student newspaper to make it noteworthy enough for inclusion here?
Eustress talk 01:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Eustress, thanks for working with Tydtscgh34. Why don't you just offer a suggested edit to Tydtsgch34's contribution and insert it into Cornell University? So far as I can tell, it's inappropriate to argue that one needs more references for facts about a university than coverage in the student paper; from a cursory review, that is a common standard for content on university pages on Wikipedia, and it's arguably a higher standard for content than what is simply listed on a university webpage. --The Cunctator (talk) 02:27, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
My comment above pertaining to coverage of an event by a campus newspaper has nothing to do with whether or not a student newspaper is a reliable source. The issue is whether the event is noteworthy enough for inclusion in this article. WP:NOT#NEWSREPORTS (which I referenced above) states, "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion." If coverage of a campus event is constrained to one point in time and to a campus newspaper, then I don't think that meets enwp's notability threshold and should therefore not be included. —Eustress talk 16:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you just offer a suggested edit to Tydtsgch34's contribution and insert it into Cornell University? --The Cunctator (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed[edit]

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2008/01/cornell-announces-sweeping-new-financial-aid-program. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Cornell gorge suicides with the Cornell Univ article[edit]

Disagree with merging. We don't want to have all the details about the history of gorge-jumping suicides from the 1970s to the 2000s in the body of the Cornell University article. These details are best kept in a separate Cornell gorge suicides article.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Seal[edit]

User talk:Ilberia continually puts his or her altered image of the Cornell seal on the Cornell University article. Additionally, once an editor undid Ilberia's vandalism, User talk:2601:602:8200:7E6A:694C:7D0B:8077:4497 suspiciously undid a revision that reinstated Ilberia's handiwork. This needs to end. Bless you, Lacmaboingo (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Cornell University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Cornell University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornell University. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cornell University. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornell University. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Cornell University. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cornell University. 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:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:57, 25 May 2017 (UTC)