Jump to content

Talk:Griffith University/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Rivalry section

I've done some major cleaning up of the "Rivalry" secton. Wiki editing formatting has been instituted (ie, carriage returns for each new sentence). . Further, where there exists holes in my ability to disprove I have more accurately labelled them as 'supposed' or 'claimed'.All false claims (ones that could not be substantiated or were disproved after significant amounts of searching) have been removed. An encyclopaedia is not the location for a mud-slinging contest and this entry should only be seen as documenting the rivalry, not fueling it. Particularly 'flamboyant' adjectives and improperly used words have been replaced. For the user Never29 (who has been doing most of the editing in relation to the entry) - if you're a journalism student practice more; learn to spell, use an apostrophe and cite sources, if they exist. Feel free to return these comments when you are able to cite sources or verification. Bilious 15:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


- I do agree with User:Bilious the page needs cleaning work. Further, incorrect grammar and false and misleading statements have been removed. A lot of re-editing of the page and layout has been done, as previously the pictures were too big and looked pretty shonky. Removed references to statistics of QTAC - cannot ascertain what their relevance is to the issue of rivalry - since merely reflect government funding - perhaps with more information to explain the statistics could be relevant, but not as they were - confusing. --Kira 79 09:07, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Facts

  • The Griffith motto is "get smarter" - if you want a source for this i can't help you, its like saying the sky is blue
  • The mascot’s name is Killer, there are two pictures to show the change - Proof? the first mascot is wearing a Griffith sport shirt, the second one is the current offical mascot, look it up on the GU website in (Search). You will find a mention of the events.
  • The comments from the Chair of Sport have been published in the Gold Coast Bulletin , August 2005. If you want to contact him personally to verify, once again I direct you to the Griffith website to locate them.
  • All other information is available freely online at griffith.edu.au - by the way the Law Quarterly went to press before the announcement that the Australian Good Universities Guide 2005 rated Griffith as Australia’s Leading Law School. I can understand that being a UQ law student you are probably jealous of this, since it significantly undervalues your degree but please dont take this out on wiki or cite irrelevant sources to imply this fact is not true when it is. That is a form of vandalism and POV errors.
  • Please refrain from personal attacks about my spelling, apostrophes. I find that really offensive ecspecially because I happen to be dyslexic so I am trying my hardest. --Never29 23:23, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

bilious wishes to answer some questions: :)

  • The Get Smarter campaign is pretty easily cited.
  • The QTAC sources were listed not to demonstrate information regarding gov't funding, but to counter two specific arguments. It should be noted that both these claims were fairly quickly removed from the page.
    • The first claim by Never29 regarded "Griffith's surge in popularlity [sic]". The enrolment statistics, especially for law, show fairly clearly that there's been no significant 'surge' any place.
    • The second claim by Never29 again was the fairly outrageously funny idea that St Lucia residents protested to have Griffith knocked off its perch. While I must admit this made me chuckle a little, trying to pass off something like this as fact is a damaging practical joke. The reappearance of QTAC statistics here demonstrated that UQ has kept the same level of intake for the stated five year period. By the by, let's say Law students stay for 6 years (not so, but let's inflate these numbers). With an entry of 300 per year, and presume there are no drop-outs, that means at any point in time there are 1800 little UQ Law kiddies walking around with Country Road bags. 1800 out of 38139 is approximately 4.7%, meaning if every UQ Law student were knocked off the face of the Earth, one in twenty rented rooms would vacated. Not a huge danger for the 'upper-middle class' residents of St Lucia. But enough of that wishful thinking!
  • I never actually made a mention of Killer but since you brought it up, I searched and searched but didn't find anything. Searched the real Google and found something! Very peculiar. I don't really care if he's called Killer or not, or even if he exists. My concern is that this entry is attempting to sully another university's students without any citation to an official record. Now, those suits are easily a few hundred to a thousand dollars - this was never reported to the police? Never documented in the campus newspaper? And the unfortunate decapitation happened on July 6, yet he is there reborn at the end of July accepting birthday cake. (Seriously, how many costumes stores stock full sized angry koala suits ready to be sold at the drop of a hat, or even delivered within 3 weeks? Chances are it was ordered a few months before this.) Internet detective ahoy. You realise that you may have been fed this "Oh no, UQ destroyed our lovable koala" story because it's a whole lot more interesting and inspiring than his outmoded costume being thrown unceremoniously into a dumpster.
  • I didn't personally question the statements of the Chair of Sport. But Google does, now that I think of it.
  • I'm not particularly jealous of anyone's law degree except those who actually have theirs. The unis are more of less similar, who really cares? I'm a however wikipedia fan, and specifically registered an account (finally, after years of anonymous edits) so that my edits in this article carried some weight. I believe articles and editors should not go out of their way to stir trouble and to depict the most verifiably accurate record of topic.

bilious wishes to ask some questions:

  • This referred piece in the Courier Mail, Oct 15, pg 14. I've tried doing searches but can't find anything related to Griffith or Uni of Qld. Could you potentially give me an article title to assist in searches. Failing this, I'll have to go to my city library and see if I can find it.
  • I'll take the Good Universities Guide thing at face value. Congratulations Griffith. How much does a copy of that guide cost?
  • What is the smallest you can spray paint "We are better than you. Don't you ever forget that."? ;p

Enjoy your holidays. Bilious 15:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

From a former UQ student who fled to the greener pastures of Griffith

  • The Good Universities Guide was accurate at least in ranking Griffith's law school (as no. 1) above that of UQ. The UQ law school is in a very poor state, as can be seen from the report by the UQLS:

http://www.uqls.com/?action=view_content&content_id=145. It was due to the very problems listed, among others, that I decided to follow the exodus of quality lecturers.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.133.220.90 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC).

Bilious: the Good Universities Guide is recognised as the "bible" for anyone choosing a university course- http://www.hobsons.com/press/aus/2005_08_02f.html ; http://media.uow.edu.au/news/2005/0803a/ Indeed, UQ has crowed about the areas in which it has been ranked highly in the Guide (law not being one of those areas): http://www.uq.edu.au/news/?article=880

All the universities are not "more or less similar" in all areas as you allege. This is why such a ranking system as provided by the GUG is necessary. To imply that the Griffith Law School is at all similar in quality to the law school of UQ is a bit of an insult to the many lecturers (a lot of them ex-UQ) who work hard to make the Griffith Law School the top public law school in Australia. Some brief resistance might be offered by the private law schools, but if Bond is an example of their quality then such resistance is futile.

I left the UQ Law School with a GPA of 6.25. I was not a happy chappy with respect to the mumbling lecturers, poor teaching quality and the tired and outdated materials. Upon arriving at Griffith I was amazed by the high staff morale and the excellent quality of the courses. As someone who has been on both sides of the fence with respect to UQ and Griffith, I can say I made a very wise choice of Griffith over UQ.

Universities have different strengths and weaknesses. I would never, for example, undertake a science course at Griffith; nor would I go back to law at UQ.

I still tote my Country Road bag. :-P

Enjoy your holidays. xox—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.133.212.235 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC).

Image Copyrights

I have tagged Image:Water gu.jpg as lacking copyright information as it was incorectly tagged. I also notice that the griffith logo is incorrectly claimed as being self made, while every other image the editor has ever uploaded has been pinched directly from a website. This should be replaced with a new logo with proper source information and a fair use rational. I am going to tag it as lacking source information. --Martyman-(talk) 02:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the other two images as well.

--Martyman-(talk) 02:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Motto

Is their motto really "Get smarter"? RickK 06:55, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it is... If it's not, then what is it? Arashi 10:00, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is "get smarter", both the University logo and motto were changed recently alf 00:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I can confirm that's the motto. Additionally the logo represents both fire and a book (ie. passion and learning, or something similar). --Joshd 03:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
What's a mung and where can I get its tit? — JIP | Talk 16:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Re: Getamungstit- I agree, it's a silly name for a student magazine. I hope they change it to something more appealing in the coming years. (From a UQ-turned-Griffith law student)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.133.220.90 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC).

getamungstit is nolonger being published, and where is the mention of the gold coast campus? GC students are represented by a different student organisation (the guild), and almost all of griffith's health elements are focused there. 58.169.169.28

Ahem

Whichever Liberal loving rabble rouser thought it necessary to insert some Quadrant referencing bit of "anti-left" tripe into the middle of the law school's description (complete with personal attacks and inaccurate, unverified imputations made towards members of staff)- I've taken that away. Kindly refrain from repeating such behaviour. This is not a political forum where Young Libs get to pat each other on the back for vandalism- this is an encyclopedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.133.210.44 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

objection I have had a flick through what you allege to be 'anti left tripe'. I must say that all the material you have deleted says is thet the faculty is left wing and explains why/how. Entries are allowed to contain criticisms of the topic, and i don't see any 'personal attacks'. It is not a personal attack to say that someone is a feminist or environmentalist. This is, as you say, an encyclopaedia, and threfore no people of any particular political persuation may use this as a political forum to pat their backs - by adding or deleting material inapproopriately. The material is fine - i'm posting it back up.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VoiceofReason (talk • contribs) 07:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

The section was deleted due to multiple breaches of Wikipedia policy
Oh dear- it barely explains how or why the faculty is "left wing", it obtains POV comments (e.g. that certain theorists are "bitterly attacked") and uses one Quadrant article (hardly apolitical or authoritative) as a citation for the (largely irrelevant to GU) section on Mabo. This renders the section POV as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view and is an example of a "POV fork". If one wants to say something about Mabo, one should say it in the Mabo article, making sure to present something less POV. Further, the link to the Quadrant article on Mabo is not a citation for all the comments against the law school in the same paragraph.
There are no verifiable citations given (nor indeed any citations at all) for the assertions made against the Law School and the members of staff. Further, the tone is unfair and the entire section represents an anti-left bias (see the Wiki policy definition of bias, which is available at the link above), by insinuating that if the school were "left wing" (which is not proven by the section)it would somehow be to its detriment. Perhaps calling someone a feminist or an environmentalist is not an "attack"- but where are the verifiable citations? I could call all sorts of figures certain things on Wiki, but my material would be deleted very quickly if I had no citations to support these assertions.
Finally, the theories of Smith and Hayek are covered in great detail in the two compulsory legal theory/jurisprudence courses at GU. A certain university's "introduction to legal theory" course does not even come close to GU in terms of addressing any of the theoretical points raised by these theorists. Where are the citations for allegations against GU's curriculum?
Overall, the section shows poor research (see provided link about good research) and strong POV. The GU Law School deserves better than to be subject to such aspersions disguised as fact. Also, Wikipedia deserves better than to have it pages littered with attempts to present opinions (such as they are) as some kind of fact.
I am deleting this section and will continue to do so until the above problems can be corrected.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.133.210.44 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC).
rejoinder
Well at least now you have stopped objecting to material that presents 'liberal', 'quadrant' views per se and have admitted that there are no personal attacks on the content you have removed.
Perhaps there is some need of touch up with respect to tone and presentation of views. As for referencing, not all info is always available on the net to be referenced, especially when we are talking about a law faculty at a university.
There seems to be a number of facts which support the assertion that the faculty is left. There's the leaning and interests of the staff, the various theorists it includes in its curriculum and terra nullius being taken for granted. You attack the mabo point for being irrelevant and then say that there is no support lent to the assertion that the school is left. I hardly think you are being fair.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by VoiceofReason (talk • contribs) 04:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC).
Well...
The whole section reads like a "silly lefties" rant. I could equally attack, for example, UQ's law school for including an analysis of Hayek's theories in its curriculum, or for briefly mentioning Adam Smith and Locke, alleging that it is somehow right of centre for mentioning these theorists (as can be seen from the Notepool on the UQLS Website, http://www.uqls.com)- but such an attack dressed up as neutral commentary would be rebuked and deleted very quickly. The same rules apply here.
There are no citations, Web or otherwise, as to the "leanings or interests" of the staff. The theorists point is addressed above, and nowhere is there any proof of how the materials used in the Griffith curriculum show a leaning to the "left", or of how the materials in the Griffith curriculum take terra nullius for granted. The whole section seems subjective and based only in opinion. It appeals only to the emotive part of rhetoric ("left wing!"), and does nothing to prove the allegations made. It needs to be supported by proper citations and to be less sensationalist. The purely opinionated style and quality of writing might be acceptable in a newspaper column somewhere, but not here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.133.210.44 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 22 September 2006.

Law school and research centers

why does the law school get its own section. that list of research centers is really not necessary. this is an encyclopedia not a directory.

Something that is not mentioned in this article is the new campus that has oped up in south port next to the hospital, this is for the people studying oral health as well as medicine, and with the new Health Science first year there will be about 500+ students from a wide range of courses going there to do there "specimen" laboratories

I am unclear on this but i also believe that there is some Griffith "thing" at Australia fair, as there is a Griffith sign there and i was told, but i dont know how accurate this is that it was something to do with the hospitality students

The Griffith "thing" to which you refer is most likely the English language school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.189.169 (talk) 05:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Griffith University "vandalism"

I have read the Wikipedia: Vandalism policies and I am still at a loss as to how you classify my contributions as "vandalism". I simply added the newly appointed Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser as a noteable alumnus and, after the matter had been discussed, removed the "gossip column" style union section. If that be vandalism, then I really don't know how it is. 220.245.189.169 08:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See your talk page for answer --carelesshx talk 11:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Student Guild "Gossip Column" Removal

I propose that the rambling, subjective paragraphs regarding the Student Guild be removed for being POV. If there are no objections, I shall remove it on or after 24 September 2006.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.133.210.44 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

please do, i don't think most people could care less about it, i know i don't.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.163.146.121 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 September 2006.
I would likewise welcome its removal, however, in case a compromise is sought by those who take a "relaxed" approach to notability in WP, I have edited and done some flagging of needed citns. But please do not take my efforts as meaning I want the section to stay! Best of luck hamiltonstone 13:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

SRC Section Removal

The Student Representative Council section appears to add little about the university itself. If there are no objections or suggestions, I might be so daring as to remove it tomorrow (16/09/2007). Anyone? 220.245.189.169 10:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the entry now. It seems to have no place on the main page of a university. 124.177.66.62 10:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't remove the entry- protected. Bah, time to remove the protection, even if only long enough to delete this entry. Howmuchtheirfeethurt 23:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. If there is any argument for its return, I am sure we can all be open minded, but the section had very little to do with the university itself. Howmuchtheirfeethurt 01:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Riana. Howmuchtheirfeethurt 09:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Untitled

I've just deleted more vandalism. Perhaps it's time to consider applying for a ban of the source of this tiresome behaviour. I'm not sure how to do it... I thought the page was (semi) protected, anyway! 123.200.198.152 (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

View of Twenty Years

Here are my concerns with the article;

  • The lead only mentions the location/campuses of the university, and how many students there is. The lead should summarise the article. See WP:LEAD for more details. In short: If you have 30 seconds to speak about Griffith University, what would you say put all of that in the lead.
  • Remove the bullet points of the 5 campuses from the lead section and make a section in the article entitled Campus and convert the points to prose.
  • There needs to be a reference for the information in the infobox regarding students, staff, undergrads, & postgrads.
  • The academic structure of the school should be removed, it is unencylopedic. It would be better used to made a section on Academics, which focuses on the key areas of academic life at the university; its academic profile, rankings, endowment & research.
  • The section on sporting, social & cultural should be re-named "Student life", and look at key areas of student life including, sporting, residential, student groups/organisations.
  • Demographics should either have their own section or be placed into the student life section.
  • All alumni need a reference.
  • Every section in this article is short on content and references. Five Years 04:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The intro states that Griffith 'ranks high among Good University Guides'; however, the reference only mentions the rankings of Business Schools. Unless a reference can be found which considers Griffith's overall rank, I suggest the sentence be changed to 'Its business school ranks high among Good University Guides.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.96.31 (talk) 01:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In relation to the question of the ranking statement; I originally referenced it as a ranking that was relevant to the Business School only. Obviously someone changed it. I was responsible for adding the original. I would be happy to readd the original information if there are no objections. JustinFromAus (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Griffith Law School has traditionally rated very highly in the Good University Guide as well. 115.130.19.186 (talk) 01:37, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Another merge proposal

Propose that Griffith university centre for medicine and oral health be merged here. I should say that in general I don't like to see articles broken out from the main university articles unless the centres concerned are highly notable. People at WikiProject Universities may want to adopt a policy on this, which of course I would then try and follow. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Centre might be notable due to its recent construction and intake. It might also be notable given Griffith University's onsite health teaching methods, whereas other universities, such as UQ, have started to take a "self-directed learning" (i.e. teach yourself at home, online) approach.

Merge Griffith Law School into this article

Following this deletion discussion, some editors supported a merge. Previously discussed in June/July at Talk:Griffith_University_Law_School#Merge_proposal. Thanks. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Support This is a university department and isn't notable in isolation of the university. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't merge. It's a good article, most of the content of which would be lost (or would introduce severe undue weight issues into this article) if it were merged. There is tons of precedent from the states for having articles on individual law and other schools (where such articles exist at most of the major universities and many others), and no good reason to delete this one. Rebecca (talk) 08:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The person who is proposing this now led a slightly angry effort to merge this a few months ago. It failed. Why rehash all of this so soon after? Waste of time and energy. Tenterwhooks (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

please assume good faith, suggest you read policy on single purpose editing. Michellecrisp (talk) 12:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree I'm comfortable with this law school having its own article. The school is relatively new but I can't see a strong reason to merge. Let's just leave it like it is for now. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Disagree There is a lot of good information in the GLS article that would get lost in the main GU wiki. I say leave it as it. JustinFromAus (talk) 07:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

"Public University"

I think the article should explain what this means in Australia. It is not obvious to me, an American. Steve Dufour (talk) 07:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Disagree Not necessary in my opinion. JustinFromAus (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Improvement to "A-Class" Quality

If anyone has any ideas or suggestions as to how to improve this article to an "A-Class" of quality, please implement them or mention them here. Are there any non-copyrighted images available for the page? IMHO, on first sight it could do with some serious amendments to the flow and clarity of the sections and individual sentences therein, but I don't have time or brain power spare to go through everything with a fine-tooth comb. Let's do some serious tinkering with a view to improvement! Howmuchtheirfeethurt 12:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I attend this University, and so I could take some photos to improve the article. What should be in the photos? Also, I will go through the article and attempt to improve its flow, I agree that currently there is a serious problem with this. JustinFromAus (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is IMO, along way off the B-Class rating it has been given. May i suggest taking the article to peer review for more third opinions on how to improve it. Ill leave my suggestions on how to improve the article in a new section below. Five Years 04:14, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Justin- maybe try taking some pictures of the Conservatorium from the Southbank river side, and of the green spaces there too- the views upon approach really are lovely. 119.11.66.38 (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I attend the Gold Coast Campus. I will try to get some pictures of buildings, the library etc when semester goes back. JustinFromAus (talk) 07:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

In my view, this article is in need of a complete rewrite. The vast majority of "information" pertains to useless information - in bullet-point form, no less. I am going to attempt to bring this article up to the standard of other Universities. JustinFromAus (talk) 07:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Certainly a rewrite would be welcomed :-) --Commander Keane (talk) 07:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

"top 20"

Can this be removed/rewritten? It appears to be boastful but considering the number of universities in Australia (41?), it's not a good position at all. Or perhaps rewritten to include international rankings, if it can compete internationally. -- 124.171.171.116 (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? It's referenced. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 10:56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I could be NPOV-pushing, but it's just blatant advertising. As I said, the position is near meaningless because half the universities rank higher than them. The typical person would be blind to the detail and think this is an achievement, but it's not. I'm not asking for it to be removed but at least rewritten so it doesn't have a POV imbalance. -- 124.171.171.116 (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it's more a fact than achievement, I don't understand how it can be rewritten or how it isn't meeting WP:NPOV. If it was ranked 1 in the country and stated it was ranked as such, it would be no more 'blatant advertising' than what is currently on this articles page. At the end of the day a fact's a fact. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 03:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Typical Griffith bashing - how outmoded! The true number of universities in Australia is closer to 45, and as Westy states, the ranking (from whichever source) is a statement of fact. If GU were ranked as number 40, it would still be stated. As to international rankings, that is a matter of locality. UQ, for example, is very highly regarded - in South East Queensland. Once you move out of tiny little South East Queensland, no one gives a damn as to which Queensland university you attended. I know this, since I changed universities and I am now well educated, employed and well paid, with a GU degree - in Victoria. 152.91.9.126 (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Griffith Law School ranking

The article states that the GLS has been rated as #1 twice by the Good Universities Guide. The source, however, is not the Good Universities Guide, it is one of Griffith's partner institutions. I suggest that this be removed until a more authoritative source can be found. Justinbarbour (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Lists changed to prose Comment

Two templates were up for clean up of two sections of lists for schools, Colleges, research centres etc. These were changed to simple prose, no deletions of information. --Andrea edits (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I can't understand why List of Griffith University people exists separately from Griffith University. I would like to propose that List of Griffith University people be merged into Griffith University, specifically the "Notable people" section. Fisheriesmgmt (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Griffith 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 06:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Griffith 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.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Griffith_University/Archive_1&oldid=1079018183"