Talk:Carleton College/Archive 1

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

Games & Sports

The changes i reverted are two in number, both plausible.

The fall of GOP from leadership, if real, can certainly be described on this talk page, and its reign (especially if only recently ended) may still deserve mention as in "GOP long prominent but broke up" or "GOP at least temporarily eclipsed".

The Ambition mention has some history of being tuned into acceptability in this article, so unless we've been suckered completely, there's some consensus that it's sufficiently notable, and counter-arguments for its non-notability are in order. --Jerzy(t) 16:52, 2004 Apr 15 (UTC)


Since GOP has no national or regional prominence and has won no national awards, I would consider them irrelevant to a discussion of Carleton. Even their own web page has not been updated since 1999. Considering they were created in 1995 according to their website, they have little to do with the history or current status of Carleton College.
Syzygy, with a history of national tournament competition going back to 1988, including winning the national championship 2000, is a much better example of the competitive varsity and club sports Carleton has to offer.
As for the Ambition thing, I just have to say, "hunh?" If Mike Church wants to reference Carleton from his entry concerning his game, fine. But I see no relevance to the definition of Carleton College. For example, the basketball page notes its history as invented in Springfield, Massachusetts. But the page doesn't need to list that it was the birthplace of basketball.
--208.42.115.205 16:34, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fine work, and i only dispute one point: if you'd ever driven thru Springfield on I-91, i think you'd agree with me that Springfield, Massachusetts should mention being the birthplace of basketball, in conjunction with the Basketball Hall of Fame: they deserve some explanation of the extenuating circumstances re their hosting it [grin]. Carleton probably is not so deeply involved in Ambition, unless we start hearing from others who continue an interest beyond the tourney. (BTW, speaking of games, do you know of Rotblatt and Glom?)

You may have noted that we're often casual abt documentation, but your diligent response suggests either excessive courtesy or your understanding why i asked for it in this case.

IMO, you should consider getting a user name here at WP (pseudonymous, like mine, if you prefer); i expect you'd earn a good reputation within WP, if your editing interests go further. (Your anon edits can definitely be transferred to the username if that's an IP-address private to you, and perhaps anyway.) You don't even have to give an EMail address, and if you do, it is still private against people whose EMail you don't respond to.

I would think there might be a place for some defunct teams in the discussion of Frisbee as an extended tradition, but in the absence of further evidence, i agree with you that GOP is not one of them. Nor, i'm guessing, is Hot Karls, unless they are a lot hotter than stated. With that in mind, i'm for reverting both myself and User:Mike Church in favor of your last edit.

I presume you know the Twain quote about the honor of being ridden out of town on a rail, and am guessing you'd forgo the honor of putting back your edit, even if you've already picked up on how to revert.

Tnx for your cooperation. [smile] --Jerzy(t) 21:05, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

GOP and Hot Karls are debatable; they are real Carleton organizations (pass Google test) but a list of Carleton extracurriculars (external link) may be more in order for that. I'm sure Carleton has one on their site.

Ambition should stay, but be kept to a mere mention. The game seems to have a pretty serious following and the fact that the first tournament occured there is important, but only deserving a mention (like the Schiller tradition) and not a full exposition. Similarly, I'd object to any mention of Church on the page, since he (unlike his game) is decidely nonfamous, at least at this point.

Rotblatt is a drunken baseball game in honor of Marvin Rotblatt, who was apparently a not very good baseball player. It used to be a semi-serious baseball game, where the senior class played the 5 year alums, but over time it degenerated into a bunch of people drinking on a baseball field. I believe Rotblatt was once covered by ESPN.

Sports & Games mixed with Alums (etc.)

By the way, didn't one of the guys associated with Lord of the Rings go to Carleton. Where is that? 68.117.68.223 03:50, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Page edited in accord with 68. I know Rotblatt was covered either by ESPN or Sports Illustrated (and heavily criticized), or maybe both, but I couldn't substantiate either claim and I'm not sure of which, so I did not include the fact. Mike Church 20:01, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(Jerzy(t) 05:37, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC) notes that Mike, in addition to moving some 'graphs, added Rotblatt, restored a version of Ambition, and added Hilleman, Osborne, and Veblen just before the time indicated.)

Garrick Utley and Peter Tork could be added to the list of noted Alumni. On the sports side, the only NCAA sanctioned Metric football game occured between Carleton and St. Olaf at some point. --209.98.116.228 03:36, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alums (etc.)

Also add Melvin R. Laird, and perhaps the Laird family's relation to the college (Laird Hall, Laird Stadium, & Laird Field). And IIRC, a world-class long distance runner who later edited Runner's World or its second-string competitor. --Jerzy(t) 05:44, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

The link to William Carleton in the body paragraph links to the Irish writer, but he is not the William Carleton the school is named after, unless the linked article is also wrong and fails to mention his donation or moving to Charlestown, MA.

P Wellstone

"Left-leaning" is vague enuf to include most Dems.

I think liberal Dems are actually in the minority of the party. Then again, I'm a lefty who things everyone's far right due to perspective...

However, perhaps "left-leaning" was poor wording, because it is somewhat vague.

I said "highly-respected" because the man had a reputation for being respected on both sides of the proverbial aisle, and pretty much universally. I don't think it's POV, but I won't reintroduce it. Mike Church 04:00, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re "Left", i don't think we're in disagreement, & my main concern is that "left" be said relative to some explicit standard. (E.g., it might be worth looking at whether ADA ratings establish a continuum or (as i fear)a very few clusters, each of people indistinguishable scores: intuitively i expect there to be a continuum of philosophies, but that gauging legislative votes work to hide those differences due to party discipline, and/or due to "voting for the test" just as teachers may "teach for the test". E.g., i'm convinced my state rep is better on repro. freedom than each of the sequence of challengers, yet NARAL won't ever endorse bcz they both manage to get perfect scores!)
As to respect, i think it can be worded w/o PoV, but that it's hard to do with the space that he deserves on this page: that point is better made, once, in detail, on the Paul Wellstone article where it can be given all the space that requires, than shoehorned into each article that mentions him; that's what all these links are for. (In fact, my biggest misgiving about "left" actually is that my "Senate spectrum" wording has so many words; i welcome other ideas.)
If anyone has ideas for working around some of the problems raised, discussing the tricky points (or trying out something new for reactions, by editing the article) is better than someone getting their wording in bcz everyone else gives up.

Thorstein Veblen

Hmm, i added Thorstein Veblen's class as 1880, based on a Carleton source. But there are other versions; see Talk:Thorstein Veblen --Jerzy(t) 21:28, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Pranks

In the text

painted the night before his commencement speech, and repainted very early the following morning

the wording "and repainted" is confusing; it probably means someone returned it to plain vanilla very early, but as it stands what it says is that the portrait was painted twice in the same night. Not hard to fix, if my surmise about the facts is correct.

(Speaking of clarity, is there "Freshman Rhetoric"?) --Jerzy(t) 05:37, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

Carleton's campus life shows no lack of traditions

In the traditions section, we had

One of the unique features of Carleton's campus life is its focus on traditions.

It may be a distinguishing feature (tho i'm not suggesting a simple substitution), but "unique" means only one of the "universe" under discussion has it. That claim could be verifiable (as WP expects) if said "focus", and the extent of the category of "traditions" being considered, and the universe (American 4-year higher education?) were clearly specified, but that seems far-fetched. I've substituted a lame sentence, just to smooth the transition:

Carleton's campus life shows no lack of traditions.

Consider that a straw man: knock it down. --Jerzy(t) 06:58, 2004 Apr 22 (UTC)

The Original Comment by Fehler

I fail to see the relevance of the dvdfest.org paragraph. The author needs to do a better job explaining why it uniquely defines Carleton College, or how Carleton's student film festival is deserving of special mention. The scant description and links don't make it out to be much more important than any other small college film festival. Otherwise, it looks like a personal plug.

I'd like to see some of Carleton's more unique traditions featured, such as Dacie Moses' House, or even the Pep Banned. The Cave could be mentioned as a rare in-dorm nightclub (isn't Evans the only dorm with a liquor license?). I also have yet to see anything on Carleton's new wind turbine. That must be somewhat unique. --Fehler 19:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

U.S. News

I removed the section:

(It should be noted that these rankings are considered suspect by many, but these rankings are still respected by many students and academics.)

Here's why: Every ranking system, unless it is based upon some objective fact (e.g. there's no debate as to what the tallest skyscraper is, or who is the heaviest man at any given time, because these are mathematical facts,) is doubted by many, and for good reasons. Collapsing something multi-dimensional like educational quality into a totally-ordered ranking system is going to mean overlooking enormous amounts of information.

I totally agree that the U.S. News rankings are dubious, and I tend to think America's colleges would be a lot better off if those rankings (which can typecast a college's image as one of being "inferior" to "top schools" over minor differences) didn't exist. I guess that's the price we pay for free speech. (I just wish people would use their freedom to be a bit more skeptical about those rankings, that's all.)

To say, therefore, that this particular ranking system is considered supsect by some, but accepted by others, is then essentially a non-statement. It's like saying "some people liked the movie, and some people didn't". There's place for that debate on the college rankings page, but I'm not sure it's appropriate here. Mike Church 09:23, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

ambition and other ephemera

I have removed the gaming material from the article. The inclusion of references to the "Ambition" card game have been discussed at considerable length. The consensus has been that the card game does not belong in the article. Unless there is new evidence about Ambition's popularity, the reference to Ambition should not be re-added.

Overall, this article suffers from an excess of ephemeral student life material. Such material is not particularly informative, since nearly all postsecondary schools exhibit similar traits. Most suffer streakers to some degree, for example. And such material dates quickly, since such traditions end up being changed around every 5-10 years as students graduate and are replaced by freshmen. While we needn't create a stuffy college-administration-and-admissions-POV article, we could do with more facts, more history, and less ephemera.

UninvitedCompany 16:49, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Weitz Center ??

There should be much more detail in the section about the Weitz Center for Creativity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.11.221 (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps listing the most important things in the building would be a good idea. For example, CAMS, some of THDN, LTC, art museum, cinema, theater, PEPS/idea lab.

Distant Early Warning (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming Construction

It would be worth talking about the Evans Hall renovation currently going on, ready for completion by jan 2013? How about the Laird Stadium renovation; they are adding an entire fitness center in wake (no pun) of the flooding.

Distant Early Warning (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Selectivity

So instead of just asserting that it's a selective college, cite some verifiable stats to show what percentage of applicants are accepted (and put those stats in context if you must). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bartbee55057 (talk • contribs) 00:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC).


Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater:_Carleton_College

Category:Wikipedians_by_alma_mater:_Carleton_College has been created. Add to applicable user pages, and/or place on article page if appropriate (did not see similar categories listed other college and university pages, so leaving it here in talk for someone else to add ;) Here 20:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the category should be expanded to include all people associated with Carleton College (i.e. alumni and faculty). 68.113.200.34 04:19, 24 December 2005 (UTC) Sarah

I agree, and , and would encourage faculty to use the existing category. The current description is simply Folks who called Carleton College home for a time. I've also mentioned changing the use of alma mater at Category talk:Wikipedians by alma mater. ∴ here…♠ 18:53, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Mention of Druids, RDNA mother grove

I re-added the mention of the The_Mother_Grove_of_the_RDNA to trivia. This is definitely worthy of inclusion. It would be great if someone on campus could cite some information from the archived druid materials available in the library. ∴ here…♠ 03:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


Agreed; I had intended to relocate it to "Trivia," apologies. - M — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.114.147 (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

GOP/CUT

I removed the external links to CUT and GOP websites as it seems unbalanced to link to only a few specific student organizations. I added a link to Carleton's student organizations main page. Malokata 08:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Someone from a Carleton IP just tried to add a GOP EL to Ultimate (sport), placing it along side links to national and international leagues. I guess they thought that GOP was more noteworthy than every other team in the world, since we specifically don't have team links in that article. I amazed, especially since CUT seems to take itself even more seriously. I guess Carleton Ultimate just goes to the extremes. All I can say is: Go OCD! (O.C. Dems) —WAvegetarianTALKCONTRIBSEMAIL 05:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I can tell you why Carleton people would do that. http://www.upa.org/scores/scores.cgi?div=18&page=22 Carleton is in the top 25 for US teams every year since they started ranking, usually in the top 5. The students and indeed faculty are completely obsessed by it, treat it the way football is treated at many colleges; people with no connection to the players or the sport go on dates to watch the big Ultimate game, etc. Weird and possibly even notable but I see no way to get a verifiable source for this fact. Just thought people might find it entertaining. 67.241.18.73 (talk) 14:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Founding date

Where does the founding date of Nov. 14, 1866 come from? I was a student during the 125th anniversary celebration and the materials said that Oct. 12, 1866 was the founding date of Northfield (later Carleton) College. 24.127.10.231 18:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Notable Faculty

What is the criteria for being a notable faculty member? I'm not familiar with the biology department, but what is the justification for listing Stephan Zweifel? Sarahjane10784 19:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Notable Alumni

It looks like we have the makings of a minor edit war over the issue of "notable" alumni. User:UninvitedCompany has strong opinions about limiting the list, but some of the rest of us are having a difficult time discerning his criteria. For example, comparing his treatment of Barrie M. Osborne and Jane Hamilton, I infer that UninvitedCompany sees notability in the producers of movies that were well-received critically and at the box office, but finds the authors of novels that were well-received critically and sold well to be nonnotable. Also, UninvitedCompany is more impressed by grown-up accomplishments (such as being acting governor of a state) than by accomplishments that make a person a hero to young children (such as creating Kratt's Creatures or writing "young adult" fantasy novels that are popular among middle school kids and the librarians who serve them).
Meanwhile, comparing Carleton College with other schools (for example, see St. Olaf College, Augsburg College, Earlham College, Lawrence University, and Macalester College), it appears that the "notability" bar is being set higher for Carleton than for many other schools.
Rather than continuing this nascent edit war, I propose that we agree that any Carleton alum who is sufficiently notable to have their own article in Wikipedia is sufficiently notable to be listed as a notable Carleton alum.
Does that give anyone a problem? --orlady 05:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it gives me a problem. Just because a grandson of an "acting governor of Wyoming" decides to write a Wikipedia article about grandpa doesn't make grandpa notable. I don't see anything wrong with writing an article about grandpa acting governor, but the existence of the article does not confer public, political, historical, social, economic, or any other kind of noteworthiness.

I would argue that being labled notable requires some kind of public recognition in the arena where the person was active. For instance, Walter Alvarez (someone I do not know and to whom I am not related), who was deleted from the list by UninvitedCompany, is a well-known geologist credited with an important and respectable scientific hypothesis that is the subject of much investigation.

I think that there ought to be more people on the list of notable alumni, but the criteria ought to make the list meaningful. BartBee


Discussion moved from the main page to the discussion page: "Please don't add people here unless they are of comparable notability to those already in the list. There are dozens of people in each class who become authors, editors, managers, politicians etc. - don't list them all. -UninvitedCompany"

Please join the discussion about criteria above.

If the list gets too long, lets celebrate the achievements of so many people.

BartBee

I don't think there is a danger of listing non-notable alums if we list people with Wikipedia articles. If a person writes a Wikipedia article about a truly non-notable person, the Wikipedia community is likely to delete the article for failing the notability test. As for that acting governor of Wyoming, Arthur G. Crane, he had a pretty impressive career. Not only did he fulfill the duties of governor for 2 years, but he was a university president for more than 20 years. He's certainly notable by Wikipedia standards, so I see no reason not to list him in the Carleton article. By the same token, I think we should also list Jane Hamilton and Chris Kratt, whose accomplishments are in entirely different fields of endeavor, but notable in the context of those fields. --orlady 23:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the list is most useful to readers if it is short. I don't have especially strong opinions on the notability of particular people (and you may have a point about Crane), but I believe that on the whole the list makes far more interesting reading if it includes primarily people as well known as Wellstone and Veblin. Carleton graduates dozens of people each year who go on to be novelists, editors, professors, minor elected officials, government functionaries, and the like. Listing all of them in the main article would be difficult and pointless, though I suppose we could have a separate list. I prune the list occasionally because it tends to accumulate names added by graduates themselves and their friends. Since I watch relatively few other college and university articles, I am unaware of any problems with parity; however, Carleton being the kind of institution that it is there are greater numbers of truly notable people than might be the case for a lesser school.

I believe that the criteria should be that the individuals in the list should either be public figures on a national scale or should be recognized as leaders in their field who have done enduring work that will withstand the test of history.

Regarding Chris Kratt, the article we have about him doesn't convince me that he's notable enough to belong here. Alvaraz I am unconvinced about because the article about him is unsourced and it is not clear to me whether his claims have widespread respect in the scientific community. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

"Notability" is all in the eye of the beholder -- it all depends on your age, experience, and interests. I know about Chris Kratt only because my kid (who was a fan of his TV show about 10 years ago) told me about him. I would bet that, among the generation that is now entering college, Chris Kratt is the best-known person on that notable alumni list. His contributions are not in science, but in science edutainment (like Steve Irwin, only saner). I am not an expert on this guy, and I've never met him. I only saw one of his TV shows once or twice, but I thought the show was good science and great entertainment. As for Walter Alvarez, if you don't believe he's notable, check out "1980" in the list of great scientific discoveries of the 20th century at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/databank/eventindex.html (that part of the list goes "1976 Cosmic string theory introduced; 1977 Life is found near deep ocean vents; 1980 World Health Organization declares smallpox eradicated; 1980 Alvarez finds evidence of dinosaur-killing asteroid; 1981 AIDS is officially recognized"). The article about Alvarez appears to be based on his CV, which often is the best available resource for biographical details on a living scientist.
Some other college articles list corporate vice presidents, Miss America contestants, ambassadors, radio producers, and college provosts as "notable alumni". In my opinion, most those people are non-notable, and those articles' practices definitely should not be imitated. On the other hand, though, when we start choosing between people considered notable within different fields of endeavor, inevitably we are revealing our own prejudices (or at least our age, experience, and interests) show...
Having said all that, I hasten to add that I'm not convinced that Pamela Dean, Clara Jeffery, and Patricia Wrede are fully as notable as others on the current list in the article, and even though I wrote the article on W.G. Ernst, I did not add him to the Carleton article. --orlady 04:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why the criteria for merely including someone on a list should be more stringent than the notability criteria for creating a Wikipedia article. I don't see why one person should be allowed to impose some arbitrary standard and cut the list down to some undefined length. If it really does get so long as to be unwieldy, then someone can create a separate "List of Carleton College People" article as has been done for a number of other schools. --Cheapestcostavoider 23:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The notable alumni list is getting a bit long. I'd like to propose something like: "Notable Carleton alumni include economist Thorstein Veblen...(5-10 more highly notable alumni). A complete list of alumni can be found here (link to list of all Carleton alumni worthy of their own Wikipedia page)." My picks for most notable would be Veblen, Tork, Hamilton, Laird, Holt, Stiles, and Utley. What do others think? Tdslk (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

  • I agree that it's time to split off the alumni list into a new List of Carleton College alumni. Everyone listed in the article includes a class year, so it would be nice for the list to be alphabetized, but formatted as a sortable table so it can be sorted by class year. As for who to mention next to the "Main" link in this article, I think the choices (other than the venerable Veblen) are likely to vary tremendously depending on the background (particularly age and interests) of the person doing the selection. For example, I would consider Laird and Holt to be strong candidates, but I would not agree on your other selections. Interestingly, the recent Forbes magazine "top colleges" listing,[1] which seems to have an emphasis on recent notability, includes none of those names: "John F. Harris, 1985, Editor-In-Chief of The Politico; John McConnell, 1986, deputy assistant and speech writer to Former President George W. Bush; Stephen Six, 1988, Kansas Attorney General; Clara Jeffery, 1989, editor of Mother Jones magazine." Maybe the "Notable alumni" section should name Veblen and point to the other article for everyone else. --Orlady (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, hey, there already is a list! Tdslk (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a category, not a list. See WP:Category and WP:List for information on the differences. A list would not replace that category. --Orlady (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The only person on Forbes's list I've personally heard of is Harris. McConnell doesn't have a page on Wikipedia, so he doesn't seem to be among the most notable.Tdslk (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"Trivia"

In the Trivia section (for want of a better spot), I listed info about the Chicago Reader. The four founders were Robert Roth '69, Bob McCamant '71, Thomas J. Rehwaldt, and one other... --orlady 05:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Athletics

Hello there. I noticed that Athletics is very near the top of this entry. While athletics is no doubt a part of Carleton College, giving Athletics the first area to be written about seems a little too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.22.224.106 (talk) 06:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Picture restructure

I'd like to suggest an overall revamp to the article:

  1. add a history section, folding in bits from trivia an elsewhere to form a narrative of the college. A lot of stuff is missing there...[history added, trivia folded in. fleshing out still needed.]
  2. flesh out the campus section, in part in relation to the history section. We should have a mention (at least a name) of all major buildings, past and present. Many have changed use multiple times. I'd suggest merging the Carleton College Arboretum article in a some point, but I'll leave that 'til later.
  3. rename and rework "defining features" into "Academics" for the statistics, and "Student life and traditions" for non-academic features (integrating the Traditions article, with more traditions like Primal Scream and bubbles at opening convo).
  4. then athletics (include Rotblatt here)
  5. ditch the Alma Mater (not useful information; if you really want you can get it off the college web site) and the Point of Interest list (duplicate of the campus section)
  6. list of famous Carls (and yes please just make it anyone with a legitimate Wikipedia article: Wiki notability is Wiki notability)
  7. Carleton in fiction and film

I'm willing to take on a lot of this, but want to be sure I won't just be walloped back for doing it.--Natcase (talk) 05:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, without objection, I'm diving in, slowly.--Natcase (talk) 11:02, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Notable alumni and faculty

Hi. Your Carleton College alumni and faculty list has gotten to the point that you need to split it off into its own article. See the following colleges as examples. Corkythehornetfan (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

History section

Hi all. I believe the history section is rather underdeveloped, especially when it comes to more contemporary history besides the school's 19th century founding and the like. There has to be some news archives regarding the school, both from the school itself and from other sources (Northfield newspaper, Mimmesota newspaper, articles on high education and/or liberal arts colleges, etc.). Let's address this ASAP! Lacmaboingo (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Massive Overhaul of This Article

Let's face it: the article is in need of some help, hence it's B-class rating. NPOV seems to be fine, all rankings are sourced. The history section is in dire straits and the campus section can be restructured and reformatted to be easier to read. There are a few citation issues needed and I will add them as I find them. I think most liberal arts college articles are really lacking in content, and this one is no exception. We need to upload new, fair-use images as well as the article is very text heavy and could benefit from the former. When editors come to mind, I think Natcase and Contributor321 could help us out. Kind regards, Lacmaboingo (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carleton College. 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.

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

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

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Carleton College. 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}}).

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carleton College. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carleton College. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carleton_College/Archive_1&oldid=1030522976"