Talk:University of Bedfordshire/Archive 1

message: I have added back in the section on quality that I composed for the old Luton entry.
This is important material, which is all verifiable.
I agree with one or two other editors that it is important to keep to the facts.
It is only a few weeks ago that we had someone who claimed to be a Luton employee deleting reference to the redundancies that have occurred at his/her own institution.
Unfortunately much of the previous discussion where I exposed this seems to have been deleted.
NT
195.93.21.137 14:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality issues 

message: I have deleted a repetition (Ebdon's response to the Times tables).
NT
195.93.21.137 16:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  deletion of repetition 

message: I have discovered where the old discussion went.
Its at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Luton&oldid=35377561 
 
During this discussion, one 'Pdean', who claimed to be university employee, was caught editing out material on the Luton redundancies.
He also seemingly predicted that the University would try to intevene to bend the entry.
I do hope it does not.
NT
195.93.21.137 16:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a biased condensation of an prolonged extensive discussion, moderated by an independent wikipedian. Only factually inaccurate material regarding redundancies was removed.
The above comment is in itself inaccurate.The material in the thread specified fully supports the interpretation offered. It is notable that the Wiki mediator did not uphold Pdean's complaints.
--Mythpuncturer 08:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing by University of Beds staff? 

message: In the light of recent editing of this page, I would like to appeal to all contributors to follow Wiki policy, and only include information that is relevant, factually accurate, and verifiable by others.
Second, I note that someone has recently added the allegation that the university has 'forced' its staff 'to take Luton courses to boost student numbers and inflate the University's record on widening participation'.
I very much hope the person who added this will justify it, but meanwhile I would like to point out that the Times Higher Education Supplement ran a story headed 'Luton asks staff to enrol on its courses' on 3 January 2003 which contained the following:
'Staff at Luton University have been encouraged to enrol as students on its courses in an apparent attempt to maintain numbers. 
In a memo to all staff at the end of November, Luton's deputy vice-chancellor...warned them that it could lose funds for teaching because "substantial numbers of students are not yet properly enrolled... and students we don't know about we don't get paid for". She added: "If you have not yet registered on your own courses, you must do so by the end of next week." 
Luton's vice-chancellor...this week strongly denied that there was any concerted attempt to artificially boost student numbers through mass staff enrolments'...
195.93.21.137 11:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement and information 

message: There are far too many claims and assertions in this section and it is heading for deletion unless external references can be referenced for the claims.  It is not enough that an editor asserts that he made them as this falls foul of the Wikipedia policy wikipedia:no original research.  Please also see Wikipedia policy wikipedia:wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Concrete Cowboy 12:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations don't have to be online.  They just need to be available from an independent source with information about how to find them. --Concrete Cowboy 19:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: Hi Alfred,
I've read your comments which are posted at the top of this thread, but I think that you are being a little bit unreasonable.
Many people - most probably including yourself - would be exercised if the Luton/Bedfordshire management consistently published something here that was unverifiable by an average person. You can't have it both ways. Anyway, Wikipedia policy is clear on these matters. If you dispute this, please do now call in a mediator. If you go back to the old University of Luton discussion thread, you'll see it has been done before, and with illuminating results.
This entry has had a troubled history already, and seems to have been targetted by some who are really averse to the truth. The only people who suffer in these circumstances are the readers. Please respect the rules.
Mythpuncturer 16:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy (2) 

message: Hi guys,
I'm new round here, but captivated.
I'm just putting together a section on governance.
Should be ready in a couple of days. As readers of the THES will know, there's lots of interesting stuff!
Boat swain 19:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Governance 

message: Hi Guys
Just coudnt resist.
Here's a little taster:
Times Higher Education Supplement
Whistleblowers: Luton 'misreported' student numbers
Phil Baty
Published: 21 March 2003
Luton University "misreported" its student numbers to funding chiefs at a time when it was struggling to meet recruitment targets. 
Documents seen by The THES show that auditors from the Higher Education Funding Council for England concluded after a May 2001 audit that they "could not provide reassurance" over the reliability of Luton's student number returns, which are used to determine teaching funds...
Best wishes
'The Boat'
Boat swain 20:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A taster 

message: Hi Alfred,
Ive read your latest.
I'm afraid that I still think you are being unreasonable.
First, the points of fact. I grant you that, to the outsider, HEFCE has sometimes seemed loath to castigate Luton/Bedforshire in public. But there have been the odd very revealing flourishes. Thus, for example, when the HEFCE Chief Executive met the Luton/Bedfordshire Board of Governors in November 2003, he indicated that he had 'some considerable nervousness concerning the financial strength of the institution, over its student recruitment and forecasting record, and its estates strategy' (UL810), and this phrase was repeated in the press. So the record is not black and white.
As to the THES, I think you are being unfair. It has regularly printed stories about Luton/Bedfordshire, and explained the anxieties of critics. But journalists should not be mouthpieces, and so it is entirely right that the university's views should be reported, too. 
Second, the points of procedure. Your mode of arguing is that you make an accusation, and then when challenged, tell the challenger to dig the evidence out for him/herself. Its like if I called you a thief, and then said, well, prove you're not. Absurd. But anyway, regardless, this is not how Wikipedia works. Its not an advertising space, or bulletin board for those with grudges (even reasonable grudges). Its a place where we collectively try to say something truthful about our subjects. And that means that evidence must be verifiable. That is, if you say something, I must be able to go away and reasonably easily locate the source,  on the web or in a public library, so that I can check that the way that you have referred to it is accurate. As Ive already pointed out, if the Luton/Bedfordshire management insisted on posting unsubstantiated allegations here, those of us who post in good faith would be (and have been!) rightly incensed. If there is a rule for one, it must apply to all.
So please, either provide the evidence for your accusations, or withdraw them.
--195.93.21.137 15:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy (3) 

message: I have:
(a) made it clear that the QAA subject reports were evaluating quality of education, and not teaching per se, by changing the word 'teaching' to 'courses'in line 2 of the Quality Issues section;
(b) added in a relevant balancing comment re the QAA Dev.Eng reports; and
(c) italicised newspaper and reference book titles.
Mythpuncturer 16:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of 22 August 2006 

message: Just added a little on.
Hail to the boat.
Boat swain 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

message: ...you're never too sure what it is talking about.
Consider the following.
At any time for the past three years (at least), and as of five minutes ago, you could find the following on Luton/Bedfordshire’s website, under the ‘Why choose us?’ banner (press ‘Why choose us?’, then ‘Teaching quality’).
The University’s record – and hence reputation – for excellent teaching is due to its outstanding performance in official inspections, conducted on behalf of the Government by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA). The QAA has awarded us no fewer than six ‘excellent’ teaching scores in a row for Building, Media, Biosciences, Nursing, Psychology and Design.
(see http://www.beds.ac.uk/aboutus/facts/teachingquality)
It is possible to check this statement, as the reports are online at
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/archive/oldInstReports.asp?instID=H-0026 and
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/archive/instReports.asp?instID=H-0026
It turns out that there are some surprises.
First, the way the statement is written implies that these are recent assessments (NB the construction ‘has awarded us’). They are not.  The dates are as follows: 1997 (Building), 1998 (Communication and Media Studies), 1999 (Molecular Biosciences, Nursing, Organismal Biosciences, Psychology), and 2000 (Art and Design). It is worth noting, too, that here have been other QAA assessments subsequently.
Second, the QAA did not use the word ‘excellent’ (and the implication of putting it in inverted commas is surely that it did?).
Third, the QAA assessments in fact measured ‘quality of education’ not ‘teaching’ per se. However, as part of this, they did each include a section and rating on ‘teaching, learning, and assessment’, which is presumably what the paragraph is talking about when it refers to ‘teaching scores’.
However, in four of the six cases, Luton did not in fact gain the top mark. The results were as follows (with the QAA explanation of the mark appended afterwards):
Nursing, Psychology 4/4 (‘This aspect makes a full contribution to the attainment of the stated objectives. The aims set by the subject provider are met’).
Building, Communication and Media Studies, Molecular Biosciences, Organismal Biosciences, Art and Design 3/4 (‘This aspect makes a substantial contribution to the attainment of the stated objectives; however there is scope for improvement. The aims set by the subject provider are substantially met’).
It’s a strange old world.
(with thanks to you know who)
TB195.93.21.137 07:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The trouble with Luton/Bedfordshire is that... 

message: There was an interesting piece in the Guardian on 29 August 2006 about the way that UK universities treat overseas students.
It contains quite a lot on Luton/Bedfordshire, including the following:
Some have tried and failed to get support from university services. Ting Zhao, a biological science undergraduate from China, worked part-time as a concert steward. "I wanted to relieve the burden for my parents and to break from my isolation in Luton," she says. There she met a 20-year-old colleague who moved into her flat.
Six months later, when Zhao became pregnant, he left her. Unable to tell her parents about her pregnancy, and evicted by the landlord, she became depressed and unable to cope with her studies.
Zhao went to Bedfordshire's international student advisers for help. "They referred me to the local law centre, which couldn't help me. They also accommodated me at a 'host family' who refused to keep me because I was pregnant."
The university lost contact with her and never followed up her case. Zhao wandered around the streets, where she was found by her midwife a month before the birth. The university's international advisory service told Education Guardian: "The university has offered support to Ting Zhao, but we cannot discuss her case. As she has deferred her studies, the university is currently not responsible for her situation."
See http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1859929,00.html
NT
195.93.21.137 13:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overseas students 

message: I have added a section on the student body.
Please feel free to bulk out.
195.93.21.137 15:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student body section 

message: I have applied the importance and cleanup-rewrite templates to the 'controversy' section, as the current content is completely unsuitable for wikipedia. I was tempted to delete the entire section on sight, but that would probably get reverted, so I will leave it for other editors with more knowledge of the issues to clean the article up.
In order for this to be in any way encyclopaedic, the section needs to comply with WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NN at least. The section appears to be filled with original research, apparently from some guy called Alfred Vella. The article needs to explain why the opinions of this person ("former Associate Dean") are important, and why they deserve a place in an article about this university. Then, if they are notable enough for inclusion, they need to be appropriately sourced and even-handedly dealt with. DWaterson 17:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section - templates applied 

message: I have added in a link to the Times Good University Guide tables.
--Mythpuncturer 14:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of 31 August 

message: I have slightly re-written the fist paragraph in 'Investment' to make it more reader friendly.
And I have then appended a second paragraph.
--Mythpuncturer 15:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of 31 August (2) 

message: Can whoever put in the tags for importance, neutrality, citation needed etc be even handed. Much of the first part is un cited and much of the rest depends upon what Luton/Bedfordshire has told others. For example ' Hand in hand with financial viability, the university became much better at attracting students.'. 
My comments are based on what staff and students have told me, what they have told employment tribunals and internal investigations. I have seen documents supporting my claims and my comments have not been denied by Bedfordshire as far as I know. If they do deny any then I will seek to publish evidence against such denials as widely as possible. Many who know Luton (and thus Bedfordshire) will only show their hand if necessary!
:But, Alfred (I assume this is you; please sign your comments with four tildes), this is an encylopaedia, not your personal website. You don't say what relevance these "claims" have to the article, and in any case Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for you to publish original research. Unless you can explain why it is essential that your comments remain, you should take them off and publish them elsewhere, such as your own website, where they will not harm the integrity of this article. Oh, and I agree that the beginning of the text is also uncited, though considerably less in dispute; please feel free to be bold and improve it with citations if you can. :-) DWaterson 16:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section - templates applied (2) 

message: User:Alfred Vella is now in breach of the three revert rule, having reverted text within this article four times within a 24 hour period:
* at 00:17, 12 October 2006
* at 10:12, 12 October 2006
* at 10:47, 12 October 2006
* at 12:33, 12 October 2006
No other editor is in breach. This revert war should cease immediately as it is contrary to Wikipedia policy. DWaterson 11:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three Revert Rule violation 

message: reading these two sections the tone and style appears to be mainly a personal attack on the university. Whilst there probably should be a section on these issues for them to dominate the article so much turns it into a review rather than an encyclopedic article.
Any thoughts as i am tempted to slash most of it out.GazMan7 16:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with User:GazMan7. DWaterson 14:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality/Staff issues 

message: I have found this a very interesting experience as I have never (outside political debates) seen such a clique defend what I know from experience to be indefensible!
Do DWaterson, Concrete Cowboy, Kevin Doran and GazMan7 etc really believe that a Durham degree is worth the same as a Bedfordshire one? I do not know what Durham is like, but I had a high opinion of it before DWaterson came onto the scene. I know what a Luton one is like as I have given lots of Luton ones away (BSc, MSc and PhDs) and lots from good universities too!
I guess some of the posters have connections with the ‘University’ but may be too shy to own up (I know some staff have been so embarrassed).
Anyway please keep up the myths, we need lots of people with duff degrees to do all of the jobs that the rest of us do not want. And maybe one day Bedfordshire will give you an Honorary degree – that will do your street cred lots of good ;)
By the way, as far as I am aware, Ebdon has not denied any of my statements! I would be happy to debate these issues with him but I guess he cannot afford to tell the whole truth.
Alfred Vella 17:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can recall, I have not "said" anything whatsoever about the university, either positive or negative. Indeed, I am unable to do so as I know nothing of the University of Bedfordshire. I have only deleted or reworded existing text contributed by other editors which failed to comply with Wikipedia policy. DWaterson 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. Not sure I understand being included in the complaint, since I have reverted some arbitrary deletions back to Alfed Vella's version. For example, my last copyedit reinstated his claim to be a whistle-blower.  --Concrete Cowboy 17:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alfred read what i have written. I am unconnected with the Uni, i curerntly live in Luton and am clearly aware of its reputation. However reading most of what you have written it is clear you have a personal greivance with the University which you wsh to play out on Wiki. Clearly that is unacceptable. There are plenty of places to review Universities etc but this in not one of them.GazMan7 10:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, what? I don't believe i've ever said anything about this uni -- which, yes, i do attend -- on Wikipedia. I don't even know how you included my name in this. I've only ever said negative things about the uni, on my blog. I don't think i've ever even edited this article or discussion page. . . . No, really, how did my name come into this? Confused. Do point me in the right direction, because if you're not mistaken, then someone else is posting as me. Kevin Doran 16:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do they really believe what they say? 

message: You cannot simply copy entire sentances from a source you must retell the sourced information in your own words.  Those sections need to be completely redone.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violations 

message: Where is it all? The stuff Les Ebdon mutters in the hallways, over and over, like a malfunctioning robot; recites in his sleep; re-re-re-reinforms when you say hello to him. 'Did you know how much money we spent last year, and how great everyone says we are?! Do you know?!' Seriously, though, where's the mention of it? Things like being 4th in Media a few years ago, etc. Kevin Doran 15:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: bleh? Kevin Doran 13:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propaganda 

message: The article has many faults, ranging from technical (twin systems of notes - there are two "notes 1" in the text; refs come in random places with respect to punctuation etc) to POV based language instead of proper reportage.  A simple and swift cleanup exercise will cure most of these.  Fiddle Faddle 00:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup Required 

message: (I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities.)
There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities#University ratings. Timrollpickering 22:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  University ratings 

message: Can't you guys see the personal sour-graping of Mr. Vella against UBed? He has gone nuts and used Wiki for his own personal purpose. What a loser who needs professional help. Obviously, there is no logic on his concerns with UBed. And indeed, there is a thin line between being a genius and being insane. One can easily identify who from who. This topic is a waste of time. Lucky I don't have to read all this because I already smelled the rubbish at the start.Ferrari2006extreme 11:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article should mainly focus on the QAA review (even though it is a 2005 review so older than the UoB after the merger. You can find loads of positive feedback as well, not only "areas for improvement". For instance, this uni is rated excellent when in comes to relationships with employers who would employ graduates. Article is highly POV, should be rewritten completely. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.86.48.2 (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Waste of Time 

message: Luton/Bedfordshire caught the brunt of anti-new university sentiments as it was both last one in in the big creation of universities in 1992/93, and is sited in a town often treated as having a particularly low reputation.  Being stuck at the bottom of league tables, it has acted fairly agressively to combat its bad press - but naturally that just makes things worse.  The UK HE sector suspects that it has cut corners - something its QAA Audit report shows, as well as its regular citations in the Times Higher.  Naturally, if you read their web site, or their prefered version of this article, all is perfectly ok.  Corporate PR might not like balance - but it should be aimed for here.   
The reference at the top of the article to the cost of buying the Bedford campus of De Montfort university might not be far wrong - De Montfort report that the site had a value of £20.8 million and that it made a historical loss of £4.5 milion on the transfer.  Bedfordshire appear not to have published their annual accounts on line (not a crime, but unusual).
--Registrarmike 15:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a complete waste of time 

message: I think that the photo gallery that is present in the article should be revised. The photoes of the Luton and Bedford campus are done in such an angle that the buildings are almost entirely covered behind the trees. A photo of the Business School and Luton SU should also be included here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.86.48.2 (talk • contribs) 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos of the university 

message: According to the article's ref 4 ^ The Times Good University Guide 2007 Top Universities 2007 League Table 
108 Luton 14.1 1.8 185.7 23.2 606 229 48.4 41.7 74.8 302 and there is no item under 'Bedfordshire'. Can the appologists for Bedfordshire either give the correct reference or the correct position?
Alfred Vella 06:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Ranking 

message: Along with University of Derby, Edge Hill University, Essex University, Exeter University and University of Glamorgan the University of Bedforshire has been nominated for the Times University of the year 2007.
The entry in the shortlist document http://www.thes.co.uk/upload/2038492/AwardsShortlist2007.pdf reads as follows.
BEDFORDSHIRE UNIVERSITY
Just over a year ago, the former
Luton University and De Montfort
University’s Bedford campus
combined forces to create
Bedfordshire University. It has
enjoyed a 41.2 per cent increase in
applications for 2007.
In its first year, the university also
achieved a top score (grade 1) from
Ofsted for Initial Teacher Training.
Both the Bedford and Luton
campuses are undergoing
redevelopment, at £34 million and
£50 million respectively. Bedford has
built an £8 million physical education
and sport science centre, a 280-seat
theatre, a new meeting and dining
area for staff and students and ensuite
accommodation for 500
students.
The university’s Business School is
launching a new suite of “business
pods” — small areas designed to
allow lecturers to deliver the
curriculum to team-based groups of
students.
Some 79 per cent of the additional
income generated from fees in 2006
is currently going back to students in
the form of bursaries.
The uni responded on this page on their website http://www.beds.ac.uk/aboutus/thes
--GazMan7 (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Times Education Supplement - University of the year Shortlist 

message: Alfred, please quote a source before adding in unsubstantiated comments to the University of Bedfordshire entry. The text regarding redundancies has been quoted directly from the THES website, no mention of 'forced' redundancy has been made. 194.80.219.38 (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancies 

message: I do appreciate your efforts but I wish you'd stop just reverting to old information and make new changes. Balance works both ways - why put the negatvie in front of the positive? Why not try it the other way for a change? I look forward your amendments.
FryerPaul (talk) 09:08, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Futher comments

message: Whilst editing this page the link to the stand alone Alumni of the University of Bedfordshire has disappeared and so, it seems, has that page.
Can anyone explain how I can find this again?
FryerPaul (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The category can be found at :Category:Alumni of the University of Bedfordshire. The section in the article is at University_of_Bedfordshire#Notable_alumni; I pared it down significantly the other day. VQuakr (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alumnus section 

message: FryerPaul. Wikipedia stands out from the rest of the internet because it doesn't work the way most people think it does. Wikipedia isn't interested in verifying information about the University. Wikipedia is interested in ensuring that the information in the article comes from a Wikipedia reliable source. See WP:V. Wikipedia isn't interested in the truth about the University of Bedfordshire. See No original research. Instead, Wikipedia is interested in an article being a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature where claims are verifiable against high-quality, Wikipedia reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate. If you use sources that are connected to the University of Bedfordshire, this article will continue to have problems and not move up in the quality scale. Wikipedia articles should reflect what others say about a topic, not what a topic says about itself. That helps keeps the length of an article on the topic in check and is what makes Wikipedia stand out from the rest of the internet. I suggest removing any information in the Wikipedia University of Bedfordshire article that comes from sources that are not independent of the subject. For example, as a start, remove all material from the University of Bedfordshire article that is sourced to http://www.beds.ac.uk. Instead, use books, magazines, and newspaper articles that are independent of the University of Bedfordshire topic to develop the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:58, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use sources independent of the University of Bedfordshire 

message: Having spent some years arguing that reliably sourced bad news should stay in this article I think some of the issues dealt with here now look a bit dated. I think a plan for redundancy made in 2008 looks pretty irrelevant now. The quality issues from 2004 may be more significant, even if further in the past, but I welcome views on that. Also does this still read like an advert - or has it been sufficiently improved to remove this tag?--SabreBD (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to move on? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on University of Bedfordshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100522102525/http://extras.timesonline.co.uk:80/tol_gug/gooduniversityguide.php? to http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/tol_gug/gooduniversityguide.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100522133308/http://extras.timesonline.co.uk:80/stug/universityguide.php? to http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/stug/universityguide.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on University of Bedfordshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926121409/http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/institutional/Luton1105/RG162UniLuton.pdf to http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/reports/institutional/Luton1105/RG162UniLuton.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.ubsu.co.uk/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "During the 2016/17 academic year the University of Bedfordshire, tendered its lease from Butterflied Business Park, with students being moved to either Luton Park Square campus or Bedford campus."  I don't understand the word 'tendered' in this context.  Was 'ended' intended?Cross Reference (talk) 03:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No clue what this means