Talk:1907 in New Zealand
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 1907 in New Zealand. 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/20081014052518/http://poisonpawn.co.nz/nzcftitles.htm to http://www.poisonpawn.co.nz/nzcftitles.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090617211531/http://www.hrnz.co.nz/data/major_races/major_race2.htm to http://www.hrnz.co.nz/data/major_races/major_race2.htm
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) 14:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
CI--Mills
[edit]Not to be personal or hostile but do you bother to read the record when editing? I am criticised for doing something and then criticised for not doing something. Did you bother to read the record on Mills before coming forth with the bright idea about providing cn for what is claimed? I never claimed what was published, i simply made it less zeno-centric. Coming from an anthropological background if i were indig. it would be rather insulting what statement preceded the edit especially when there are examples of people passing until something become the flavor of the week.It is a contradiction of terms to call WP the new next best thing in information distribution yet have senior WP editors publicly publish that WP is not an environment of innovation and let stand what are zeno-centric statements. I do not know you and in all likelihood i will never have occasion to meet you but i do hope that what is suppose to be an innovative format believes that innovation in other ways needs to be considered otherwise you have the same old crap in a format that much of the world does not have a ready reliable source to retrieve it or power it.2605:E000:9149:A600:7D56:CC3:EA51:5FBF (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- The haste that the revert etc have been done shows that due diligence is lacking.2605:E000:9149:A600:7D56:CC3:EA51:5FBF (talk) 21:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)