Talk:Flag of Wisconsin
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Flag of Wisconsin. 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/20090227075257/http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/bb/07bb/pdf/961-966.pdf to http://www.legis.wisconsin.gov/lrb/bb/07bb/pdf/961-966.pdf
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060113193528/http://www.legis.state.wi.us/lrb/bb/99bb/ch11.pdf to http://www.legis.state.wi.us/LRB/BB/99bb/ch11.pdf
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) 00:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Use of NAVA Survey
editI removed the reference to the NAVA survey, which has been added back twice. The problem with the NAVA survey is that it is neither a reliable primary nor secondary source. The survey is not a reliable primary source for the reasons I have explained: it was an unsampled, unverified poll. Period. NAVA's own material shows this. Opinion polls must have a representative sample to be in the universe of reliable evidence of public opinion. Any secondary material NAVA published that derives from the unverified primary material is unreliable as well. The reference violates Wikipedia's own policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgepreble (talk • contribs) 02:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)