Talk:Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
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 one external link on Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20100926065627/http://www.builtenvirons.com.au:80/Capabilities/Keyprojects/HindmarshIslandBridge/tabid/91/Default.aspx to http://www.builtenvirons.com.au/Capabilities/Keyprojects/HindmarshIslandBridge/tabid/91/Default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- 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 23:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hindmarsh Island bridge controversy. 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://archive.is/20070503030217/http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1996/64.html to http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1996/64.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201090700/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bd/1996-97/97bd050.htm to http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/Pubs/BD/1996-97/97bd050.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) 04:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Should the details/summary's of the secret business be included in this article?
editThe section Secrete woman's business specifying what was in the letter that was supposed to only be read by woman seems unnecessary and perhaps disrespectful to be put on a public website? Could other people way in on this, as I have very little knowledge in this area, but this seems like a possibly very disrespectful oversight. The information in the section is not improving the article, and to remove it would not make the article any less informative. Wolfgang likes bugs (talk) 00:39, 31 August 2022 (UTC)