Talk:New Zealand flag debate

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Transparent 6lue in topic Front page

Wrong comment??

edit

New Zealand Herald writer Karl Puschmann called it a design for those "sitting on the fence" who didn't want much change.[76] Members of the public have compared it unfavourably to Weet-Bix packaging, "Kiwi Party Ware" plastic plate packaging, the National Basketball Association logo, or a merger of the Labour and National party logos.[77]

I guess these critics have been expressed regarding the flag before (with red upper left part)...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.69.58.57 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on New Zealand flag debate. 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: 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on New Zealand flag debate. 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: 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) 15:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on New Zealand flag debate. 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: 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) 18:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Front page

edit

Hey guys, just wanted to ask really nicely if we could restrain from removing what I have written. There wasn't any real need to revert it; I worked very hard, made good citations, and ensured that it would not be too long or too boring. I took time out of my schoolwork to improve it, so I ask you all very nicely to keep it up there as it is. Thank you all.--Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 10:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

This user initially posted on my talk page, so I responded on his/her talk page, but I'll repeat it here so it doesn't get lost.
Leavepuckgackle1998, I think there has been a misunderstanding. I did not remove your content. I moved it. I had some reservations about the writing (I don't have time to go into those details right now) but I appreciated the additional points and citations. As I mentioned in the edit summary, this content was more suited to the referendums article. Thus, I personally took the liberty of rewriting the content to address these concerns and moving it to that article at the same time. You may notice that the criticism section of the referendum page is now very expanded, includes the citations you added, and contains points familiar to you (e.g. the "national disgrace" quote, discussion of crowdsourcing and the reference to groupthink), just heavily rewritten to fit the existing standards, structure and style. At the end of your message on my talk page, you propose retaining your contribution but making adjustments to address any specific concerns that others may have. This has already happened. Your efforts have been appreciated and not been dismissed nor gone to waste. It has simply been migrated to the page in which it belongs and is not worded in the exact form that you remember it.

Transparent 6lue (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)Reply