![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The section named § 2020 EPBC Amendment Bill should be removed and replaced by the entirety of § Significant amendments, a part (and only a part) of which it replicates. (It will also make more sense there than as part of the § Description section, since "the promised standards" are not mentioned earlier than the § Reviews, audits and assessments section.) Any objections to making this change? yoyo ( talk) 16:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't agree with your huge restructure and apparent loss of content, IronBattalion. I don't have time for a detailed examination now, but at a glance, the Legacy section is just full of amendments, and to my eyes it has lost its logical flow. The History section contained "Background". I would prefer to restore the earlier version and proceed in small steps, and discuss any big changes. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 00:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The section named § 2020 EPBC Amendment Bill should be removed and replaced by the entirety of § Significant amendments, a part (and only a part) of which it replicates. (It will also make more sense there than as part of the § Description section, since "the promised standards" are not mentioned earlier than the § Reviews, audits and assessments section.) Any objections to making this change? yoyo ( talk) 16:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't agree with your huge restructure and apparent loss of content, IronBattalion. I don't have time for a detailed examination now, but at a glance, the Legacy section is just full of amendments, and to my eyes it has lost its logical flow. The History section contained "Background". I would prefer to restore the earlier version and proceed in small steps, and discuss any big changes. Laterthanyouthink ( talk) 00:11, 26 October 2022 (UTC)