Jump to content

Talk:Dissenters' March

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Dissenters March)

French Documentary

[edit]

I couldn't find a reference about this. I did find a mention about a Spanish documentary where the US Government is financing anti-chavez and violent movements in Venezuela, where it is briefly mentioned that the methodology and even logos where the same as the "Colour Revolutions" in eastern Europe. It is maybe a good idea to give the name of the documentary and director, the only reference is an russian article. Which the majority of readers won't understand. --Alma-Tadema (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this

[edit]

Why does this article's history no longer show that I created and wrote the original draft of it? Nor does it show that it was originally scheduled for deletion and I successfully avoided that? And the comments related to that? Is it because someone changed the title? --BillyTFried 10:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You started your article over at The March of Those Who Disagree - I think it was merged into here. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the changes to this article are fully biased

[edit]

And have injected too many quotes. And having the "See Also" point to the Tienanmen Square MASSACRE is ridiculous. --BillyTFried 10:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And...

[edit]

Why was the Russian related Stub tag changed to a regular stub tag? It seems the only thing left that shows I originated the article is the upload tag on the main photo. And pages like this one:


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_March_of_Those_Who_Disagree&action=history


--BillyTFried 10:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually as described above, what happened is 2 of you started an article. Kazahkpol realised this and took whatever was missing from his article article from your article and merged it into his article. Normal practice is generally to use the most complete version as the starting point. In this case, since both articles were about the same quality (from a quick look) and his article was the better title and also perhaps since he was the one doing the merge it was probably best to merge your article into his which is what he did. He probably should have mentioned he merged your article into his in the edit summary of this/his article but he didn't. However as you seem to be aware, the edit summary of your article is still available under the original title which is now a redirect. Admitedly your article was started quite a while before KP's so perhaps he should have searched better but it can be difficult to find these kind of things when there are a lot of different translations. Oh and the stub tag wasn't changed, KP used a less specific stub tag and neglected to change it to your more specific one when merging. Nil Einne 18:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

[edit]

There seems to be a typo: it should be discontented instead of disconsented. Besides, we should disambiguate it from the 2006 rally in Moscow with the same title (or describe both). So I propose to move the article to Saint Petersburg March of the Discontented. And hey, don't forget to fix double redirects. Colchicum 21:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean you could post two different names on English and Russian of that march in the introductory opening paragraph.Vlad fedorov 09:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the original word in the article name resembled closer the Russian name of the march. Dict.org does not show it among known words, but it does show "unconsenting". The list of synonyms to the latter includes another common word, "disagreeing". The passive voice of "discontented" and its negative connotation confuses me. Webster says "discontented" means "dissatisfied; uneasy in mind; malcontent". That does not reflect the original Russian word, as far as I know. The Russian word in the name, "несогласные", means to me only "those who disagree", as the comment suggested. ilgiz 04:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protests against what?

[edit]

Curtailment of civil liberties, with all my respect to Washington Post, are a brand, just some general words common among western journalists, which free them from necessity to actually analyze the situation. If people went on demonstration to protest against curtailment of civil liberties, it's logical to expect this statement in speeches or official statements of organizers of the demonstration. I tried to find it and failed. Perhaps I just didn't carry out enough extensive search, but if you are more lucky and have a link to any official statement of the opposition claiming this, it's ok to put that back into the article.

Instead, I think demands of protesters were laid in resolution read by Sergey Gulyayev. + slogans with which people marched are second important source -- they are mentioned below in the article. ellol 21:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guarantee that any resolution (accepted well after the culmination of the rally) represents all the opinions well, so it is perfectly fine to have slogans summarized. Besides, the resolution certainly goes against Putin and Matviyenko's policies (e.g. the legislation on governors has been proposed and signed by Putin, Matviyenko has been proposed by Putin etc), so there were no inaccuracy in The Washington Post. As to the protest "against antination policy of authorities", it was about the march in Moscow. If you strive for accuracy, why have you inserted this?
BTW, as to (in Russian), they distort layout awfully and appear somewhere in the middle of the article if the window is not fully open. Colchicum 00:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if a meteorite blow would destroy Russia the next day, they will write that anti-democtaric Putin's regime finally ceased to exist... and there would be no inaccuracy. As for (in Russian) -- perhaps I use other browser. In IE it looks pretty fine. Ok, now I know it's not always appropriate. ellol 07:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good question. Do you know about "freedom and democracy"? What is the "freedom" about or aginst? It is nihilism, a beast to destroy common sense and societies. Putin makes the world elits unhappy: he impedes privatization, Zbigniew Brzezinski-exposed plans for US empire and opresses the Russian business elites (enjails the oligarchs). We know that this cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. But, it would not be very commely to openly invoke the people to finght for the interests of rich class. The more vague reasons are given, therefore. They are not concrete. The "freedom" and "rights" mean whatever you like. It is good to be "self-relient" but it not explained that special social services could make your life better and easier. Yet, the vague "freedom" and doubtful "rights" are proven penetrator of common sense, authoritaianship and rational social plans. Just blow them up. Then, libirated capital will establish its rule. You will not participate in it. Do not worry. Your business is to protest. --Javalenok (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

[edit]

I have suggested the article for WP:DYK (see Template_talk:Did_you_know#Created_on_March_4). Please check the question Alex Bakharev 08:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have suggested this article for WP:ITN. --Camptown 15:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't know if there's much point going for ITN. It was on March 3rd so it should either be just after of just before Ungdomshuset and therefore is going to disappear fairly soon. Also, I personally don't know whether it really meets the international interest criteria. Nil Einne 19:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User GoWest8 unexpected activity

[edit]

I believe that User:GoWest8 is another virtual account of User:Colchicum. Please those with administrators rights, please check the ip-addresses of Colchicum, GoWest8 and Biophys.Vlad fedorov 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! This made my day, lawyer! How can one switch between accounts so quickly? (btw, with very different political views, although it looks like for some people everybody who is anti-Putin looks alike) Yes, admins, please, check this, I hope it would have some therapeutic value. Probably you have also forgotten to mention User:Redvers, check this as well. LOL. Colchicum 20:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You want to comment on my personality, anonymous user Colchicum??Vlad fedorov 04:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL.
Stop it, Vlad. Your opinion is only your opinion. You accused me of some "unexpected activity", but at the same time you put there a bullshit photo about the bus which even not from 5 Channel of Petersburg. And you even isn't trying to follow NPOV. We should come back to the version of 8 March and discuss every change.
GoWest8 21:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guys try to be civil to each others. There is a lot of spindoctoring and contra-spindoctoring around this march, so it is a good idea to double-check all the sources. Vlad, can you provide the exact source you took the disputed bus picture from. If you have capture a frame from a TV-recording yourself, can you provide time, channel, etc. If the picture is taken from internet (e.g. TV studio's website) can you indicate the source. Alex Bakharev 23:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I have found it with Google Images. Unfortunately, I forgot my search words. Can't find it still. Give me some time to find it again. Colchicum, could you help?Vlad fedorov 04:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, this picture hasn't any refer to the March, it was taken on the Ukrainian 5 Channel a couple years ago, maybe at the time of "Orange Revolution" or later, I definitely saw it before. Vlad constantly requires validation of all facts which he doesn't like, but himself writes in the article pretty much bullshit without any checking. GoWest8 20:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same goes for the Image:OMON at March.jpg by GoWest8 Alex Bakharev 23:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked the sockpuppeting allegations against GoWest/Colchium and do not find them convincing. It is true that every editor with less than 100 edits who is not a completely clueless newbie is to be suspected to be a sockpuppet of a more experienced editor but I have not found any similarities between GoWest and Colchium's editing patterns. Anti-Putin feelings as well as pro-Putin ones are not that rare. I also do not see any motives for the violations of the Wikipedia rules by Colchium. I do not have a checkuser access, but I do not believe a checkuser investigation is needed. At any rate a request to WP:RFCU would be rejected as frivolius. I want to apologise to GoWest and Colchium for the distress but unfortunately the checkuser allegations are part of life in Wikipedia. Do not be upset by them Alex Bakharev 00:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What contributions to the article photo of Gulayev does?

[edit]

I think there is no serious information contribution of this photo to the article. Besides, Gulayev is not so important like Kasyanov and Kasparov who couragously left protestors after their speeches. We should replace it with other photo on which protestors beat OMON. This issue is not covered at all in text, as also the fact that "peaceful" protestors broke through three blocks set up by OMON in different places. Vlad fedorov 09:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gulyayev is the chairman of the organizing committee. Why do you edit this if you know nothing about the subject? Colchicum 14:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I know who is he. I talk about his photo. What great informational sense does his photo possess?Vlad fedorov 17:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. And what "great informational sense" сan possess second photo of protesters beating OMON? As far as I know, there were no more than 1-2 OMONers who were surrounded and beaten by the protesters, many of resources talk about it. And of course, protesters beaten OMON just because OMON tried beating and detaining absolutely peaceful protestors - no one glass or shop window were broken. At the same time many of the protesters were beaten by OMON, I collected dozens photos of it. GoWest8 20:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from your strong emotions expressed here, please tell what information does photo of Gulayev contribute to the article?Vlad fedorov 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, I believe that provocative photo with Berezovsky is also non-informative, any other photo of the marsh could be better. GoWest8 20:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. It is indeed informative because it covers matters not expressed in text. Your bias and single-sidedness is evident in your above statement.Vlad fedorov 05:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First image in the article

[edit]

Please see the metadata on the image Mn spb 1.jpg inserted in the article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mn_spb_1.jpg

  • Camera manufacturer PENTAX Corporation
  • Camera model PENTAX *ist DL
  • Orientation Normal
  • Horizontal resolution 72 dpi
  • Vertical resolution 72 dpi
  • Software used Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
  • File change date and time 04:59, 4 March 2007
  • Y and C positioning 2
  • Exposure time 1/180 sec (0.00555555555556)
  • F-number f/6.7
  • Exposure Program Normal program
  • ISO speed rating 400
  • Exif version 2.21
  • Date and time of data generation 13:16, 3 March 2007
  • Date and time of digitizing 13:16, 3 March 2007

Please pay attention, this image could be a forgery, since it was edited by Photoshop.Vlad fedorov 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, Vlad, I feel a real KGB-FSB employee in you. No one of your paranoid accusations to me is true. GoWest8 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for NPOV check

[edit]

It's clearly many of sources provided in this article are not reliable and linked to sites of involved parties. Elk Salmon 14:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Especially section titled "Course of Events" which is built exclusively of March participants sources. Thank you for your third party opinion.Vlad fedorov 15:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Vlad fedorov regularly vandalize this page

[edit]

Admins, please note. Now it's pretty obviously that user Vlad fedorov regularly vandalize this page. He repeatedly inserting those parts which I edited and motivated it. For example, look for this revision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saint_Petersburg_March_of_the_Discontented&diff=116452971&oldid=116348386

I motivated almost all of my last edits, but he ignored it and changed everything back without any explanations. For example, he reverted back obvious lie about reasons of ban National-Bolshevik Party and inserted again opinion of Matvienko about "Organizers of the March gathered people form other cities and towns in order to create visibility of many participants of the March" as FACT, although it was only Matvienko's opinion, you can see it from the link. Also he just deleted all of my new contributions, for example, about money penalties.

I believe that user Vlad fedorov must be discharged from editing this article if he cannot motivate his senseless contributions. GoWest8 19:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Guys, please do not use word vandalize for the edits that are not. Read WP:VAND. Vandalism are bad faith edits deliberately targeted to reduce quality of the encyclopedia. E.g. inserting word penis into the article. Spending hundreds of hours reverting vandalism wikipedians start to really hate the vandals. Editing that are in mind of its author improve the quality of our encyclopedia by fixing perceived bias or removing undersourced materials is not vandalism even if they are annoying for the participants with another point of view. The correct word is tendentious or disruptive editing. Please do not use word vandalize for the edits that are not. BTW please be aware of the WP:3RR as I intend to enforce it. Alex Bakharev 20:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, but I want to know your opinion about it. GoWest8 01:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I would like Alex to take his action on violation of WP:CIV as quickly as possible. Because I am going to post it on administrators noticeboard. Moreover, user GoWest8 reverted the article without discussion diff and should be dealt with accordingly. Vlad fedorov 04:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit war

[edit]

I have looked in the difference between the two preferred versions [1] and cannot help but notice that there is no principal disagreements there. It should be a shame to lock the article over these relatively unimportant matters. The main differences as far as I can tell are one short paragraph and one image (see bellow). Lets find a compromise or even have a straw poll and follow the majority decision. Alex Bakharev 10:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must specify that my complaints on Vlad's actions were based on this [2] reverting, which were made after my fully motivated edits. There was much more disagreements. GoWest8 17:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph

[edit]

The paragraph in question is:

The rally became the biggest demonstration of the opposition in recent years [3]. It was preceded by Dissenters' March in Moscow on December 162006 and by rallies in Russian cities in December 2005 which involved fewer people.

What is wrong with it?

http://www.newsru.com/russia/06mar2007/marsh_dissident.html <-- it is anonymous statement by just one media. Moreover, as such it is not fact - it is opinion. We shouldn't be prejudging the rest of the article by inserting someone' POV in the introduction. News.ru - is a mass media, and we have mass media section in the end of the article.Vlad fedorov 11:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article the? It is sourced but can be challenged. Was the Russian March bigger?

Тогда, 4 ноября 2005 года, в Русском марше по оценке сотрудников ГУВД было более 3000 участников, хоты численность митинга в разных источниках определяется по-разному: наивысшая цифра - десять тысяч человек. http://www.rian.ru/spravka/20061031/55271836.html
<<2006 Moscow>> Что же так повлияло на количество пришедших на Девичье поле (4-5 тыс. человек)? http://www.rusmarsh.org/more.html?id=71_0_13_0_MVlad fedorov 11:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protests against Monetization? Maybe we could say "one of the biggest" or "According to newsru it was the biggest"?

And post it mass media section - what I had done already, but GoWest reverted it.Vlad fedorov 11:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any doubts about the march in Moscow but maybe it is better to source it? Alex Bakharev 10:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course.Vlad fedorov 11:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is any doubts, we can reformulate it to "one of the biggest demonstration" or "biggest demonstration of the democratic opposition". But it's not reason to delete whole paragraph. It's important fact and it should be in the beginning of the article. GoWest8 18:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am against "biggest demonstration of the democratic opposition" beacause of the National-Bolsheviks participation. They are hardly democratic. Any objection against "one of the biggest" with a footnote (according to newsru it was the biggest demostration, but some other protests, e.g. Russian March seems to involve a larger number of participants. Alex Bakharev 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was wrong about this word. It's better to say "biggest demonstration of the united opposition" or something like this. Lets stop on this variant. GoWest8 02:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really? What about RNE (РНЕ)? They are already ruling party? If they participated on the March? If they don't - it is disinformation to name the march as the "demonstration of the united opposition".Vlad fedorov 08:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Honestly I see no much difference between Image:Ment2.jpg and Image:Ment.jpg. Whatever is cleaner from the copyright point of view should be used. Any thoughts Alex Bakharev 10:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ment.jpg is better, although there are other images which I won't upload for the copyright issues - I posted links to them on your talk page.Vlad fedorov 11:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, there's no any difference between them from the copyright point of view.
Of course, Ment2.jpg is much better, because:
1. It's color.
2. It's more sharp and clean.
3. There's better seen what's really happening.
As I can see, Vlad cannot motivate his choose, probably just because his only motive is his bias to show allegedly more "scary" photo. GoWest8 18:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While you try to push your bias, right? You also don't have copyright, right? So please, cool down, baby.Vlad fedorov 08:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is suppose to illustrate Vlad's point of view let him decide. I have also noticed that the old gentelmen (next to Gulyayev) in the Gulyayev picture is also shown on the ment2 image. It might convey meaning that the organizers endorced the beating or that the number of active participants was low. Anyway I think the choice is Vlad's Alex Bakharev 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just noticed that in the photo's low 300px-resolution on the page it's pretty unclearly seen what's really happening. It's just a bad-quality photo and Vlad hasn't any arguments for it except his opinion. GoWest8 03:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My choice is Ment.jpg. I would like GoWest8, to speak for him only and comment not on my personality, but on the article, because commenting on the personalities is uncivil.Vlad fedorov 08:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph #2

[edit]

Another paragraph in the question is:

"Police stated that 800..."

Look at this [4] and lets to compare these revisions (left is mine). I just made some minor grammatical and factual edits but Vlad repeatedly changes it to his non-relevant version. List of differences between his and mine versions:

1. "Accordig" word to "According"

Agreed.Vlad fedorov 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. "there were 2,000 participants" to "there were more than 2,000 participants" (as it follows from the source article).

Agreed.Vlad fedorov 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. "However on his personal website, Kasparov claimed that..." to "United Civil Front led by Kasparov declared the..." (did Vlad read the source? and it's just reprint from the UCF site)

Disagree. Here is the article by Kasparov at his personal site http://www.kasparov.ru/material.php?id=45E978942A14E, and here is the text of United Civil Front press release http://www.kasparov.ru/material.php?id=45E974E070A09. It is clearly seen that these are two different links. So the statement was made not by United Civil Front, but by Kasparov. And there is no United Civil Front signature in the article we discuss. As an ultimate argument, if you would follow to the United Civil Front link you would see that there are no any numbers in their statement. So, please, read something before publishing nonsense here.Vlad fedorov 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who writes a nonsense? Kasparov.ru is a news site and many materials from different correspondents is publishing there. This article is just a news from someone reporter, not Kasparov statement of course. Articles written directly by Kasparov you can see here [5] and they are always signatured. So we should delete this wrong information. GoWest8 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is Kasparov personal site, so even if this source is not signed by Kasparov, then it is Kasparov's statement. Please meditate over the name of the site "Kasparov.ru".Vlad fedorov 07:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, what a nonsense! Did you read the description? [6] It's a news site and correspondents' and authors' opinions cannot be exact copy of Kasparov's opinions or statements. Moreover, some articles expresses opinions which are directly opposite, for example this [7] and this [8] ones. And finally as ultimate argument didn't you see the signature "Yekaterina Doroshenko and LJ's materials" in the dispute article? GoWest8 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. "On another article published by Daily Journal..." to "On the article written at Daily Journal..."

Disagree. The thing is that Kasparov gave three different numbers in three different sources. Daily Journal is not a blog, so the word "written" is hilarious, "published" is more proper and accurate since it is internet newspaper.Vlad fedorov 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As it follows from my previous comment it should not be word "another" there. GoWest8 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what is it then? Is it not an article? If it is article, than the word "another" is perfectly legitimate.Vlad fedorov 07:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the sentence about "However on his personal website, Kasparov claimed..." is obviously false and should be deleted, there's no more need in word "another". GoWest8 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. And finally, I deleted "The largest numbers of participants were offered by the March organizers and opposition media" as unsupported statement and expression of personal POV. Because some sources which specified after this sentence, are not an "opposition media" - they're just objective ones. GoWest8 18:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This statement is pretty much supported. Denial of the valid sources is your POV. Tell me which sources are not organizers of the March and opposition media.Vlad fedorov 07:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For example, it can be credible newspaper Kommersant [9] whose numbers about more than 5 thousand you didn't include in the list. I think if I search I can find more examples like this.
Kommersant is not opposition media??? If you feel you should add Kommersant please add it numbers.Vlad fedorov 07:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Not every mass media which isn't support FSB' and authorities' POV is "opposition media" (as you probably believes). GoWest8 17:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talking about sources that already are in the list I can say that fontanka.ru isn't an opposition media, as newsru.com. GoWest8 19:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not seem controversial to me. Vlad, any objection? Alex Bakharev 23:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, really? Have you visited links which are given in the respective texts?Vlad fedorov 07:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph #3

[edit]

And here's one more paragraph:

"Russian police put down the protesters..."

I added some information about money penalties supported by sources, and deleted non-relevant now sentence: "However, the number of detainees became a matter of speculations for opposition. According to Washington Post, citing ITAR-TASS, the number of detained was 20-30 individuals" because of 113 detainees is now official information by police and it supported even by pro-government sources (as rg.ru). But Vlad reverted whole paragraph back. GoWest8 19:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • I think if the fines and monetary penalties are included we have to give an estimation of the sum. Do the marchers had to sell their apartments to pay the fines or it were trivial sums of say ~US$10? If the latter is the case I think we can omit the sentence. If the sums were not trivial we have to give an estimation. BTW, IMHO Vlad's "dispersed" is better English than "put down". Alex Bakharev 23:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Put down" is a weasel word --> WP:WEASEL.Vlad fedorov 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case it claims attention. Because from the previous sentence can seems some wrong impression that detainees were just "released shortly" without any punishments. It's incorrect and must be specified.
This is lie, it was told they were released shortly. it wasn't written they bore no fines. Please, be civil.Vlad fedorov 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said it can seems some wrong impression and it must be specified. Where you see any lie? GoWest8 19:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And BTW, as you can see from the sources [10] [11] sums were something about $40 and it's definitely not trivial sums for many of the people.

Oh, really? For Saint Petersburg? Are you from Saint Petersburg? Of course for guys from the villages around who were coming to Piter on train this would be a sum. But then we should write that considerable numbers of participants come to Petersburg for the March.Vlad fedorov 07:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop write your biases and unsupported statements if you can't argue it with reliable sources. Or maybe Matvienko is a credible source, LOL?

Maybe we should indicate also pensions' amount for comparision, huh? GoWest8 02:44, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the marches, 40$ was equal to about a 1000 rubles, which was about one-fifth of the average monthly pension and one-eighth of the average monthly salary. You don't lose that much money every day, but there is no way this fine will force you into selling your flat. I hope I cleared the matter. Boron eye (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any other disagreements?

[edit]

1. "Major" word in the beginning. No any doubts that the March was "a major political opposition protest". But Vlad repeatedly deletes it, making accent on "unsactioned" character of the protest. I believe that it violates NPOV and it's just stupid to nag at words like it.

I doubt at least. It is misattribution, because you present someone allegations and opinions as world accepted views in the introductory paragraph prejudging the rest of the article. Vlad fedorov 07:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Alternative namings in English (Dissenters' March etc.) that have been deleted by Vlad [12]. Colchicum 22:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bugaga... Colchicum what reference you gave? It is not the reference for my dletions and is your LIE AND THEREFORE VIOLATION OF WP:CIV? Here is the relevant diff. Now please explain why you consider that Saint Petersburg March of the Discontented' is an accurate translation of Russian Марш несогласных?Vlad fedorov 07:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact as of now (22:35 UTC) it looks pretty good except for the {{Fact}} tags. I mean that it is very easy to find the information in the articles listed in the bottom section. But it is a good idea to incorporate the references into the body of the article, as Vlad has requested.

Also initially it was stated that traffic had been blocked by protesters and police, but Vlad has removed the mention of police. It is a POV (relatively minor though), as technically traffic was impossible insofar as police cordons and protesters were there, no legal decision has been issued and it is not up to us here to decide whether it is the protesters or the police or both who are to blame for this, so both parties should be mentioned.

And I thnik we need more info as to what 'unsanctioned' means and whether or how protests are required to be sanctioned in Russia. Colchicum 22:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate source which give that wording, because I don't need in Wikipedia to cite legal regulations in order to publish here information from the reliable source.Vlad fedorov 07:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the info about the number of participants should be moved down, as otherwise it is not clear who Kasparov, Limonov, NDSM etc are. BTW, this section needs to be wikified (links to Vedomosti and other sources for which we have articles here on Wikipedia, some style editing).

And March of the Discontented is to be renamed back to Saint Petersburg March of the Discontented, as there was another March of the Discontented in Moscow last year (not to be confused with the Russian March).

Now please explain why you consider that Saint Petersburg March of the Discontented' is an accurate translation of Russian Марш несогласных?Vlad fedorov 07:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This: 

The rally became the biggest demonstration of the opposition in recent years

indeed requires heavy comments, as in some sense this may be true, but ambiguous to such extent that it is almost meaningless (its meaning depends on what one means by opposition and recent years and how one estimates the scale of the events etc). Well, newsru is not a good source to my opinion. I would suggest to look for such assessment made by some of the English-language sources mentioned in the article. BTW, please link the sources (Vedomosti, Newsru etc.) to Wikipedia articles whenever possible. Colchicum 22:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad, any objections? Alex Bakharev 23:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unicvil behaviour by GoWest8

[edit]

I could and I should politely discuss the editing of the article. But user GoWest8 disrupts my editing and participation here, by lying that I delete his edits, which he indeed never done. Like here. It is clearly seen, that GoWest8 deletes statement of the mayor Matvienko, claiming it is unreliable source, while statements of Harry Kasparov which contradict to each other are viewed by him as reliable sources. It is clear, that statement of Kasparov, as well as other opposition sources are as reliable as pro-government sources. It is clear that the current version of the article (Course of Events section) is completely build up of opposition sources, is single-sided and biased. It is violation of WP:WEIGHT. I am going to insert in all sections of the article information from the pro-government sources in order to uphold Wikipedia policy. I don't think that lying and therefore uncivil behavior of user GoWest would help him. Deleting valid and confirmed information that NBP was banned by authorities for inciting racial and ethnic hatred is uncivil and attempt to misinform the reader with intention of advancing personal political views. This article in Wikipedia is not the exclusive property of liberals.Vlad fedorov 07:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil behaviour and false statements by user Vlad fedorov

[edit]

I must note that most of Vlad fedorov's absurd accusations to my address are obvious non-hidden lie. It's sadly that my politely discussing of the article were repeatedly ignored by him, and my neutral edits were disrupted regularly by him with his tendentious statements. Also he accuse me that I delete and revert his edits without explanations, though it's obvious lie. Lets look in details the history of editing: [13]

1. Everything began from my series of edits which were made from 18:07 (GMT), 19 March 2007 to 20:39, 19 March 2007. As you can see almost all of my edits were motivated in detail.

2. But at 04:31, 20 March 2007 user Vlad fedorov without ANY explanations cancelled ALL of my edits and reverted the aricle to 16:43, 19 March 2007 revision.

3. Of course I reverted back my edits at 19:24, 20 March 2007 and wrote in this discussion about Vlad's actions.

4. At 04:45, 21 March 2007 and 04:57, 21 March 2007 Vlad cancelled again about half of my edits and we began discussion here.

5. But anyway, I couldn't agree with this revision because of deleting the whole paragraph, deleting money penalties info and re-writing that paragraph by Vlad. So at 13:49, 21 March 2007 I restored my last version.

6. Vlad reverted again to his version at 07:30, 22 March 2007 and accused me of "deleting without any explanations", although in the first series of edits (1) I already motivated reasons of my edits.

7. I restored my version at 13:58, 22 March 2007, and later at 19:37 and 19:43, 22 March 2007 made some compromising edits which were achieved in the discussion.

8. BUT at 07:01, 23 March 2007 Vlad again reverted the article to his old version without ANY explanations _ignored_ achieved compromises. For example, he just deleted again whole paragraph in the beginning (although we achieved for right wording) and inserted false info about allegedly Kasparov's statement on kasparov.ru website.

9. I reverted to the last compromise version at 13:53, 23 March 2007, and everything repeated for one more time at 15:02, 23 March 2007 and 16:57, 23 March 2007.

So as you can see Vlad at least twice (2 and 8) fully ignored my versions which were motivated and compromised, and just reverted back the article without any explanations.

User Vlad fedorov also accuse me that I deleted statement of Matvienko. Yes, I deleted it when restored my last adecvate version, but anyway, it's not place for this statement in "Preventive countermeasures" section. It must be in the "Official reaction and media coverage" section, near other Matvienko's statements, which, by the way, repeat in some sort this statement. Vlad can put it there but he must not just revert the whole article.

Also he lies when he talks that "GoWest8 deletes statement of the mayor Matvienko, claiming it is unreliable source, while statements of Harry Kasparov which contradict to each other are viewed by him as reliable sources". It's obvious lie, I didn't say nothing like it. I was against this paragraph when it was present as fact not Matvienko's opinion (as you can see from here [14]).

Also it's just absurd that "the current version of the article (Course of Events section) is completely build up of opposition sources, is single-sided and biased". I believe that this article isn't neutral because of too little info from opposition and opposition media is present here and too much from pro-government ones.

And of course information about NBP is clearly lie. You can see for real reasons of NBP ban in the article about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevik_Party#NBP_banned

Information about "...for inciting racial and ethnic hatred..." is just a hoax nonsense.

GoWest8 20:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see, at 05:07, 24 March 2007 user Vlad fedorov again restored all of his false edits ignored this discussion and my last messages in it. I am going to take notice of administrators about it. GoWest8 15:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protesters beaten, detained in Moscow

[edit]

By DOUGLAS BIRCH, Associated Press Writer 52 minutes ago

MOSCOW - Riot police beat and detained protesters as thousands defied an official ban and attempted to stage a rally Saturday against President Vladimir Putin's government, which opponents accuse of rolling back freedoms Russians have enjoyed since the end of Soviet communism.

A similar march planned for Sunday in St. Petersburg has also been banned by authorities.

A coalition of opposition groups organized the "Dissenters March" to protest the economic and social policies of Putin as well as a series of Kremlin actions that critics say has stripped Russians of many political rights. Organizers said only about 2,000 demonstrators turned out.

Thousands of police officers massed to keep the demonstrators off landmark Pushkin Square in downtown Moscow, beating some and detaining many others, including Garry Kasparov, the former world chess champion who has emerged as the most prominent leader of the opposition alliance.

Police said 170 people had been detained but a Kasparov aide, Marina Litvinovich, said as many as 600 were — although about half were released quickly. Kasparov, whom witnesses said was seized as he tried to lead a small group of demonstrators through lines of police ringing the square, was freed late Saturday after he was fined $38 for participating in the rally.

"It is no longer a country ... where the government tries to pretend it is playing by the letter and spirit of the law," Kasparov said outside the court building, appearing unfazed by his detention.

"We now stand somewhere between Belarus and Zimbabwe," he said.

It was the fourth time in recent months that anti-Putin demonstrations — all called Dissenters Marches — have been broken up with force or smothered by a huge police presence.

The weekend's marches were being closely watched as a barometer of how much of a threat, if any, opposition forces pose to the Kremlin as Russia prepares for parliamentary elections in December and a presidential vote next spring.

Putin, whose second and last term ends in 2008, has created an obedient parliament and his government has reasserted control over major television networks, giving little air time to critics.

TV newscasts on Saturday reported the protests, but gave as much or more time to a pro-Kremlin youth rally held near Moscow State University.

Later, police charged into a crowd of about 200 demonstrators outside the police precinct where Kasparov was being held, beating protesters with nightsticks and fists.

Kasparov and his allies mustered, by their own reckoning, about 2,000 people — far fewer than the 30,000 people who patronize the McDonald's restaurant at Pushkin Square on an average day.

But some protesters said they were not discouraged by the small turnout or intimidated by the overwhelming force marshaled to block the rally.

Andrei Illarionov, a former Putin economic adviser who has become a Kremlin critic, pointed out that in 1968 only six people appeared in Red Square to protest the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.

"This is a crime against the Russian constitution," he said. "This country is not free anymore and the main criminal in Russia right now is the authorities."

About 100 of the detained protesters belong to the ultranationalist National Bolshevik Party, party spokesman Alexander Averi said. But he said Eduard Limonov, the novelist who heads the party known for street theater and political pranks aimed at Putin, evaded a detention attempt.

Organizers sought permission to gather on Pushkin Square, a traditional site for protests, but city officials rejected the request. Instead, they approved Turgenev Square, about a mile east and away from the city's commercial and cultural hub.

Organizers refused to cancel plans for the Pushkin Square rally and protesters started to arrive before 11 a.m. Police began seizing them a few at a time.

A 23-year-old woman, who gave her name only as Maria, said she and her husband, Andrei, were coming out of the subway when officers grabbed him.

"We didn't do anything," she said, tears rolling down her face as she watched her husband being hustled into a police truck. "We just wanted to see what would happen."

Viktor Vinokourov, a 67-year-old pensioner, watched the detentions from a nearby sidewalk, holding a hand-scrawled sign declaring: "I Don't Agree." A young man in a leather coat, apparently a plainclothes security officer, snatched it out of his hands.

Around noon, several hundred protesters headed away from Pushkin Square toward the sanctioned demonstration site, marching past startled motorists while chanting "Putin get out!" and "We need a new Russia!"

As they walked arm-in-arm down a main thoroughfare, a police cordon blocked their path. Some in the crowd ran forward and police charged, their truncheons flailing.

A Japanese journalist suffered a gash on the head and was treated by a policeman in a riot helmet. Eventually the crowd of protesters melted into side streets, and joined about 1,000 demonstrators at the authorized site.

Hundreds of police and soldiers surrounded the square, but let demonstrators in after checking them for weapons.

Mikhail Kasyanov, Putin's first prime minister but now a leading opponent, denounced the arrests and beatings in a speech at Turgenev Square.

"Everyone should ask the question: What is happening with our authorities — are they still sane, or have they gone mad?" he said, as the crowd chanted "Shame on the government."

Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov, who observed the march, said authorities were only trying to maintain order, not to interfere with the exercising of political rights.

"We live in a democratic country, a free country, and we give the possibility to everybody to express their agreement or disagreement," he said, in remarks carried on Russia's Channel 1 television.

--Parker007 01:28, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Name - Policy

[edit]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) --Parker007 01:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the article to Dissenters March, as that is the official name per the news agency Associated Press (AP). --Parker007 18:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging proposal

[edit]
  • oppose UCF and Other Russia are different things, different organizations. Moreover, UCF (as well as National Bolsheviks etc.) has never undertaken to be a member of the OR forever. Or do we have to merge Illinois and United States, or China and United Nations? As to the Dissenters' March, it has much to do e.g. with [Yabloko]], which in turn is not especially related to the Other Russia, etc. etc. Each of the articles has (or should have) some content that has nothing to do with the others. Colchicum 20:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, could anybody please write sections on December 2006 and April 2007 rallies? The article has been renamed to Dissenters March, so it is not fair to describe only the protest of March 3 anymore.Colchicum 20:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And on March 24, there was a March of the Dissenters in Nizhny Novgorod, which is not even mentioned in this article.... which for some reason was recently renamed... sigh... --Camptown 22:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose Colchicum is right. There is little reason to believe that the history of the UCF and Other Russia will be limited to the Dissenters March (or even a subsequent series of rallies and/or active protests). Years from now, an article merger may make sense if the UCF and Other Russia implode or are silenced before they can successfully initiate any level of social or political change in Russia. As of April 2007, there is no way for us to tell what the future will have in store. --(Ptah, the El Daoud 20:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Strong Support UFC and Other Russia are part of the Dissenters March coalition. When these organizations become notable in their own right, then we can split them. Right now they are pathetic stubs, which should be merged into Dissenters March. --Parker007 21:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued, and, in fact, already has been argued (by myself and Colchicum), that the UCF and Other Russia are unique organizations which are playing an active part in the opposition movement in Russia. As for Other Russia, well, the BBC certainly believes that it is worth discussing. As for the UCF, well, most Western News coverage on the Russian opposition movement focuses explicitly on Kasparov; as such, an article for the UCF--Kasparov's organization--is both acceptable and rational. Finally, nearly all of the articles on Wiki have started as "pathetic stubs." Future articles do not need to germinate in related articles, they can grow at their own rate on their own page...--(Ptah, the El Daoud 22:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Notability of protest doesn't depend directly on the number of protesters. But we are not discussing merger of articles about protests, we are discussing this protest + two organizations: Other Russia + United Civil Front. The Other Russia is certainly notable enough to deserve a separate article (as many of its members and leaders are very notable and even have their articles on Wikipedia, its conference in 2006 was attended by the British ambassador, which has been subject to "criticism" by Nashi, widely discussed in Western media etc. It would be stupid if someone looking for this info was redirected to the Dissenters' March. And if someone is trying to make the protest look either more or less important by the proposed merger, it is also a waste of time. Colchicum 17:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Petersburg March of the Discontented

[edit]

Wasn't the title Saint Petersburg March of the Discontented more an appropriate name of this article? --Camptown 22:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot Moscow ? --PFHLai 13:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moscow Dissenters March? Nizhny Novgorod Dissenters March?

[edit]

Would a kind soul write about the yesterday Moscow Dissenters March? and Nizhny Novgord one?

I am not sure if we want to have one article per march or one full. Alex Bakharev 01:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A kind soul has indeed added quite a bit on last weekend's events in Moscow. It's now featured on ITN. --PFHLai 15:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Alex Bakharev 06:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Public reactions

[edit]

There is recently added a highly POV section named Public reaction that stromgly smell of original research and misrepresenting sources.

Reference http://washingtontimes.com/world/20060416-110141-1957r.htm tells nothing about Kasparov nor about the March. Also there is a tradition on Wiki not to consider Washington Times as a reliable source. It only talks about Kasyanov.

The second and the third paragraph have no sources at all.

That some LJ posting made it onto the top30 Ru-Lj postings at a day says nothing about its reliability. The only other source to the fourth paragraph has irc-online in its html address so it is no more reliable than lj.

The fifth paragraph is an attributed opinion.

Halh of the sixth pargraph (not related to Sokolov) is an unattributed opinion. There is no single positive public opinion present, while most of the opinion of Western media and Russian blogosphere I have chacked was usually positive (or at least negative towards the heavy-handed opposition to the Marches.

I have not removed the piece, but unless it significantly improved and sourced I will remove it tommorrow. Alex Bakharev 08:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Not only this fragment is extremely POV, but it is not supported by any good references except a satire article written by pro-Putin journalist Maksim Sokolov (who works in Gazprom-own newspaper). I would remove this piece right now. This segment was discussed previously, and no good references are still provided. Actually, looking at discussions here and discussions between Colhicum and Vlad at Alex talk page, I understand why nobody wants to write about new dissenter marches. Biophys 15:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. There's extremely POV section, and information about Kasparov etc hasn't relate to the March, and that information already are on Kasparov page. GoWest8 02:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of article

[edit]

I don't consider this article to be neutral at all positions. I understand that it was written by people mainly from USA, Great Britain, Europe whose political elite aim only one goal — to weaken the positions of my country, to destabilize the situation. Only foreign newspapers were used in the places where I think the most unneutral statements. Foreign people understand the situation very different from the views of Russian people. As you might have noticed, mainly students took place in these demonstrations and it can't be at all the position of all Russian society, where an overwhealming majority supports the policy of Vladimir Putin particularly after the statements of the USA government, where it was said that USA openly supports such anti-Russian forces and, is likely, will support any demonstrations, or even might the revolution as it was with USSR. Правильно, что движение «Россия молодая» назвала протестующих «политическими и валютными проститутками». 212.152.39.26 10:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise! Most of the editors contributing to this article are Russian.
whose political elite aim only one goal — to weaken the positions of my country. Unfortunately, the elite don't care much of your country. I am not even sure that a unified western political elite in this sense exists at all. And even if this is a goal of the elite, they certainly have many other goals, much more important.
As you might have noticed, mainly students took place in these demonstrations Looking at the pictures, you seem to be wrong here. And what's wrong with students?
and it can't be at all the position of all Russian society Sure, every society has a lot of different viewpoints. That's good, and this article contains different viewpoints (e.g. those of Pavlovsky, Peskov, Matviyenko, Moscow Mayor's office, mainstream Russian TV channels).
where an overwhealming majority supports the policy of Vladimir Putin particularly after the statements of the USA government, Unsourced original research at best. To my opinion, it is simply wrong.
Only foreign newspapers were used Wrong. Is Kommersant, St. Petersburg Times or Moscow Times foreign newspapers? English-language sources have been chosen because this is English Wikipedia.
USA openly supports such anti-Russian forces and, is likely, will support any demonstrations, or even might the revolution as it was with USSR. OR, POV, and simply a misconception, excuse me. Anti-Putin != anti-Russian, and FYI, US weren't involved directly in the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It took them more or less by surprise, and they conceivably weren't very happy with a nuclear power collapsing. And, after all, what would be wrong with this? Are all these claims relevant here?
However, if you find some notable and sourced opinions that you consider appropriate (maybe even that claim by Rossiya Molodaya), you are welcome to add them. Colchicum 12:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article of course still needs work. I deleted a section refering to "the vilest of American neo-con goons." That is laughably biased.70.239.89.180 16:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Events such as the diienters march happen all the time in other democratic nations such as Armenia and Georgia (meaning protests being broken up by the police), why don't they get this much attention? QZXA2 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because nobody has written articles on them. Create them if you wish. Colchicum 23:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Event Tag

[edit]

Regarding Current Event Tag, I am assuming this is now no longer "Current Event". If you see in news regarding Russia you will find other news like Gazprom, or EU etc etc. I am proceeding with removing the Current Events Tag. --Parker007 11:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecisary details

[edit]

Although I am glad the people who wrote this article have kept it mostly NPOV, I don't think it is necisry to get into so much detail (ie. "the police took the protesters megaphone and threw it against the nearby building, and then put the protester in a headlock as the crowd chanted 'Shame! Shame!...") QZXA2 19:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what WP policies discourage adding details and how to make sure that certain details are unnecessary without getting into POV. The sentence you have cited is about Sergey Gulyayev, the chief organizer of the protest and then member of the city legislature, and is thus perfectly relevant. As of now, this article is certainly not excessively long and not difficult to load, so I see no reason to trim details. Colchicum 19:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dissenters' March. 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 20:05, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Dissenters' March. 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) 22:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Dissenters' March. 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) 11:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dissenters' March. 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) 11:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dissenters' March. 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) 03:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dissenters%27_March&oldid=1203579498"