Jump to content

Talk:Putin Must Go

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Starikov's campaign

[edit]

I deleted the following material:

A counter vote was organized by Russian writer and opinion journalist Nikolai Starikov. In few days, the website with the vote for Putin to stay was hacked and defaced. [1]

At the "Putin must not go" website Starikov explained:


Reasons for deleting:

The author gives too much prominence to an action, which 1) had no well-known names, 2) was not noticed by the media even in Russia (just briefly mentioned in a couple of articles), 3) was unoriginal (started against the campaign "Putin must go", seemingly to divert attention from it), 4) gathered only 6,616 signatures and 5) has been stopped.

Ybelov (talk) 23:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

4) It gathered 6,616 signatures in only 5 days, what is more than comparable with the rate of the opposing vote.
2) Most of the media coverage of "Putin must go" comes from the Western countries or from Russian liberal resources. You know which view dominates in the Western media, so no surprises the counter vote was not noticed there?
1) How does it come that votes of some citizens of Russia turn out to be less important than votes of different citizens?
3) You know the reasons why the counter vote was launched -- to allow citizens to express the "pro-Putin" view, not only the "counter-Putin" view. Only totalitarian dictatorships allow citizens to express only a single view.
5) The website of "Putin must not go" campaign has been hacked. That's not a fair play. Why organizers of "Putin must go" did not post a link to the counter vote at their resource? Were they afraid that their own vote would turn out to be less popular?
In view of many citizens the campaign "Putin must go" is intrinsically compromised just because there is no possibility to vote for Putin, not only against him. I don't accuse anybody, just state the obvious. Regardless of people's intentions and/or attitudes towards Putin, this campaign does already deprive people of a part of their rights.
ellol (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


4) Signatures. The rate of the campaign "Putin must go" in the beginning was higher: 10 000 votes in the first 6 days.

2) The media. Besides Western and Russian opposition media, the campaign "Putin must go" has been mentioned in several pro-Putin media (e.g. Izvestia). The pro-Putin media could not ignore the campaign completely, but it tried to ridicule and downplay it. As for Starikov’s campaign, it was so insignificant and amateurish, that it has been mentioned briefly only in a couple of Russian newspapers.

1) Votes. A big number of votes does not mean that the topic is significant. One can easily start a group on Facebook about a ridiculous topic and get thousands of votes. The issue is not the value of citizens. What important in Wikipedia is whether a person or an event is significant enough to be given coverage. Such signatories as Elena Bonner and Vladimir Bukovsky enjoy high international reputation owing to their deeds and writings. Many other signatories of the campaign are well-known, and there are numerous articles in Wikipedia dedicated to them. On the other hand, practically no one abroad knows Starikov, and he is hardly known even in Russia.

3) The pro-Putin view. In Russia there are more than enough places to air pro-Putin views. For example, the state-controlled media, including all major TV channels. Another example, the ruling United Russia party, which constantly elects itself into power by ballot rigging and brainwashing citizens through state-controlled media. Still another example is Kremlin-sponsored youth organisations.

In Russia one is always allowed to vote for Putin, to praise him in the state media (where is fair play there?) or to participate in a rally in his support (and be paid for it). It is only opposition parties, which lose due to ballot rigging, lack of access to the TV and refusal to be registered. It is only journalists who criticise Putin, who are killed. And it is only rallies against Putin’s regime, which are banned and dispersed.

5) Starikov’s campaign. If a site was really hacked, why did not they launch another one? Starikov’s text contained only propaganda clichés and accusations that his campaign was not getting enough attention; it was poorly written, even had spelling mistakes.

Besides, your text is too repetitious. Is it because that there is so little substance in Starikov’s campaign?

If you want to write in detail about Starikov’s campaign, then try making a separate article.

The present article is about the campaign “Putin must go”, so the information about Starikov’s campaign must be confined to the section of criticism. By putting your text in the beginning of the article, you divert readers from the topic of the article. You are also trying to suggest that these two campaigns are close in significance, but they are not. Ybelov (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

4) Yet it's a more than comparable rate to speak of.

2) Please, cite a reference saying Starikov's campaign was insignificant, if you like.

1) Your view is not consistent with the nature of the modern democracies, where all votes have equal value.

3) Thanks for your opinion. But I live in Russia and have my own opinion. However, Wikipedia talk pages are not about political discussions, but about contents disputes.

5) The both campaigns are equally insignificant, because only the votes of less than 0.05% of the Russia's population were counted.

ellol (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You look to be a supporter of the campaign, however, here in Wikipedia we are not supposed to take a side. We do not fuc*ing care about Russia, its authorities and its opposition. All that we care about is the event, its coverage, its critique, and the counter-event fits well the pattern of the narrative. With a political position, please, leave Wikipedia and join one of the opposition or pro-governmental rallies or movements. I hope that that's a simple and fair position. ellol (talk) 10:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:

I have already told you the reasons why Starikov's campaign was insignificant. See above. The campaign was hardly ever mentioned even in the Russian media! That’s a reference for you!

If you believe that the campaign against Putin is insignificant, why are you here? Go and work on something significant, e.g. an article about Putin or the United Russia!

One proof of significance of the "Putin must go campaign" is the existence of this very article. Also the proof that is Starikov's campaign was insignificant is that no one wants to create a separate article about it, even you! You are here only to spoil others' texts.

I accept criticism, but when it well-founded. I tried to accommodate your view leaving it the criticism section, even though Starikov's campaign does not deserve so much coverage. But you persist in putting your text in the beginning.

So I will delete your text again. I have created this article and I will defend it. Ybelov (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Yet, the counter campaign is mentioned in Russian media.
2) This is an important informational event. But unimportant political event.
3) The existence of criticism is enough for its coverage. Wikipedia articles must be written from the neutral point of view.
4) Please, familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policies, including Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion:
ellol (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again: the counter campaign and the arguments made in that campaign shall be described in this article to ensure the neutrality of the article. This article is not the advertisment for the Putin must go campaign. You do not own it. Therefore, a critical view shall be accepted.

The counter campaign is a part of the criticism of the Putin must go campaign, rather than a pro-Putin view. The initiator of the counter campaign Nikolai Starikov made a point that people's rights are neglected in the Putin must go campaign (in particular, its organizers did not provide an option to express a different opinion, what's essential for a movement pretending to be pro-democracy), and to amend that situation he initiated a counter campaign, the goal of which was not to prevent people from voting in the Putin must go campaign, but to give them an opportunity to express a different opinion.

If you are a pro-democracy activist you shall agree that opposition voices are important and you can't silence them. ellol (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Validation

[edit]

I have deleted this text: "However, no reliable way of validation is provided on the "Putin must go" website if the names represent real people who actually approve the campaign. The only information collected for each signature is the full name, e-mail, optionally city and profession[2][3]. This makes it impossible to track signatures to contact real people because there can be multiple people with same family name. For example, there is around 100.000 Ivanovs are in Moscow and around 80.000 Smirnovs.[4] The site actually guarantees that gathered e-mails will not be publicly disclosed.[2]"

The reason: The site sends a confirmation message to the address provided by the person, who has signed the appeal. When the e-mail address is confirmed, the data is checked by a moderator and, if it is OK, the signature is added. What other validation do you need? Can you give an example of another site, where it is used? “This makes it impossible to track signatures to contact real people because there can be multiple people with same family name”. Real people can be contacted by the campaign organisers through e-mail addresses; it’s not everyone's business to contact the signatories. There is no danger of duplication of people with same surnames, because people leave not only surnames, but also first names, patronymics, cities and occupations. If duplications are found, they are removed. Ybelov (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With all what you said, the aforementioned passege is correct referring to the independent validation by uninvolved people. ellol (talk) 10:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Validating emails is nothing, it just validates that email is exists. I can open 100 emails today myself on different free mail services like mail.ru for any name available. Like Ellol said, it should be an independent validation by uninvolved people. If person signing petition, then he should leave some way to contact him, otherwise it called "annonimka". I am a website admin myself and have several businesses I support. I perfectly know how this polls are working: the data entered by users in the web form is stored in database, and any programmer with direct access to database can insert records into the table just fine. Even users who decide to fake data can open a bunch of emails for unaware people in phone book and register with their first/last names without them even knowing. With no way to actually contact people on the list there is no way to track or validate it. Innab (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are your personal opinions. And my personal opinion is that no special validation is needed, because this campaign is created for the people of Russia, not the authorities. If you want to include your opinions in the text, then base them on reputable sources, such as laws or media articles.Ybelov (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ybelov, is it an official position that gathering of signatures is not going to have any legal effect? If that's not so, that might require a clarification. ellol (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with the site is that they display signatures on the list without of any verification. If someone sign with the neigboor name it would be impossible to verify identity, because there is no address, no phone, only email which impossible to tell whom it belongs. What is someone sign with a child name, or official, or a dead person, or just anybody from phone book name? It can have a negative effect on child relationship with some people, cause official to lose votes. I think in US this kind of site whould be already in deep lawsuites... Innab (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have replied to that below. Ybelov (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference star was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b "Путин должен уйти".
  3. ^ "Путин должен уйти".
  4. ^ "Common Russian last names".

BLP issues

[edit]

Hi folks, it seems that we/you/I should be very careful when adding names of people who have "signed" this web site. Can we confirm that reliable, 3rd party sources are being used? I know alot of the sources are in Russian, but great care must be given when presenting material as fact. Anyways, good luck.--Tom (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tom. This exactly what I am trying to explain to the site workers. There is anybody can open email on free email service and sign with unaware person lastname. Only the verification site internaly do is that email does exists, however there is no way to tell who is it actually belongs. Here is US there would be already huge number of lawsuites in you display signature of the person on a official anti-goverment petition list without his permission. What is someone sign with a child name or goverment officail name? This can damage person reputation, create business loss etc. That why in US there is a strict requirements of verification before you can display collected signatures. There already was whole bunch of cases when fake signatures appear on this site, even signatures of dead people :-) Innab (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Those "34 prominent public figures" authored and signed the petition before it appeared online, as members of the so-called Natsionalnaya Assambleya. They didn't sign any web site. Of course, the article should have made it clear. Colchicum (talk) 19:39, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well even signatures of Putin and Obama appear on this site at one point. Obviously it was someone joke, so now site admins trying to visually check for famous people lastnames and remove them, but what if joker sign with the non-famous person name? Collecting signatures for anti-government campaign is one thing, but posting them online without of proper verification, claiming that this is all valid, just because email exists, it totally unacceptable. That why there are rules on collecting and verifying signatures in any civilized country. Innab (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The well-known people who signed the appeal are listed on the site. Most of them signed in March, and their signatures are still there. If later some of them are removed from the site, I will remove them also from this article.

Innab, I have told you many times, that I do not care about how it is done in the USA and "potential" lawsuits. So far, there have not been any lawsuits from people who signed this appeal. It means that their signatures are real.Ybelov (talk) 02:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a right place for ads to praise your campaign. This is encyclopedia, so articles here should provide complete and balanced information, representing both criticism and positive side as long as information is true. Removing all criticism information from the article makes it look like a commercial ad. Innab (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Providing absolutely complete information is not possible for any encyclopaedia. Nor is it needed. To be included, information must be significant. I am not against criticism, but your information about Starikov's campaign is disproportional. You can add other criticism, for example, from the Russian version of this article.
The proportion between the positive side and criticism must reflect the reality, and there should not be criticism for the sake of criticism. This campaign is not much criticized - in authoritative sources like mass media - because there isn’t much it can be criticized for. Instead, the state-controlled media has chosen to ignore it. Ybelov (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Publishing people signatures in official anti-government compain without verification of person identity is a crime in many countries. If I would be in Russia, I would file in court if someone uses my name in political compain against president or vise-president that I did not sign. Innab (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a campaign for Russian citizens and the site is registered in Russia. Do you understand these simple facts? Then, please do not talk about other countries any more.
There is no need for courts, because false signatures are removed as soon as they are discovered.
The FAQ of the site has a question about it (http://www.putinavotstavku.ru/faq.php): "Someone has signed on my behalf, I want that signature be removed. Answer: Please contact the moderators using the form Feedback". Ybelov (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novodvorskaya

[edit]

Innab's version: "The signature of Valeria Novodvorskaya was added only a week later, after her two video-addresses to the organisers. Valeria Novodvorskaya blamed the campaign organizers for delays and accused them of removing real people signatures instead of the fake ones".

This is a distortion of the truth.

Here is what Novodvorskaya actually said (3:50-5:30):

"И на Мейл.ру подписывали, и на Гугле подписывали, и через американский спутник подписывали, и звонили сборщикам подписей — по телефону подписывали. Наконец, Константин Боровой взял авторучку — большую авторучку — пошел на митинг «Солидарности» к Грибоедову и там уже физически, на бумаге подписал, потому что подписи там собирали. Не помогло. Подписи все равно не появляются. Сдается мне, что идет отбор и селекция. Но не по тому принципу она должна осуществляться. А по тому принципу, чтобы не было фамилии Гейдара Джемаля и разных коммунистов и фашистов, которых то ли в порядке провокаций, то ли желая вместо Путина сразу уже иметь Ягоду с Берией подписывают этот документ. Вместо этого из документа выкидывают подписи демократов. Мне очень сложно предположить, что Лубянка стоит там с неводом, и, допуская существование всех остальных подписей, вылавливает только наших две. Поэтому я боюсь, что к этому причастны те, кто эти подписи собирает, и я бы на месте френдов все свое недоумение по поводу этих подписей адресовала все-таки авторам документа и тем, чьи подписи стоят во главе". http://vnovodvorskaia.livejournal.com/497991.html

1. She does not blame the organisers for the delay. She says that she and Borovoi have tried to pass the signatures in various ways, but the signatures have not appeared on the site.

2. She says nothing about fake signatures! She is against the signatures of "communists" and "fascists", as she puts it.

3. She does not accuse the organisers for not adding her and Borovoi's signatures - she merely throws out suggestions: "Сдается мне, что... Мне очень сложно предположить, что... Поэтому я боюсь, что..." :

Therefore, my version was a truthful summary: "The signature of Valeria Novodvorskaya was added only a week later, after her two video-addresses to the organisers. In them she expressed her displeasure with the delay and supposed that organisers did want to include her and Konstantin Borovoi's signatures".Ybelov (talk) 01:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For people who read us in English, I will translate what Novodvorskaya said about the delay with her and Borovoi signatures:

Signatures are not appearing. I think there is a moderation going on. It looks like the moderation goes on wrong criteria. Critiria should be such, so there will not be lastname of It should base It is hard for me to imagine that Lubyanka (former KGB, now FSB) staying there with a net, and allowing all other signatures only removes our two. That why I am afraid, this is a work of those who are collecting the signatures. So all questions of friends I would address to authors of the document and those whos signatures are on the top of the list.

— Source: http://vnovodvorskaia.livejournal.com/497991.html
But I agree to change the wording to softer phrase like "Novodvorskaya suggested that campaign organizers are removing real people signatures instead of the fake ones". Innab (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She is talking about signatures of "communists and fascists", not fake signatures.Ybelov (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You really think that dead nazi people and dead comunists like Yagoda, Beria, that she mentioned at one point appear on your site could of actualy sign the petition? Or Putin himself?
By "communists and fascists" she meant left politicians and nationalists, who are among the first 34 signatories. Novodvorskaya is well-known for her metaphors and overstatements.Ybelov (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protected

[edit]

After a complaint at the 3RR noticeboard, I have put full protection on the article for ten days. Please discuss the outstanding issues, and try to reach agreement on talk. If consensus is reached, ask for unprotection either on my talk page or at WP:RFPP. I notice that the creator of this article has consistently been removing any mention of the counter-campaign (the online campaign in favor of Putin). He has done so about five times since 12 May, without seeming to find any support for his views on the Talk page. I suggest he try to persuade others of his position, instead of just continuing to revert. If the counter-campaign (in favor of Putin) is not notable, perhaps that can be demonstrated from sources. EdJohnston (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have left information about the pro-Putin campaign! Even more than that campaign really deserves.
There are practically no sources about that campaign - precisely because it was not notable. Ybelov (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with Ybelov here. And even if the campaign was notable by itself, wouldn't it be off-topic or at least WP:UNDUE here? The mainstream Western sources concerning the first campaign doesn't even mention the counter-campaign. [1][2]. Meanwhile, the counter-campaign is mostly referenced with self-published sources. Both [3] and [4] were written by the organizer of the counter-campaign and thus are absolutely not WP:RS. PS: In general, I am somewhat neutral concerning the issue. Though I wholeheartedly agree that Putin must go, the text of the petition is exceedingly moronic in some places. Colchicum (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the pro-Putin campaign, there are four other critical opinions in the Russian version of the article, taken from large-circulation media. I do not mind putting them in the English version - even for it. But I am against giving too much prominence to just that failed pro-Putin campaign: it was started as a counter-action (in my opinion, mainly to divert attention), collected only about 6,600 signatures, did not involve any prominent signatories, was hardly mentioned in the media, and finally abandoned. So, one cannot put it in the beginning of the article, because that creates an impression that both campaigns have similar significance!
As for the text of the appeal, maybe it is because of the translation. I think that the Russian text is very good. The authors have not spent two weeks in vain on writing it.Ybelov (talk) 02:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can any American imagine signature or any famous or infamous person appear on-line without of his/her permission or any validation on official list of anti-government campaign to remove United States Vice-President? I think such irresponsible compaign would not last even a month here. But Ybelov and Colchicum are trying to prove me that it is "ok" for Russia. It is not true, I have a well-documented links to Russian, US and EU laws about collecting signatures that also state that these signatures must be verifiable. They only collect full name and city where person live and then publish it online (you can see it on their site, I have put the link). Anybody can just create a free email, sign the petition with any name they like and publish it on this website. As long as Ybelov and Colchicum do not visually identify it as fake, it will work. In beginner of the compaign they did not bother to even visually sort out the signatures, so the lastnames of Hitler and other dead Nazi appeared on the list. He disrespect both Russian and American laws of the collecting signatures during political campaign [1][2][3][4][5]. This can eventualy create legal issues for Wikipedia also, that why we should be really careful about this article. Ybelovis using the article as a free commercial ad. Any real criticism of the compaign problems is repeatedly removed for a number of different people, living only what he allows to criticize. And this people are blaming Putin for censorship! Innab (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I suggest you stop these presonal attacks immediately. Then I have to repeat again that the persons mentioned here by name signed the petition offline. They are its co-authors. Other than that, whether the petition is legal or not (it is, and your Russian links are about referenda and elections, which is another matter) doesn't bear on the issue of the possibility for Wikipedia to describe it. Meanwhile the sources concerning the counter-campaing are self-published and have no place here, even less so in the lead. Colchicum (talk) 08:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first 32 people who sign the petition in person are perfectly fine to be on the list. But I do not think you need to be a legal expert to understand that before you publish online signature of people during official political compaign the signature should be verifiable and valid. You site is not that popular in Russia, and 99% of russians knows nothing about this compaign. So fake signatures can be used there for years, before the victim even get to know about its name being used. Saying "we are removing signatures when someone complains" works for Beer Fun Club, but collecting signatures during political compaigns to change legaly elected government are regulated by law both in Russia and USA. It is one of the major rules of Wikipedia to do not participate in illegal activities. Innab (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) That is not my site.
2) This talk page is intended for discussions on improving the article itself. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
3) You grossly misunderstand Russian and American legislation, as well as Wikipedia rules, but then again, this is not a forum. Colchicum (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Verifying Signatures (USA)".
  2. ^ "Initiatives and Referenda Pending Signature Verification".
  3. ^ "Сбор подписей избирателей".
  4. ^ "Сбор подписей в поддержку кандидата".
  5. ^ сборе подписей "О сборе подписей". {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Putin must go. 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 09:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Putin must go. 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 or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 05:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 November 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: MOVED —UY Scuti Talk 17:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Putin must go → Putin Must Go – This is a proper name, not just catch phrase - üser:Altenmann >t 16:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Putin Must Go. 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) 00:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Putin Must Go. 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) 07:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Putin_Must_Go&oldid=1202235556"