Jump to content

Talk:Free speech zone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateFree speech zone is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 9, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted

Why no mention of China or the 2008 Olympics?

[edit]

https://www.google.com/search?q=China+Free+Speech+Zones

BillyTFried (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the significance of the photos

[edit]

What's up with the photos at Washington University and Muir Woods National Monument? Who authorized these free speech zones and why? Anyone know? Regards, --Jayzel 04:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to the Wash U pic - Presidential candidates are given secret service protection (and have been since June 7, 1968 - the day after RFK was assassinated). So that was likely the Secret Service.
As to the Muir Woods pic - the sign itself seems to imply it was the National Parks service (probably for the protection of the land itself). Raul654 04:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I shoulda guessed regarding the Washington U pic. That park pic is bizarre, though. It's in San Francisco so it has nothing to do with the president and Secret Service and I don't understand how that sign protects the land. I'll have to research that one tomorrow. Regards, --Jayzel 05:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty easy to figure out. The National Parks Service is responsible for regulating traffic through the parks, to prevent damage. (Think what would happen to Yellowstone if Britney Spears had a concert there) It doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me that that mandate includes setting aside specific areas for political demonstrations. Raul654 05:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag

[edit]

Sorry, but after thinking about this for a while, I have decided to add the tag. The multiple use of extended excerpts from editorials by non-neutral activists without attribution is without a doubt POV pushing (And brings it to a whole new dimention here at Wikipedia). One of the more egregious examples of this, in addition to the extended quotes repeating the wording on protestors signs and shirts, is this passage: "The policing of the protests during the 2004 Republican National Convention represents another interesting model of repression. The NYPD tracked every planned action and set up traps. As marches began, police would emerge from their hiding places—building vestibules, parking garages, or vans—and corral the dissenters with orange netting that read 'POLICE LINE – DO NOT CROSS,' establishing areas they ironically called 'ad-hoc free speech zones.' One by one, protesters were arrested and detained—some for nearly two days."

These extended excerpts desperately need to be summarized in your own words to remove the POV aspects -- if they are to be kept at all. --Jayzel 18:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The very existence of wikipedia as a free (as in freedom) encyclopedia is a non-neutral statement about the values of knowledge and freedom. We don't present the positive side of ****** ****** to my knowledge. Why undermine freedom by downplaying the reality of Bush's behavior with weasle words? 4.250.168.43 07:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reality is relative. Your "weasle words" may be another's absolute truth. Also have to agree that this article does need cleaning up some.Jasontheperson 00:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; it doesn't seem incredibly POV to me. Free speech zones are repression. Why call them anything else? The major debate is not whether or not they are repression, but whether they are necessary repression. 66.81.49.203
No repression is necessary in a free country. Because the government is owned by the people and not the other way around. Hence the government is legally obligated to obey the people's wishes or otherwise commit fraud through the oath of office/service they taken and/or treason against the country. Lord Metroid 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't review the article so I can't comment on the NPOV, however this is a very loaded topic. Specially considering how the federal government is just out of control post-9/11. I don't think the founding fathers had this kind of practice in mind when they wrote the 1st Amendement. Lord Metroid 17:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delayed reply, but I didn't see these comments until now.
I find most of the above commentary confusing to say the least. I don't really understand how having protests in a zone is "repression". In fact, with the invention of the internet there is more free expression now that any time in history. To call not being allowed to shout "Hitler" to Bush's face "repression" diminishes the meaning of the word and is, IMO, insulting to all the people of the world who are truly repressed. With that said, I would not have a problem with the above text being in the article so long as it was actually attributed to the person saying it. This is common practice in writing. When you use a quotation, both attribute it and cite it. As it and other examples in the article stand now, the quotes are offered as facts instead of the opinions they are. Regards, --Jayzel 04:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand how having protests in a zone is "repression". - (a) It violates the constitution, and (b) is used to make dissent disappear.
In fact, with the invention of the internet there is more free expression now that any time in history - Until about 100 years ago, anyone could walk into the White House unannounced and have a chat with the president (Charles Guiteau nearly assassinated President Garfield this way). It was literally the peoples' house. Our leaders are more inaccessible now than at any other point in history, and this just takes that to its natural conclusion - hiding all dissent. You were saying?
To call not being allowed to shout "Hitler" to Bush's face "repression" diminishes the meaning of the word - "Free speech is the rule, not the exception. The restraint to be constitutional must be based on more than fear, on more than passionate opposition against the speech, on more than a revolted dislike for its contents. There must be some immediate injury to society that is likely if speech is allowed." - William O. Douglas
As far as issues relating to statements in this article, I will be happy to add statements defending the use of the zones when someone finds them. The Secret Service denies it uses them to quash dissent (as is stated - repeatedly - in the article) but the simple matter is that their actions do not coincide with their words. And nobody in the media is defending them. Raul654 01:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this might be a possibility. But cleaning up the article by replacing partisan sources with more reliable sources where possible, and adding some serious articles that give a good overview of the history of FSZs is probably a higher priority. Andjam 01:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
with the possible exception of #44 (The Marquett Warrior, a blog about Marquett University), every single sourced cited by this article is reliable. Raul654 02:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(I guess we have different ideas of what a reliable source is) Funeral protest ban passes Senate is another case where buffer zones are supported. Andjam 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attributed the quote in question, therefore I removed the NPOV tag. That wasn't very difficult now, was it? --Jayzel 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Criticism section, this line: 'The Department of Homeland Security "has even gone so far as to tell local police departments to regard critics of the War on Terrorism as potential terrorists themselves."' One of the sources is a blog of dubious authority and the other is a reprint of the AC article it cites (and which is cited on the very next line). As such, both cites should probably be stricken from this line. Also, the line itself is factually incorrect: Mike van Winkle is a spokesman for CATIC (part of the California DoJ, i.e. not DHS) and his statement (while worrying in a lot of ways) was PR fluff intended to undermine critics of tear gassing at an Oakland protest and not serious direction for PD. Winkle, as a PR man, is also very careful to couch things in weasel words ('you can make an easy kind of a link that...') and doesn't refer to WoT critics in general. There is a quote that better fits: 'In a May 2003 terrorist advisory, the Homeland Security Department warned local law enforcement agencies to keep an eye on anyone who “expressed dislike of attitudes and decisions of the U.S. government.”' That's a little different, but it dovetails nicely with more recent criticisms of the DHS for similar statements in its 'Rightwing Extremism' report. It also belongs as a criticism of the DHS (whose article...doesn't mention this stuff at all) and not here. - Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.9.109.213 (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muzzle award

[edit]

With regards to the mention of the muzzle award, the organisation currently lacks a wikipedia entry, and the citation given is from the organisation's web site. How would a reviewer (without doing their own original research) be able to judge that the award given by this organisation is notable? Andjam 04:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

[edit]

this edit got rolled back. I had a look at the IP's edit history, and it seems to be non-vandalistic (for example, it added specific information on a flag desecration event). The edit to this article removed a quotation of several sentences which promoted a certain POV. Andjam 01:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of the first sentence, every single sentence in that edit is a simple declaratory sentence that is objectively true. Removing large chucks of sourced material is vandalism. Not to mention the fact that removing it makes this article less informative. Raul654 01:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced or reliably sourced? Andjam 01:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removing large chucks of sourced material is vandalism. Do you have a link to show that policy? I am having my own problem with an editor deleting large chunks of sourced text from an article. --Jayzel 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible.
Secondary sources are documents or people that summarize, analyze and/or interpret other material, usually primary source material. These are academics, journalists, and other researchers, and the papers and books they produce. A journalist's description of a traffic accident he did not witness, or the analysis and commentary of a president's speech, are secondary sources. Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. - Wikipedia:Attribution
Nonviolent activist magazine, from which the quote originated, is a reliable source, as defined by Wikipedia policy. Raul654 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources:
Websites and publications of political parties, religious groups, anti-religious groups, or any other partisan group, may exhibit bias and should be treated with caution. Neither political affiliation nor religious belief stated in these sources are in themselves a reason not to use them, as these websites can be used to present the viewpoints of these groups, if properly attributed. Such sources should be presented alongside references from other sources in order to maintain a neutral point of view.
If you were characterizing the protestors, that'd be fine, but you were trying to cite them as the source on what happened at the protest. Andjam 03:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hightower article

[edit]

The Jim Hightower article cited doesn't seem to be giving a full history of free speech zones, and doesn't seem to be a reliable NPOV source. Andjam 17:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that sources give the full history of the topic, or that they be neutral. As far as reliablility, yes, The Nation is a reliable source. Raul654 17:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arrested Development

[edit]

Maybe a quick mention of the reference to the free speech zone made in Fox's Arrested Development? I would add it to the article, but I don't want to reduce credibility, or add pop culture references to a serious topic. I do however think that Arrested Development takes the topic on in a satirical manner that makes it noteworthy.--155.212.206.162 14:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube

[edit]

Youtube is not a reliable source, according to this, unless the author itself a trusted expert. Andjam 00:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the ACLU itself reliable either? They seem to be pretty biased, by definition. (Source 4, possible others.) --72.94.158.86 (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada

[edit]

Free Speech Zones have now appeared in Canada; I have tentatively added a mention of this just before the Criticism section, since the same criticisms apply. I think it's a good idea to change the History section to "U.S. History" now that this damnable Orwellian practice seems to be spreading. I'm actually quite surprised this article is very short, considering the impact of the subject matter. -MarkBaker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.82.164.4 (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the Canada mention into a "In other countries" section at the bottom. As far as the article length, I'm pretty much the only person person who has contributed significantly to it. Raul654 08:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Raul654, indeed the move makes good sense. And thanks for the significant contribution here. I suspect it won't be long until we (Canada) have the full fenced-in version here, especially with the Olympics coming in 2010.NormanBrown 21:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Historical usage should be listed first

[edit]

Free speech zones are a topic with much broader depth than their usage by the Bush administration. Even today they're still used at universities even when the President is nowhere nere. Accordingly, the history and origins of their usage should come first in the article, especially in the lead. As it's written, the article reads like the non-Bush uses are merely an afterthought. Scott Ritchie 00:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

[edit]

The second paragraph of the intro opens with "Free speech zones are created by the Secret Service for President George W. Bush and other members of his administration." Immediately to the right of this sentence is a picture of a zone with a caption stating that it was from the 2004 Democratic Convention. So is the caption wrong or the sentence? KnightLago 01:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(As the person who wrote it) That sentence should be tweaked. That's clearly their most prominent use (which is what this article used to say; people complained). In the broadest sense, they are created by people holding some kind of gathering in order (nominally) to protect the people gathering from possible hostilities with protesters; in reality, they are used to put protesters out of sight and out of mind. Raul654 01:34, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps instead of quickly pointing the finger at President Bush, the article also state popularization of Free Speech zones were a product of the Clinton administration, since that is the president that made them popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.40.76 (talk) 11:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V for Validity

[edit]

The validity of this page is highly questionable due to those images without documented sources, and I would like to see them either documented properly or removed. There are plenty of links for the ACLU fighting against this, why are they not on this page? I would like these stories included, they are a testimony to these events, specifically from the ACLU and other more credible organizations.

There is quality audio on http://www.scpronet.com/, someone please add this as well, I am partisan against this issue and feel that my bias will inhibit this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.240.1 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are lot of other pictures of the DNC's Boston Free Speech zone that quite easily confirm the validity of the ones here: [1] [2] [3]. Raul654 01:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similar restrictions

[edit]

Before the article gets nominated for featured article status again, would it be possible to include information on legislation against "protesting" close to abortion clinics (eg Mass. Senate OK's expanded limits on abortion protesters (and the ACLU's position on it) and possibly on legislation (or attempts at legislation) against the picketing of funerals?

One benefit to writing about legislation is that people are more likely to speak openly as to why they are or aren't in favor of restrictions.

I'm against "free speech zones" for presidential visits, but I think that in order for them to stop, we have to understand in general why people support restrictions on protesting, and indicate that "free speech zones" are not a new phenomenon.

Thanks, Andjam 18:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you have described are not free speech zones - they are exclusion zones. A free speech zone is an area that protesters are required to go to; an exclusion zone is an area that protectors cannot protest in. The existence in an area of a free speech zone turns everywhere outside the free speech zone into an exclusion zone - that's why they are objectionable. Raul654 19:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Is there currently an article on exclusion zones? Thanks, Andjam 22:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the sense you have described (involving protesters), no, we have no such article. Exclusion zone (correctly) redirects to Zone of alienation, which is the Chernobyl exclusion zone (the 30 kilometer radioactive area around Chernobyl where nobody is supposed to live or go). Raul654 00:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have converted the redirect into a real article. Raul654 21:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Andjam 05:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Restricted zones for protesters in Copenhagen

[edit]

There seems to be something like a FSZ set up by local authorities in Copenhagen, which maybe deserves to be explained here. The police there had this idea of setting up a venue for the protesters, but then raided the venue at night. Cool trick, huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.77.141.130 (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Abridged

[edit]

The openening Sentence in this article should do more to highlight the controversy of having such free speech zones. The first paragraph merely describes how it was justified legally. Others don't believe this to hold up. I think inclusion that "abridged" actually means to place limits on, and the defining of the location, time and duration of free speech is obviously applying limits to it.


(different poster from above unsigned comment) I'm pretty new to wikipedia and don't know all of the rules, but the opening section of this article needs editing, in my opinion. The text of the first amendment is as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[1]

The opening section of this article states:

“"Congress shall make no law... abridging... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The existence of free speech zones is based on U.S. court decisions stipulating that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner—but not content—of expression.”

What it does here is conveniently leave bits out, ostensibly in order to be concise, but effectively alters the grammar and meaning of the amendment. The altered meaning seems to suggest that the existence of "free speech" zones or legislation pertaining to them is within the realm of government's jurisdiction. Here's a simple way of showing the meaning of this amendment:

“Congress shall make no law respecting:
1) an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or
2) abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or
3) the right of people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

These are three distinct concepts about which no laws shall be made by the federal government, according to the constitution. The amendment states that congress has no lawful right to have created laws regarding limiting free speech in any way, and no lawful right to create laws regarding people's right to peaceably assemble, petition, protest, etc..

The use of the word "abridge" has been taken out of context. It has been made to appear as if it is lawful and fine for the time, place, and manner of speech and protest to be under the control of the federal government, but that the word abridge only protects the content of the speech. It is misleading, and deceptive for two reasons. The first is that if you are not allowed to abridge something, it means:

“Function: transitive verb
1 a archaic : deprive b  : to reduce in scope : diminish <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>
2 : to shorten in duration or extent <modern transportation that abridges distance>
3 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense” [2]

You pretty much can't modify it at all. If you limit the time, place, and/or manner of speech, that is modification. It is abridging speech, which is unlawful. The second reason is that 'abridge' is only used by the amendment in reference to freedom of speech and of the press - the right to protest is completely protected from any federal laws whatsoever.

I'm not trying to debate the validity of free speech zones. I know that the talk page is not a forum for discussing that kind of thing. What I am saying, though, is that the article is currently in such a form that it obfuscates the lawful basis for the existence of free-speech zones, and this needs to be fixed.

I propose it be changed to include the full text of the amendment, and that the court decisions referenced be cited at the end of the sentence.

I would be more than happy to make the edits myself without having had to rant, but somebody has locked/protected the article on wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anybody can edit, so that I cannot edit it. What is the process involved in being able to edit locked articles on this allegedly freely editable encyclopedia? If it requires me to make x number of edits or to have been a member for x amount of months, I'm not sure just how free that is. I'm not going to go randomly edit articles i know nothing about, just so i can rack up enough brownie points to edit a protected article. Is that the only way??Mumberthrax (talk) 22:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
  2. ^ http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abridge

Free Speech Zone article locked? Way to go Wikipedia!

[edit]

Free Speech Zone article locked? Way to go Wikipedia!

Never mind the lies on Wikipedia about 9/11 and Global Warming either!

What's the use in reading Wikipedia anymore? It's been overrun by mainstream propaganda. 67.214.228.98 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

18 USC 1752 updated

[edit]

18 USC 1752 now updated, waiting for WP:RS to announce signed. Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 was presented on March 1 to Obama. Since Thomas.Loc.gov refers us to this copy of the Federal Code which looks updated, it gives the impression it quietly has been signed into law. The Cornell Law version was timing out when went to it.

In short it would increase the number of "secure areas" where protests are not allowed and ramp up the fines and prison sentences for breaking the law, even if there was no way you would know a Secret Service "protected" person was in the building or grounds. The bottom line: carry a weapon (nail scissor?) or commit bodily harm (bump into/throw a pie?) and get not more than 10 years and in "any other case" (accidentally protesting some minor official without secret service protection who just happens to be in vicinity of one with it) "not more than one year, or both, in any other case." If there is no effective date explicitly stated, I assume it goes into affect immediately. So something to add. Or does there need to be an article called 18 USC 1752?? CarolMooreDC 21:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factual error in the article, but I can't change it because it's locked.

[edit]

"After a bench trial, Bursey was convicted of the offense of trespassing, but judge Bristow Marchant..." This is incorrect. He was never convicted of trespassing. Under South Carolina law, trespassing on public land is not illegal, and the charges were quickly dropped. He was prosecuted and found guilty under section 1752 of title 18, United States Code. I would be grateful if someone would amend this post-haste. I would do it myself, but I can't remember my password. 75.170.35.131 (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to include my sources: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/04/INGPQ40MB81.DTL&ao=all and http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2004/09/thou_dost_protest_too_much.html 75.170.35.131 (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! finally remembered my password, but my account isn't confirmed so I still can't edit it. :( Monkeyfoetus (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideological framing of the opening sentence

[edit]
Free speech zones [...] are areas set aside in public places for political activists to exercise their right of free speech [...]

The ideological framing of the opening sentence is appaling! These zones are not "set aside to exercise the right of free speech", American citizens are restricted to these zones in their right to exercise the First Amendment. --89.0.229.184 (talk) 21:12, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly correct. Wikipedia has a lot of framing bias like this. Viriditas (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the best way to present things isn't perfectly clear, I agree with the direction you're taking, but I think it was a bit too heavy-handed, so I edited the article to make things a bit clearer while preserving the strong indication of restriction. Did I go too far over the top with the "forcing", or was that justified? I think that it's probably best to immediately convey that the areas are used for restriction, but not directly, which is a crucial distinction that your wording kind of mangled (your comment here would have worked better than your edit, even just the to would have worked better). Thank you for changing it, excellent use of WP:BOLD editing! Garzfoth (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the opening sentence, it seems to have been turned around to be biased in the other direction; the use of "restrict" and "force" would be the view of those who dislike or oppose the use of such areas. I agree that the prior wording used (cited above by the IP user) was also biased; is there some way to be more neutral or accommodate both sides? 331dot (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Edits Needed

[edit]

Since the article is locked, I can't fix these minor problems:

Broken/Red links - James Strom Thurmond Jr.; ACORN v. Secret Service; ACORN v. Philadelphia; ACLU of Pennsylvania; Stefan Presser; Rank v. Jenkins; presidential advance manual

Reference errors - reference 4 and 37 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.202.213 (talk) 23:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The free speech zone at the 2004 Democratic National Convention

[edit]

This looks like propaganda, though perhaps there are no images available for Republican free speech zones. The use of these images appears to violate Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. Shouldn't they be deleted unless another image is added? Rwood128 (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the revised captions help. Rwood128 (talk) 17:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Free speech zone. 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) 14:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Free speech zone. 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) 14:53, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot edit

[edit]

The anti-spam (more like anti-editing bot) seems to believe i'm some kind of vandal. I am not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joujyuze (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ClueBot does make mistakes, though not very often, and I am sorry you were hit by this. You can report the false positive [here]. As for your question, yes, there has to be an ellipsis as the text is presented as a quote and there are omitted words. Sjö (talk) 06:37, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Free_speech_zone&oldid=1202139664"