Jump to content

Talk:United Progressive Alliance/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Changed to top-importance, on the logic that, if the Bharatiya_Janata_Party page is listed as top importance, this page should be at least of high importance. -Alataristarion 03:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Shahab 20:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

BSP?

BSP is supporting?? at the same time as samajwadi?? Samajwadi should also be moved down to the members of the coalition, no? Lihaas (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

BSP is no longer supporting UPA. SP is supporting the UPA at this point, but is not a member. --Soman (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. Why is it still on the page? Lihaas (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That relates to initial support given in 2004. Both BSP and SP at that point had offered external support.--Shahab (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, sorry. My bad. But the Samajwadi are still not in the current section though. Lihaas (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Times of India

what is this about times of india wrongly reporting? this is an article about UPA not TOI. if you have aspirations to rant about TOI, do it in the paper/tv channel you work for... Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

bsp

how many mp s does bsp have at present (including bsp rebels without including sp rebels)? what was bsp's original tally in 2004? can anyone update the article's confusion WITH REFERENCES?? the same about congress 145/ 152? upa strength 221/226? Cityvalyu (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The original tally is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election%2C_2004.
Then the mudslinging with those who voted in and out seems about right in the "Cross Voting & Abstensions" section. But as for being expelled and what have you, i don't believe anyone was expelled from BSP or brought in b/c of the vote. should be 19 in the center for BSP.
Congress should be 145. I don't know how it went up, even if people supported the cong in the vote it doesnt meant they're part of the party. But then again the 2004 election doesn't count for by-election results (this is a toughie on the constituent pages). (i still doubt 7/8 by-election victories) Lihaas (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Initially in 2004 the Congress had 145 MP's. Owing to bye-elections the tally increased to 153. 1 member switched sides and 1 is a non-voting member. This means 151 MP's voted for the UPA in the trust vote. (The surprising thing is that I can't find any source on the net which details exactly how many MP's of each party voted ayes/noes in the vote. For example ultimately only 33 SP MP's voted aye but again there is no source to confirm it.)--Shahab (Shahab) 09:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
One can also count this list for the actual number. http://164.100.47.134/newls/membershomepage.aspx Lihaas (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Just in response to Shahab's message above. Have you tried the Lok Sabha site for the exact voting. To be honest, I tried the same but no luck. I briefly glanced the LS site but didnt have enough time. There was a link for bills et al. but not for a trust vote kind of thing. Lihaas (talk) 00:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I have gone through the site and can say with certainity that the exact voting records are not available. Also within the media reports there are also a lot of contradicitions and so it is not easy to piece together the records. For example some article claims that Aadikesavulu of the TDP MP abstained, some claim that he cross-voted. This article says that even the TDP isn't sure what happened. One thing is sure. The figures on our wikipedia article related to the abstensions and cross-voting are dubious. Either this fact should be mentioned or the whole list should be removed until verifiable facts are present.--Shahab (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

lies reinserted repeatedly.why?

the edits explain themselves...users can check if the reasons given to divert attention from his act of inserting lies repeatedly are correct..and i see that all sentences have valid references from which the article's text can be easily interpreted... fact1: somnath never "claimed" anything..media were left to wonder fact2: somnath inserted his name is a lie..cpi-m did that without his knowledge/approval. i have listed the sequence as seen in history page:

EXPUNGING THE LIE FOR THE THIRD TIME:

  1. 07:49, 26 July 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (23,506 bytes) (→Expulsions: lies reinserted FOR A THIRD TIME by lihaas on somnath "claiming" things and "somnath inserting his name in a list" expunged..other non vandalistic edits retained.)
  2. 00:36, 26 July 2008 Lihaas (Talk | contribs) (22,298 bytes) (copy-editing. rephrased + removed Original Research)

EXPUNGING THE LIE FOR THE SECOND TIME:

  1. 14:26, 25 July 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (22,193 bytes) (→Expulsions: lies reinserted by lihaas on somnath "claiming" things and "somnath inserting his name in a list" expunged..other non vandalistic edits retained.)
  2. 01:59, 25 July 2008 Lihaas (Talk | contribs) (21,420 bytes) (grammer --> 'temporary edits' are not ok, just discussion if there are ambiguities)

EXPUNGING THE LIE FOR THE FIRST TIME:

  1. 22:14, 24 July 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (21,959 bytes) (repetition of explaining "external support" edited 2nd time ..(pls read intro section).. somnath didnt include his name in list..cpi-m did..so edited that part too

can anyone tell me why Lihaas's edits insert those two lies repeatedly INSPITE OF CORRESPONDENCE TO THE EDITOR and a clear edit summary?Cityvalyu (talk) 08:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  • FOURTH TIME!
  1. 20:19, 27 July 2008 Cityvalyu (Talk | contribs) (23,358 bytes) (→Expulsions: lies reinserted (FOR A FOURTH TIME!!!) this time by 'user:gppande' on somnath "claiming" things & "inserting his name" expunged..revert to shahab 04:13, 27 July version . see talk pg)
  2. 19:19, 27 July 2008 Gppande (Talk | contribs) (22,208 bytes) (→Expulsions: putting back Somnath section. It is important than one s..)
  3. 15:28, 27 July 2008 Lihaas (Talk | contribs) m (21,126 bytes) (→Expulsions: see talk) (undo)

THIS TIME , I GUESS GP PANDE MAY HAVE MISSED OUT ON THIS DISCUSSION ON

fact1: somnath never "claimed" anything..media were left to wonder

fact2: somnath inserted his name is a lie..cpi-m did that without his knowledge/approval.

I AGREE WITH gppande IN RESTORING THE SPEAKER'S ROLE AND THE SUBSEQUENT EXPULSION..SO I HAVE ADDED THE MOST ACCURATE VERSION OF SHAHAB TIME 04 13 27 JULY... since DockHi also supports adding the speaker's role in this article... Cityvalyu (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


somnath chaterjee

instead of complaining about this behaviour, let me answer the queries here so others can put their 2 cents about which version to use.

The most recent edit in this section include a mixture of what cityvalyu added in as well as the original text (which was not my edit).

I have removed the following text "elected on an anti- BJP plank." because the first part has not citation.

Next: rather than abstaining after withdrawing support. Further, once a MP accepts a Speaker's post, he ceases to have party affiliations and has the constitutional (INDIAN CONSTITUTION) obligation to act neutral[citation needed][1] So, he did his constutional duty without party affiliations as per Indian constitution

As you can see 'citing' or writing what he did about the indian constitution was something like a 'temporary' edit. I don't understand this concept because w/o clarification and if soruces are needed he ought to have used the discussion. I did, however, edit one of his 'temporary edits' which he previously accepted. The source here is also synthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SYN#Synthesis_of_published_material_serving_to_advance_a_position) and original research. On the site it says one person's opinion of what the responsibility, and not him acting in accord with the constitution. Then, of course, you see the last sentence. Especially without a citation (but even w/o) it looks out straight as original reseach and analysis. (something i was guilty of elsewhere, but came to see myself as wrong)

Then: On July 23, 2008, CPI-M "summarily" expelled him from the primary membership[1] for disciplinary reasons (i.e., for refusing to consider the CPI-M party's constitution as supreme over the Indian constitution).He had been a member for more than five decades. “Summary” action denies the accused a chance to defend himself.

The use of the word summarily in quotes is not in the source. His definition, furthermore, is simply what he knows or had heard somewhere. No where is it cited.

The next part of the party clause/charter and the four decades in the CPM (as opposed to a previous 5) was something I did find to add to his research which was good at that point. But apparently constructive criticism was not taken a right manner.

And above all, if you see the text that WAS in, one will note the horror grammar that I copy-edited, yet my edit was reversed on the grounds that I was "lieing." One can check that my addition were a previous edit, and I edited for the grammar + citations, yet its back in. Lihaas (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of passage

Actually I think all this should be moved to the somnath chaterjee page. It's inconsequential on this page. the other expulsion don't have a passage defining it. It makes more sense on this page, for consistency's sake. Lihaas (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And rightly so. Somnath Chatterjee has little to do with the United Progressive Alliance anyway.--Shahab (talk) 04:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I added back the Somnath text. It is important because the speaker who presided over such a historic session was in tremendous controversy and deserves few lines. It's now whole page just couple of lines. --gppande «talk» 19:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Writing that he was expelled from the party without explaining the circumstances (how he stood up to his party for what he considered consitutional responsibility and right) can be considerd biased. DockHi 19:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I TOO agree with Dock and User:gppande ..but i dont want lies on him reinserted through an archaic version..so please see three paragraphs above to know why i did what i did..Cityvalyu (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you think is the lie? DockHi 20:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
fact1: somnath never "claimed" anything..media were left to wonder
fact2: "somnath inserted his name" is a lie..cpi-m did that without his knowledge/approval.
PLEASE SEE THE SECTION ON "LIES REINSERTED REPEATEDLY.." ABOVE...THE REFERENCES WITHIN THE ARTICLE SUBSTANTIATE MY ASSERTION..Cityvalyu (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. Regarding fact number 1, I am not sure if Gppande has seen some article where Somnath is reported to have "claimed" anything. If not, we can leave it out. Fact number 2, Could you please point to the reference which says Somnath's name was inserted in the withdrawal list. DockHi 01:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a link to the somnath page which has the info. This was getting long, and at any rate, the other was much shorter. So it worked out both ways. Lihaas (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Somnath_Chatterjee_expelled_from_CPM/articleshow/3270066.cms

Abstensions and cross voting

Within the media reports there are a lot of contradicitions and so it is not easy to piece together the exact voting records. For example some article claims that Aadikesavulu of the TDP MP abstained, some claim that he cross-voted. This article says that even the TDP isn't sure what happened. One thing is sure. The figures on our wikipedia article related to the abstensions and cross-voting are dubious. Either this fact should be mentioned or the whole list should be removed until verifiable facts are present.--Shahab (talk) 14:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I support inclusion of all contradictory reports from reliabe sources. DockHi 16:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

PRAFUL PATEL

REGARDING, COUNCIL OF MINISTERS, I AGREE THE REFERENCE QUOTED DOES NOT CONTAIN THAT NAME..BUT WE SEE NO MENTION OF AVIATION MINSTER IN THAT GOVT. SITE!! WE ALSO KNOW THAT HE IS (OR ATLEAST WAS) A CABINET MINISTER ..SO I DISAGREE WITH REMOVING HIS NAME SURREPTIOUSLY

  • WITHOUT GIVING AN EDIT SUMMARY AND
  • WITHOUT INFORMING ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVE SOURCE (ATLEAST IN DISCUSSION) TO CONTRADICT THAT HE IS A MINISTER..

Cityvalyu (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

http://cabsec.nic.in/coumin.htm Lihaas (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Please do not write in caps. Also Praful Patel is a minister of state not a cabinet minister. The above site contains this fact.--Shahab (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Seperate article for vote of confidence

Seeing the amount of space devoted in this article to the 2008 Lok Sabha Vote of Confidence wouldn't it be a good idea to create a separate article for it.--Shahab (talk) 05:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I second that. --Soman (talk) 06:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Third. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I took the liberty of going ahead and creating it. Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

reorganization

I just moved the withdrawal part under current constituents because it has to do with the make up of the cabinet at one point of another. If there is some great disagreement we can work out here. Lihaas (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

rajya sabha

How many upper house seats does the UPA have? The RS MP's are in the cabinet list but there is no mentions of the RS numbers. Lihaas (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

support (as proposer) Having just seen the page for the common mib. programme, it doesn't seem notable or worth another page. it can quite easily fit onto a section in this page. Maybe a sub-section under "History" would do. It is anyway an inherently UPA document. It is currently a mere 2 links with more sources. Of course if there was significant analysis to add paragraphs and passages more then it would be more viable. Lihaas (talk) 00:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

comment this maybe the case, however, the article only lists the 2004 CMP as the sources. None of the sources or anything have mention of other CMP's. Lihaas (talk) 22:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
My two cents. The PDP-Congress govt in Jammu and Kashmir, in 2002 was based on a CMP, probably the first time such a term was used in India. --Shahab (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Then we should certainly expand the article. Right now it reads as an UPA term, which would make it more suitable to the UPA page. Lihaas (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

PDP pulls out, Jan 2009

[2], --Soman (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Release 1043

जनता से धरती पर स्वर्ग लाने के लिये सहयोग की प्रार्थना

समस्या ये है कि धरती व भारत में हर इंसान आज इन मे से किसी ना किसी पीडा से पीडित है जिनमें अशिक्षा, दुख, दर्द, दहशत, लूट, क्रूरता, कैद, कुकर्म, दुर्घटना, हत्या, आत्म हत्या, बीमारी, नारकीय जीवन सैली, प्राकृतिक सम्पदा की हत्या, और धरती को मौत की और धकेलना सामिल है

इसका कारण है जनता का अज्ञान और भ्रमित होना

इसके लिये जिम्मेदार है सरकार और उसके सहायक

लोक तंत्र का आधार कहता है समान, सरल, असरदार नीति, नियंत्रण लागू होगा, जो नहीं हुआ

यहां कानूनी सवाल यह आता है कि समान, सरल, असरदार, नीति और नियंत्रण, लागू क्यों नही हुआ ?

तो सरकार और उसके अधीन कोर्ट का जबाब इन तत्वों पर आधारित था, जिसमें ऐसे आधारों पर कार्यवाही करना था जिसे जांचना नामुमकिन हो, यथार्थ की जगह दहशत, धमकी, का आधार रख कर अन्याय करना था, खामोश रहना, आवेदन रद्द करना, अनसुनी करना, सौदागरी करना, दबाव बनाना, रिमांड करवाना, विलम्ब करके जीविका छीनना, याद्दास्त मिटाना, कैद करना, हत्या करना सामिल था,

इन बातों के सबूत सरकारी कार्यालयों की फाइलों में मौजूद है

और गवाह के लिये सवा अरब पीडित जनता मौजूद है

इस समस्याओं का जड सहित समाधान है जनता को ज्ञान देना, और समान सरल असरदार नीति नियंत्रण लागू करना,

पर सरकार और उनके सहायक तो सरकार की मानेंगे

तो ऐसे मे धरती के लोग दो हिस्सों मे बँट जाते है

पहले वो है जो सरकार और उनके सहयोगी है, दूसरे वो है जो पीडित जनता है,

यहाँ ध्यान देने वाली बात यह है कि भारत में हर 60 हजार पीढित जनता पर सिर्फ 1 सरकारी आदमी जुल्म कर रहा है,

अब यहां एक और ध्यान देने की बात ये आती है कि सरकार को अपने और अपनी पलटन को पालने के लिये व ऐश करने के लिये पीढित जनता की खून पसीने की कमाई से 50 से 80 फीसदी लूटने की आदत पड गई है, अगर पीडित जनता ने अपने को लुट वा ना बन्द कर दिया तो सरकार को तो रेडी लगानी पड जायेगी जो सरकार किसी कीमत पर मंजूर नही करेगी, इस लिये सरकार हर हालत में पीढित जनता की इस कार्यवाही को फेल करने के लिये पैरों से चोटी तक पूरा जोर लगा देगी, और सरकार ताम साम दंड भेद आदि हर कुनीति का इस्तेमाल करते हुये छल बल लूट फ़ूट लोभ हत्या आरोप आदि गलत

तत्वों का स्तेमाल करते हुये, जनता के मुख्य राह-नीतिज्ञ और सहायकों की हत्या करेगी, तब पीढित जनता आत्म रक्षा का प्रयास करेगी,

परिणाम इतिहास के सबसे विध्वंसक युद्ध की शुरूआत हो जायेगी,

पीडित जनता अपने को लुटवाना बन्द कर देगी

इसके साथ पीडित जनता सरकार और सरकार के सहयोगियों की रसद, हुक्का पानी, दवा, सेवा आदि बन्द कर देगी,

वही जिंदा रहेगा जो सही का साथ देगा,

क्योंकि पीढित जनता के साथ ईश्वरीय शक्ति होगी,

क्यों कि हर 60 हजार पर ये सिर्फ एक है इसी लिये जीत पीडित जनता की ही होगी

इस लिये अति सम्मान सहित, सर झुका कर, सरकार से प्रार्थना है

कि लोकतंत्र के सिद्धांतों पर आधारित (सर्व हित विश्व समान निश्चिंत कानून) को लागू करने में सहयोग करें

पीढित जनता से एक सवाल

आप सरकार का साथ देंगे या पीडित जनता का ?

यदि आप खामोश रहे तो सरकार के साथ समझे जायेंगे

पीडित जनता का साथ दें गे तो बदले में स्वर्ग मिलेगा, यानी जो मौज मस्ती व सुख चैन का सामान और सुविधा आज आप खरीदने में फेल है वो सब फ्री में समान रूप से मिलेगा जिसमें बाधा रहित बिजली, वातानुकूलित व्यवस्था, स्वच्छ हवा, शुद्ध जल, प्राक्रतिक हरा वातावरण, सुलभ मल व्यवस्था, कूडा व्यवस्था, स्वस्थ सम्पूर्ण भोजन, उच्च स्तरीय चिकित्सा, निश्पक्ष न्याय, जनता को जज की तरह स्वयं दण्डित करने का अधिकार, प्राकृतिक आपदाओं से सुरक्षित घर, मन भर मनोरंजन, प्रत्येक को सम्भोग अधिकार, उच्च शिक्षा, सुविधा जनक व वातानुकूलित यातायात, विकाश और निश्चिंत काम की भागी दारी आदि सामिल होगा,

बस हां कहो स्वर्ग लो

धरती पर ईश्वर द्वारा स्थापित की गई सही की ताकत दिखाने के लिये

राक्षसों के ज़हन मे ईश्वर की शक्ति की दहशत बैठाने के लिये

हर रोड पर प्रलय कारी जन सैलाब तब तक तांडव करेगा जब तक जनता का लोकतंत्र लागू नही हो जाता

हमारी विश्व स्तरीय ताकत, हिम्मत, बुद्धि, सेवा व सुरक्षा भाव, ईमानदारी, समान भाव, मान्यता आदि देखने के लिये इन वेब पेजों को देखें

Shyawhdo.blogspot.com

Pohinin.blogspot.com

Shyawhdoinformation.blogspot.com

हमारा काम सुधार है प्रचार नहीं,

जनता के प्यार की हथकडी, सुरक्षा, और गोपनीयता को ध्यान में रख कर हम अपनी सूचना सार्वजनिक नही कर रहे है,

धरती की सेवा और सुरक्षा के लिये

अपना पदभार प्राप्त करने के लिये

आगे आने वालों का

तन मन धन व अपने काम का सहयोग देने वालों का

हम नत मस्तक स्वागत करते हैं

ओन लाइन “धरती वासियों की जानकारी का तरीका “ लिखें

इस फार्म को भर कर shyawhdo@gmail.com पर मेल कर दें,

हम राजनीतिज्ञ नही राहनीतिज्ञ हैं

राक्षस तंत्र हटा के रहेंगे

धरती पे स्वर्ग ला के रहेंगे

जय धरती जय मानवता

विश्व सेवक व रक्षक

श्याव्ह्डो 10.01 pm 22.4.2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.179.150.21 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

PETROL

MAINE YE KEENAN CHAHATA HU KI PETROL KE RATE THODE KAM KAM KAR DIJIYE ITS MY HUMBLE REQUEST AND I WANT TO JOIN THE POLITICS FROM CONGRESS. 


                                                                  DEEPAK BHANDARI
                                                                  9990638047  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.139.96 (talk) 02:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Biased opinion

The statement "UPA is deemed by many to be the most corrupt political party to rule India" in this article is very biased statement and shows favouritism from the author. Bjs123 (talk) 14:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

How can it be both neoliberal and social democrat at the same time?

This statement "The congress party is today more closely aligned with the neoliberalism, strongly advocates social democracy and social liberalism" is facially contradictory. I'm not saying it's impossible to have some definition of neoliberalism and social democracy that are mutually compatible, but not by the usual meaning of those terms. You don't just say someone "is neoliberal and advocates social democracy" without having to explain yourself. I think the original contributor needs to edit this to clarify what is meant (and, of course, to provide a citation). Otherwise it should be deleted altogether.Curious georgianna (talk) 11:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United Progressive Alliance. 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 09:03, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United Progressive Alliance. 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 17:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_Progressive_Alliance/Archive_1&oldid=1059619038"