Talk:Aam Aadmi Party/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

ADDRESS

I WILL BE HAPPY IF THE WEB ADDRESS AND LOCATION ADDRESS OF THE PARTY CAN BE MENTIONED IN THIS PAGE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.194.235 (talk) 00:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party Headquater Address is been added . : Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThinkingYouth (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Aam Aadmi Party office address is

Aam Aadmi Party
Ground Floor,

A-119,

Kaushambi,Ghaziabad - 201010.

Helpline  : 9718500606

Email id  : contact@aamaadmiparty.org

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/AamAadmiParty

Twitter  : https://twitter.com/AamAadmiParty
ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

References :

  • Comment : As per consensus on this issue , I added the Headquarter address to the Article. ThinkingYouth (talk) 14:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Name of the party

The following sentence appeared in the article:

It was proposed by Mayank Gandhi and seconded by Chandramohan.[1][2][3].

I have deleted above line from the section about "name" of the party, because the above statement is actually about how the "constitution" of the party was proposed (by Mayank Gandhi) and not exactly the name. None of the three references inserted in above statement mention that "name" was proposed by Mayank Gandhi. Rahulchic (talk) 12:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi Party Registered Political Party

Arvind Kejriwal-led Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) has got its registration from the Election Commission, though no symbol has been issued to it. The Election Commission has issued a registration letter, stating that it "has registered the Aam Aadmi Party as political party under section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on and with effect from 21/03/2013".

Refrences:

References

  1. ^ "How Team Kejriwal decided to become the 'Aam Aadmi Party'". How Team Kejriwal decided to become the ‘Aam Aadmi Party’. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
  2. ^ "Kejriwal announces name of his party, calls it Aam Admi Party". Times Of India. 24 November 2012. Retrieved 24 November 2012.
  3. ^ "'Common man' Arvind Kejriwal's party named Aam Aadmi Party". 'Common man' Arvind Kejriwal's party named Aam Aadmi Party. NDTV. Retrieved 24 November 2012.

Please ADD "Brief Glance of Aam Aadmi Party Manifesto"

  1. AAP party Councillors and MLAs will have to spend the money allocated to them in consultation with the area residents.
  2. To deal with the law and order situation he proposed the idea of a citizen security ward in every Assembly constituency which would be headed by a former Army personnel.
  3. Within a year of coming to power, the AAP would regularise over 1,600 unauthorised colonies.
  4. AAP would prepare 71 manifestos in total - One for each Vidhan Sabha constituency and one main manifesto for Delhi. The local constituency-wise manifestos would address problems faced by people in that constituency and would be made by interacting with them.
  5. AAP party will work towards improving the conditions of government schools and hospitals.
  6. AAP will make a law to curb the trend of politicians running private schools, he said.
  7. For traders, AAP promises to draft laws which ensures bribe free trading.

Refrences :

Structural differences

Why is Differences in Party Structure & Policy bieng deleted from the article ?

Unconventional Party Structure

Some features of structure of this party stand out of the conventional typical party layout, important differences/deviation from standard party model are mentioned bellow:

  • There is no central high command in Aam Aadmi party. The party structure follows a bottom to top approach where the council members elect the Executive Body and also holds the power to recall it.[1]
  • No MLA or MP of this party will use red lights or any other beacons on his or her vehicles.[1]
  • No MLA or MP of this party will use any special security. We believe that elected people's representatives need the same security as a common man.[1]
  • No MLA or MP of our party will live in opulent and luxurious government housing.[1]
  • No one would need to buy an election ticket in this party. Candidates contesting elections from an area will be selected by the people of that area.[1]
  • Criminals (Goondaas) will never be given tickets in this party. A through screening process will ensure that no one with a criminal record or proven corruption charges could stand for elections from our party.[2]
  • This party will function with full financial transparency. Every single rupee collected by donations to run this party will be publicly declared on the party's website and all expenditures will also be declared on the website.[3]
  • Every member of the Aam Aadmi party will must follow a strict code of conduct. An independent body (Lokpal) has been set up, headed by 3 jurists and other eminent personalities to investigate charges of corruption, crime, substance abuse and moral turpitude against all office bearing members of the party. Any citizen can present proof of wrongdoing against a party member. If internal Lokpal finds the party member guilty, he or she will be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action as decided by the internal Lokpal.[4]
  • No two members of the same family will be eligible to contest elections in this party and no two members of the same family can become members of the Executive Body.[5]

--Ne0 (talk) 14:45, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


Hi Neo , it was deleted by one of admins as it was a copy paste from the following link http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/How_are_we_Different.aspx

you have to understand copy pasting is strictly not allowed in wiki and is against copyright laws, however i have also watched the article edits, it seems the article has some edit wars. so my suggestion for you is to reword the sentences also try to get this information from popular sources and not from the same website itself . Shrikanthv (talk) 18:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Aam Aadmi Party website
  2. ^ Aam Aadmi Party Constitution
  3. ^ Aam Aadmi Party Constitution
  4. ^ Aam Aadmi Party Constitution
  5. ^ Aam Aadmi Party Constitution

Edit request on 2 December 2012

Please change "through" to "thorough" Vbhusri (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


Under Election Commission's directions to the party not to use the National Emblem, Ashoka Chakra or any part, Aam Aadmi Party has dropped the logo. Please make amends. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.129.131 (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Pls Add "Aam Aadmi party Started Civil Disobedience Movement(CDM) in Delhi" to Article

"Time has come to motivate people against illegal rise in taxes." Aam Aadmi Party leader Arvind Kejriwal on Saturday , March 23, 2013 started his indefinite fast against inflated power and electricity bills from a house in Sundar Nagri, a low-income group resettlement colony in North-East Delhi (capital of India).

In what is being seen as the beginning of his campaign ahead of the Delhi Assembly election due later this year, he accused the Sheila Dikshit government of being apathetic to the concerns of the common public and looting them via a nexus with the power distribution companies.

While urging Delhites not to pay “illegal” and inflated power and water bills, Mr. Kejriwal promised that any legal action against them would be revoked once the AAP comes to power in the city. Before starting his “civil disobedience” movement, he visited Raj Ghat and also paid his respects to martyrs Bhagat Singh, Sukhdev and Rajguru at Shahid Park. He was joined by AAP leaders Prashant Bhushan, Manish Sisodia and Yogendra Yadav. ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Refrences : The Hindu Newspaper "http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kejriwal-begins-his-civil-disobedience-movement/article4541783.ece" Retrieved on March 23, 2013 ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC) Add this section to article . ThinkingYouth (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Aam Aadmi party Realtime Donor list

The Original and official Aam Aadmi party Real Time Donor List is "http://internal.aamaadmiparty.org/donate/Donation_List.aspx" and donation link is http://aamaadmiparty.org/donate/Donation_List.aspx. I've updated it to the Article. ThinkingYouth (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

To User:ThinkingYouth

To User:ThinkingYouth

I see you have been on WP for less than a month (20 days) and are still in school. Hence, I am required by WP norms to be polite to you and help you.

Kindly respect and value other editor's time and skill/knowledge. To assist you I suggest the following.

  1. Read "edit summaries" of other editors carefully and understand what they are conveying in a very compressed language.
  2. Read the indicated WP policies contained in edit summaries carefully - as a newbie your knowledge of these is still superficial.
  3. Read WP:OWN carefully. you don't "own" this, or any, article - it belongs to the community and ultimately to the Wikimedia foundation.
  4. Don't be in a hurry to "add" or revert disputed text back. Disputed text will be reinserted only after "consensus" is built. Otherwise the dispute will be taken to a formal or informal setup on WP.
  5. Respect chronology on Talk and discussion pages. use "Start New Section" liberally and keep your point short . Editors will only look at the latest discussions - which are conventionally found lower down the pages and ignore what is at the top.
  6. Don't overwrite information added / removed by others without good reason. For instance you have refreshed dates in the article's maintenance tags. This is vandalism as you have either deliberately (or inadvertently) destroyed information which shows that this page is substandard for a much longer period of time.
  7. Don't make bald statements on Talk when what you want to achieve is DISCUSSION with your "opponent"
  8. above all WP:AGF and don't WAR

PS: I note you have started vandalising personal BLP pages of persons connected with India Against Corruption. I suggest you revert these yourself and let some non-conflicted editor take it up.

So do ALL the needful and we'll get talking. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


TO User:AcorruptionfreeIndia

I see you have been on WP only for India against corruption page editing (and you haven't mentioned your education).Hence, I am required by WP norms to report your conduct/editing as Conflict of Interest violation and edit, unreliable source citations and opinions edit by you. Kindly respect and value other editor's time ,skill/knowledge and edits .Don't tag and abuse them of personal vandalism . I request you to

  1. Read Wikipedia norms and regulation carefully and remove all personal opinion ,unverified claims from concern articles.
  2. Respect other editors and don't personal tag them and put grudges remark on revert disputed texts and comments or vandalize concern articles.
  3. Take part in discussion on talk page of concern article to resovle dispute ,don't make hurry to revert or remove the source material from concern article without consensus and discussion with other editors.
  4. above all WP:AGF and don't WAR.

PS: I note you have started vandalising Aam Aadmi party page. I suggest you to discuss the dispute in concern article page before starting edit war . FYI: I edited the Concern page( as you mentioned BPL pages from humjanange organisation ) with complete accountability and after reading and editing them through .I advise you to address the issues mention on editing and I advise you to refrain from editing article based on your opinions. Wikipedia is not a soapbox,until evidence is cited , the article is redundant according to Wikipedia standards. So do ALL the needdful and We'll get talking . Pls discuss further .ThinkingYouth talk 

16:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As you seemingly don't desire to discuss this matter formally and are WP:UNCIVIL (thereby violating WP:5P), I am advising you as follows:-

  1. This article is badly written, biased, poorly sourced and violates WP:MOS. In places there have been deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia by tampering with maintenance tags in this article, which persist despite warnings.
  2. I am shortly going to be deleting (in small chunks suitable for individual "Undo"s) all matter in this article which is deemed by me to in violation of various WP fundamental policies which I previously gave you adequate notice of through detailed edit summaries, and which you reinserted back unilaterally. As a token of WP:AGF I shall additionally again provide edit summaries while removing material.
  3. I have no WP:COI for this article
  4. I have no WP:COI for India Against Corruption either and I object to your insinuations.
  5. I do take an exceedingly keen interest in matters connected to anti-corruption in India as part of my profession. Hence I am an +expert on this subject, but that is irrelevant for the purpose of these articles.
  6. Kindly do not reinstate any material which I delete unless it is backed by either sufficient WP:RS - authentic and verifiable sources OR it is specifically allowed by unambiguous WP policy.
  7. The question of WP:SOAP for this article does not arise since I am DELETING spammy and WP:UNDUE material.
  8. Should you, or other editors you are contacting, restore material I delete without arriving at a WP:CIVIL consensus with me, I shall revert this article to a Stub and ask for it to be protected by an admin.
  9. I am not editing this article for another 12 hours to give you time to clean it up on your own.
  10. There is URGENCY in this, as the subject is a highly controversial political party in India and subject involves BLP issues and UNPROVEN allegations against third parties.

I reiterate that I am always willing and interested in CIVIL discussions to preclude WP:WAR

Have a nice day AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


Reply : To AcorruptionfreeIndia As you seemingly don't desire to resolve this dispute and persistently pushing POV and personal attack and are WP:UNCIVIL , I request you to follow wikipedia standards Norms and please follow the advises given in above replies and as you have clearly violated

  1. Conflict of Interest WP:COI
  2. Civility WP:Civil
  3. Reliabe source WP:RS
  4. WP:NOR

I request you to read the Wikipedia norms and stop personal attack and behave civil to resolve this dispute . I request you to read the Talk page and do not delete the consensus material without discussion. I request you to read WP:RS and do not delete well source material from article . you can have dispute on it , please follow civil manners to solve those disputes. As i notice you have invoked 3RR on me on Wikipedia administrator page and as a result you have been warned of your activities and blatant pushing of POV and conflict of interest WP:COI ,WP:RS by admins Editors . I Request you to stop your activities ,take a break , let a WP:3o editor take this matter and resolve it .

I reiterate that i am always willing and interested in Civil discussion on disputes and expect you to follow the same. Have a good day . ThinkingYouth talk 

ThinkingYouth (talk) 05:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Serious disputes for this article

Dear Editors.

You will note that I have not been editing this article to give some concerned editors enough time and space to sort this article out using the same WP principles and guidelines they use liberally on other articles. However, my good faith has abused for

  • wholesale and coordinated reinsertion of controversial and poorly sourced material,
  • frantic edits to boot "edit counts" by some editors to "cloak" their newbie status and WP:COI to this page/subject, and which disruptive edits clearly constitute vandalism and a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia.

In the circumstances, I am informing everyone that I DISPUTE this ENTIRE article as being "not neutral" and "factually incorrect". I also see numerous places where blatant "hoaxes" are being perpetrated. At the present time I am not placing "maintenance tags" on the page as that would be a decisive final stage. Please clean up the page on your own, as you all know "Wikipedia is not a soapbox" etc.AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits.

Sitush, please explain WHY its wrong. Not clear to me. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 16:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Why what is wrong? Please can you try not to garble things as you have been doing in our conversations at Talk:India Against Corruption? I cannot read your mind and it makes life very difficult when you are so vague. - Sitush (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The subject is "Recent edits", the time was 16:49 UTC. Edits is plural and most Wikipedia editors would understand that it referred to your (I specified Sitush) 2 quick edits at 16:45 and 16:46 where you reverted me. I'm not being snarky here, but if you can't multiplex, don't edit so many pages simultaneously. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The India Today story "So what is the Aam Aadmi Party all about" dated 24 November 2012 says ".. Arvind Kejriwal today launched his party naming it 'Aam Admi with an aim to provide gram sabhas more say in law making and making higher judiciary accessible to common man.", or was it named "Aam Admi" on 24.Nov and then they altered it to "Aam Aadmi" on 26.Nov (or even Aam Aadami" as User:ThinkingYouth keeps spelling it ?. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Multitask, I think you mean, and thanks for the ad hominem. The edit summaries that you left for those two items were:
  • Removed this Ref. Its about the "IAC party" proposed for Oct 2; which party was blocked by the "Parallel IAC".
  • Removed source: What kind of Power Point hoax is this ? A pastiche of a unnamed PTI feed mixed with dubious TV stills
The first of those I list makes no sense at all, while the second is not much better: PTI is a news agency, so what you mean by "unnamed" is beyond me. And why TV stills should be "dubious" is also beyond me. In any event, some of the sources that you removed did support the statements made, so it would be helpful if you could explain your rationale more completely here. - Sitush (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
It is not uncommon for news sources to clarify things. The later of those two IT sources does so, and there is potentially a difference between a "launch" and a "formal launch". You should, of course, be well aware the the timing of the 26th was to coincide with the anniversary of India adopting its constitution, so my gut feeling is that these edits by you are intended primarily to be disruptive rather than because of any desire for accuracy. - Sitush (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, but I am not replying to any of this while the WP:ANI is in progress. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Common Man Party"

I have removed the literal translation of the name of the party from the lede as it is an WP:UNDUE addition. The translation, when properly sourced, may be included in the section on background. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is sourced in the body. Please can you explain why it is undue. - Sitush (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you produce a reliable source where the party refers to itself as "The Common Man's Party"? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, don't be pathetic. - Sitush (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
That is not a policy-based argument. Please do not make personal attacks. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Is this count "Reliable" [1]. ThinkingYouth (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, this is a reliable (though primary) source. It would be better to include this in a bracket after the name of the organization/party itself, rather than insertion of prose. [e.g. Aam Aadmi Party (or the common man's party)]. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Nick, if you can't stand the heat then either get out of the kitchen or take me to ANI. You know exactly what I meant and your pedantry is ridiculous. - Sitush (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, TY. Odd that Nick now has a niggling concern that it is primary when he previously asked for something where the party "refers to itself as". Can't win! - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
No, there is no concern with respect to the source being primary in this particular case. The organization's website is the best possible source on this particular matter. I couldn't find this page earlier on their website, and hence I asked. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 19:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Translation of 'Bhartiya Janta Party' is 'Indian People's Party' but we don't use it even if it is appearing somewhere in some reliable sources. Name registered with election commission and most commonly used name by people-media should be used. And I don't see people-media using translated name 'Common Man's Party'. neo (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not trawling through the list of worldwide political parties to verify what Maunus has said but it comes as no surprise to me to read that BJP and RSS may be the exception - that's Hindu nationalism for you, and we see it on Wikipedia with proposals to rename Ganges as Ganga, India as Bharat etc, As far as this article is concerned, the issue seems to be done and dusted & so perhaps we should all move on. It was a specious point at best, and the issue of due weight was ignored without further comment when a (primary) [sic] source came to light. This sort of behaviour has being noted and will likely end up before ANI or ArbCom in due course, so it perhaps behoves us all to move on and delay that seeming inevitability. As one who has been named in an ArbCom case previously, I can assure you that it is a massive time-sink and the outcome can be very unpleasant. Best to let it drop: we can all do better than this. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Firstly, the translation stood there on the page without a suitable reliable source and that was problematic. Secondly, it is also WP:UNDUE to include the translation in prose inside the lead section, when the translation could have been made available in a bracket next to the name. There was no intention on my part to drag on this discussion for as long as it has, and you are free to "note" whatever you feel like and approach whichever forum you want. Your continued lack of civility and assumption of bad faith will likely get you blocked. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 07:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
It stood without a source for exactly 6 minutes with no intermediate edits. And that is not what undue means. Undue weight is about how to weigh points of view against eachother, not about whether a piece of non+controversial information should be in the lead or not. Your continued failure to understand and follow basic policy will likely get you desysopped.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Common man party

  • Thy announced the plans for formation of political front(aka AAP party) on 2,October(2012), the birth anniversary of independence hero Mahatma Gandhi and formally launched the party on 26,November,2012(as it coincides with constitution day of India ) adopting party's name(aam aadmi party) and constitution.Read [2] and [3] and [4],[5].TY of Walk 08:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Some fundamental issues

  • Founder of Party: Arvind Kejriwal is 1 of about 300 founding members.
  • Ideology/Agenda of the Party: This is badly sourced. The primary documents for what is claimed to be a party registered under section 29-A of RPA are a) its memorandum b) its bye-laws/Constitution. The Constitution of the AAP is not published on its website nor on the website of the Election Commission [6].
  • Is AAP finally registered or is it "provisionally" registered?:

If its finally registered there will be a gazette notification issued further to 56/2011/PS-II dt 28.Dec.2011 listing the party issued by the Election Commission within 30 days as is mandatory under section 17 of the RPA.

  • Is AAP a "National Party"?: Obviously No, since it hasn't fought an election as yet. So its to be explained how a party with HQ in Uttar Pradesh is fighting elections in another state - Delhi.
  • Many of the secondary "news" sources in this article are unreliable merely reproducing what the AAP or Kejriwal say/claim in press releases or press conferences. The AAP makes some pretty exceptional claims in these secondary sources. An article like this requires reliable secondary sources based on reliable primary sources.
  • Is www.aamaadmiparty.org the official website ? Reliable proof wanted from a primary source.
  • Background: Why start from 24.Sep.2012, when the decision to split was announced on 3.Aug.2012.
  • Who are the office bearers of the party ? AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 07:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Founder: discussed in next section
  • Registration: read the source that is cited. I don't think we need to get involved in WP:OR regarding Election Commission practices, especially since he article deliberately says "recognised" rather than "registered".
  • Delhi vs UP: the party can fight elections wherever it chooses, surely? Parties regularly target certain seats and they are not necessarily going to start with ones right on their doorstep.
  • Sources: The AAP is the primary source, especially given how new the thing is. How you expect people to find "reliable secondary sources based on reliable primary sources" (other than the AAP primary) is beyond my comprehension.
  • Website: surely a specious point? I am presuming that you have no evidence to the contrary. And, please, don't start quoting domain name registrar/who is info as you've done elsewhere, just provide a reliable source that says it is a fake
  • Issues regarding split - no big deal, just find some sources and remember that the focus is supposed to be on the party, not long screeds about dissent with IAC.
  • Office bearers - you could add them using the list on their website. I wouldn't bother. - Sitush (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Founder? Many sources which speak of Prashant and/or Manish as founders or co-founders.
  • List of recognised political parties in India (remember those adjectives on ANI) A Party Constitution is now mandatory u/s 29A. The lack of it sets off a Redflag.
  • No, it cannot till it is "recognised" otherwise it is restricted to contesting within its state of registration.
  • Have you seen what they are claiming ? for eg. see "Agenda" and the section on "price control". Where is the data on which they make such absurd claims. This is all Redflag stuff.
  • Nothing to dissent - AAP was formed because the movement was not drawing crowds after Ramlila Maidan police action, plus media had got sick and tired of these fasts and they were all fighting over the money. They drew 180 people [7] in Mumbai and 300 in Delhi.
  • WP:BURDEN. Who owns www.organikitchen.com registered at the same address by the same person? AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Founder: you tell me, with reliable sources
  • WP:OSE
  • WP:OR vs WP:RS
  • The fact that you know such policies etc after so few edits is concerning me, and I mentioned this at ANI. Whether their claims are correct or not, this is their agenda
  • I have no got a clue what your penultimate point relates to - are you referring to the split issue?
  • Who cares who registered organikitchen? I have registered loads of different websites, from rugby to window-cleaning. You are clutching at straws here and your antipathy to the AAP seems pretty evident. If I am wrong about this then fair enough, but you'll need to find some sources of repute and not engage in conspiracy theories (seemingly) of your own making. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • what's the point, Delhi Vs. UP HQ? Is he trying to say , UP HQ party/people can't fight election in other states? TY of Walk 08:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Why are you citing blogs [8],when thy don't count as WP:RS. What is this , Red flag on everything ? TY of Walk 18:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Founder

The sources that I looked at a few days ago all referred to AAP as Kejriwal's party, "his party" etc and he seems to have been the one making the running since August/September 2012. He's also now the "national convenor", which seems to be as near as they get to a party leader. There are very, very few political parties that are truly founded by a single person because if they were then they would be one-person parties and that is an oxymoron. I've not got time to trawl through equivalent articles for other Indian parties right now but I think that the infobox either needs to show Kejriwal or show no founder at all. Can anyone find a source that specifically names him as founder? My bet is that one will turn up in due course but there may be no such thing out there right now. - Sitush (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

If you see ,the first post/comment/section of this talk page,The Founder of AAP is clearly Arvind Kejriwal. The other editors are confused with mandatory (signatory)300 members required to register(or give application of registration to election commission) Party with co-founders.TY of Walk 08:14, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Donors

I've just removed a claim about transparency regarding donors - see here. Unlike claims about policy, which can clearly be attributed to a primary source because that source is talking about itself, claims that A does something that B, C, D etc do not is extraordinary and requires more than primary sources and press release-type statements for reasonable verification. Effectively, the AAP are claiming a uniqueness that might reflect negatively on other political parties and for which we really only have their word for it. They are not merely saying that "we will do this" but that "no-one else does". We cannot take their word for being the only party to list every donor, neither in a positive sense (ie: that indeed they are) nor in a negative sense (that in fact they do). I think we'll struggle to find decent verifiability for this any time soon because at present the sources for most things related to the AAP almost inevitably emanate from the AAP itself. It is a situation that will change, of course, when/if the organisation becomes more established in the political firmament. - Sitush (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Foundation day (26,November 2012)

Thy announced the plans for formation of political front(later known as AAP party) on 2,October(2012), the birth anniversary of independence hero Mahatma Gandhi and later,formally launched the party on 26,November,2012(as it coincides with constitution day of India ) adopting party's name(Aam Aadmi party) and constitution.Read [9] and [10] and [11],[12].TY of Walk 08:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the constitution bit is in the article and it would be simple to add the other anniversary. However, there was a formal launch on 26th November preceded by a meeting on 24th at which a fair amount of stuff appears to have been sorted out, including appointment of office bearers. Phrasing it the way that I did - mentioning both the meeting and the formal launch - resolved some confusion among sources that AcorruptionfreeIndia pointed out. A really specious person might argue that the party was not "founded" until the Election Commission recognised it, so I think it best not to push this issue of whether it happened on a Saturday or Monday in November: people can make up their own minds based on the information already given. - Sitush (talk) 09:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

NRIs/POIs

Do NRIs or POIs have a vote in Indian elections? Was the intention of the Chicago meeting to seek donations? - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

NRI(what is POI?) can vote in Indian elections .Read [13] and this one TY of Walk 10:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant PIOs (people of Indian origin, which I think is a government classification). Anyway, I thought that NRIs could vote and I know that they are significant, so it's nice to have confirmation. The Chicago thing was removed at one point; I reinstated it. - Sitush (talk) 10:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this BLP violation?

I have reinserted the following line, with slight modification, which was earlier deleted by user "AcorruptionfreeIndia" with an edit summary - WP:BLP, WP:REDFLAG issues, Do they support Civil Disobedience or Electricity Theft:-

"J.M.Lyngdoh, former Chief Election Commissioner , Ramdas, Ex-Naval Chief Admiral, Justice V.R.Krishna Iyer, P.M.Bhargava, former Vice Chairman, National Knowledge Commission have supported Kejriwal's civil disobedience movement."

Can anybody please clarify, whether this amounts to BLP violation? If yes, how? If this is BLP vio., then the line can be/should be/will be deleted.

The editor who deleted has given another reason - REDFLAG and in my opinion, the reason is not a valid reason, because the personalities have just extended support, which is added to this article with reliable source. And multiple sources for this can be easily furnished (to attend REDFLAG) but then it may look oversourced. The third reason given by the "deleter" is since attended. Rayabhari (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

  • No , (In my Knowledge)It doesn't amount to BLP violation,Editor Rayabhari. The Edit summary " DO they support CDM or Electricity theft" and recent comments by editor AcorruptionfreeIndia reflects his antipathy and POV-pushing against AAP.TY of Walk 14:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Civil Disobedience is resistance to dictates / demands of Government. Asking consumers to consume electricity without paying the PRIVATE COMPANIES who supply it is not within "CDM" (??) but is "Electricity Theft" defined in Electricity Act 2003. So also is reconnecting habitual and disconnected Electricity Thieves and it is a private matter between consumers and Discoms [14], [15], [16]. So the entire letter from these eminent persons should be accessible (as a primary source) to see what exactly they were supporting (and if they actually did so). AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Why you are citing Articles(period of October 2012) of IAC Protest,whereas Eminent personalities like Admiral Ramdas etc supported Aam Aadmi party CDM started from March 23,2013? Are you confused or confusing us? TY of Walk 17:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
  • The demand to stop paying "inflated" electricity and water bills is an old one from IAC times - it is not an AAP demand as Kejriwal himself wrote in his email for the March 23 2013 fast. Some of these person had supported Kejriwal even then in Oct 2012. Use Google. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Old one , IAC chapter is closed . Email? are you sure?TY of Walk 18:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Open magazine interview/First Post

This article originally carried links to First Post and to two Open Magazine sources regarding Kejriwal's "not left or right" (paraphrase) comment in an interview. I've reduced it to just the First Post sources because the video interview is lengthy and runs over four different links. Furthermore, the video interview is not accessible to deaf people but blind people using Wikipedia have various aids available to them. Being deaf myself, I am not even sure if the interview is conducted in English! This seems to me to be an acceptable use of First Post as a source but if someone can narrow down which of the four links given at the Open Magazine primary url contains the actual quote then, of course, we could have that also. AcorruptionfreeIndia seems to think that it doesn't exist at all, in which case we need to work out what the actual statement made by Kejriwal was. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


‘We Are Not Wedded to Any Ideology’ http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/nation/we-are-not-wedded-to-any-ideology Ratanmaitra (talk) 15:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but that seems to be the same link that I removed because it does not narrow down which video applies. - Sitush (talk) 16:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The page gives written gist of the interview ( for deaf persons;): Please see the relevant part reproduced:

"Q : What is the role of big corporations in the transformation of society?
Let me first clarify some of the allegations against us. Last year we made an exposé… against HSBC, Reliance and others… HSBC was involved in money laundering. We had evidence against them. We got the evidence from income tax files… That night I got an SMS from the editor-in-chief of a very prominent [television] channel in the country saying, ‘So you are a socialist?’ If a corporate indulges in wrongdoing and you demand an honest investigation against that, you are called a socialist. I want to make it very clear: we are not wedded to any ideology. Second thing: we are very clear that government has no business to be in business. As far as the corporate sector is concerned… trade needs to be encouraged. We want honest businesses. Certainly, the corporate sector has a big role to play in the country. Let me also tell you, barring a few people, most businessmen themselves are victims of corruption and not perpetrators."

Ratanmaitra (talk) 19:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it does not contain the quote that we use. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

"We are not wedded to any ideology" , "not left or right" (paraphrase), is heard in English between 3 min 25 sec and 3 min 45 sec of video Part II.(English-Hindi mix). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fP0ody_U22M&feature=youtu.be

It may be better to use "We are not wedded to any ideology" than paraphrased version "not left or right" of the exact words " We define our problems: if we find a solution in left, we are more than happy to borrow it from there, and if we find a solution in right, we are more than happy to borrow it from there" Ratanmaitra (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

But the quote is sourced! This is getting more confusing by the minute. Have FirstPost misreported the quote? - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Sitush, which quote is being disputed here and what is the confusion?

Well, let me just quote the exact words and leave it to you:

" I want to make it very clear ...We are not wedded to any ideology, we are "aam aadmi"s, if ... if ..., we define our problems, if we find a solution in left, we are more than happy to borrow it from there, and if we find a solution in right, we are more than happy to borrow it from there. ...but we want to discuss every problem, we want to discuss every solution " Ratanmaitra (talk) 11:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Before deleting

On going through the history of this article for last three-four days, (12.6.2013 to 16.6.2013) it appears that any sourced information added to the article is deleted in general by user "AcorruptionfreeIndia" on one ground or other. The reasons furnished by the user may be technically valid in several instances, but, by repeatedly doing so, the very purpose of developing the article is defeated - other editors require time to develop/set right/give sources! Further, by deleting almost every thing added to the article defeats the very purpose of Wikipedia : developing an encyclopedic article.

  • So, I propose that, for this article, any deletion may be done (particularly by user "AcorruptionfreeIndia") only after proposing and discussing the same in talk page and consensus is reached. (or source/clarity may be requested in article itself, before outright deletion, and time should be given to other editors to insert source/attain clarity)
  • For statistics, the following are the edits (deletions(-),additions(+)) by user "AcorruptionfreeIndia" :
12.6.2013 : -640, -431, -830, -1171, -362, -1232, -379, -425, +20, -120, -479, -19, -176, -291, -19, -338, -88, +105
15.6.2013: +622, -1721, -151, -228, -36
16.6.2013: -243, +1, -241, -334, -583, -589

I propose this, without any prejudice against any user/users.Rayabhari (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already explained my WP:EDIT style at an inconclusive WP:ANI. Deleting material is permitted under WP:CANTFIX. Each and every edit/delete of mine is with an edit summary clearly citing the reason for deletion. It may not be the preferred way to edit but is not proscribed either. Statements like "so fix the damn quote" are WP:UNCIVIL and opposed to WP:BURDEN.
I have already put two detailed notes on this talk page saying I dispute the entire article and its sources.
Per WP policy deleted disputed material must be restored after consensus. I am not shying from discussion.,
If we have problems with my deleting material, I can start inserting very well sourced material to balance out this article. Just say so.
Lets all be clear what the real problem with this article is - it is about a new / fake political party, the sources for which are essentially reporting in real time (without any editorial process) what the party says about itself. Sections like "Support" and "Protests" do not find any place in an articles on actual Indian political parties - Congress, BJP, CPIM etc. In other words, the available sources are dictating the article
Controversial BLP material must of course be removed immediately. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to expand it. I would really, really like to see your reliable source for this being a fake organisation because, well, that is the ultimate conspiracy theory. Are you proposing WP:HOAX? If so then I think you need to raise this issue at a higher level than this talk page. Where you will in due course be laughed at, I suspect. - Sitush (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Certain portions of this article border on hoax.
Every registered political party now must have its Constitution. There is none here [17] or here [18] Please address this doubt of mine. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Again , Editor AcorruptionfreeIndia is confusing other editors by specious arguments .First of all, Election commission only display National or State(defined) parties constitution on their Website [19] ,that's why thy don't have AAP or Lok Satta Party or any other New/starting political party constitution and for AAP constitution, Google it ,thy must have a constitution to register their party to election commission(unless Editor Acorruptionfreeindia suggesting here,Election commission didn't register/recognized AAP as political party). TY of Walk 17:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
It is registered (although "unrecognised", whatever that means). The registration process does require that a constitution and umpteen other documents are submitted to the EIC - I've just spent 20 minutes reading the EIC website re: just this type of thing. AcorruptionfreeIndia, you are being ridiculous and I am on the verge of suggesting a topic ban. - Sitush (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I am clearly stating that ECI has not recognised AAP. Kejriwal claimed to Firstpost on 26.Nov.2012 at 5 PM that their Constitution had just been approved. Obviously there is some problem with it now that they cannot publish it themselves (no doubt till it is again approved by the General Body) and instead I am being told here to use Google to locate it. No, you locate it using any means you like and give me an authentic link to an authentic version. Lets see if all their so-called 5 primary principles are contained in it.
"Ridiculous" ?? Is it too much to ask that an authentic copy of a mandatory core document of a political party be accessible. Also, where is the March 21 letter from ECI ? That is what WP:REDFLAG is for. Keep this Civil and AGF. 17:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk • contribs)
It does seem to be a spurious argument. This document may be mandatory for Indian legislation, but it is not a requirement for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. All we need is a source close enough to the party to be reliable to state the five principles, and then we can include it with attribution to the source. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:00, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


Election Communion granted Political parties recognized status on the basis of their performance(vote share,members winning etc) in state legislative election or National Lok Sabha Election .Read [20]. AAP hasn't fought any election state or national level election yet therefor,AAP is only a registered party. TY of Walk 18:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Obviously there is some problem with it now ... - there's your original research again, just like the stuff at Talk:India Against Corruption. What evidence do you have that there is a problem? None, except an absence of something that might, for example, just be a bureaucratic oversight by the ECI. Yes, now I'm speculating but I do so merely to point out the silliness of your own speculation. We do not operate on maybe's and possibly's here but rather on reliable sources. Until proven otherwise, we have to assume that the sources are correct and that the AAP is not pulling some massive scam. After all, that is how any sensible person would view the AAP announcements etc. - Sitush (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
@TY, thanks - thought that might be the case. - Sitush (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
What shows it is a registered party? Only the letter from ECI which is not in the public domain. Under Section 17 the ECI must issue a gazette notification for every registered party within 30 days of its being registered. The alleged letter claims AAP was registered wef 21.March.2013, so where is its notification ? How do we know the letter was a FINAL registration and not a PROVISIONAL registration. There is too much WP:UNDUE secondary material on this article for a new party which cannot be confirmed from primary sources including from the website of the AAP itself (which is the best source) as Sir Nick had said. PS: Thanking TY for what I informed you on this same talk page 24 hours ago (22:46 UTC)?? just shows your bias. 18:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk • contribs)
Don't be (alleged) jealous of my ThankYou share ;-) .See what i found through google search for you [21] and [22](I've spent last 10 mins looking for it ..i(must)deserve a simple thankYou).TY of Walk 18:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing to be jealous about - I simply didn't look at your link because Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. I'm sorry that you are still not understanding that we prefer reliable sources to conspiracy theories but if you can find some reliable sources that mention your conspiracy theory then please do let us know. - Sitush (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
It was not offered by me as a source. Please stop going on and on about "conspiracy theories" - I have none - do you ? This is about Reliable Sources which you obviously haven't understood policy on see WP:NEWSORG. We have a good example of circular reporting for registration of the party in [23] and [24]. So which came first the chicken or the egg ? Note the ToI says AAP had decided to accept this direction from ECI on use of National Emblem. What other directions were there. Sorry TY, "internal" documents won't do. I think I'll leave this article and go over to Congress Party where they have a much better class of editor AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Not for the first time, you have succeeded in completely confusing me. What the heck are you referring to wrt an emblem? You've swallowed a dictionary of acronyms at an amazing rate but you still cannot see the difference between, for example, primary, secondary and tertiary source. Try walking before you run. - Sitush (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
quote " While issuing the registration certificate, the Election Commission has directed the party not to use the National Emblem, Ashoka Chakra or any part in their letterhead or any other party materials in view of the provisions of the Emblems and Names (prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950. "The party has accepted this direction," the statement said. "". You are confused between sourcing. read WP:RS AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
What is the problem? For example, the ECI prohibits use of certain symbols just like it prohibits use of certain words. You are reading more into it than the sources say, ie: you are speculating on cause. You really, really have to stop doing this. - Sitush (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I am forced to ask this because the primary documents are simply not there. Please see what a secondary source is. "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources are not necessarily independent or third-party sources. They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them.". In almost every secondary source on this article there is no author's own thinking - everything is coming from AAP direct. Like a press release. Is prweb.com an acceptable source ? AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
AAP constitution [25] is now , an Internal document for you ? what is your problem ;-) . TY of Walk 19:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
It's an internal (see your link) document to AAP. If it is FINAL and PUBLIC then it would be linked out on the main banner. I would not speculate, but this is probably the version which they filed to the ECI on 3.12.2012 :-) AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Now this is a conspiracy theory ;-) .. internal constitution ,external one..!TY of Walk 19:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
AICC [26] Much better party to edit (and vote for). Theyhave nothing to hide. :-) AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
(multi ecs) A, like I said, you misunderstand policy. We can use primary sources but it is usually better to use secondaries if they are available. In particular, primary sources are ok for comments about themselves; secondaries are ok for anything else. If the secondaries are saying, for example, that Kejriwal said A or B then we are ok to use that - he is their primary source. You remind me very much of a retired user - MangoWong - who had similar difficulties but I'm afraid that my ability to explain has not improved in the interim. - Sitush (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

And, A, your comments about Congress are increasingly tending to confirm my point that you have a POV here, even though you have said that you are neutral. - Sitush (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Your rapid fire edits are conflicting with mine (see Congress additions) above. (There is no hurry)
If A says I am registered with B by letter C, then letter C should be accessible from A or B. B is also under a statutory obligation to publish - none of us can find C or any primary version of it. QED. BTW: I am not MangoWang (or any another WP editor either).AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 19:42, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Well,You were not able to find AAP constitution ;-) and now EC section 17 ! .. ( Vote for MR. MangoWang ;-) ). TY of Walk 19:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I didn't say you were Mango, who in any event was a BJP chap; what I said was I've seen this problem before but my ability to explain why you are incorrect has not got any better. Someone did eventually manage to get through to Mango - you may find something on their talk page. Your failed search for primary sources is irrelevant because we have sources. To repeat myself again, please provide a reliable source to support your statements - you cannot expect everyone else to prove the numerous negatives that you are raising here. You need a source that says, for example, "despite the AAP claiming to be registered, our investigation has shown that it is not". Failing that, you are wasting everyone's time. - Sitush (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Sitush is right. Your speculations are irrelevant unless you can back them up with secondary sources.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
The substantiations for series of deletions by the user are tricky and sometimes rediculous. <Much better party to edit (and vote for). Theyhave nothing to hide. :-)> This comment shows possible POV, although the user boldly declares that his edits are neutral. I do not find any :"hide/ internal" in AAP. Moreover, series of deletes without giving breathing time to develop a article defeats the very purpose of Wikipedia - that is to build an encyclopedic article. The positive editors usually try to build an article, and find sources for unsourced claims wherever possible, instead of outright deletion. Deleting the edits of other editors, on flimsy grounds or some fictitious grounds or on obscure technical reasons may just prove negative. Before deleting, let us discuss such points to be deleted and then delete the contents, that is my proposal and request with other editors, (particularly for this article, as the progress of this article is very very slow.) Rayabhari (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Lets get the facts straight. 1) AAP claims to be a registered political party, ie. registered by Election Commission of India (ECI) wef 21.March.2013. 2) The Election Commission has the notified list of about 1,400 registered political parties on their website. AAP is not on that list 3) ECI is obliged to notify every registered party within 30 days. AAP claims they were registered wef 21.March.2013 No such notification can be located by me (you are welcome to try) on ECI website despite the limit having passed. 4) These, coupled with the missing AAP Constitution, set off a REDFLAG. I am not speculating, secondary sources need verifiable primary sources. In the absence of primary sources what you claim to be secondary sources are actually primary sources in drag. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 06:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
All of your thoughts and original research are irrelevant. Wikipedia is concerned with verifiability, not truth. - Sitush (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
There is an oft-cited essay that deals with this - see Wikipedia:NOTTRUTH. - Sitush (talk) 07:47, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Election commission notification(AmendmentNotification dated 9 April 2013) ,read S.No. 1396[27] and Aam Aadmi Party Constitution and link is already given at above comments.. (..and it only took 5mins to search this notification , Google search is awesome :P)

Dear Sitush

Dear Sitush,

You have restored the following quote in section "Ideology" - "We are aam aadmis. If we find our solution in the left we are happy to borrow it from there. If we find our solution in the right, we are happy to borrow it from there".

As I had mentioned in an edit summary, Firstpost is a tertiary source. Th secondary source cited by Firstpost (ie. OPEN magazine print article) does not contain this quote. The primary source (ie. the videos) which OPEN said will be uploaded to Open's website are instead linked to inaccessible subscriber videos on Youtube "This video is unlisted, only those with the link can see it - Open".

So please treat my edits with respect instead of repeatedly leveling allegations (which I have clarified on your Talk page)

You would have seen that the OPEN article is titled "We are not wedded to any ideology", which amply clarifies that this entire section is OR and contradicted by its sources, requiring it to be deleted. AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please read the preceding section here. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I had AcorruptionfreeIndia (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. In that case, there is no need for me to respond further in this section as it will just add to the disruption that is being caused by you. - Sitush (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear fellow wikipedian, Your contribution is highly appreciated and commendable, but before reverting other's edits and additions, please use this Talk page or add necessary cites and wait for them to correct. And if they don't correct, you may carry your deletion. But please dont offensively discourage other new wikipedians who are trying to help us in making WIKIPEDIA a better encyclopedia. You must be aware of five pillars of wikipedia and its policies. Please give time to others before deleting the edits by others. Tall.kanna (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Delhi Assembly Elections

Delhi assembly elections is the most electoral event which is relevant to AAP at present and hence requires a very important section in the article as of now till the elections are over. And any fellow wikipedian who comes across any piece which is to be improved or is of opinion of removing/reverting it please post it here first and then after 24 hours take any such action if no reply or revision has taken place. Tall.kanna (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not how Wikipedia works. Your addition violated WP:NPOV and WP:CRYSTAL. Until that list is finalized, we shouldn't link to it. We could, possibly, mention some of the individuals, but only if they (and their candidacy) is already noteworthy (one mention in a newspaper wouldn't meet this criteria). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We have to consider weight. We do not exist to promote the AAP and we need to be careful to balance the various aspects of the organisation rather than concentrate on a forthcoming election. We are not a news service and much of what is happening on the ground at the moment is conjecture or proposal rather than actuality. I am also cautious of the almost-messianic status that Kejriwal and the AAP have among certain people: these "here today, gone tomorrow" bursts are a feature of the anti-corruption movement articles and enough of what we have in that sphere are already a complete mess without adding to it. - Sitush (talk) 10:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. And I do expect this talk page be used to sort out indifference and letting me know what mistakes I commit. I am infact willing to revert my own edits if I find it if after discussion we come to a neutral conclusion. But please use this space often so as not to create much conflicts and chaos instead of friendly and meaningful contribution. -Tall.kanna (talk) 11:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
If you do not understand something then just ask. I do make mistakes, but not very often ;) - Sitush (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

External link to newspaper

There is no need for this external link, surely? Our policy aims to rationalise links where possible and in this instance not only is the AAP newspaper linked from their official website but their official website seems to pretty much mirrors the newspaper in terms of content. Mention that they publish propaganda via print media, by all means, but the external link seems to be primarily promotional. - Sitush (talk) 11:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, It shall be removed if you say so. - Tall.kanna (talk) 12:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Indicscript

Even when I point out WP:INDICSCRIPT, someone reinstates it. Ok, they try to slip round the consensus by using a footnote but it is wrong and I have reverted again. This is going to become hard work for everyone unless people use a bit of common sense and discuss additions first. As an example of the script problem, consider what happens after the Delhi elections - if the party then does something in Tamil Nadu then we'll need to add a Tamil script ... and then Kannada, and Telugu and ... you get the idea. It will be wide open to abuse, especially given the high profile that the AAP has at present. This is English Wikipedia and scripts in leads etc are considered to cause problems, so please do not do it. There is no need for script anywhere in this article: if people can read it then they already know it. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Please look at BJP flount the rule, and a featured Article Muhammad Ali Jinnah can use it as foot note and still be a featured article, then why such a biasness towards Aam Aadmi party?. We also know that Aam Aadmi is a hindi word, not a tamil, telugu or kannada. Hence Its valid to keep it as a footnote. Hence Please reply since I still am not satisfied with your point. - Tall.kanna (talk) 15:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
THere's nothing to be satisfied with here, Tall.kanna--the issue was discussed and is a guideline for India related articles. You're welcome, however, to fix other articles that don't follow it. Qwyrxian (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Because you have more authority and rights over wikipedia, and being unbiased wikipedian, it would be more appropriate for someone with more rights to do the changes in a said page, BJP. It would set a very good example for me, and having faith in you. - Tall.kanna (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Santosh Kohli Accident

Santosh Kohli, an AAP candidate, was critically injured by a vehicle on 30th June. It has been widely covered by all the media houses and foul play is highly suspected. I propose a small subheading under delhi elections be dedicated to this incident as it is an important incident. - Tall.kanna (talk) 08:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

It is really tragic that she met with an accident, but , I think, it is a little premature to make a sub heading on this incident, until it is proved beyond doubt that there was an conspiracy theory. Rayabhari (talk) 12:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Oddly, I'd just been reading about this accident. I agree with Rayabhari. We should not be covering speculation and title-tattle, almost all of which has been generated by the AAP itself. - Sitush (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
How should this be covered in the article and what specific modifications do you suggest. I agree that modifications are required in order to bring this article to a good shape. - Tall.kanna (talk) 13:05, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
It should not be in the article at all until some sort of confirmation of cause is found. - Sitush (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
But this is the most important incident which has galvanized the whole party and is most widely published topic about AAP in last one month. No other aspect has been so highlighted by Indian Media and the party against any other incident or agenda. Just like who killed Kennedy, no one knows but still an important incident and eligible for encyclopedia because its a fact and it happened and not mere speculation. But yes Allegation part can be removed. - Tall.kanna (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
She had an accident and was badly hurt, but diddums. It is mentioned in her own article. Political parties & their supporters get wound up about all sorts of things but we report very few of them. This should not be here. What next, "Arvind Kejriwal has a cold today"? - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
There are hundreads of incidences where AAP supporters ahve been killed and badly been wounded. But This is the only incident which got such a vast attention and recognition. I understand what you want to convey but situation is not as you perceive. If only worthy and important aspects are to be covered. This aspect is rather more important than even the SUPPORT heading. Please Understand the importance of this incident which is unique and important.- Tall.kanna (talk) 14:04, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
For Example [This Incident] and Many more have seen similar cases where AAP members have been targeted. But this is a unique and Important incident widely recognize. - Tall.kanna (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
The incident is important to her but until we have some evidence that it is connected to her AAP activities, it is not important to this article. As for more generalised claims of targeting, well, if you can find sources that do not repeat claims made by the AAP etc then perhaps there is some scope for inclusion. Until then, there is not. I've said this before but will say it again: you appear to have too much of a personal investment in AAP-related subjects and this could be clouding your view. - Sitush (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
What I mean to say is that Recent AAP activities have been affected by the incident. And that Her Accident might not have anything to do with AAP. But still It affected tha AAP. And I, in no way am saying that AAP and her affiliation to AAP has anything to do with the Incident. Thats why even the Allegation part has been removed. - Tall.kanna (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hang on a minute: first you said that the Kohli thing was "unique" and now you are saying that there are "hundreds of incidences"? The Times of India report that you link above is useless as an example, by the way: it makes no verifiable connection between AAP activities and the event that happened, merely repeating claims of a coonection by the AAP that are contested by others. - Sitush (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Take for example this incident 2009 Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister helicopter crash. Here a CM died. WHOLE nation got effected and is mentioned even in articles such as Andhra Pradesh and YSR Congress. But CM and his affiliation to Andhra Pradesh was in no way responsible to the Accident or incident. But still an important incident. Similarly, Koli incident has a similar effect, but on a small scale that only a small para is worth the space.-Tall.kanna (talk) 14:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I've removed the entire Kohli thing for now, per WP:DUE. I'm not remotely interested in how other articles on Wikipedia approach issues such as this, and certainly not when you are comparing an elected head of state who dies in office to an unelected social activist whose is still alive and around whom all sorts of conspiracy theories have emerged. - Sitush (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Improvement of Agenda Section

(edit conflict)If you can improve the page. Improve it but dont be egoistic and Agenda section which you have reverted to is way below standard of wikipedia. If you can improve it as per your wisdom please do it but dont degrade wikipedia just for your personal predujices.-Tall.kanna (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The message is to User:Sitush, Please retrospect. I know I made a few mistakes before, but instead of following WP:NPOV, you are prejudiced into thinking that I am biased towards AAP. But Neither have I attacked any body nor did I engage into edit revert war. I can contribute to topics to which I have knowledge of and hence I am contributing here. I always had a neutral point of view but you were in many many instances offensive and aggressive. Dont attack personally by saying "go write your manifesto somewhere else". Wikipedia is not your personal property. - Tall.kanna (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Following Wikipedia's Policies ( WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD )

(Uninvolved editor) I just reverting this page to the revision as edited by Binksternet at 20:14, 2 July 2013. This is a stable version from before the current edit war. Edit warring (trying to get your way by undoing each others edits is against Wikipedia policy. See WP:TALKDONTREVERT, WP:EW and WP:BRD. You all need to work your disagreements out here or through dispute resolution (WP:DR). Do not change the page except for minor changes everyone will agree with (typo fixes, removing vandalism, etc.) until the dispute is resolved on the article talk page. Further edit warring -- even if you think you are right -- may result in you being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

No it isn't. Binksternet's version was the last in the edit war, A ludicrous revert. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit by Sitush looks very productive to me. It corrects spelling, adds information, and removes activism. Binksternet (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
There were many edit conflicts which I completely tried to avoid. But Sitush has always been anti aganst my constructive edits. I shall for now explain second last edit conflict where I had added Santosh Koli accident Issue [as here] And had added section regarding that above. Then there was a comment by Rayabhari who showed objection to the incident being dedicated a Subheading status. As Usual Sitush supported him to revert my edits. I Discussed and agreed with Rayabhari's point that Santosh Koli should be removed from Subheading and that conspiracy part also was at present disputed. And subheading part and conspiracy part was removed by me as [here]. But taking the rest of part, which was highly noted and well deserved, was brutally reverted and Sitush attacked personally by saying "What next, "Arvind Kejriwal has a cold today"?". And what continued was war started by Sitush. I never reverted it and tried to persuade Sitush that it was not against any WP and held a strong point. Seeing His/Her adamant behaviour even to discuss in a civilised manner.I moved on to contribute back in another section "Agenda" which (still violates WP:SECONDARY) I improved upon using the same source which it previous to that was cited. He again reverted without seeing that I only improved and If WP:SECONDARY rule has to be followed, then the whole section has to be removed because it is the same source to which I relied upon while making it better. Please resolve this Issue as I am sure with a neutral perspective you will be able to understan who was reverting whom with repetedly. Rest of the story is all before you in this page talk and history review. - Tall.kanna (talk) 10:26, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like some of you are under the impression that it is OK to edit war if the edits are productive. It isn't.

In case some of you question whether there has been edit warring, here is the log:

  • 12:35, 17 July 2013: Tall.kanna adds some information[28]
  • 16:28, 17 July 2013: Sitush deletes it (1RR)[29]
  • 18:06, 17 July 2013: Tall.kanna adds it again (1RR)[30]
  • 18:16, 17 July 2013: Sitush deletes it again (2RR)[31]
  • 07:30, 18 July 2013: Tall.kanna adds it again (2RR)[32]
  • 09:54, 18 July 2013: Sitush deletes it again (3RR)[33]
  • 10:39, 18 July 2013: Tall.kanna adds it again (3RR)[34]
  • 10:45, 18 July 2013: Qwyrxian deletes it (1RR)[35]
  • 12:12, 18 July 2013: Tall.kanna adds a different piece of information[36]
  • 12:27, 18 July 2013: Sitush removes it (4RR)[37]("...whether involving the same or different material...")
  • 15:26, 18 July 2013: Tall.kanna adds it again (4RR)[38]
  • 15:37, 18 July 2013: Sitush removes it (5RR)[39]
  • 16:28, 18 July 2013: Sitush drops from 5RR to 4RR (24-hour rule)
  • 18:06, 18 July 2013: Tall.kanna drops from 4RR to 3RR (24-hour rule)
  • 18:16, 18 July 2013: Sitush drops from 4RR to 3RR (24-hour rule)
  • 07:30, 19 July 2013: Tall.kanna drops from 3RR to 2RR (24-hour rule)
  • 09:04, 19 July 2013: Tall.kanna adds yet another piece of information[40]
  • 09:54, 19 July 2013: Sitush drops from 3RR to 2RR (24-hour rule)
  • 10:39, 19 July 2013: Tall.kanna drops from 2RR to 1RR (24-hour rule)
  • 12:27, 19 July 2013: Sitush drops from 2RR to 1RR (24-hour rule)
  • 14:22, 19 July 2013: Sitush removes it (3RR, 6th revert)[41]
  • 15:26, 19 July 2013: Tall.kanna drops from 1RR to 0RR (24-hour rule)
  • 15:37, 19 July 2013: Sitush drops from 1RR to 0RR (24-hour rule)
  • 18:25, 19 July 2013: Tall.kanna adds a large chunk of new information[42]
  • 18:30, 19 July 2013: Sitush removes it (1RR, 7th revert)[43]
  • 18:59, 19 July 2013: Tall.kanna puts it back (1RR, 5th revert)[44]
  • 19:45, 19 July 2013: Tall.kanna puts back another section that was removed earlier (2RR, 5th revert)[45]
  • 19:53, 19 July 2013: Binksternet removes both of the above edits (1RR)[46]
  • 00:33, 20 July 2013: Guy Macon restores stable revision as edited by Binksternet at 20:14, 2 July 2013(1RR)[47]
  • 00:48, 20 July 2013: Sitush reverts (2RR 8th revert)[48]
  • 01:20, 20 July 2013: Guy Macon warns Tall.kanna aabout edit warring[49]
  • 01:20, 20 July 2013: Guy Macon warns Sitush about edit warring[50]

Please note that it does not matter whether the added material is correct, as long as it isn't blatant vandalism, so please don't tell me how good/bad the edits were or what policies they do or do not follow. Other than the specific exceptions listed at WP:3RR, you aren't allowed to edit war to enforce policy. I did not even bother looking at the various pieces of information that were added and removed other than to confirm that they are removal of the same information and not a new edit. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Your presence will certainly help resolve the Issue. I also advocate use of this talkpage, before adding or reverting any Information. And I certainly need your guidence to help wikipedia in positive way.-Tall.kanna (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I need a guidance in this matter, If when two editors start to have difference of opinion on a certain Edit, should they wait for third opinion and then decide on its place in the article? Please guide me to the correct course to follow? - Tall.kanna (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Guy, go take my behaviour to ANI before you start giving Tall.kanna the wrong impression. Much of the stuff you list has been discussed, was against policy etc - the difficulty is that the conversations have happened across multiple pages. And don't template me when you do, please - just give me a link. - Sitush (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Guy Macon, I just put this on your talk, but realized I should have put it here: I also checked Sitush's edits, and you forgot 2 things, I think: both Copyright and BLP violations are explicit 3RR exceptions. Some of Sitush's reverts fall into this category.
Tal kanna, the rule is very simple: status quo almost always wins when there is a dispute, except when an editor can show very directly that the status quo explicitly violated a key policy (WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:NPOV spring to mind, though there may be others). If you add something, and Sitush reverts, per our normal editing pattern (see WP:BRD) the responsibility lies on you to come to the talk page and discuss the matter. Not to reinstate your version or insist it should remain until after discussion. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Tal kanna, please do not think that I support anything you are doing here. You are edit warring, and the quality your edits look pretty dodgy to me. Stop edit warring. Stop it now. All the guidance you need is in the three links I used in the title of this section; WP:EW, WP:CONSENSUS and WP:BRD Read them and obey them and you won't get into any trouble, and as an added bonus, strictly following Wikipedia policies and guidelines gives you the best possible chances of getting the material you want accepted into the article.
Qwyrxian. I will go back and double check for those and any other 3RR exceptions and will report what I find. A quick look shows no mention of copyright or BLP violations in the edit summaries, and Tal kanna's talk page shows no BLP warning and one copyvio warning for another page two years ago. Sitush says that the discussion about policy violations happened across multiple pages. That is one of the reasons we use warning templates and place them on the user talk page -- so someone like me will be able to discover that there are allegations of BLP or copyright violations without having to read all of Wikipedia to find them. If I had seen the slightest indication of BLP or copyright problems, I would have ignored the edit warring and dealt with the BLP violations as being much higher priority than any edit war.
Sitush, I have been civil in the face of some rather nasty responses from you. Normally, I would comply with a request like "don't template me - just give me a link" out of common courtesy despite the fact that I completely agree with the essay at WP:TTR. If you would be so kind, please put the flamethrower away and talk things over like colleagues who happen to have a disagreement and I will be much more inclined to accommodate your preferences. As for your request that I take you to WP:ANI (actually, WP:ANEW would be more appropriate), the answer is no. None of your actions are deserving of anything stronger than a polite request that you stop. Could you please turn down the aggression a notch or two? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Guy, if you think that I am being aggressive then you ain't seen nothing yet. I cannot account for any possible acute sensitivity on the part of someone else. I've asked, I've said, I've used "please", I've used "sorry", I've fully appreciated that people have bad days (me included). What I am seeing here is someone wading in. You (or anyone else) wades into contentious areas at your own peril. You are lecturing me and I do not like being lectured. Live with it. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, let me put this another way: you mean well but it is not helping. Policies exist, sure, but unless someone has at least some understanding of the systemic issues involved in situations such as this, and preferably a fair degree of experience dealing with them, all that is going to happen is that good people get irritated and less good people do not learn. I am not even bothering checking for 3RR because I am usually extremely careful to do so at the time and in any event what is done is done - no-one is going to get sanctioned for it this long after the event. This edit summary is not untypical of what goes on and perhaps I've developed a particularly thick skin because of it and thus do not appreciate so well the sensitivities of others.

As Transporterman said at the DRN, the request for resolution was pretty much incomprehensible, which is one reason why I cannot understand you extending such a degree of good faith when it is clear from this this talk page that Tall.kanna, although well-meaning, is wrong on simple policy grounds and without the need to drag up historic 3RR issues for either them or me. Reverting as you did lost a lot of decent contributions made by various people, including some by Tall.kanna. How was that a productive thing to do? Why not just leave it at the "wrong version"? It is this, and one or two other things, that have really touched a nerve. Someone has come into an area they know nothing about, are unfamiliar with the background, are unaware of just how dispersed the discussion has become (common with inexperienced contributors) ... and they think they have some sort of right to revert big time. Yes, it is all in the history but I absolutely guarantee you that it is me, or someone like me, who will end up having to build it all up again. Indeed, that is what you asked me to do on your talk page - sift through it and reinstate the minor stuff but leave out the controversial stuff. This is the wiki-world I live in and I'm grateful to those who see the big picture: if well-intentioned but ultimately enablers of poor content come to govern it then I'm gone, simple as that. Some people like holding hands: I like getting things done (although, yes, I've held a few hands in my time here and one of them - Rayabhari - commented in a thread above). - Sitush (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, I got to the second sentence in the first of your two posts above and stopped reading. Come back when you are willing to behave in a manner that is acceptable in polite society. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
And you wonder why I have little time for the officious twats who seem to inhabit DRN? Go look at yourself. - Sitush (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, you claimed "both Copyright and BLP violations are explicit 3RR exceptions. Some of Sitush's reverts fall into this category." I just carefully looked at every edit in the list of edit war reverts above, and I cannot find a single BLP or Copyright issue. Please provide a link to the specific edits you are referring to and and tell me exactly who owns the copyrights you say were violated and exactly which BLP you say was violated.

Not only did I not find any reverts because of BLP or Copyright issues, in every case, Sitush gave his reason for reverting in the edit summary. The reasons given were:
"Excessive - go write the manifesto somewhere else"
"WP:DUE"
"WP:INDICSCRIPT"
"WP:CRYSTAL"
"it clearly says that it is a provisional list"
"url clearly says it not a finalised list"
"it is op-ed and not an official Reuters piece"
None of those are listed at WP:NOT3RR. As I said, it really looks like Sitush hit 5RR and that you are saying that it is OK for Sitush to edit war. Please show me where I am wrong. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, I got this problematic editor confused with a different one Sitush was dealing with (and who I had to block for breaking WP:3RR). Okay, so, that being the case, why was it you reverted to the pre-dispute version, Guy Macon? In my experience, that's something that's only done by admins when they fully protect an article. Usually, for me, editors shouldn't just revert back simply was there a dispute; it seems to me that you shouldn't have reverted unless you had a specific problem with one or more edits. Again, I believe we also need to account for the fact that this article is about a political party involved in an upcoming election, and we may need to be a little more aggressive about enforcing core policies against "new" editors, even if that means that we sometimes have to "edit war". If this were an article about a national level US politician, this wouldn't be necessary, because there are likely to be a large number of watchers. But Indian politics don't get followed by hundreds of neutral, experienced editors, especially for a relatively new and small party like this one. I feel like our need to protect neutrality should outweigh other concerns, especially when the experienced editor is one known for absolute adherence to all of our core policies and is one of our top content contributors in the field. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
As for my single edit to this page, no, I am not going to be distracted from discussing our edit warring problem or our unequal application of policy problem. I am free to make any edit that I believe is an improvement, and I follow WP:BRD if someone disagrees. In my considered opinion, it was appropriate to go back to a version that had been stable for a while. This often helps to defuse edit wars when neither side is willing to let the other have the last revert. I think I did the right thing, I was WP:BOLD, it was reverted, and we are discussing it. Name a policy that this violates.
How is hitting 5RR "absolute adherence to all of our core policies?" He blatantly violates such policies as WP:EW and WP:CIVIL (Or is "officious twat" also OK with you depending on who says it?).
You say "we may need to be a little more aggressive about enforcing core policies against 'new' editors, even if that means that we sometimes have to 'edit war'." No. Hell no. If you want to change our policy on edit warring, you are free to write up an RfC and see what the consensus is, but until you do that, everyone -- you, Me, Jimbo, Sitush and Tall.kanna -- needs to work under the same rules. There is no ongoing behavioral problem here that calls for a trip to ANI or Arbcom (they stopped edit warring) but if there were we would end up with you being told in no uncertain terms that WP:EW applies to all pages, including India politics pages, and all users, including Sitush. You know that I am right.
You might want to consider turning over any use of administrator tools against Sitush's opponents to another administrator. While I am sure that you are fair and impartial (and I am not just saying that because I have to WP:AGF, but rather because in my experience you have always been fair and impartial in other situations), it might give the appearance of bias if you think it's OK for Sitush to hit 5RR but block one of his opponents for edit warring. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right that I should have said "core policies except for WP:CIVIL" (WP:EW isn't a core policy, though it's one we should all follow). That Sitush fails to follow this pillar is likely to lead to future problems, but I understand the path he's taking (it's one many of our best content editors have followed before), and know that he's doing it for reasons that, even if I don't think they're completely right, aren't the worst danger to our encyclopedia.
In any event, I don't think any of us are accomplishing much building of the encyclopedia here. My recommendation is that we go back to what we were doing before, that Tall.kanna follow through on his agreement to learn about some of our policies prior to/in conjunction with further editing, that Sitush at least reserve the four-letter words for off-wiki, and that future problems be solved with a clear focus on WP:NPOV (which was the main problem with Tall.kanna's editing before). Tall.kanna, if you add something, and someone (anyone) reverts it, the best step is to start a discussion here on talk, per WP:BRD (not a policy, but a very commonly used procedure for dealing with disagreements. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Wise words. I agree 100% I am unwatching this page now. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aam_Aadmi_Party/Archive_1&oldid=979686485"