Talk:Aam Aadmi Party/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Election symbol Image

The Election Symbol "Broom" image File:AAP_Election_Symbol.jpg is uploaded with with Non-Free Use Rationale and there is already an ongoing disucussion about it. For the purpose of identification and to show importance of the image to the article ,I request to all fellow editors, don't edit-war and let image be in the article till consensus reach to keep/delete.^{(FYI Images not used in any article get automatically deleted)} 120.59.136.185 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

And I request that it stay out of the article until the FU discussion is finished. The burden is always always always on people wanting to add images. And it appears to me that the current trend on that discussion is against allowing the inclusion. So until you get a clear acceptance on that discussion, it stays out of the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

In FU Discussion , Only two editor Sitush and Massem (t) are against the inclusion of image. How are you judging the current trend ? I hope you are not biased(toward particulareditor) and work according to wiki policies ? Did you read that part which says "Images not used in any article get automatically deleted" ? Me,User:Jheald and other editors are requesting you again and again to don't edit war and stop pov pushing for exclusion of this Election symbol image but all in vain.

Take. The image. Off of the page. The burden is on those wanting to add it. This is not a legitimate debate or course of action. Take it off the bloody page. Take it off now. I don't know how I can be more clear: until such time as there is a clear consensus that 1) it meets FU and 2) even if it meets FU, that it's useful and important for the page, it MUST STAY OUT. This is always always true of images. The default is ALWAYS to not include them. Under every condition. The only exception is if an image has a long history and there is already default consensus. All we have here is one editor socking under an IP or a group of meat puppets trying to keep their precious broom in place. I'm not reverting because there's no point in edit warring with dynamic IP addresses, but as soon as semi-protection goes back up, I or Sitush or someone will re-remove it. Again, if the final consensus is to include it, then it can be included. But for now its stays out. Do yourselves a favor and try to follow Wikipedia policies by removing it instead of using a bunch of dynamic IPs to force it in. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not how image discussions normally proceed. When an image is nominated at WT:FFD or WT:NFCR normal practice is for the image to stay on the page, until the discussion is concluded. If you want to follow standard WP practice, then follow standard WP practice. Jheald (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

and this is how "Admin" speaks (bloody way! ) Who the hell you think you are ? Do Wiki Policies say those who edit under IP are less important? Is there a Wiki policy to treat them badly? Am I disruptive here to follow the consensus to retain image till discussion is ongoing? Don't You understand " Image not used in any article gets automatically deleted" and Editor Jheald tried to explain you the same.Sock puppets WTF ? I'm editing this page since 2012 and I don't want a wiki account , Only those who have Wiki accounts such as over shouting Qwyrxian have legit right to edit this page?

and one more thing, Do Yourselves a favor and try to follow Wikipedia policies of Civility (Admins are such autocratic people)!

WP:FFD explicitly states that removal of the file is okay, while WP:NFCR has no comment on the matter. So I don't know where you get your claims from Jheald. But, more importantly, there is this overriding problem: there is, at best, a split decision about whether or not to include the image--even if it passes fair use. In the case of a split decision for including information, and where this is an editorial decision (i.e., not one governed by a key policy), the default is to leave out that information until there is consensus to add it. Feel free to start whatever dispute resolution process you want to get the image added. Please do not attempt to force the image in until such time as you have established that consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

What WP:FFD says is: "If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2013 September 9}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages" -- strongly implying that the image should be kept on the page, with a note to readers pointing them to the ongoing discussion.

That is by far the most common practice. I accept that there is also the sentence starting "If you remove a file from an article...", but in practice that is not the usual procedure. Jheald (talk) 23:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't in use at the point when I opened the NFR discussion that everyone is referring to - you added it back into the article after that, Jheald, on the grounds that (paraphrase) people don't have the imagination to see what the file would look like unless embedded in the article. That the discussion has dragged on for so long, resulting in deletion oItalic textf the original image and uploading of another, is almost entirely because you will not let the matter drop. That is your prerogative but if someone other than you had adopted this approach and were known to have a sympathy for the article subject then I'd be arguing that an attempt to filibuster was going on. - Sitush (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason it wasn't in the article at that moment was because you had just removed it, thirteen minutes earlier (!) -- which, as noted above, is not how things are usually gone about, when images are put up for discussion at WP:NFCR. Jheald (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

It had been removed several times. I opened the NFR discussion in good faith due to that back-and-forth, then you got involved and ever since you have engaged in wikilawyering in an attempt to reinstate. Why should images somehow be exempt from WP:BURDEN and similar? It is only by reading between the lines of policy/guidance that you can achieve this and you have been contradicted by numerous experienced contributors, such as myself, Binksternet and Qwyrxian. I've not seen anyone agree with you other than an anon who is clearly just parroting you. Might be time to drop the stick and let the NFR discussion be concluded. - Sitush (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Election Symbol Image was removed(copyright issues at commons) several times by same editor (You) Sitush and what WP:BURDEN of proof do you want. This is image is already uploaded under fair use rationale and you have accepted it untill you found another rule(to remove it) that two fair use images(logo and ElectionSymbol) can't be used in single article. Now Logo has been uploaded and accepted in Wiki Commons, making your earlier argument completely nullify.^{But-No wait , Now you will not allow this image till discussion is over in FU.} Only three anon editors(Sitush, Binksternet and Qwyrxian)^{Guess what these bunch always support each-other check above Guy Macon posts)} so far are against the inclusion of image whereas every other editor here such as myself, Jheald, Rushikesh.tilak, Ne0Freedom, Kgarg06, Dharmadhyaksha and Tall.kanna & others requested inclusion of image.So, Please stop wikilawyering and allow this image to be used in the article.

Including the Candidate List of Aam Aadmi Party for 2013 Delhi Assembly Elections

I believe that giving the list of Candidates declared for various constituencies in Delhi, for Delhi Assembly Elections of 2013, does not amount to support or promotion of Aam Aadmi Party. There are many elections taking place in 2014 all over the world for which candidate list has been included in the wikipedia article & I am giving some of the links below - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indonesian_presidential_election,_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Iowa,_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Nebraska,_2014 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_New_Zealand_general_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_general_election,_2014 & https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_West_England_(European_Parliament_constituency)--ratastro (talk) 19:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I reverted you because others had removed this content previously and thus you need to seek consensus first. The burden is on you to justify inclusion. I think it might be useful for you to consider the spirit of WP:POLITICIAN and WP:OSE. I'm also tending now to think that you should familiarise yourself with WP:COI because it is becoming apparent that you are most likely a single-purpose account rather than just a newbie who has happened on this topic area as you have previously intimated. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ratastro, your argument is based on other articles having a list of politicians. I would argue that if the other articles were about only one political party, they should have such a list removed for the same reason it is being removed here: it is of transient interest, it is filled with non-notable political hopefuls many of whom will not win their seats, and it violates WP:NOTNEWS. The encyclopedia takes a more measured approach to the subject.

Rather than a complete list, I would like to see mention made of only the notable politicians who are up for election, people who have Wikipedia biographies written about them. This mention should be in prose format, not a table.

If the issue were not important to the success of your party you would not defend it so strongly. Wikipedia is not here to help your party win. Wikipedia documents neutrally, it does not advocate. Binksternet (talk) 19:41, /21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush,Kindly allow me to explain how the policies that you quoted are not related here.

WP:POLITICIAN - The last part of the section says that'In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion. Relevant material from the biographical article can be merged into the election or political office page if appropriate'This means that WP:POLITICIAN applied for Biographies of people which is not our aim. We are only adding the candidate list in which that person's name is included.

WP:OSE - I think WP:OSE supports what I suggested because it says that 'When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. Trouble arises when legitimate comparisons, either by analogy with existing or non-existing article kinds, are disregarded without thought or consideration of the Wikipedia:Five pillars.'

WP:COI - I accept your apology for this one.--ratastro (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Binksternet, If your explanation is related to WP:POLITICIAN, please check my update to Sitush which clearly explains why inclusion of candidate name in the candidate list is not against it. Moreover as far as WP:NOTNEWS is concerned, can you please be specific on which option/s (out of 4) inclusion of the candidate list of political party makes wikipedia a newspaper? I strongly attempt to defend a point which has, in my opinion, a validity, when seen from neutral point of view so I would srongly urge you not to be speculative about my political views.--ratastro (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The articles listed by OP are the articles on elections, not political parties. This list (along with a list of candidates of other parties) may be included in Delhi state assembly elections, 2013. It's not suitable for this article - Wikipedia is not a directory that replicates information from the official website. utcursch | talk 21:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

As one of the removers, I of course agree with what Utcursch, Sitush, and Blinksternet have said above. However, please note that if any of these candidates have received substantial coverage related to their work with AAP, it may be appropriate to describe information about them in prose. That is a "maybe", as in, it depends on exactly what is covered. But, for example, if one particular of the seats that AAP is contesting is receiving a lot of attention, and especially if it received any attention outside of Delhi, then we could consider including info about that. Though we would have to consider if that info is better placed on another page instead.

More in general, I have to implore the several people working here to promote the AAP to understand that such actions simply are not within our purpose. We are not here to promote a fair Indian election. We're not here to make sure that every political party is represented so that the people can make a good choice. We're not here to offset mainstream media which may spend less time covering non-mainstream parties. We're not here to increase the visibility of the AAP. We're here simply to record for history factual claims that are of due importance from a long-term perspective. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Utcursch, Thanks for pointing that out correctly. Point noted. I withdraw my support to the suggestion of giving Aam Aadmi Party's declared candidate list in this article. I will include the same in Delhi state assembly elections, 2013 page. I will also try to include the candidate list of other parties as & when it comes out. Thanks once again for putting forth a valid point.--ratastro (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Issue of battery operated rickshaw drivers

I suggest inclusion of agitation of battery operated rickshaw drivers in 'protests' section because:

The issue of e-rikshaws is not a minor issue as it has a definite history even before AAP supported demands of drivers. In Delhi these rickshaws run between Delhi Metro stations & nearby areas. Delhi government had decided to come down hard on the operators of the battery operated rickshaws last year. There is also a PIL in Delhi Highcourt seeking ban on e-rickshaws due to reasons mentioned in following link for which Delhi High Court has asked government to respond.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-12/delhi/42007556_1_e-rickshaws-pil-seeking-ban-sugriv-dubey

In the backdrop of these updates, AAP has supported the cause of battery-operated rickshaw drivers & instead of banning them they have demanded a concrete policy for them. ratastro 07:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs)

The entire issue, including the pre-existing stuff about adverts, seems to fall under WP:NOTNEWS, in my opinion. We do not exist to promote an election campaign and that is what this seems to amount to. - Sitush (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: Can you please let me know what is the difference between AAP's 23 March 2013 protests against inflated bills or 10 June 2013 protests in support of agitating Delhi auto rickshaw drivers & 16 September 2013 protests supporting e-rickshaws demand of making a concrete policy regarding use of e-battery rickshaws?After reading WP:NOTNEWS, I believe that excluding 23 March 2013 event, everything under protest section comes under the grey area. Do correct me if my understanding is incorrect. - ratastro 09:35, 17 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs)

No difference, really. I've been concerned about all of them. They are a party of protest and so the list could become very long and mostly sound-bite-y. There is also the very real issue of what is down to Kejriwal as an individual and what relates to him as a representative of the party. It is going to be messy until the academics start to comment. - Sitush (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response Sitush. I understand your reservations about these protests howerver If we see some of the protests of Aam Aadmi Party, the demands appear to be clear e.g. regarding inflated bills, what AAP wants to do is 1) Do CAG audit of private discoms, 2) Reduce the electricity bills in case the losses shown by private discoms are incorrect; regarding battery operated rickshaw driver , they want 1) Ban on cell of battery operated rickshaws revoked, 2) A proper law or amendment to Motored Vehicles Act to incorporate battery operated rickshaws as a transport mode & guidelines that these e-rickshaws need to abide to. Thus in my opinion, these protests are nothing but a platform to put forth their views as being a new party then do not have any other means up till now. Moreover while I was checking the Wikipedia article of Democratic Party of the US, I came across many issues like Russia policy or Puerto Rican issue in which their views are incorporated & not necessary all the issues were commented upon by academics by means of white papers &/or books. So I am of the opinion that these views of AAP should not be ignored just because academics have not commented on it.--ratastro 15:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs)

@Sitush,Following the support of AAM to the demand of e-rickshaw drivers to draft a concrete policy, Delhi government constituted a committee to come up with report & guidelines on these type of vehicles. Following are the references http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Govt-plans-panel-on-e-rickshaw-after-Aam-Aadmi-Party-backs-them/articleshow/22672524.cms http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/committee-on-status-of-erickshaws-in-delhi/article5140942.ece & http://www.indianexpress.com/news/govt-appoints-committee-to-lay-down-guidelines-for-erickshaws/1170516/ I think this proves that the issue is not minor & can be included in the article.--ratastro 11:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs)

I did not say that this or that was minor. I am querying the significance if removed from a "not news" setting. I am loathe to see this or any other Wikipedia article used as a vehicle for election campaigning. The impression isn't helped when so many who edit this particular article are virtually single-purpose accounts, as indeed you are. - Sitush (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

By looking into my edit history it is natural to think that my account is single purpose account. But let me assure you that being new to Wikipedia, I am concentrating on few issues at a time & hence there are so many edits on Aam Aadmi Party. I must admit that you never said that it is minor point however while reverting the changes, Binksternet gave the reason of 'issue being minor'. Coming back to the point that youhave raised, Delhi Government cracking down on e-rickshaws or banning the sale of e-rickshaws or AAM aadmi party supporting the demands or Delhi CM constituting the committee to review the situation can each be a news. But in my opinion, taken all these news togather it turns out to be issue worth inclusion in article. Kindly let me know your thoughts on this.--ratastro 12:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is surprising how many new contributors gravitate to this article in order to gain experience, especially given the warnings in place at the top of this page - you'd think they would want to learn the ropes in a less fractious environment.

Have you read WP:NOTNEWS? Do you have any real evidence that this is more than a transient event, that it will quite likely be referred to by reliable sources after the elections in December etc? When was the last time that they held a protest about rape in the interval between the events that took place on the bus and the sentencing of the culprits a few days ago? Can we get some measure on whether the AAP is serious about these campaigns or merely hitching their wagon to whatever populist protest in currently in vogue? - Sitush (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Sitush. 1) I have gone through the WP:NOTNEWS once again. In my opinion these news are nothing but information on recent developments on the issue of battery operated rickshaws in Delhi & hence can be included in the article. 2) I sincerely think that whether these events will be referred by reliable sources after Decelber 2013 or not has no importance however the drafting of any policy on e-rickshaws will definitely include discussion on the demand of Aam Aadmi Party asking for subsidy on purchase of e-rickshaws. Other points you have raised are different from the issue under discussion however I am trying to answer them 3) Aam Aadmi Party has helped rape victims in filing FIR when Delhi Police has refused to do so e.g. http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/tp-newdelhi/kejriwal-to-move-sc-against-delhi-police/article4848289.ece so the answer to your question is, Yes, AAP has done some work between Nirbhaya rape case & Court's verdict on this. In short the inlcusion of this point in the article does not amount to news nor an attempt to make it a tool of election campaign.--ratastro 13:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

My take on this issue is that NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE combine to tell us that it is not important until it is shown after the election that the issue was a decisive one for the party. Wikipedia is not to be used as the party's platform for self-promotion. Instead, the online encyclopedia summarizes what issues were the main ones. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Ratastro, regarding your comment that The drafting of any policy on e-rickshaws will definitely include discussion on the demand of Aam Aadmi Party asking for subsidy on purchase of e-rickshaws, well, I'm not sure how you can be so certain of this unless (a) you are an insider and (b) you have a crystal ball. - Sitush (talk) 15:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A simple line info. about party's support to battery operated autorickshaw drivers seems OK for me. This will throw light on party's activities and support to common man.Rayabhari (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It is using Wikipedia for populist agenda-pushing. How many other things do they support? Why are we not mentioning those? Why is this a "common man" issue, and who defines "common man"? Ridiculous, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Binksternet, These protests are nothing but a platform which is used by Aam Aadmi Party (as a matter of fact, any party) to put forth their stance on different issues e.g. Regarding e-rickshaw, AAP favours Delhi Government to draft a proper policy. Whether an issue bacame decisive or not in the election comes under 'post election anlysis' which can have separate place in our article. But the purpose to include these protests (specially now protests on 16 September & 23 March 2103) is to highlight current development of one of the widely covered & followed issues. Moreover while checking WP:UNDUE, I did not see anything in the current issue that can be termed as WP:UNDUE as the issue has been uniformly covered by major newspaper in India.

@Sitush, At this moment, the projects/activities related to clean energy sources/uses are given subsidies in one form or the other by government. I was extending the same analogy here & I admit that it was speculation by me. However as mentioned earlier, whether these issues will be reported after the December 2013 election or not has no significance because issue of e-rickshaws existed since one year & High Court of Delhi has a pending PIL on this which separates this issue from other election oriented issues. So I am of the opinion that this issue can have its place in the article without making it tool for election campaign.--ratastro 16:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs)

PILs are two-a-penny near election time (for obvious reasons) and common at other times. Similarly with protests which, frankly, are so common in India that organising them must surely be reaching the point of diminishing returns. We cannot pre-empt judicial outcomes nor assign weight to who caused their success/failure unless the court does; we do not routinely report news stories that lack a conclusion; the primary aims of the AAP are already stated in the article; the fact that the AAP has a finger in many protest pies is already stated by inference. And so on.

I guess there might be wiggle-room if we abandon the current statements about the rickshaw advertising issue and replace it with a single sentence saying something like, "The AAP has supported various regulatory complaints raised by rickshaw operators in Delhi." with two citations (one for the ads, one for the e-rickshaw stuff). I don't like it but I could live with it until the elections are over, then bin it unless it becomes a feature of the post-match analysis. - Sitush (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush, In case of e-rickshaws, the PIL was filed by social worker 'Shehnwaz Khan' & Delhi High Court has sought response from authorities by end of January 2014 which puts this issue separate from 'election oriented issues'. Nowhere in our discussion did we discuss about who was responsible for success/failure of this demand. We also did not predict outcome of any Judicial process. What I would like to put forth here is that 1) Issue of e-rickshaws in Delhi is comprehensive & not limited to sparadic news in the media 2) Aam Aadmi Party supported the demand of e-rickshaw drivers to draft a separate policy & guidelines for them 3) Aam Aadmi Party also demanded that those manual rickshaw owners who wants to purchase e-rickshaws should be given subsidy. 4) Therefore it has a potential to be included in the article in such a way that it a) states what AAP has done in this case. b) The narration should be devoid of pushing POV.--ratastro 00:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushikesh.tilak (talk • contribs)

The one sentence mentioned by Sitush above is absolutely the most we could include here. Everything else is just electioneering. Putting more than that in wold be "pushing POV". Again, without evidence of longterm importance, this is just a single issue, one of thousands of protests, that one particular party happens to have supported. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. This is exactly the right stance to take on what is simply one of many pre-election issues. Binksternet (talk) 00:41, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush,I agree with you on a point that we can club protests on 10 June 2013 & 16 September 2013. However I disagree with Binksternet & Qwyrxian on the point that this is merely an election issue & previous updates by me try to put forth different platform on which this issue is contested including Delhi High Court. Can you all suggest if following can be included in the article after clubbing 10 June 2013 & 16 September 2013 protests?

On 16 September 2013, Aam Aadmi Party supported e-rickshaw driver's demand in Delhi that there should be a policy on battery operated rickshaws in the capital city to stop their exploitation by Delhi Transport Department. Party also said that a subsidy should be given to manual rickshaw drivers who want to purchase e-rickshaws. Earlier in June 2013, the party had supported agitations of rickshaw drivers against ban on advertisements on auto rickshaws alleging that the ban is imposed because most rickshaw drivers supported Aam Aadmi party & carried their banners.--ratastro (talk) 09:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Either one works for me. Prune it as you wish but do add souces(news) of all the protests(e-riksha or normal riksha &etc) for further reading. RouLong (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• I am still against more than one sentence. This issue should be treated in detail if it turns out to have been important in the election. In that case, we can describe its importance in more detail. Binksternet (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• 1) This issue reached a level, where Supreme court asked government's stand on a PIL , even before any party including Aam Aadmi Party supported or rejected the protests. So this issue can not be called as election issue alone. 2) Moreover Aam Aadmi Party's support depicts their clear cut view on the issue itself & indirect stand on environment friendly things therefore irrespective of its impact of election, the issue needs proper mention in the article.--ratastro (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an election issue, if you can find sources that discuss it as such. That would still not make it valid in this article: there are many issues raised at election time, most of which never amount to anything much and most of which see variuos groups taking various stands. The AAP will, I am fairly sure, have clear-cut views on many issues but they can fight their election campaign in Delhi without insinuating it into an encyclopedia article. As can the other contenders. Once the election is over, there may be scope for inclusion of determinant issues at Delhi state assembly elections, 2013, again provided that reliable sources make the connection. It seems unlikely that you will gain consensus - it may be time to drop this and settle for the compromise that I proposed. - Sitush (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I retract the SPA claim with apologies. You have in fact recently contributed to one or two unrelated articles. Mea culpa. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies accepted Sitush. As to the issue of 'battery operated rickshaws' is concerned, please reread my previous comment. This issue has reached a level of High Court asking government its stand even before Aam Aadmi Party entered into it. So this issue clearly stands apart from all other protests & has a reason to be included in the article. As far as gaining consensus is concerned, so far three editors viz. me, rayabhari & ashwin147 have declined one liner compromise you have suggested. So I would suggest not to be speculative about it.--ratastro (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush, The latest revert by you is related to 'Contesting 06 June 2013 ban in High Court' which was not discussed earlier for consensus building. So the summary that you have given while reverting the edits is incorrect. My sincere question to you is, Did you read what changes were made to the article? Moreover as per the policy of edit war, 'Anti-vandalism tools such as Twinkle, Huggle and rollback should not be used to undo good-faith changes in content disputes without an appropriate edit summary.' but you are using 'Twinkle' even after the edit summary is inaccurate. I would, at this time, suggest not abusing the same.

@All other readers including Sitush, While researching, I came across few facts which, in my opinion, now warrant inclusion of 10 June 2013 as well as 16 September 2013 in the article because the protests were justified by a) Government taking note of the protest & acting accordingly &/or 2) Aam Aadmi Party lawyers taking the issue to its logical end. Detailed summary is given ahead. 1) The ban of advertising on Auto Rickshaws was contested in Delhi High Court by Prashant Bhshan & based on the hearings, High Court put a stay on this ban & sent a notice to Governement Transport Department seeking their reply by 06 July 2013. 2) After 16 September 2013 protests, Delhi Government constituted the committee to examine the problem & come up with guidelines. Please let me know your thoughts on this.I sincerely think that out of many protests Aam Aadmi Party has supported, these two stand different because of reasons given above & involvement of High Court. So not giving more information on them in this article will jeopardize the neutrality of the article & would make it biased against Aam Aadmi Party.

One more thing i would like to point out is that I try my level best to be neutral & I was the person who included information on HRD retiring Yogenra Yadav from UGC membership which did not exist earlier even though it meant giving coverage to the news against Aam Aadmi Party indirectly & This article was not reverted & got included in Yogendra Yadav page instantly.--ratastro (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You misread the restriction on Twinkle: the emphasis is on "withotu an appropriate edit summary". Sitush gave a very clear, and relevant edit summary: you're continuing to attempt to add information which there is no consensus for, and which seems to fail a plan-language reading of WP:UNDUE. You, in fact, are the one who is violating behavioral rules here, by knowingly adding more material for which you is there is no consensus; myself and at least 2 others have told you that, until there is strong evidence to the contrary, this is a minor issue that cannot occupy a significant amount of this article. You've even been told that it is likely that we will have to wait until after the election to add anything more (to know if it actually turns out to be important). You need to stop, and you need to not add even a word more about this topic without acquiring consensus, since the current consensus is to keep the topic minimal. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are expanding the rickshaw stuff without consensus. Resort to the courts is common in India for political issues - in fact, it wouldn't surprise me to read that it is the prevalence of such things that contribute substantially to the legendary slow-ness of the system overall. Finally, the court's stay is not an overthrow of the government decision but rather, as the word implies, a holding action. Perhaps my suggested sentence needs a slight revision but I still don't see the need for a big chunk of text. - Sitush (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush, Even though resort to the courts is common in India for political issues, Fighting for it till the logical end id reached & fighting it without delay is not a common practice among Parties. After Government's decision, rickshaws were prohibited from putting ads; after high court's stay they were permitted to put ads. Also government has not appealed against this ban. Isn't this logically an overthrow of government's ban order? I would strongly appeal to come up with proper summary of issues on 10 June 2013 & 16 September 2013. e.g. We can have something like this:

In June 2013, Aam Aadmi Party protested Delhi Government's ban on putting ads on rickshaws & contested the issue in court which resulted in Delhi High Court ordering stay on this ban. In September 2013, Aam Aadmi Party supported demands of e-rickshaw drivers to have a clear guidelines/policy on e-rickshaws & also suggested a subsidy on the purchase of e-rickshaws due to e-rickshaws environment friendly nature.--ratastro (talk) 09:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Founder of Aam Aadmi Party

• The Founder and Incumbent National Convenor of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is Social activist turned Politician Arvind Kejriwal.ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

References :

• The Hindu newspaper news "http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/arvind-kejriwal-to-contest-delhi-assembly-elections/article4622771.ece" Para 3 retrieved on NEW DELHI, April 16, 2013
• India today "http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/arvind-kejriwal-aam-aadmi-party-formal-launch-jantar-mantar/1/234729.html" PTI NEW DELHI,Retrieved on NOVEMBER 26, 2012 ThinkingYouth (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request : Remove Controversy section: Reason = WP:UNDUE (Not a major controvery)

In Election seasons, Politicians do make crude remarks and allege conspiracy/controversy in every speech/work by their opponent political party. A section (controversy) based on Letter issued by AAP and its allege misrepresentation/ Misinterpretation by other political party is completely undue in the article. I request an edit to remove this section from the article: Reason = Not a Major Controversy.RouLong (talk) 13:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree on what RouLong says. Whether it is protest or controversy, if we are taking an 'impact of that issue on election' as the only criteria, the controversy section must not exist here.--ratastro (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus on this ? RouLong (talk) 09:40, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think so as nobody has replied against deletion of 'controversy section'.--ratastro (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Election Symbol (Broom)

After going through talk page discussion over the use of election symbol image, there is a clear consensus to add Broom Image to the article and the counter objection is the copyright permission. According to Wikipedia rules, Fair Use is not the violation of copyright permission and it isn't the first time, WP is using non-free image in an Article. This Non-free content review discussion has been closed by Diannaa with result "Two out three images have now been deleted". If your objection is only based on copyright issue, WP fair use policy allows the limited use of image. I'm re-instating the image, please discuss.- RouLong (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You have not read that discussion correctly. Forget the closing remarks: the usage was deemed not to meet our policies. - Sitush (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

From a non-free content review point of view, the discussion was closed, as there's only one non-free image in the article at present. I don't see any problem from a NFCC point of view, as the policy is presently written, with including one non-free logo in the info box, and it's quite usual to do so. Some people argued that we should not be permitting one non-free logo by default, but If we are going to start stripping all the organisational logos out of all the info boxes wiki-wide, that's a discussion that needs to be held via RFC. I am going to copy these remarks over to the archived discussion for future reference. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ouch. What you see or do not is irrelevant: you closed a discussion and your role as closer was to determine consensus, not provide your own opinion. Or are image-related centralised discussions subject to completely different rules to those adopted elsewhere. I get the impression that you need to undo your close and let someone else take a look as I thought the entire point was that you cannot have a non-free unless there is no other option. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I have put the discussion back on the active page and someone else can close it. Sorry about the mistake. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I'm finding this whole situation to be very confusing & I doubt that you are anything like as confused as I am! - Sitush (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Sting operation

A user is removing content that I inserted based on the many news reports of sting operation with footage allegedly showing 6 out of 7 Aam Aadmi candidates accepting unregistered donations in exchange for personal favors. Aam Aadmi leadership has responded to this footage, and their response is included in the interest of neutrality. This is of course a notable event for a party running on an anti-corruption platform. Excluding this event from the article seems counterproductive in the extreme.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd guess that the perceived problem here is that the sting has been done by what seems to be a non-mainstream organisation - it is not as if it has been carried out by a major news organisation etc. All the sources that are mentioned are being careful to use words such as "claimed", "alleged" etc. Given that this is election season, and given that Indian politics is all about puffed-up allegations that generally die a death without resolution but for some reason manage to inspire mass street protests etc, I can sort of see the concern. I'm not saying that we should not refer to it - I've not actually looked for sources beyond those presented - but we do need to be extremely careful that we are reflecting what the sources say, ie: it is an accusation. My personal opinion counts for nothing but it is that all parties in India suffer from this type of problem and that until proven it really doesn't mean much at all, even though AAP are standing on an anti-corruption ticket. It probably would be best to ignore it until there is more evidence of an actual impropriety (NOTNEWS and BLP) but I can understand why some might want to include it. - Sitush (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sitush & Maunus, thanks for the discussions. I think allegations are just allegations, it can neither be judged as factual or erroneous. Hence I had created a section called allegations, but it was removed without discussion. Currently some one has made few allegations which are treated by AAP serious enough to comment it in the media. Also main political parties have responded to it. And most of the main stream media (Electronic and print) have covered it extensively. If the allegations are proved wrong the same can be mentioned in this section without doubt. I do not think that this is a private webpage of AAP for anyone to get offended. But I feel we can add the details here if the Wiki rules allow and if there is consensus. Let me know whether we can move it to a separate section as Allegations.Sathyanveshane (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

We really should strive to avoid pointy section headings such as "Allegations" and "Controversies". They are POV magnets and often create a sense of undue weight. BTW, I see that the EIC are investigating and apparently doubt the veracity of the recording (or so it says at Shazia Ilmi) - I'm not at all surprised. - Sitush (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Should we use PNG or SVG file of the logo?

Switching PNG to SVG was attempted, but it was reverted. One guy asserts that SVG is too technologically advanced and big for India and that PNG loads more quickly. I say that, since the logo is unoriginal enough to be free, SVG should be used as more superior to PNG. Also, SVG is used in other non-English versions. Why not the English version? --George Ho (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not what I said at all - please do not grossly misrepresent what has gone on. I've explained all this here. You'll need to overturn consensus in two different projects. - Sitush (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've switched to the SVG -- it's a much better, more flexible format for vector-originated images, which allows readers much more freedom in how to reuse them. Both images are free, and there's no difference in the overhead for users (the wiki software auto-converts the SVG to a precomputed JPG when it delivers the page to a user). The difference is that if somebody clicks on the image, they go to the page for the SVG image, which gives them the option to download the image in native SVG format. This allows them to use the image directly in vector image-editing software; and also to rescale it to a particular size without getting "jaggies" (step-aliasing artefacts on the sloping edges). That can be useful for rescaling the image to smaller sizes, not just larger ones. Which is why vector images, where possible, are a preferable way to go. Jheald (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You may be right but you need consensus here - that's why the discussion was opened. - Sitush (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The vector image is on Commons, it's free, and has significant advantages in terms of reusability and flexibility. If you're going to revert, you need to give some substantive reason as to why you think the vector image should not be used -- otherwise this discussion is over. Jheald (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not the first time that you have tried to impose an image on this article. If you are going to make a bold change when you know that a discussion is in process and has been going on at my talk page immediately prior to being opened here then you need to check out WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. But I think you've been told that before.

George Ho claims that the copyright is dubious even though the original image was accepted as PD-text at Commons. Copyright is a serious matter and probably there should be no image at all here if there is doubt. However, since there was that recent discussion at Commons, I'm content to chance that while awaiting more information from George. It strikes me that the proposed SVG replacement is little more than a format conversion and thus if George is correct then this, too, will be a copyvio and the thing should not be hosted at Commons at all.

Addressing your technical rationale as if that issue didn't exist, the SVG image is currently shown at Commons on the same page as the PNG which is currently in use on this article. Your rationale is basically that it saves a mouseclick. I could retort with a rationale that the existing target offers choice but my main issue is why the image used in this article for the purposes of Wikipedia needs suddenly to grow in size for no apparent change in content.

You are aware that I am no image expert but I'm really not happy about people who claim to be such seemingly taking the position that they can ride roughshod over our processes. I can understand it happening once, I can even understand someone erring in a similar way on different articles but to err in the same manner on the same article simply seems arrogant. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

You will be aware that the PNG image has twice been nominated for deletion at Commons, and twice been kept. You are welcome to nominate the SVG if you really think you're going to get a different result, but that seems to me very unlikely. If you are not going to put it up for deletion then drop the issue, because so long as it's approved of at Commons we consider it free.

Secondly, please clarify what you mean that the image will "grow in size" ? If you mean that it will be displayed at a larger size, then that's something we can discuss; the SVG format has the advantage that the image should look good at any size, without becoming fuzzy or stepped or blurred, so there can be a editorial discussion on this talk page as to what the best preferred size should be (as controlled by eg the '125px' parameter in this diff. On the other hand, if you mean that the image will simply be a bigger file in terms of bytes, then I'm afraid you're not understanding how the wiki software currently serves images.

Finally, understand that this is a wiki. You don't WP:OWN the page. If somebody else wants to improve it, either have an actual good reason to revert, or let it go. Jheald (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I know that it was nominated once and that was during the process when you were arguing about things at NFCR; I'm not aware of a second occasion. Why should I want to nominate the SVG - is is George who is thinking that there is an unclear copyright status, I am aware through seeing edit summaries on my watchlist that there have recently been some changes to how people view the India copyright laws & I am assuming that George knows more about that than I do. If the Commons interpretation of the laws has changed then it will affect both the SVG and the PNG, not one or the other. Or am I mistaken in thinking that the derivative would be affected?

Regarding size, you really do need to read the discussion that George initiated on my talk page and which is linked in my initial response to this thread. Regarding ownership, I'm not the one riding roughshod over process here. You tried "bullying" me last time in a similar manner and got nowhere, so perhaps stick to the discussion this time. (Bad word selection, in quotes because I can't think of a better one at the moment, sorry). - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to find info regarding how images are served up by the software but am struggling. I'm having the same problem with the copyright interpretation. Do either of you have any useful links, please. - Sitush (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded the PNG, but now that there's an SVG available, I agree with switching to that. It's much better for potential reusers and is generally our preferred format, I just didn't have an SVG available at the time of upload. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I didn't say that its copyright status is "dubious". Well, when I said "copyright status", I meant "public domain status" also. Maybe I should be careful of words. In other words, the logo is free as a bird. George Ho (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks all. It is still as clear as mud to me but you three are much more au fait with graphics stuff & so I've self-reverted to the SVG. - Sitush (talk) 04:14, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Now that's settled, there is no need to increase pixels, is there? George Ho (talk) 04:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Assuming that the image on the screen makes no difference to the download, the present size is fine. At some point in the recent past it was bigger, with the first and last letters practically touching the inner edge of the infobox, and looked a bit shout-y. Then again, I wouldn't know a good image from a bad one so my take on aesthetics is entirely personal. - Sitush (talk) 04:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What about increasing the infobox image pixels? George Ho (talk) 07:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Why? - Sitush (talk) 07:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

To you, does the image look good on small or big size? To me, I would like a bigger, better display. George Ho (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, someone put it in at a slightly reduced size & I have no problem with that. No need to swamp the infobox with a full-width logo that adds nothing in terms of info. If people want the big version they can just click on the thing. - Sitush (talk) 07:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Constituency-level manifestoes

AAP was proposing to introduce a manifesto for each constituency but I'm unsure whether this idea was superseded by the Delhi-wide version. If it was superseded then presumably there isn't much point mentioning their earlier scheme? - Sitush (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The statement seems to have been removed now but for clarity's sake, the promise did not happen. There were some constituency manifestoes but they were in a minority. - Sitush (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

expansion

I suggest expanding the article with section on work done by AAP afrer forming the government. Also criticism regarding policies. Regards Nizil (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, But they've only been in power for three days and we are not a news website. Give it some time. - Sitush (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2014

Position Status: Government in New Delhi ; Arvind Kejriwal new chief minister of New Delhi 122.177.169.120 (talk) 18:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The article has said this since 28 December. I'm not sure what version you are seeing. - Sitush (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2014

aad Election symbol

File:Aap symbol

Aap_symbol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AAP_Symbol.png - സാജന്‍ (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death and is not going to happen. There are threads in the archives to this talk page, at WP:NFCR and at Commons, as well as a few scattered around on other pages. The original symbol was only awarded for the Delhi elections and it was deemed not to meet our policies regarding copyright/free use, and it was easily described by using the word "broom". In addition, the specific image was intended as a standardised, unique identifier for illiterates voting in that election: replacing it with a similar-but-different user-generated symbol adds nothing. - Sitush (talk) 04:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Delhi result

This gives a different apportionment of seats from that shown by the ECI. I've reinstated the ECI version because, surely, that is the official one? Has there been a challenge that has not yet been incorporated into the ECI figures? - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

BJP has 31 seats & SAD (Shiromani Akali Dal) has 1 seat. But as they formed a pre-poll alliance, some news show BJP+ 32. I believe the one from ECI should stay with mention of pre-poll alliance between BJP & SAD.--ratastro (talk) 15:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2014

Kgarg06 (talk) 09:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The symbol is wrong. It is this http://www.ndtv.com/news/images/AAP_party_symbol_295.jpg

Source: Official website: http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/news/aam-aadmi-party-gets-broom-as-its-election-symbol

 Not done The copyright status of this broom has led to a very long and involved discussion, which you can read here. Arjayay (talk) 14:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2014

change abbreviated as 'AAP' to abbreviated as 'AAP' ('AAP' means 'You' in english) Lassipoint (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done albeit I used a slightly different wording. Arjayay (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Protecting/Repealing Controversies related to Aam Aadmi Party

I had followed full revision of the document. While inspecting history and revisions I had found that some conspiracies, misconduct or any misjudged issues of the party or its members, due to which they had suffered, or any Major setback of Aam Aadmi Party is being removed from here by some users. It seems this page is currently handled by AAP sympathetic users or else AAP workers itself. The page seems like political party promotion Article, because there are unnecessary and very small points are hyped as big positive point and rejection of all negative points of the party even it carries strong reference, even by so used language, it is cleverly turned negatives to positives. According to Wikipedia Regulations the article must be very neutral, unbiased and impartial. let the positives be their positives and the negatives be their negatives. It is strong suggestion to those people that they must not use Wikipedia portal as their party promotion stand, they can promote it out of wikimedia foundations. Sympathetic Users are requested to follow Wikipedia Regulations. Edits had been repealed by providing unusual and meaningless comments by calling issue to be petty. I can't understand the term "notable party" How Can you Judge party's notability? Although Article is semi-protected and protected from vandalism, but the whole article is cleverly distorted and projected it as subject's promotion. Hence, Repealing all undid revisions/edits for controversial section. KLS 22:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kswarrior (talk • contribs)

Repetition

I think the Vinod Kumar Binny issue does not need to be discussed twice (once under Factionalism and then again under controversies). Shouldn't it be removed from under one of those places? - Ankitreloaded (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversies section

This section seems to have cropped back up again after numerous discussions and repeated removal. While I'm not against criticism for this party, I really think it should not be trivialized.

The worse of the lot is the one regarding Rakhi Birla. It makes it seems as though Rakhi Birla deliberately filed an FIR in full acknowledgement of the fact that the ball was indeed the cause for the breakage. Oh Really? And the dozen sources added from "controversy hungry indian media" doesn't help!

A government and party can be criticized for non-performance, delay, corruption, or even unwarranted and unreasonable arguments. But adding such non-events make a mockery of a serious platform like Wikipedia and clearly violates Wikipedia:Criticism. While a criticism section here is justified, a controversy section should be avoided. Please understand the basic differences between Criticism and Controversy. Shubhamkanodia (talk) 14:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

True the sensationalist rubbish needs to go, but on the other hand legitimate RS opposition needs to stay in whatever trimmed form.(Lihaas (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)).

Links

>> India: The anarchy of simple living>> Analysis: AAP walks unchartered path>> Delhi ministers protest against police >> Delhi minister ends protest against police (Lihaas (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)).

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2014

Grammatical errors in the last paragraph under the Protests tab that I would like to correct.

Please change

"On 20 January 2014, Kejriwal and his ministers has protest against Delhi Police's SHO and ACP suspension at rail bhawan after failing to reach North block at home minister's office and said work will not hamper due to protection as he said he will work from protest venue.[28] This happened first time in Indian political history, where a Chief Minister is protesting at street to raise his Government's voice. He requested to people not to join this protest due to security reason but when police has stopped him then only he called people to join this protest and Government of India call for Rapid action force.[29]"

TO

On 20 January 2014, Kejriwal and his ministers staged protests against the Home Ministry for failing to suspend an SHO of the Delhi Police for their inaction following the Danish woman's gang-rape earlier in the month. These protests were held at the Rail Bhavan after the police refused entry to Arvind Kejriwal's cavalcade to the North Block, near the Home Minister's office. Kejriwal said that the protest will not hamper his work as he brought along files and carried on working from the venue of the protest. This is the first time in the history of Indian Politics that a Chief Minister has staged protests on the street against the Central Government. Kejriwal requested his supporters to stay away from the protest as he believed that a large crowd would hinder the Republic Day rehearsals that were scheduled for the same day at a close distance from the protest venue. But, later, he beckoned everyone who believed in his protests to join him at the Rail Bhavan. Even after repeated directions by the police to move the protest to the Jantar Mantar, Arvind Kejriwal and the AAP have refused to co-operate. Vignesh.Mukund (talk) 12:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Updated the para with minor changes. - Ankitreloaded (talk) 08:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Controversies Section : Please remove trivial issues

I want to point out double standards in WikiPedia regarding quality of Article. For example, if you search all major political parties such as BJP, Congress article here, they don't have controversies sections then why AAP article has one. Another point, if you read the controversies section, the controversies are so trivial to be included in this page, e.g Ball hit rakhi birla, she complained, what the heck, is this the standard of WikiPedia. Please remove this section and maintain the quality of Article as per Wiki Standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.8.204 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree Content to trivial to be mentioned. I've raised the issue before.Shubhamkanodia (talk) 14:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no controversies section. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Reverting recent edits

@Sitush: You've reverted my recent edits to the article and asked for an explaination.

Financial support for the party from non-resident Indians have halved while it has been in government, possibly reflecting disenchantment."

This line is picked up almost as is from a news source with a few cosmetic changes. If this is not WP:POV, what is?

As for the Somnath Bharati incident I've added a few facts to make both the sides balanced.

Take the next example -

In another incident, the law minister Somnath Bharti asked the police to conduct a raid on an alleged sex trafficking and drug racket in the Khirkee area.

to

In another incident, the law minister Somnath Bharti asked the police to conduct a raid on an alleged sex trafficking and drug racket in the Khirkee area after receiving numerous complaints from the local Resident Welfare Association.

I do not think my edits were in anyway disruptive, harmful or vandalising in nature. Wikipedia is a place for everyone to contribute in whatever small manner they can. I'm sorry but you don't own this article and you could've edited the article if you thought my edits were not upto the mark instead of outright reverting them. Shubhamkanodia (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I did edit the article, by reverting you. Thanks for explaining what you considered to be POV in the original version but, alas, I disagree. The decline in financial support from NRIs offsets the earlier news reports etc that noted a successful campaign in the USA. The Bharti point is relevant. Both are reliably sourced. - Sitush (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You've just used twinkle to mark my edits AGF and no, that is not editing out what you think is incorrect, its plain ol' reverting!

Coming to the financial support issue.

1. No reliable sources/records/figures given that explicitly proves that donation were indeed halved.
2. Look here. Find the line which says "Though the average single-day donation now is higher than it was before AAP formed the government in Delhi". The party recorded highest share of donations in the first week of the new year. So saying Financial support for the party from non-resident Indians have halved while it has been in government would be grossly incorrect.

Bharti Argument

1. It is widely accepted that what he did was on the basis of complaints recieved. I see nothing wrong with including that point.
2. While it is alleged that the women were harassed, a few African women have also voiced their support with respect to the ongoing racket. Also, it is alleged that they were harassed by "Bharti's Men". The matter is under investigation and it would be wrong to pass judgement based on meda trials. And so I just added the word "alleged" there. Shubhamkanodia (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I supplied an edit summary - it was not a blind revert. I'll look at what you've linked to etc later: got a blinding headache and am going to stop for an hour or two. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

You perhaps should be made aware that I've been accused both of being pro- and anti-AAP here, which is a pretty sure sign that I am neutral. I do not see a contradiction between your linked news story and the source that is used in the article. We should probably use both: disenchantment among NRIs but increased financial support at home. Reading between the lines, I'd guess that the increased support at home reflects the wider electoral stage upon which AAP are now campaigning (ie: the national stage rather than just one state/territory) ... but obviously we cannot say that unless sources say it.

Alternately, we could remove the NRI statement and also remove the statement about the meetings in Chicago etc last year. I've always thought the mention of those meetings to be rather trivial and lacking in context. - Sitush (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

... and someone has just added this. I'd guess that many NRIs are ex-pat big business people etc: certainly, that's the sort of constituency that fund-raisers in the US aim for. - Sitush (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2014 - Election Symbol

Hey !

This is Anup Date from Powai, Mumbai. I think this page needs to include the election symbol for the AAP as well. It is a classic broom or 'Zhadu'. The official link is as follows: http://www.aamaadmiparty.org/news/aam-aadmi-party-gets-broom-as-its-election-symbol

Please make the edit !

Cheers !

122.170.17.12 (talk) 08:08, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed in the past. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now, sorry. There are issues relating to copyright, for starters, and these were also discussed at Commons and at our noticeboard for review of non-free content. - Sitush (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Members

@Sitush: As you have cleaned a lot of this article, i would request you to see if a new section on "Members" can be written. The party had/has a lot of hype and many notable people from different fields came in the join the party. Some were in business at considerably good posts with no political background and some were in social work too. For example, Medha Patkar is a notable name for her huge work in social causes and she got affiliated with AAP. Similarly, there are other people too. We should have a section on these people, not elaborated one to mention all names, but just the notable ones.
2 months back a very senior fellow from our office resigned and there was a joke that he might be joining AAP now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I've not had chance to properly look at the article for a couple of weeks. You mean a sort of "List of notable members of AAP"? I don't see the point of that & it would be a maintenance nighhtmare. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No! Not a list. We have a category for that. The thing is such that the party is yet under its formation stage. We don't usually get to capture such stages of a political party; not at least in India. Most of the parties just split up from others and hence there isn’t much to write on how and who joined it. Like how MNS split from SS. But in here, we saw routine news of how some banker, IAS office or activist decided to join in AAP for the image it had. The party was actually formed by people coming together than just the already together people naming themselves as some party. And yeah... we don't want it to look like "ABC joined AAP on DDMMYY and then 2 days later PQR joined. on DDMMYY, LMN and GHI joined and blah blah..." I myself don't know how it should be put. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey D, I missed your reply, sorry. I'm not sure what you want and I'm not sure that you are either (!) Without some map of where we are going, we're not going to get there. - Sitush (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

copy from talk page to the necessary page here > Aam Aadmi Party

"" You have reverted four of my small edits with existing citation saying "Please state the sources and discuss in talk page before addition. (TW)". I have reinstated my edits, can you please review my changes and confirm that they are not-sourced and violating Wikipedia guidelines? I believe that I need not create a discussion in Talk Page for these one-word or one-sentence edits sourced from the existing citation.

Saved Edit summary text: The citation mentions Karnataka only.

I changed "certain states" to "Karnataka".

Saved Edit summary text: Without the date the sentence seems to imply that it was a direct consequence of Hazare request that he stopped the fast. On the other hand Kejriwal himself has not said it was the deciding factor. He continued to fast for another 7 days. The citation is present, I added the date " on March 29 ".

Appended "Rs 220 crore" to "driven by subsidy". Citation is present.

Saved Edit summary text: Changed to maintain neutral point of view. The earlier statement sent a message that Jung was being dictatorial whereas he was only saying that it has to follow Transaction of Business Rules (TBR), 2002. The Law Ministry backed. The citation is present.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aam_Aadmi_Party&diff=0&oldid=602231831

Jyoti (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Take it to the article talk page. The pair of you discussing it here means nothing. - Sitush (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

But Sitush this is just my question to this particular editor, I do not want to discuss with other editors or on the article talk page. My argument is merely that the reason given by this editor to revert my edits are not correct in my opinion and he should justify it -- the onus of proving his statement is his. I noticed you have also bulk reverted all four of my edits. And your comment is "Too much detial, unnecessary acronyms and ignorance of WP:MOSDATE". It clearly does not have too much detail. Unnecessary acronym is for "Rs", if you could tell me how to correct that I can do it from the next time. I will read up WP:MOSDATE. I am not taking this to the article talk page. I will not make these edits again without a consensus. It is pretty discouraging to have even one word edits reverted and having to take it to Article Talk page instead of having a conversation with the editor. Jyoti (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

""

correct reasons :

1) missing references wp:RS 2) WP:SYN problem with the statment " sent a message of ... dictatorial " , your changes " sent a message of AAP being at wrong while others just did there job" , so there can be pretty different messages for rephrasing sentences

do not get discouraged Jyoti , as you know its election time it just is night mare to keep the articles as they are, hope you understand Shrikanthv (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you Shrikanth, please point out a missing reference. I merely read the citation and made one-word edits from the _same_. If you deem them unreliable then each topic itself is under question. For your second point, I only added the other side, I did not remove any existing statement. Without the other side it reads: "However, Jung said that tabling the bill without his agreement would be "unconstitutional" and advised the Assembly Speaker not to allow the tabling.[52] The AAP government stated that it was following all the procedures, and tried to table the bill." Would you disagree that this is one sided? Coupled with 'However' and unconstitutional in quotes (not so in the cited reference) portrays Jung in bad light. Whereas the same citation say "The Law Ministry has held that the Transaction of Business Rules (TBR) make it mandatory that the Lt Governor refers to the Centre every legislative proposal which may necessitate additional financial assistance." Jyoti (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

HiJyoti. please note WP:NOTNEWS ,

and the argument

for first point missing reference from multiple sources as per wp:RS (to be specific), please note that its a current event would really do not mind adding karnataka or the numbers however.

please note that I am not questioning the sources here (for your second point), before going forward <Br\> and what do you mean by "other side" can you eloborate and explain how did you derive this meaning ,

and I do not see the sentence "However, Jung said that tabling the bill without his agreement would be "unconstitutional" and advised the Assembly Speaker not to allow the tabling.[52] The AAP government stated that it was following all the procedures, and tried to table the bill."

as one sided , it mere states what the sources say I really do not see what the "side" you are talking about

but if we take your wordings seems like counter argument to the above statement ? I feel its serious WP:SYN , would like comments from other uninvolved in this, if they also find your are right i do nto mind. also note if we allow this there is million article available in the net to twist and turn lines Shrikanthv (talk) 10:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Shrikanth, you want multiple reference merely for my edits -- when the content is already from existing citation? The 'other side' is that of Jung (living person); the projection is unfair. How is it WP:SYN? For that you will have to point out that my edits contained statements not backed up (they are backed up by the existing citation itself). Yes, I agree there are million articles out there, I have not added any news article and merely read the provided reference and based on them only made edits. So, if only my edits (based on the existing reference itself) is under question then it is almost akin to double standards. Jyoti (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This Jyoti and all other bots editors are part of BJP/Congress IT cell. They bark on every Social website FB/Twitter/NewsPaper_Comment section. PLease read [1]. Be Aware. Your WIkiPedia is getting Hijacked by this morons IT cell people. Beware and Alert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.56.234.154 (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Added detail in ‎Awareness campaigns section.

link: diff. user:Shrikanthv had reverted it citing WP:SYN. I think it is not synthesis. It adds essential detail from the already cited (1, 2) WP:SECONDARY. Jyoti (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the entire subsection now anyway. It was outdated and really rather pointless: political parties almost by definition campaign with the intention of increasing awareness relating to issues close to their heart, so cherrypicking one or two seems odd. - Sitush (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Election symbol again

I notice that people keep reinstating the "broom" election symbol. This file has been deleted both from Wikipedia and from Commons in the past. It has also been discussed on this talk page and at various other noticeboards, an example of which is here. Unless the symbol has suddenly become free of copyright, it should not be in the article. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_33#Multiple_non-free_logos_for_same_organisation. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

 Removed Sam ^Sing! 13:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2014

founded: 02 October 2012 Harikiranreddy (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. There is no need of editing foundation date. Officially it was launched on November 26 at Jantar Mantar, Delhi Sources: IndiaToday/PTI NDTV. Wikipedia only recognize official date of launch and formation. --05:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)Ankitbjain (talk)

Script

We seem to have a disagreement regarding interpretation of WP:INDICSCRIPT. I don't understand why this should be so - please can it be explained. - Sitush (talk) 03:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Example. - Sitush (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sitush INDICSCRIPT seems to apply to lead sentences, not infoboxes. I looked at other party articles and two out of the three national parties had INDICSCRIPT in infoboxes. I don't care if it's there or not, but the practice should be consistent throughout articles of this type. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. In that case, it has got messed up. There was an exception for placenames (using the officially designated languages for the specific region) but not for anything else. The reasons should be obvious (ie: derogatory vandalism that was hard to spot, a multitude of edit wars about precisely which character to use etc). I've obviously missed a change somewhere but I stand by my gut feeling regarding how this was. It is 03:45 here, so I'll pick it up tomorrow and I'll probably be asking for SPI to take a look anyway. - Sitush (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

SitushDear Sri Situshji, please note carefully I am telling 2 you so you can understand it, Native language in the lead "There is ultimately no consensus about which language to use, but I see a fair bit of support in regards to IPA and pronunciation and would think this would help normal readers, so I am going to say that Using IPA to clarify pronunciation is the consensus of this discussion, all other sections do not meet a level of consensus needed to pass. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)"

This means "IPA can be used to clarify pronunciation", and there is no consensus for any other matters being discussed, like saying Indic scripts cant be used in English articles. Not tata (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Not tata, WP:INDICSCRIPT, which has existed for at least the last two years, is clear about this: "There is community consensus that the lead sentence of an article should not contain any regional or Indic language script." Sitush, I agree with you. I am wary of any foreign scripts added to English Wikipedia because I can't really verify the content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere, in some thread that spun-off after the RfC close, it was agreed that infobox = lead for the purposes of script usage. That is because the two have the same prominence at the head of the article, the same propensity for problematic editing that is difficult to monitor, the same tendency for > 28-language bloat etc. It is going to take some digging to find that consensus now because there have been numerous such threads about related matters, at least some of which did affect geographical items. It might be easier if I just to start another thread at WT:INB and then someone amends the guideline according to the outcome. What I can say for sure is that until the incident in this article, I've never seen anyone challenge removal from non-geographic infoboxes since the RfC spin-off, which must have been at least a couple of years ago. - Sitush (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Serious Threats Of terrorism on slum families, AAP British VISA SCAM, Assualts on women and men

I have just seen news reports with Indian news channel reporting That at 10.47 am the AAP workers had Threaten poor people in the slums of "Krishna Nagar" with violance of nature linking to acts of extream Terrorism, along with this i have Found The AAP visa Fraud Sting Opperation,Reported assaults On women and men, Fraudulent addresses for fundings

I am strongly against any form of violence of this nature and i will not stand for this information not to be published on this page, It needs attention and may even save lifes

1. AAP Visa Fraud In England 2. Threats of extream Terror aim at Slum dwellers 3. Acts of Assault On women and men 4. Found with Fraudulent addressess on funding links

In 2014 AAP British Visa Scam http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/aap-uk-workers-involved-in-student-visa-scam-bbc-sting-550540

Videos from The Indian state ran News Channels Airing the information on threats On Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM7TKk8AAFg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX6-81cYjQ0

Ref relating to threats http://www.msn.com/en-in/money/watch/kiran-bedi-accuses-aap-of-threatening-voters/vp-AA95Sgd http://www.scoopnest.com/user/IndiaToday/563929376530509824 http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/delhi-elections-live-aap-bjp-kejriwal-kiran-bedi-congress-maken/1/417438.html

I can ask to bring in a higher mod and editor to help out if you wish?92.236.96.38 (talk) 10:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Caplock

——These are allegations as per the videos and links you shared. And Visa issue is 1 year old and nothing furthur after this report. Rasulnrasul (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well I Honestly do not care if the court case On AAP was One year ago,Three years ago or even One thousand years ago, the ref and news claim a crime has been noted by the high courts Of the united Kingdom so it is something which can be used here, no excuse.

Allegations Of attacks on Men and women, Allegations Of fraud, threats of terrorism by the AAP can be used on this page with no issues.

Where is The criticism section with the allegation and replys to the party AAP Manifesto?92.236.96.38 (talk) 15:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Caplock

Two persons "said to be", "purported AAP worker", "Kiran Bedi accuses". None of this meets the basic standards for inclusion. Not only are these people positively connected with AAP, we can't go around adding every bit of information about members of a party - whether it be positive or negative - unless it has some direct connection to the party itself. --regentspark (comment) 16:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Distinguishing

Will Bolterc try to explain why he is insulting others and not letting the distinguish remain? Fundarise (talk) 13:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

A mob here reverting my edits. Wikipedia has become a shame. Why would you add the pakistan party in the first place. It is not a recognized party. Added by Modi Bhakts. Do you want me to prove it ? Bolterc (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Not just one mob if you are seriously talking about other editors. Fundarise (talk) 11:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can prove it, do. Until then, the hatnote remains a straightforward part of Wikipedia's normal functioning and does not, contrary to your claim in an earlier edit comment, malign anyone. Removal of that hatnote and placing an untrue redirect notice at the head of the article damages the normal functioning of the encyclopedia. Please stop doing that. NebY (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

On the result day (10th Feb) almost 1/10th of the visitors of this wiki page is misdirected to the pak fake party page. I consider this a serious threat. I came here to find this Hatnote only after a bjp supporter during a debate(offline) claimed AAP is a pakistan party. Bolterc (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Really? You have absolutely no idea where those people intended to go. I have just reverted you yet again on the article itself. The article title is Aam Aadmi Party and any disambiguation should relate to other articles that bear a similar title, not AAP. There might just be a good reason to link to a disambig for AAP also, but certainly not instead of. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

 Administrator note The war goes on. Because it's a wonderful day and I'm in a good mood, I have protected the article for yet another week instead of blocking somebody. Should the war resume in a week's time, I may not be so benevolent! Favonian (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

My attention has been drawn to a discussion relevant to this issue, following which I have blocked Bolterc for a week and returned the article to its previous semi-protected state. Favonian (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Infobox images

I have just reverted here. This is far from the first time that someone has tried to add the election symbol and the issue has been discussed time and again, both here and at venues such as WP:NFCC. That symbol is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia, per several affirmations of past consensus.

The so-called "official flag" that I removed was also pointless. According to the uploader - Bolterc - it is their own work. There is no way to reconcile that with "official" and, even if there were, we already have a non-free logo in the infobox and we do not usually permit more than one. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Checking File:AAP Symbol.png, the symbol first uploaded to Commons looks as if it might be free to use, in the same way that a fresh rendition of a coat of arms is. Unfortunately, someone then uploaded the non-free symbol over it. I was tempted to revert to the first one but I'm unfamiliar with Commons and an administrator pointed out that the file's now in use in quite a few articles. NebY (talk) 19:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't actually free anyway, just mislabelled by somone (just as many people upload images as "own work" when all they have done is downloaded the thing from one place and then uploaded to Commons). That's how I recall the discussion at any rate. The symbols are assigned by the Election Commission of India and their own publications say that they are copyrighted. I'm not sure how that affects their use on, say, election literature but it does prohibit their use here along with the non-free AAP logo. - Sitush (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I created the logo for AAP in 2012 so check wikimedia commons licensing. Now adding my own created symbol as well. Please find latest revision coming up. Bolterc (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I do not believe you, sorry. You have demonstrated virtually no understanding of our policies and I doubt your competence to assess what is or is not a breach of copyright. - Sitush (talk) 19:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I have just reverted you yet again. Please take another look at WP:BRD and WP:EW. You need to discuss this, not leave a note and then immediately assert your position in the article itself. - Sitush (talk) 19:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment and question: Yes, the uploaders' copyright/free-image claims for the election symbols are dubious, but I would think that there is an obvious fair use rationale for including election symbols in this and all other Indian political party articles (and the article text should also, wherever possible, discuss the associated symbolism). After all ballot papers in India carry only the candidate name and the party election symbol (not, even the party name), so the educational purpose of providing the election symbol could not be stronger. Can someone point me to any prior discussion about this topic? Abecedare (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)