Talk:2012 Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election

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

Table comparing 2007 winner data[edit]

I am copying the following comment posted by User:Lihaas on my talk page:

we dont need 2007 as its not relevant to this pag. it can on the 2007 election page. Also what is "c.07"? Further the page is way too big with just a list of 400 MLAs. either we shuld start some new pageor better yet transclude it here - Lihaas (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

The 2007 data provides a context for the changes effected by the 2012 elections, and is therefore of relevance in an encyclopedic article on the election. The size of the table is not such a factor, the main q. is whether it's relevant. since it is the list of winners, it would be relevant, wouldn't you think? c.07 is the constituency no from 2007. i plan to link it to the relevant line in the 2007 table.
Transcluding it makes sense only if there is more than one page needing this info, e.g. another page such as 'UP legislative assembly, 2012. As one of the main contributors for the 2007 elections page, I can tell you that this doesn't work at all!!. As many as 20-30% of the members change - more in UP than other places - they get convicted, expelled, killed, die, etc. So we need separate pages for the Elections, and the Vidhan Sabha membership. mukerjee (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I find the table removed to a template though you have not addressed this issue, and we are far from a consesnsuson this point.
The table is incomplete - there are a lot of dablinks, and other unfinished parts. By keeping it on this page, other users may edit it. Many users, including myself are hesitant to edit templates. And anyway, it's a plain table, doesn't need to be a template.
I also notice a delete tag on the template for much the same reasons. I hate edit wars, but I am reinstating it. Let's come to a consensus on this issue here acting unilaterally.mukerjee (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Templates are for readability and cleanup reasons not for content reasons. which is the also the point of templates being transcluded to clean up the page...though i dont get your point about multiple 2012 election pages and needing seperate vidhan sabha/election pages. (seems to FAVOUR the use of templates)
2007 election data is relevant (obviously) to the 2007 page which exists at the link at the bottom of the page and is standard practice.
Why are users hesitant to edit templates? its a simple click and code is the same as this works. it can be cleaned there just the same.
the delete tag is not for the same reason. (per the noms discussion)(Lihaas (talk) 06:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
the readability of the page is unaffected by whether it's a table or a template. The editability is.
the main purpose of transclusion is where the same data is used in more than one page. It is not being served here.
The other issue, which you haven't addressed, is that the table is still unstable and needs further edits. I have made 100s of changes to it in the last few hours; some other editors have also made changes. mukerjee (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case and you say its incomplete move it to your sandbox till its ready. Article space is not for test edits to grdually clean it.
You hae a gross misconception of what readability is...radability is not editability an d i think youre alone on this one across WP. We can move it to a seperate page a list of elected MPs and duly change it over time) which was what i initially suggested as one of 2 options.(Lihaas (talk) 06:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
The table has been moved (User:Mukerjee/sandbox) where you can work to complete and stabilise it as is the norm. In the meantime : 1. discuss what shoul dbe on this table, 2. restore to the page when it is done.(Lihaas (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
don't be facetious. the table contains important data, it is correct, but has some issues. it is far from sandbox stuff. but i will let others opine on this. mukerjee (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
what> ? facetious? no one says sandbox stuff doesnt contain important data...it is for stuff that is not ready yet.(Lihaas (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Theres been no consensus on adding back the table that was once BOLDly done but needs a BRD dsicssion. Further the contetns of the table (2007 info) is not relevnt. If consensus deeesm so THEN readd it.Lihaas (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"List of MLAs" or "List of Winners"[edit]

By the argument of the last paragraph, these two are NOT the same. This is a page on the elections, hence it should list the Winners, which is stable (and encyclopedic). Even initially they won't be the same - since Mulayam will be giving up one of his two seats immediately. But he remains an "winner" in both for this list. mukerjee (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough...how about winning MLAs? Then we can add a bnote on the by-election.Lihaas (talk) 06:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes needed in the article[edit]

I could help with the following, but don't want to get into edit wars with existing editors. So pls comment: 1. The language and the presentation of the page needs lots of work. The lead paragraph has some grammar errors. 2. The schedule needs to be trimmed down to what is of long-term encyclopedic interest only. 3. Some parts are too focused on the Gandhi family, who turned out to be almost irrelevant 3. The article badly needs a map - can anyone with graphics experience contribute please? mukerjee (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and thanks for coming to talk first, we can easily work through this.
1. anything specific abut the language changes needed?
2. Agreed...I tried to do some rewording earlier but left it as i didnt want to argue with some edits that were valuable because i took off some un/poorly sourced bits
3. they turned out to be at the END -- but thats the reason it was a surprise and there are many analytical pieces on the SURPRISE showing. Background was just context for the importance which was later read in many places.
4. ask at the map workshop
Also the table needs to be transcluded (400+ MLAs dont need to be all listed here). And the 2007 election is irrelevant.
Also this first para is redundant in showing the changed as the list above does so (if anything add the prose there) and the replacement for "However, the about one-third of the constituencies were re-mapped " this poorly written. Ill undo that bit.Lihaas (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The 2007 data shows the extent of the change established by this historic election. It belongs here, do not start a edit war by acting unilaterally on that either. mukerjee (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im being perfectly/extremely polite so please dont accuse me of starting an edit war because i ASKED about 2007 relevance and have not changed anything. Further to note per your comment that we far from reaching consensus (and "do not act unilaterally; respond to other arguments as well on the talk page first") do NOT start unilaterally compacting issues without discussion, as this section seeks to do. your bold compacting has been reverted and you need to discuss it first (as you want me to dicuss the table issue)(Lihaas (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
you cannot revert "bold" edits just because you don't like it. Please address it on issues. In wikipedia, no one "owns" an article - it is neither your nor mine. Let us work together to improve it.
my compacting was necessitated by your harping on article length. I am sure it reads a lot better now and presents the matteer a lot more coherently and in an encyclopedic fashion. Pls edit only those parts that improve the article.mukerjee (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot fathom you just said that: afer saying to discuss and not make unilateral edits, you go and remove and altere information. its not that IDONTLIKEIT, it is how BRD works. Bold edits reverted mean they should be discussed. Likewise you dont OWN the article.
Article length was an issue and should be discussed you are not "necessitated" to take any unilateral action that you too said should NOT happen. (you dont see the hypocrisy?). It may read better to you (but it isnt and is in gross violation of guidelines like ENGVAR) and also complicates sectioning as well as unilateral information removal.
Then be civil no one is "harping on." that what transcluded templates are for.(Lihaas (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Cant believe that such "unilateral" edits were made while warning not to do so. But to discuss:
"not of much encyclopedic interest" is subjective + "corruption and inadeq development were bigger" is subjective and was a unilateral decision to remove content + pov words, poorly writen + poor spelling against WP guidelines + everything is one section? (virtually) what is the election? we dont have subject titles with "the" + reoval+ campaign is not an ISSUE + good edit with number of seats, etc but also pov as to which minor parties were listen the last 3 are as warranted as all the 200 othersas is IEMC
if you "don't want to get into edit wars with existing editors. So pls comment" then do not revert undiscussed content changes. I will not re-revert, but you are expected to come back to the drawing board removin g your BOLD changes per BRD because no one OWNS an article to have their way of what is "surely better or not"
You initiated a conversation about what YOU wanted to change yet have partaken in not 1 bit of discussion about the content changes. It is going to be highly futile to try and keep editing to your version because if there is no consensus for the change per discussion (and attempt at it as im doing) it will be reverted. i strongly suggest you discuss the organisational and other changes(Lihaas (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]
Weve goen almost 2 weeks without a hint of discussion for the BOLD but massive and [hypocritically] unilateral edits. Further the language was suggested as better when it ispoor and pov-laden, nor has the said user made any intention/attempt to inidiate discussiong to resolve the dispute...instead just restoring what he deems fit as in the edits above.Lihaas (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting over 20 edits by several editors[edit]

I re-did the table so that the matter can be stabilized here. Please do not delete over many edits of several editors. Edit the parts that you feel need improvement, like I have. mukerjee (talk) 06:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the explanation are given above for wholescale undiscussed unilateral change.
For the record the category additions were not reverted and "several editors'" never happened. the revert was till this edit that started making unilateral changes. You are being resuested to revert your own edit and garner consensus through discussion on removals/cleanings.(Lihaas (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

Reinstating the table[edit]

The detailed table of winning candidates belongs here. The argument above was not on whether the list of winners belongs here but whether it was to be put it in a template. Since that attempt has failed, the table still belongs. mukerjee (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not the arguement was what to include, which you have not partekn in and not got consensus for after your BOLD edit was removed you need per BRD consensus. And the content of what should be on it like 2007 was your decision so do not impose your "still belongs". get consensus and readd itLihaas (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ANd do NOT add your unilateral reorganisation (in contrast to wh tyou said) without consensus. If you dont gain consensus it is not AGF and even vandalism. Discuss it here for th enth time or well need outside itnervention. You have not discussed rthe inclusions you unilaterally demand. its been almost 3 weeks and you have mentioned nothing to the conensus discussion aboveLihaas (talk) 08:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of reorganisation[edit]

User Lihaas: Can we please work to make the a good useful article for users seeking information on this election. What has been added so far are:

  1. A table of the winners.
  2. The list of parties that won at least one seat
  3. A much clearer writeup on the issues along with a number of citations validating the writeup

If you have objections on any of these, please state them clearly.

The article needs considerable improvement still. What I would like to add are:

  1. winning margins for each candidate (in the table)
  2. finish the table of the winning parties (it now lists only a few of them). also such a small single-use table doesn't need to be transcluded.
  3. reduction in victories by criminal elements
  4. geographic distribution of winning trends

Your reverts are throwing out very relevant details (like the table, which you agreed to on content, but only wanted to transclude).

Please indicate what you don't like in terms of issues, instead of just reverting. I plan to start work on these improvements, but the edit war has vitiated the atmosphere here right now. mukerjee (talk) 11:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NO we have multiple discussion above that YOU have not followed through with till reverting expecting your [hypocrtiical] BOLD edit to stand...well is not agf anymre as it has no consensus [er BRD. Ive listed above the concerns that you ignored. the onus is on you t get consensus first so dont say "dont revert" till your edits get consensus.
Youre organising is not much clearer and its lsited bove, im not ging to rehash everything till you agree.
Further i agree on the winning margins but if its not ready then keep it in you sandbox and work on it instead of deleting here. Mainspace is not for test edits. Further as said above 2007 is NOT relevant heve. This is also hideously and blatantly pov...please familiarise yourself with WP language This "whats needed" is subjective thats why we discuss + Youre subjective noteworhiness is nott gospel, thats why we discuss...its also loaded with synthesisLihaas (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continuation[edit]

Dear User:Lihaas:

We have now come to two completely different versions. I went through the version you have been reverting over many edits for the last month - in fact, this is the version I had started from). If you feel this version is a better wikipedia article, pls explain where it is better, and I will be happy to work to merge the two.

However, every section of this older version I find has errors or has too much non-encyclopedic detail.

For example:

  1. section 2, "Schedule" has too much detail that is less relevant in an encyclopedic article.
  2. section 3, parties - only 7 mentioned. New version lists all 11 parties who won at least one seat.

many more errors (e.g. in star news result) are pointed out in some of the edit summaries since March 13.

Similarly, the new lead summarizes the quantitative gain and the importance of the elections. The issues section retains some of the older material, but has been cleaned up.

Most crucially, the older version does not even have a list of winning candidates! Also the party-wise result is incomplete.

Please feel free to edit my version where it is weak, and I will be happy to rectify stuff myself. However I find no justification for your outright revert to a rather weak version. Let us remember WP:WIN and just write the best article that wikipedia deserves.

I also find it a bit strange that you renamed the talk page section above from Let's work together to improve the article, please don't revert content to "discussion of reorganization".

Also, you have now raised a new point re: POV. If you feel there is a non-neutral slant, please feel free to point out these areas, or to directly edit those parts. This is however no justification to revert to an outdated version of the entire page. Also, I may point out that this was not a reason you had cited earlier while reverting my many edits over the past month.

Please give your justifications, until then I am reverting to the more up-to-date version. mukerjee (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Stop creating new sections for every reply of yours.
2. the onus is on the person MAKING the change to justify his version per BRD (which follows from BOLD)
3. To get back to your comments, what is uncyclopaedic to you is not to others (thats wy we discuss). Its standard practice and highly informative to mention the constituencies going to the polls (more so in light of the constituency result list) because issues in the last phase that occurred after others voted may have affected voting preferences without giving the other constituencies a chance who had already voted. That is far more pertinent than the 2007 result. (which is why we have a 2007 election page). There is too much detail in schedule but the 2007 table info is pertinent? You want your WP:WRONGVERSION to stay one, but others have to be kept out?
4. Okey agree with the party list Done with slight tweaking for pov to only mention some and since this is for the PRE election bit aded previous represented parties from 2007 page
5. WHAT errors? please mention them. (there is nothing in the edit smmaries about the star news misattribution, except for 1 mention where a quote was added to the ref tag)
6. your wording is not npov in the new version
7. weve discussed the table issue, please continue there. Further move it to your sandbox till its ready...im not going to go around till you decide to discuss it. The table also adds some 90k to the page well over 100k to slow down for readers that does not make it easier to read the page
8. "Please feel free to edit my version " there is no "my" version and let me reiterate that the onus is on YOU to get consensus to make changes per BRD and until you do that the reverts are not AGF and can be construed as vandalism. You do not have a monopoly to keep restoring your version and more so after attempts at discussion above were spurned by you. Get consensus THEN add it.
9. Talk page sections are to generate discussion not to write letters (as is this)
10. Any more reverts without consensus discussion will call you out (and you have a recent, if not past, history of inserting npov views and demanding they stay). this is the final warning.
The aforemention discussion went for over 2 weeks without a comment or consensus generating discussion only to then suddenly, hypocritaically and unilaterally having all changes reverted back without any discussion per WRONGVERSION. This is a highly-deceptive edit summary as that is not what the revert did
Comments like "don't want to get into edit wars with existing editors. So pls comment" seem highly hypocritical when you war to have one version without discussion, likewise "pls do not act unilaterally; respond to other arguments as well on the talk page first" when that is exactly what you did. It is your right to challenge the organisation, but that also needs consenss discusions before changning
It would help to go back up, review what i responded to your edits on 13 March before you disappeared for 2 weeks and then came back to revert and demand its the proper versionLihaas (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate:
"not of much encyclopedic interest" is subjective and requires discussion first + "corruption and inadeq development were bigger" is subjective and the edit was a unilateral decision to remove content, without discussion on recurrence + pov words, poorly writen + poor spelling against WP guidelines + everything is one section? (virtually) what is "the election"? we dont have subject titles with "the" + removal of content without discussion and on recurrence+ campaign is not an "ISSUE" + good edit with number of seats, etc but also pov as to which "minor" partiesas is IEMC
Per this version, other than the aforementioned need to discuss changes first, etc, the specifics entail: wording that is loaded, WP should be neutral, such as "atmosphere was thick with corruption" and "electorate voted decisively" (in the latter case the numbers can speak for themselves) + Synthesis such as "Uttar Pradesh is a politically important state" which was a removal of sourced content to be replaced by this + Parties is not background + "Campaign and controversies" are not issues, but the coruption section was good, however other stuff was removed here under the pretense of "Cleaning" + opinion and exit polls are not the same, in the interest of consistency its not as such on WP election articles + "Results" is NOT plural, which can be noted by the page title of "election" NOT "elections" + and, well, the table issue is mentioned above. 2007 is not relevant in my opinion though it is in yours, perhaps we need a 3O...also as you said it is incomplete. Lihaas (talk) 05:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trying for a consensus[edit]

Let us try for these FOUR points first:

  1. List of winning candidates. This is the main results section in this page. You had already agreed to this, with the title of "List of winning candidates". But you keep reverting so the table is also deleted. By removing the table to someone else's sandbox, you insulted the intelligence of a fellow-editor. It has already had a lot of work on it, and is far from the sandbox level. In fact, your attitude reveals how you are not following the consensus.
  2. Schedule: OK. some more details may be useful, but currently it runs into three screen pages; surely it should surely be compacted.
  3. Parties List: So you agree to an expanded party list. I think the 2007 winners ia also a good start. What we really need though is the various combinations or fronts (e.g. INC+RLD) that were the fronts. The fifth "front" was Apna Dal + People's peace party etc.
  4. Parties summary in the results section: This is incomplete, and needs to list all winning parties, with much other detail. It is far from complete and stable, so it should not be transcluded to a template. Incidentally, this is also a single-use table (lot of independents will join parties, small parties may merge, etc.) - so there is little justification for it to be transcluded. However, this does not mean that I should move it to someone's sandbox. It is a reasonable start, it should just be here, and we should all work on it to complete it.

The rest (the text part) we can come to a consensus gradually. Let's go through these four points on which we have near-consensus and get the article to reflect these first. As I mentioned earlier, I would like to start work on an analysis section, and also give citations for each of the victory margins reported in the table, and also some runner-up info.mukerjee (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that its notable to have the list but you said it wasnt ready which is what sandboxes are for, no intention to insult. Propose adding it to a template to transclude or starting a seperate "List of MPs..." page as its much too long here. Also to remove 2007 to place it where its more relevant on the 2007 page as its easily accessible and linked from here
Agreed. Think Bihar legislative assembly election, 2010 has a good model. We could use a vertical list instead?
Agreed. Do we have sources on this? the stand alones were BJP, SP and BSP.
It does list all the winning parties, all election articles use this format. Whos missing and what details? As for the changing of indep's etc we would need a source so as not to synthesise/crystal ball...also allying with parties does not mean they join the party.
Agree we need the post-election analyses and reactions. Lets do thsi gradually. You want to have a go at the schedule, parties and summary bit? Then ill try some minor stuff IF need be.
Also lets keep this all to one section instead of making a new section each timeLihaas (talk) 07:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have "agreed" to all four points, but you keep raising some old caveats that we thought we had resolved! e.g. on point 1. (List of winners), you "agree" but "Propose adding it to a template to transclude" - on this point we agreed above, a) transclusion serves no purpose since it is a single-page use. Also, it needs to be far more stable - and this "instability" doesn't mean that it belongs in my sandbox. That was indeed "facetious" (OED: "Characterized by pleasantry or joking, esp. when inappropriate or flippant"). That table was by no standards a sandbox material (It has hardly changed since that point). Yes, it needs to be improved re: disambs, sources etc. But so does all of wikipedia. Your moving it to my sandbox was an act of aggression, and did not "improve" the quality of the article, nor sociability on wikipedia. Putting it in a separate page doesn't help, since it is the result of this election alone. Yes, it is long, but this is perhaps the biggest single election in the world, and it has a big results table.
Similarly, you "agree" to point 2, that Schedule should be compacted - but refer to another page that also has a hugely long schedule section. Such a long schedule has relevance before the elections. But for posterity, these nittygritties are not significant. Let's move on. If you wish to compact it, go ahead and then others can edit it. Else I can compact it first. In any event, reverting the entire article is not the solution.
On point 4, the list of winning parties has no party from the fifth "front", such as peace party which won four seats, and its partner Apna Dal which won a seat (first time after 2002). I am making all these changes. And yes, with sources. Looking at my earlier edits, which one didn't cite sources?
Regarding : "Let's do this gradually." What is "gradual"? I look at the article holistically, considering the balance across various parts, and partial changes invariably leave it in a incomplete state. I inserted the entire 412 row table in a single edit. What would it mean to do this "gradually"? Why should others be "gradual" or non-gradual? One of the oldest tenets of wikipedia is to be bold (with civility). Now that we have a consensus, don't tie the hand of other editors.
In fact, the above has an air of ownership, "let's do it as XXX" - as if other editors need to seek permission for every nuance. Instead, I will request you to ask the question: "are these edits improving the quality of the article"; not whether it threw out a lot of earlier edits.
Sources: In all my edits, I have sourced the points. If you feel they are inadequate, feel free to nocite, or delete them.
In any event, now that we have a primary consensus, I am re-inserting the table and starting work on the party-wise results section. I am compacting the schedule, and starting an analysis section. May I request you to edit only the parts that you feel is inferior, instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater via reverts?
I am starting with this version (again) and re-editing stuff for the new article. Please refrain from reverting. Any editor is free to edit sources, content, balance, format, etc. Reverting well-sourced, well-intentioned NPOV edits is just not done on wikipedia. mukerjee (talk) 03:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Im not blanketly agreeing with everything, particularly the last point. Fair enough with the transclusion (through we use that on all election articles) we could then move it to a split off page titled "List of MPs..." or something. Also if its unstable it certainly doesnt belong in article mainspace. There was no facetiousness because it was NOT joking or flippant...thats a perception and lets not go there if were trying for consensus to resort to back attacks. It doesnt help to have an unstable unfinished page, thats why we have other work stations. And WP: ARTICLESIZE does not improve readability and the "sociability" of WP.
I digress, it is relevant for encyclopaedic worth as i mentioned above...likewise a list of 400 MPs could be construed as trivial as well. Compact it, but do not remove the data. And readding without consensus unilateral wholescale changes after weeks of no discussion is not the solution either, discuss the changes dont remove it.
I used the previously represented parties (As mentioned on the page), but go ahead and add the others as you said.
No its not ownership to ask for consensus instead of warring (which was done multiple times in each section). Thats why BOLD and BRD exist, as well as other guidelines to preserve stability and hence readability. Some of the wordings you initiated were not npov as pointed out.
I agree with all the other additions and will make some changes where need be, but i do not agree with the massive insertion of the table on a massively overloaded page which is precisely what ARTICLESIZE is about. Thats why please discuss the alternative and come up with a suitabe title (i dont want to do it as the page title may be disagreed upon)...further there is absolutely no agreement whatsoever on the 2007 data. Also see 36th Finnish parliament as a model...for which we could use Xth Uttar Pradesh legislative assembly (whichever number it is, which we can get from the number of elections held in UP to choose a new parliament)
And please dont start with the controversial version otherwise well be back at square one because the changes have no consensus at all. Lihaas (talk) 08:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Uttar_Pradesh_Legislative_Assembly_election&oldid=1196625065"