Jump to content

User talk:Shashpant

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

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Fiddle Faddle 10:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For your great work improving Delhi Metro related articles! Winner 42 Talk to me! 18:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the PSLV launch stat

[edit]

Hi. I see what you mean with no duplication as there's already a link but in this case I don't think doing so does any harm. I see it in many LV articles. That's why I thought it would help. Look at Electron and its list for instance. The graphs does what the existing table does better, also no updating required. Let me know what you think. Shanze1 (talk) 08:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is fine as is but the description page becomes a lot more cluttered by adding those charts. Electron doesn't have half as much variants as PSLV's stands a reason they add more stuff to make the page look more full. The main reason to segregate launch and detail page is to reduce page length to make the page more precis for better assimilation. Moreover for detailed perspective table suits more as it provide much better info that an bland chart. Still if you persists we can debate about adding charts.
cc:@Ohsin: -- Shashpant (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not just Electron, most pages with actual content does it this way with transclusion and a bit of summary. The charts can't be intrusive to readers. But I agree, if keeping it short and consise is the focus here, I think the table and the current summary is fine. Shanze1 (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misuse of minor edits checkbox

[edit]

Information icon Hi Shashpant! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Renaming of cities in India that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you.

  • Adding the name of a city with a citation is not a minor edit - there is nothing wrong with adding Allahabad, but adding a new fact to an article is not a minor edit.
  • Changing "Allahbad" to "Allahabad" is a minor edit - it is correcting an obvious spelling error. There is no change of meaning.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Toddy1: That was a mistake from my end, I must have checked the minor edit box in a jiffy. I understand the concept of Minor edits and that was a mistake. I will try not to repeat the same mistake in the future. Thanks for the concern. − Shashpant (talk) 08:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rakesh Kumar Singh Bhadauria Date of Birth

[edit]

Hello there. I see that you made an edit about Rakesh Kumar Singh Bhadauria's date of birth. You wrote, "RKS Bhaduria was suppose to superannuate on the same date as his predecessor. Retirement date for officers other than Chief of Air Staff is 60y, hence, his date of birth is 30 September 1959 as his retirement date was 30 Septmeber 2019" as a 'note' in your edit. I would like to mention here that the Indian military personnel always retire at the end of the month in which they attain the age limit. You can look up DoB of several former chiefs of staffs to validate this. For example, here, RKS Bhadauria would certainly have been born in September 1959, but the date could be anything from 1st to 30th. And since he attained age of 60 years in September 2019, he was to retire at the end of the month. Thus your assumption is certainly in good faith, but unless you have a source which says his DoB exactly, I think 30 September 1960 stands unverifiable, and would be against WP:BLP. Regards. —Sarvatra (talk, contribs) 03:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That I am not aware of. I assumed that they retire on the day they achieved the age which should be the norm. What you are implying doesn't make sense in General rules term nor is it mentioned in the Air Force Regulation. However, there seems to be discrepancies in retirement age and date as you mentioned. You can go ahead and undo the edit or I'll do it later. Thanks and Best Regards Shashpant (talk) 09:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to INS Sindhuvir (S58), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not blank pages. While the topic may be notable as you indicate, the redirect should remain until that content is added. Ost (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon In this set of edits you made to the article on the Indian Air Force, you changed the post held by Air Marshal Richard John Duckworth and provided a citation that did not mention this. The citation did mention that the previous holder of the post you claim that Duckworth holds is retiring. Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. Fake citations are worse than useless. A fake citation is a citation that does not mention the information that it is cited for.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Toddy1: - I have put a new reference to better reflect the changes in Central air command. Apologies for not including it beforehand. Shashpant (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The date in BRF page is wrong so please do not use that date.Shashpant (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know that officially published dates have a precise meaning - and that it is easy to misinterpret them. I had this explained to me when I looked at Royal Navy Navy Lists, which are documents that list all the officers and ships in the Royal Navy. At one time, the Navy List contained a list of officers for each ship, saying what their post was, and the date of their appointment. It was explained to me that was not necessarily the date the officer took up the appointment. It was the date that the Admiralty in London officially made the appointment. An officer had to be officially notified, and then pack up their belongings, and travel to the new appointment. Some of the time they could not immediately leave their old appointment. There were even cases where people never took up their new appointment, because they either got another new appointment, or they died before they left their old appointment.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not change Allahabad to Prayagraj in articles, as you did at the article on the Indian Air Force. There was a discussion at Talk:Allahabad that reached a consensus that the commonly used English-language name for the city was Allahabad.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The change in name is official and Prayagaraj is the name. Just because a bunch of people had their way doesn't make things right. Anyways, the office of Central Air Command uses the name Prayagraj in their PR and official handles. You can check it on your own. [1]. Also if that were to be the case we should start using old names for Chennai i.e. Madras and Bombay for Mumbai. Thanks and Best Regards Shashpant (talk) 08:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. There was a discussion at Talk:Allahabad that reached a consensus that the commonly used English-language name for the city was Allahabad. If you disagree with that conclusion, you should raise it at Talk:Allahabad next time the issue is discussed.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Its a made up consensus of little people. Its a forgery, I replied to the topic with legal clauses and whatnot but my reply was deleted probably by a use name Kashmir? and is nowhere to be found. Anyway, I am not discussing about the Page Allahabad but the point of contention in this case is the command's office. The office bearer themself use Prayagraj as the name not sure why we must interject with that. Shashpant (talk) 09:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Central Air Command (India), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VSM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Shashpant (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Next Level Games Logo.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Next Level Games Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Venkat TL. Your recent edit(s) to the page Vivek Ram Chaudhari appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You are jumping the gun. Venkat TL (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL: The ref is already there only if you have read a bit before reverting. Shashpant (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May be I am mistaken. You have written that VRC has rank= ACM. Please provide the ref that says he is ACM. Venkat TL (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He will be CAS in 2 day and will automatically attain the title.The ref for CAS is already there.Shashpant (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you want Wikipedia to display factual errors on a highly visible page for 2 days. This is irresponsible behaviour on your part. Why cant you do this edit on the day he becomes ACM? What is stopping you? What will you gain by mentioning wrong info for 2 days? Venkat TL (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure whats your problem as the data/ref is already updated on the page, I merely update the box. He is already designate CAS thus ACM. Govt. has already appointed him the CAS thus ACM designate. Please first decide what point you want to slander cause jumping ship often isn't helpful. Shashpant (talk) 06:11, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have written that VRC has rank = ACM. Please provide the ref that says he is ACM. Unless you have a ref that says he is the CURRENT ACM, you cannot change his rank to ACM. Nor can you change is designation as "INCUMBENT" CAS. As simple as that. Venkat TL (talk) 06:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ref for that its common sense. You can verify the ACM page on wiki, CAS has the rank of ACM and that's automatic. Govt. doesn't bestow the rank in a different ceremony. Its like saying that head of Supreme Court is just a judge and not CJI. Moreover, the date was already mentioned as 30 September. How can someone think he can become CAS prior to the date mentioned. Anyway, I am done with this. Thanks. Shashpant (talk) 06:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no ref for that its common sense", if so then follow the common sense and do not change it. You are welcome to update the page once he becomes incumbent ACM and CAS. Untill then focus on improving other aspects of his article, or you will be reverted. Thanks. Venkat TL (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes common sense is not so common. I can see that. Thanks. Shashpant (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
He is not the incumbent CAS or ACM. This is a fact. Nothing to do with common sense or lack there of. What is the difficulty in understanding this fact? Venkat TL (talk) 06:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Yamaguchi

[edit]

Hello. Help improve article quality. Thanks you. Zuyeca (talk) 09:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please be a bit more specific as to which section you want me to improve? Will give it a try. Thanks for asking. Shashpant (talk) 09:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nilgiri-class frigate (P-17A)

[edit]

Hi Shashpant, I hope you are well. Firstly, I'd like to thank you for illuminating me about your views about the "Comparison Between P-7A and P-17" sub-section in the Nilgiri-class frigate (P-17A) article. However, I'd like to point some possible mistakes on your part -

(1). The second point that I have written states that the P-17A are the first frigates of the Indian Navy to use VLS cells to fire surface-to-air missiles (SAM). I made a slight mistake here - I originally intended to state that the P-17A is the first class to use VLS cells to launch medium-range surface-to-air missiles (MRSAM).

True, the P-17 frigates do use VLS cells for the Barak 1, but there's a slight difference. The Barak 1 is a point-defense system - meant for neutralizing aerial threats at critically short ranges. The P-17 utilizes the Shtil-I MRSAM's; however, they use a relatively older single-arm mechanical launcher to fire them. The Talwar-class frigates (P 11356) also employ single-arm launchers for firing their Shtil-1 MRSAM's, too.

Here, MRSAM's (such as the Barak 8) and point-defense systems (such as the Barak 1) are two very different air-defense arrangements - meant for different capacities. MRSAM's feature longer ranges and usually count as the first line of aerial defense for dealing with long-range aerial threats. If you observe the Indian Navy's current fleet, you'll find that none of their frigates have ever used VLS cells for housing/firing their MRSAM's. The P-17A is the first line of frigates in the Indian Navy to use VLS cells for housing/firing MRSAM's. Please, understand military logic before commenting.

This particular difference regarding the delivery mechanism of the ships' surface-to-air missile have been articulated by two magazines - The Week and The National Interest. I most absolutely did not quote "random stuff" - I quoted verified information.

(2). The P-17A utilizes the same hull geometry as the P-17; a "follow-on" class doesn't necessarily mean that they have to be different on a substantial scale; they can also possess similarities. For example, the Al-Riyadh-class frigates operated by the Royal Saudi Navy are known derivatives of the La Fayette-class frigates operated by the French Navy. The P-17A is based on the P-17, but modified and better-equipped. Many official sources have also articulated this - including the Indian Navy, MDL and GRSE. MDL publicly articulated the design similarities in the magazine BW Businessworld. You said the source "did not corroborate" what I claimed. Well, I beseech you to read the article more attentively.

(3). I can agree with you that the first point - back by an observer's tweet is against Wikipedia's guidelines, but not the last two points. The last two points are verrified facts, articulated by official and recognized sources - and most certainly does not violate any standards of Wikipedia.

I hope you understand. Thank You. - Kishore Editing 15:20 11 February 2022 (IST)

@Kishore Editing: Now you are going to quote every single thing used for the first time? Its has VLS and buck should stop with it. Weapons change from time to time, that doesn't warrant a new section to mention it. Ohh, it has 1st VLS Barak-8 or first VLS Brahmos? Point is its not the first ship to use that weapon. As far are sources are concerned, the first VLS source doesn't mention it at all. Perhaps you should read the article before blabbering. [2]. Now you are going to defend you pennant edit because of your military logic?
You have already made it the worst looking page. Go ahead make it even worse. I am done cleaning the crap.03:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Shashpant: Hi Shaspant, I observed your counter-arguments. I see you are very willing to oppose me, but I'm afraid your counter-arguments are slightly flawed. I shall elaborate may perspective :-

(1). You accuse me of making the page look "worse" with my edits. Primarily, that is undoubtedly untrue. All I did was add information that was verified and backed by recognizable sources. Through you eyes and your perspective, the article may not look appealing to you - but that won't be the case for others viewing this page. Others have different views and perspectives - some may even find such a sub-section nice, informative and enlightening. I merely collected the information and surmised it in simple points. Why do you deny the viewer the right to view verified information - is it just because you don't like it..? It has no Wikipedia violations, either. Please, do not evoke any sort of harsh rebukes to someone, if you dislike their edits. Lets keep this civil and amicable, as far as possible.

It appears you may have mistakenly read another article by The Week about the P-17A frigates that has omitted the "VLS differences". Here is the proper article - [3]. In the "Firepower" category of the correct article (eighth and ninth paragraph), the writer has mentioned that the "Project 17A Nilgiri class will be a radical upgrade over the existing Shivalik class in air defence capabilities". In the tenth, eleventh and twelfth paragraphs - he clearly stipulated that the P-17A frigate feature VLS cells for firing its anti-air missiles - in stark comparison to the P-17, which uses a single-arm launchers. He also articulated the benefits a VLS system possessed over an arm launcher.

Please, re-read this article patiently.

(2). A ship having VLS doesn't mean that the "buck" stops there. VLS, of course is used to launched a variety of missiles, but here - I'm talking about the technological differences in both ships. Of course, the Barak 1 is an anti-air missile fired using VLS systems, but it is a point-defense system. Here, I am not propagating the similarities in technologies, but I am explaining the difference in the manner/mechanism of delivery. I'm only elaborating that both frigates use different techniques in firing their MRSAM's - it is a difference after all. I'm articulating that the P-17A is the first to utilize VLS to fire MRSAM's, not point defense missiles. Furthermore, the difference between point defense systems and MRSAM's is not a figment of my "military logic". Military chronology classifies point defense missiles and MRSAM's as two different classifications of the "anti-air missile" category.

Please, I hope you do comprehend my perspective in a more polite manner. We have no need to spar against each other. Let's make peace.

Sincerely Yours. Cheers. -Kishore Editing 17:48 12 February, 2022 (IST)


Strategic Forces Commander

[edit]

Someone was using a wrong news report to change the current strategic forces commander from RB Pandit to RGK Kapoor. The news report is obviously false because

  • There is no other vacancy at C-in-C level for RB Pandit to move to, and there is no news about him facing disciplinary action or being removed from his post.
  • There are many Air Marshals senior to RGK Kapoor who have 18+ months of service, and they would be appointed before him
  • The current SFC is RB Pandit, not Rajesh Kumar
  • Usually, the three tri-services C-in-C positions are held by one person each from the 3 services. If RGK Kapoor became the SFC chief, then it would mean that the IAF is holding 2 of these positions, and navy none.
  • I approached veteran journalist Nitin Gokhale who confirmed this, and also said that RGK Kapoor is the Deputy C-in-C of the SFC.

Please note that the SFC pages and V Adm Pandit's page and the Navy Admirals page have been reverted, and correctly show RB Pandit as the SFC chief. Request you not to randomly revert the Air marshals page and convey incorrect information. Ranban282 (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Brown Line (Delhi Metro)

[edit]

Hello, Shashpant

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Zippybonzo, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Brown Line (Delhi Metro), for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

  1. Edit the page
  2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Zippybonzo}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

| Zippybonzo | Talk | 06:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

[edit]

Hi @Shashpant. Please don't edit war. Seek consensus on talk page before reverting. Launch outcomes only includes missions that were launched, not planned or future missions. By the definition of the term, it can be easily understood that it should include only missions that have been launched. Planned missions have not been launched yet and shouldn't be added here. Also note that Wikipedia is based on consensus not voting. Dhruv edits (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply] 

 Hi @Dhruv edits:,  I did not started the edit war you did. If you had a respect for consensus you could've created a talk page in the respective launch page but instead of doing that you are spouting nonsense by giving your own edits as the reason to not add stuff.
@Shashpant Another reason to not include planned missions is that in case of List of PSLV launches, the graphs of rocket configurations, launch sites and launch outcomes have to match each other. Dhruv edits (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Another faulty logic, why would anyone in their right mind compare a Planned/Tentative launch with what has already launch. The moot point of adding a tentative launch chart is to make people aware of the launch cadence of the rocket. This is another of your made up logic that launch site and outcome has to match. Anyone with an iota of brain can understand that "Planned launch" is yet to be launched so to seek parity of data with launch that has taken place is inane.
@Shashpant Also understand that most of these planned missions have not been scheduled by ISRO yet, so adding them to graphs doesn't make sense. The section for Future launches is to add potential launches as provided by reliable sources, but the graph should contained oy those missions that have been launched. Dhruv edits (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 All the data is either directly from ISRO, or from GOI from Parliament replies or trusted website. I am not sure why you are so skeptical on adding a measly data on a chart. Also these are planned launchs the word is TENTATIVE. No one is saying these will launch on a particular time, it just shows the launch cadence of a rocket and nothing else. No need to get antsy over tentative launches. All other rocket has these listed, go ahead and undo them as well. FalconLaunch, Electron launches, Vela Launch. Moreover, PSLV always had tentative launch listed in the chart, its just that it got befuddled cc:@Ohsin: Shashpant (talk) 04:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of serving air marshals of the Indian Air Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page VSM.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

[edit]

Hello, Shashpant. Thank you for your work on Mahi Banswara Atomic Power Plant. Dcotos, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, Shashpant Nice wowrk! but please verify the Coordinate, they are not correct.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Dcotos}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dcotos (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dcotos: Hi Dcotos, hope you are doing well. I had the ref in the page but didn't link the reference to the coordinate section in the side pane. I have now added the source for the coordinate in the side pane. You can check the same and confirm. The data for the same comes from Forest clearance document issued by the government. Thanks for the heads up.Shashpant (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Shashpant I checked it, Good work!. Thank you. Dcotos (talk) 17:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shashpant&oldid=1211815975"