Talk:Chashma Nuclear Power Complex

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.pnra.org/c1.asp. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Misarxist 13:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This content has also been removed for copyright concerns: . See contributor copyright investigation for more information. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Some sources use plant as synonymous of unit, but bird view from Google maps shows only one plant with four units. All that Power Plant-I, Power Plant-II, Power Plant-III talking is confusing, it is not like as in Fukushima Daichi (that Fukushima-I in Japanese) and Fukushima Daini (that is Fukushima-II in Japanese), where there are two separate plants with each a bunch of units. I will correct to reflect that we have only one plant with four units, following PRIS's (Power Reactor Information System, IAEA's database) naming. Also Nuclear Power Complex an overstatement, I will let it as official name, but article should be moved as Chashma Nuclear Power Plant, following english usage. --Robertiki (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources use plant as synonymous of unit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chashma Nuclear Power Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pakobserver.net/201307/27/detailnews.asp?id=213862
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-o-s/pakistan.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928041636/http://pakistantimes.net/2005/04/06/top3.htm to http://pakistantimes.net/2005/04/06/top3.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090604145349/http://www.snptc.com.cn:80/sites/english/default.aspx to http://www.snptc.com.cn/sites/english/default.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:25, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: So, which is it? CHASNUPP or CHASHNUPP?? --BjKa (talk) 14:54, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: At least one person working there is using the latter spelling: https://pk.linkedin.com/in/syed-mehboob-ali-shah-3b9708127 --BjKa (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct Naming