Talk:Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant

message: There has been a long time NPOV tag without any discussion and a copy editing tag without any reason. I will wait till 23rd of Friday, December 2011. If any there is no discussion or explanation, then these tags are worth to be removed to make the section clean. Thanks.
Sathishmls (talk) 10:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent notifications

message: The entire section carry no or little reference. Appropriate citations should be added or the entire section is to be replaced by a couple of lines briefing up the protests. -- Vaikunda Raja (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This section has been updated with three new references. Johnfos (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: On "Protest against the opening of Nuclear Reactors" 

message: Hello, Castroby, I have moved the content to the respective Controversy section. All the content are completely relevant to the current section. If you find any issue, lets discuss. But dont remove the correct content. Sathishmls (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Koodankulam Nuclear Power Plant 

message: The controversies section is completely biased. There are non third party sources written by activists. Wikipedia should not take sides but clearly this section gives a biased perspective.Castroby (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section completely biased and not in favor of protesters 

message: Nashtam (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy section has been updated to reflect a more neutral view of events 

message: I've temporarily protected the article to give you all time to figure things out. Note that the protection does not sanctify any particular version but I suggest you discuss, concisely please, concerns on either side on the talk page rather than serially reverting each other's edits (when the protection ends). --regentspark (comment) 15:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nashtam, we don't necessarily report official observations solely because they are official, they have to be relevant. In the context of this article, just because a former president of India says that the plant is safe doesn't mean that we present it as safe. A "controversy" section should present both sides of the controversy, duly weighted. I don't know anything about this particular issue, but something that contains the following three things would be appropriate. First, describe the protests and the concerns underlying the protests. Then give the official government position. Then the rebuttal. If there are any scientific opinions on either side, then they should be clearly given prominence in a separate paragraph, perhaps at the end of the section. --regentspark (comment) 14:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks regentspark for initiating the dialogue on this. Appreciate the gesture, as I am the new user here and obviously still learning the ropes. As you rightly said, "... should present both sides of the controversy, duly weighted." I agree 100%, and that's what the Neutrality policy also insists for all articles. The only question here is what is fair and proportionate and that's where Due Weight policy and other sections of NPOV come in. I don't want to quote sections from it, as that would be like a new zealot convert preaching to an old believer, and that is usually a tiresome experience for the old hand :) I believe I have made my point, and will leave it at that. Also, your proposal is probably reasonable enough. Nashtam (talk) 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've only just started to look into this, but there does seem reason to be concerned about the current balance of the article. It perhaps isn't far off, but I'm wondering if the current structure puts too much weight on protester's concerns? My first thought was to pull out some content into separate sections - safety isues could perhaps be better covered outside of contraversies, for example, with an initial focus on the official scientific reports, while the issues around the protest movement (such as NGOs) might be treated in a section about the movement itself. There are also some sources that discuss the value of the plant on economic grounds, and that suggests that the reasons for proposing the plant probably need to be explored in the article as well. Anyway, I'll read more and see if I can find anything that would help. - Bilby (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The controversies section is by far the largest section in this article, which by itself makes this article biased.Previously the controversies section was full of protester's concerns so I had to add some content explaining the official position but I am not comfortable with the size of this section. I suggest we cut the controversies section into two paragraphs with two or three lines one explaining the official position and the other explaining the ongoing protests.Castroby (talk) 05:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: Hi everyone, There are sockpuppet activities going on in this page editings. I dont want to spend my bandwidth now. I hope within 2 days, the sockpuppets would be banned(pending with administrators). Then probably we can align the page correctly. Thank you. Sathishmls (talk) 03:53, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Glasachin,the map of India shown here is in international perspective,the map shown here is actually what India controls, the map which you have given the link shows what India claims.Hope it clears your doubts.For further reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:India/archive_3#Map_of_India_is_wrong.21Castroby (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Hi, the existing map of India has been made with Natural Earth and has been used by many pages in wikipedia. I find no reason to change it. Also i advice you not to add any URL in wikipedia without proper reason. Hence i removed the URL in your content. Sathishmls (talk) 05:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page under sockpuppet activities 

message: Very unfortunate that wikipedia shows a wrong India Map  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.183.201 (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indian Map 

message: How is it that the Power Plant has a maximum planned capacity of 9200 MW?
The History section lists two 1000 MW reactors being built and four additional 1000 MW units planned. This would seem to indicate a max planned capactiy of 6000 MW. However, in the Technical Description section, the four planned reactors are said to be rated at 1170 MW, making the max planned capacity (2000+4*1170) = 6680 MW. It also mentions "A firm agreement on setting up two more reactors" but it is not clear if these are two of the four mentioned in the previous sentence or if they are in addition to four planned. Please clarify.PR Alma (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maximum capacity 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.power-technology.com/projects/kudankulam-nuclear-power-plant/
*:Triggered by \bpower-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased 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, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their 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.  Diannaa (talk) 22:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Hello. It is interesting to read about the musings about a Christian conspiracy in relation to KKNPP and NP in India in general. But if this section should be up on Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an encyclopaedia and not a chat room, it certainly needs some more solid and un-biased sources to back it up. There are already a few references up in the section luckily, but at least one is a dead link and another is from eSamskriti (The Essence of Indian Culture). A nationalist chat-board with a declared strong religious and cultural bias such as eSamskriti is certainly interesting, but it does not qualify as a solid un-biased source of much. If it is a source of anything, it is perhaps a source of what opinions and discussions might be circulating in the nationalist Hindu milieu of India. Perhaps.
RhinoMind (talk) 01:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christian conspiracy? 

message: Hello. How was this project/power plant affected by the 2015 South Indian floods? Where there damages? Is it in danger? Is there any status and information available? RhinoMind (talk) 18:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  2015 South Indian floods 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081206080407/http://in.news.yahoo.com:80/43/20081203/884/twl-india-russia-to-sign-deal-on-new-nuc_1.html to http://in.news.yahoo.com/43/20081203/884/twl-india-russia-to-sign-deal-on-new-nuc_1.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121117000241/http://www.udayindia.org:80/content_31March2012/cover-story.html to http://www.udayindia.org/content_31March2012/cover-story.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Kudankulam 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://archive.is/y9s9c
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Second-unit-of-Kudankulam-nuclear-plant-starts-fission/articleshow/53143042.cms
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120531034131/http://www.france24.com/en/20120320-nearly-200-arrested-india-nuclear-protest to http://www.france24.com/en/20120320-nearly-200-arrested-india-nuclear-protest
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:27, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: From the infobox documentation I read: ps_electrical_capacity
"Current gross installed capacity in megawatts, or planned capacity for those under development." 
I am restoring the gross capacity, for obvious consistency reasons. Otherwise, if any editor does according to his whim, we would end with a mix of articles with net or gross capacities. I am letting the loose parameters, because you are right, we haven't discuss them, or there are no rules of which I am aware. I don't agree with your statement that gross capacity is wildly misleading. I guess that it depends on what data your searching. The gross capacity is directly linked to the plant global fuel consumption. And you won't have the net output without powering the auxiliary services of the plant. But that is an argument for another  talk page.
Example: would you state the AC power or DC power value of a PV plant ? It's the same question.
I don't understand your style rules recall; could you explain ?
Note: I have used exactly the IAEA PRIS data. --Robertiki (talk) 01:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross power or net power 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kudankulam 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070401111116/http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/exports/rusind/react.htm to http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/exports/rusind/react.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See
https://world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Kudankulam-unit-3-reactor-building-dome-installed#:~:text=The%20expected%20completion%20dates%20for%20Kudankulam%203%20and%204%20are%20in%202023. 2A02:6D40:34CD:2E01:587E:9476:2A10:9DA8 (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dome of 3rd unit in Dezember 2023 installed with heavy liebherr crane