Jump to content

Talk:Chagai-I

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

Neutrality

[edit]

These gifted scientists and engineers along with a highly-dedicated team worked logically and economically to design, produce and test an extremely rugged device for the nation which enable the Islamic Republic of Pakistan from strength to strength. By the grace of Almighty Allah, the PAEC as an organization has proven to be the pride of the Pakistani nation.

I don't think this kind of self-congratulation should be on wikipedia.

Also, the last part of the article is between quotes but there is no reference. Monkeyget 13:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be classified as vandalism even if it's not it would not be neutral. The referance can be sorted out. I'll try and find one. LOTRrules (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upgrade

[edit]

I added more valid and neutral informations. All the information based on the true facts borrowed from the different websites controlled by the different organizations. I tried my best to make this page more neutral. Most of the information has been taken from following websites:

[edit]

The image Image:Pakistan Nuclear Test.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 81.137.222.172 (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section provides no sources at all! Its simple vandalism.

Snap Shot of the Test Teams

[edit]

The image File:Cha1 lrg.jpg is added. So, If I have violated the Wikipedia's policy on Uploading the Image. I would suggest the image must be deleted because I do hold the copy rights of the image.

I have tried my best uploading the photo. I'm not an author of the photo nor I hold the copy rights of the image. It is a result of the research work of Carey Sublette's article "Pakistan Nuclear Weapon Program: 1998 The year of testing. I am also providing the link "http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakistan/PakTests.html". The material was prepared by the Carey Sublette and it was prepared using materials provided by the Indian, Pakistani, and United States governments, by the Associated Press, Reuters, Agence France-Presse, The Times of India News Service, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, the Associated Press of Pakistan, the Press Trust of India, Science News, the Federation of American Scientists, and the Nuclear Weapons Archive.

The image is also used publically by the Pakistan's Geo TV. This is the same image that is been uploaded. There are two links: the first link is in the Urdu Language. The second link is in the English Language.

File:Pakistan before the Bangladesh War in 1971.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Pakistan before the Bangladesh War in 1971.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 15 November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel? Specify.

[edit]

Can you specify what phrases are using weasel words? If there aren't specifics I'll revert the tag. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


yield figure

[edit]

the yield figure of both the chagai tests have been rejected by independent and western scholars , no data Support pakistan claim, references are provided of both wallace and franks as well as nuclear scientists journal who called the pakistan test only partially. The sources which reject pakistan claim also proves that main point of these claims was to match Indian claims(which are themselves contested).122.161.31.230 (talk) 09:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cant reject the same sources which contest Indian claims, the same sources put Pakistan yield to be even much more less than indian test and also give the potential reason that it was to MATCH THE INDIAN YIELD, and to make their people proud

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Pakistan/PakTests.html

you have to boost your nuclear science knowledge, both the claims of chagai-1 and chagai-2 have been contested by western seismologists similar to indian tests now you can say that Western experts have anti-asian views but you have to include their view point as well.122.161.31.230 (talk) 09:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What ever the correct figures are, you don't need to edit war over multiple articles and hop IPs to going that content in. You need to revert your own edits and discuss the content here. As far as the content goes, the only organizations which actually measured the yields were Pakistani. The rejection by western sources who never measured anything is a redflag on its own. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I understand your frustration but thats the world order, we asians always look towards west for confirmation and these same sources have been quoted in the indian tests section as well, even the chinese tests were questioned and all these sources have been mentioned reason all these are well known nuclear sources and you cannot reject all this. I am not saying that WESTERN SOURCES ARE MORE RELIABLE THAN PAKISTANI SOURCES but only mentioning that WESTERN SOURCES have contested pakistani claims. I am not judging pakistani and western sources , i am just mentioning the western sources. 122.161.31.230 (talk) 09:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing IPs, canvassing other users, making personal attacks is not the way to get content in. You need to discuss it on talk page. Many of your edits on other articles were simply vandalism. Your above claims are still disputed. for which you have given me no explanation. A source that has no idea about that yield can not be taken as a reliable source at all. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are no saint in this world, your blocks your vanalism , your edit wars made you one of the most infamous user on wiki.122.161.31.230 (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What that source dont has knowledge about Yield, look into the books and the works. You have been blocked over a dozen times for this same vandalism and pro-pakistani propaganda and you will be banned again if you try to enter another edit war. Give a suitable reason , i am not interested in entering into an edit war. If you have any suitable reason to remove the content then mention it otherwise leave your edit-war-mongering nature.122.161.31.230 (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The previous content was cited in the body as well. But then again... simply addition and personal attacks don't make a valid reasons. Don't see how the IP is correct. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He is correct because Pakistan lied about total yield results. The yields were in the 2-15kt range. A simple search can show you this. [1] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Nuclear weapons and nonproliferation: a reference handbook "Pakistan responds by conducting five nuclear weapon tests on May 28 in the Chagai Hills with an announced yield of 40–45 kilotons and an estimated yield of 6–13 kilotons." p149. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And how did that source get to measure the yields? That is an assumption. No reliable source can reliably state this except the official sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seismic records of course. I am appalled you would not know something so basic about the subject and arbitrarily declare the sources as unreliable. Here, [2] bring yourself up to speed. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do know the subject, but are such details given by the sources? Your last source is giving some concepts, but we are talking about these yields here. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who says Seismic records are an unreliable way to gauge total yield results knows nothing about the subject. The sources all agree that both Pakistan and India lied outrageously about the total yield results. The "official" figures do not belong in the infobox, they need to be in the body of the article along with the actual yield results. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you on that. Whether or not official figures are correct the right solution would be to add the details by independent sources in a table in the body in list form along with the official details. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


look man your ranting will not change, i agree that western sources try to downplay ASIAN's in almost every field , but its our fault not theirs, we always looked towards them for this. The average figure of nuclearweapon archive site is available from all sources.It gives claimed yield and the yield which they think was real one. The same site is referenced on indian tests. They give Pokhra-1 8Kt whereas India claimed 20Kt similarly according to them shakti 1 was 30kt and not 45 kt.122.161.135.47 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note i never commented about MERIT OF PAKISTANI OR WESTERN SOURCES, i only mentioned it, the same sources are mentioned in Indian tests as well. It only gives an average.122.161.135.47 (talk) 15:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Test: Shakti I Time: 15:47:07 11 May 1998 (IST); 10:17:07 UCT (Indian Government), 10:13:42 UCT (USGS) Location: Pokhran, Thar Desert, Rajasthan, India 27.0716 deg N, 71.7612 deg E Test Height and Type: Underground, more than -200 m Yield: 30 kt est. (22-30 kt possible range; 43-45 kt claimed)

Indian sources claimed has been tone down very much, look their will be some sources which QUOTE THE YIELD VERY LOW, their will be some sources which will QUOTE VERY HIGH YIELD , but their will be always a MEDIAN OR AN AVERAGE and that is what is written on this page, when seismic data are read it is assumed that its Upper Bound is more probable therefore if the figure for pakistan is 2-10Kt then 9-10Kt will be accepted similarly Shakti-1 is assumed 22-32Kt and therefore 30Kt is considered more reliable. The claimed yield of BARC was 45Kt which is not accepted by many.122.161.135.47 (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:INDENT, you are entirely correct in the yield estimates and as I have said the article needs to reflect this fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This debate should comes to end now. Calculating exact, precise yields are not easy; in fact, they are very hard to determined even in control environment. That's what makes mathematics fun. Chagai-I tests were just a show to prove Pakistan's scientific achievements as well as the nuclear deterrence. Chagai-I had same purpose as of the "Trinity test" in 1945. There are many multiple ways yields can be determined. They can be calculate based on blast waves, the flash of the weapon, gravitational senses, gravimetry forces, and many other ways that the governments intended to hide the true nature of this scientific nature. Second, World prominent mathematician John Von Nuemann, conduct rough calculation of the yield of the Trinity test by dropping small pieces of paper in the air and measuring at how far they were moved by the shock wave of the explosion. Western scientists made bets on calculating the precise yield, and in the article, the calculations were easy as its seem.

I understand Western sources are more reliable than Pakistan sources but Western scientists were not available at the time of the tests. Yields are predicted when, immediately the tests are conducted, it is against the scientific wisdom to calculate yields after tests have been conducted, then receive data, and then approximate the yields (this is something you learn in sciences classes). It is advisable to accept Pakistan's data as of current but do not omit the Western claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.1.26.162 (talk) 06:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

PeerBaba (talk · contribs) you are invited here to discuss any issues you have with the content of this page, any reverts I have done of your edits, and any of my edits to it which you have been reverting. I also invite FeatherPluma (talk · contribs) here as they are heavily involved too. 220 of Borg 05:26, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Snowy mountains raised above as the chain reaction took place."

[edit]

request for a proper explanation

This choice of words seems exceptionally bizzare. This Talk page is the place to resolve this strange problem. The article text has been upgraded from this odd language several times. Nonetheless, it has been rapidly and insistently reverted back to this unacceptably eccentric version. I request an explanation for this precise choice of words.

plan of action

I am of course open to a coherent explanation. But if none exists, then you can ignore the request. In that event, you should cease reverting. In the absence of an explanation, the text will be corrected within 2 to 3 days. Should there be no explanation, but the text be subsequently changed back yet again, sanctions will be requested.

Thank you for your kind consideration. FeatherPluma (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Source Provided
The television clip on Chagai-I is very little and not a complete reference. I worked towards the detonation process to remove the doubts from the Western wikipedians. Feroze Hassan Khan's book "Eating Grass" (Eating Grass, pp.281, ISBN: 0804784809) gives a detailed insight of what really happen to the mountain. Please review the reference page 281: Nuclear Test Decision . Brigadier-General (retd.) Feroze Khan wrote that: The Mountain shook and changed color. Its dark granite turning white from deoxidation. Finally, a huge, thick cloud of beige dust enveloped the mountain...."- — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeerBaba (talk • contribs) 02:45, 29 June 2015‎
Please note that I have signed for PeerBaba and made minor formatting changes to make their post clearer i.e. indenting it. 220 of Borg 08:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC) [reply]
@PeerBaba: What a load of bollocks! (also see wikt: bollocks) Your comments do not address the issues raised by FeatherPluma. The references have nothing, that I can see, to do with the highly peculiar phrasing, which is the issue. Nothing you mentioned above is, in or refers to what the caption actually said. It sounds more like a poem than a picture caption:
No ".. changed color.", No ".. turning white from deoxidation.", No ".. thick cloud of beige dust." Also, if it is 32 milliseconds after the detonation, I would think the 'chain reaction' (If any) would be long finished. It sounds like there was an 'explosion' (of some type) then a chain reaction. The meaning is very unclear, that is why I changed it.
What is wrong with the previous caption (which I put in, I think) :
("nuclear explosion" may be inaccurate too, as it was a nuclear 'cold test'. "Sub-critical (or cold) tests are any type of tests involving nuclear materials and possibly high-explosives ... that purposely result in no yield" from Nuclear weapons testing#Alternatives to full-scale testing)
But, it is a simple and distinct description of what is happening without confusing and flowery language. I don't know what 'your' caption is saying! You may think it is meaningful, it is not. "Snowy mountains raised above ... ", it sounds like the mountains leapt off the ground! Secondly, there is no need to go into 'details' like "chain reaction", in the caption. How about:
Simple and meaningful, what happened, why it happened and when it happened. 'Your' version of the caption is, as far as I am concerned, un-encyclopaedic, and Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia! And what is this about "Western Wikipedians", what has that got to do with it? 220 of Borg 20:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@PeerBaba:
new request --- are you aware of any proper sourcing for the image, please?
Thank you for the page 281 citation. However, you will notice that the text in that citation does not necessarily apply to this image whatsoever. There is no visible "huge, thick cloud of beige dust" envelop(ing) the mountain. Instead, there seems to be a significant displacement of white snow. Page 281 is completely irrelevant because its content has no specific connexion to this image: we use tightly verifiable information on Wikipedia, meaning a verifiable connexion of element 1 of a claim with element 2 of the same claim. We do not use loose, temporally-associated referencing, which Wikipedia classifies as an original opinion. Page 281 is not able to support use of this image or its present bizarre caption at all.
I see that, in fact, rather than page 281, you are copying the linguistic muddle of the caption attached to the image in Wikipedia on the upload page. That would normally work out fine. But - FIRST PROBLEM - that Wikipedia source has atrocious grammar. If we believe the caption is factually correct, we are obliged to recaption it for deployment within the article. We would convey the meaning as close to the original intent within a reliable source (not Wikipedia !) as is grammatical. That's what has been proposed over and over, and you reverted. You haven't really explained why, although the page 281 citation is a wobbly sort of foundation I suppose. Nonetheless, it's moot, because...
- SECOND PROBLEM - thinking about this further, I tried to verify the provenance of the image. It turns out that it's significantly subpar. According to the uploading information, it is a "Government of Pakistan's Press Release" (sic). However, tracing the provided URL links, Carey Sublette at [3] claims to have obtained SOMETHING from the Government of Pakistan, but... we don't know what, because [4] doesn't make things clear. More concerningly, closer examination easily discloses that Sublette's image on the left is actually a sceenshot from a PTV broadcast: the PTV logo and the resolution support this, and that conclusion is not inconsistent with the messy hodgepodge of claimed sources congromerated at the bottom of the web page. The image to the right in Carey Sublette was being used in this article. Looking at its sourcing carefully, I already have explained that Sublette fails. The second claimed source on the upload page in Wikipedia is the "Pakistan Military Consortium" [5]... but that URL turns out to be a deadlink. The Sublette article from [6] is a blog (admittedly a high quality blog). It's not a reliable source: I cannot confirm that the work is subject to editorial review, nor can I find that it has been published in official or peer-assessed press. In fact, it's precisely the loose referencing in the blog source that would have the blog content fail editorial oversight, and not be published.
Next level of concern: Carey Sublette's caption is "Dust raised on Koh Kambaran in the Ras Koh mountains by the Pakistan-I test, 28 May 1998". That would potentially work as a caption, as it could potentially refer to snow dust, or to rock dust (which page 281 "suggests"), or to whatever kind of "dust" was thrown up. It isn't specific. And in vernacular English "raising dust up off a shaking mountain" is NOT the same as "raising a mountain". "Snowy mountains raised above..." frankly sounds like a deranged poet or pre-school babbling, and is extremely bizarre when we are trying to develop an encyclopedic article regarding an important international circumstance.
Additional attempts to confirm the sourcing of the image have so far been unsuccessful. Unless adequate sourcing is obtained for the image, meaning irrefutable confirmation that the image is indeed a Government of Pakistan's Press Release as claimed, (e.g. find a Govt. of Pak. web site that currently shows this "historically vital" image and labels it unambiguously) policy requires that the image and its caption be removed. I suspect that the image will probably need to be proposed for removal from Wikipedia altogether. (e.g. "How do we know it's not a mountain on a random day, with a bluster of wind picking up snow, or a demonstration of clouds of condensing air moisture?" - we need to get a Government of Pakistan verified source.)
plan of action
1. Absent the necessary proper sourcing, which is required by policy, the image and its bizarre attached language have been removed because they fail WP:V. (If adequate sources are subsequently forthcoming, the content would then, of course, be welcome.)
2. It is unhelpful and non-constructive to persistently revert improvements that conform to the encyclopedia's guidelines. If you want to add the image back, I respectfully request under WP:BRD guideline that a best attempt at proper sourcing be brought here for community assessment of adequacy, and be fully discussed before reverting the article.
3. The article presently is completely unacceptable, despite strenuous efforts of several editors, and is now tagged as undergoing major reconstruction. Grammar and language usage will brought into conformity with recognized English language vernacular. Per policy, all unsupported WP:OR will be removed. The WP:SEAOFBLUE will be depiped.
4. Please bring any concerns to the Talk page. Unexplained reversions, non-constructive edits and edits lacking accurate, complete edit summaries will be reported.
FeatherPluma (talk) 01:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC) (updated: FeatherPluma (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Picture

[edit]
The picture in question does seem to be on the CTBTO page here, labelled as being where the test took place. Found via a Google image search. 220 of Borg 10:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
⊕ Related video on that page, and here on YouTube. 220 of Borg 10:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@220 of Borg: and @PeerBaba: - Thanks for the leg work. If a caption can be agreed on, it might be reasonable to add back the image. I propose that "Dust raised by the nuclear test on Koh Kambaran in the Ras Koh mountains on 28 May 1998" would work as a caption. Given both the CTBTO and the Sublette captions, this leaves open and appropriately undefined the issue of whether the dust is mainly earth, rock, snow, or an admixture of these. Is this satisfactory? FeatherPluma (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Without a 'definitive' sourced, caption (If such exists) something that is suitably vague suits me. Too much detail may fall into 'original research'. 220 of Borg 04:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@220 of Borg: Thank you. I will also modify the sourcing statement on the Wikipedia upload page. I will add CTBTO to Sublette, and will remove the deadlink pointing to Pakistan Military Consortium. As you point out, this sourcing is not definitive. I also propose that the article general text, rather than the caption, encompass a brief mention of "a huge, thick cloud of beige dust enveloped the mountain" as per the Khan page 281 reference above. I will make these modifications in a day or two. I am gnoming some basic things first. Change anything you wish as I chip away at this. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. PB hasn't edited in about 9 days. AGF, but maybe they are 'feeling the heat'. (Or using another account??) 220 of Borg 04:44, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@220 of Borg: After further thought, I am not going to add back the picture. As you state, the sourcing is unclear, as is the copyright status, despite use by CTBTO. More to the point, I don't think the image adds anything of encyclopedic substance to the article. Adding the CTBTO page as a reference better meets the objective. Still chipping away at the page from time to time. FeatherPluma (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC) N.b. 2 Indents added. - 220 of Borg[reply]
FeatherPluma, as you wish, I've lost a bit of on interest in this page, edit warring tends to do that to me. :-/ 220 of Borg 18:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chagai-I. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 02:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chagai-I. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chagai-I. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:59, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chagai-I. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:16, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chagai-I&oldid=1200764394"