Talk:Infrastructure in Bangalore

Deciphering again

After going through the article and talk pages several times, I strongly feel that the two anons and Sarvagnya have a point. While the tone of the anons and Sarvagnya left lot to be desired, I should also say that the conduct of the other editors too has been less than ethical and fair. I say this because, you(the rest of the editors) all, very conveniently perhaps, missed the whole point the anons and Sarvagnya were trying to make and kept harping on their tone (which i concede(again), was less than professional).

The way that some of you have(AreJay, Rama'sArrow, Sundar, et al) conducted yourselves borders on the behaviour of high school bullies. Let us forget this article for a minute. Let us take a situation - one where there is an article that is written, which is total nonsense. However, out of ten editors who are currently editing the article, 9 are good friends and want to keep it. but a tenth editor who is not on good terms with any of the other 9 editors wants to delete it. Now tell me, is it ethical/fair for the nine editors to oppose the tenth guy just because they are not on good terms with him?? where is the objectivity?? if you are not on good terms with an editor, you still cant ignore any valid points he/she raises. Your attitude is apparent to anybody who follows all your talk pages and observe the way you canvas amongst each other for sympathy. I should say, it is NOT professional. And now, coming to the article, let me state why I think it is both unencyclopaedic and also POV.

Why it is Unencyclopaedic

Like the anons have said, there are dozens of problems that all cities, big and small face. Not just in India but the world over. It doesnt mean that we should have encyclopaedia entries written for each of those.

If the delay in an infrastructure project is good enough for an encyclopaedia entry, there should be millions of articles about projects from all over india. that doesnt make sense! i am not saying these things shouldnt be written about or discussed, but an encyclopaedia is not the place for it. newspapers, magazines, TV, radio, etc are where these things should be discussed.

Also, this whole issue is 'current' affairs. This article will be absurd the day things change even in your eyes. how can such 'current' affair articles be a part of an encyclopaedia??

Why it is POV and sensationalism

You say infrastructure concerns. So it means that the state of infrastructure concerns you, worries you. In other words, according to you the state of infrastructure is below acceptable levels. So you are subconciously defining an 'acceptable level'. Now may I ask, who you are to and how did you decide on what is acceptable and what is not? what is not acceptable to you maybe perfectly acceptable to somebody else. In this light, it is curious to note that in all the sources that have been cited, the sample population considered for opinion remains the same - the IT worker. how come there is no representation from a wider cross-section of society not just from Bangalore but from across Karnataka(because the government is answerable to every voter in the state - not just the Bangalore voter)

What is more interesting is, many of the editors who have contributed to this article also have contributed to various other articles on various other Indian cities. How come none of these editors saw it fit to write an article like this about ANY of the other cities?? Or is it because the other cities in India and in the world are PERFECT and there are no concerns - infrastructural or otherwise in any of those cities?? dont ask me to assume good faith here, because I cannot.

Also, even when it comes to infrastructure concerns, Bangalore is not an exception. It is a problem that exists in equal or worse magnitude in all cities all over India and in every developing country in the world. The only reason it made headlines with regard to Bangalore is because a high profile politician attacked high profile industrialist. The English media saw a huge opportunity for sensation here and cashed in. It is unfortunate that even Wikipedians have fallen for this alarmist propoganda. It should be noted here that none of the local Kannada newspapers or websites carried any of this alarmist propoganda. Yes, there may have been delays here and there in completing infrastructure projects, but to conclude that it is a matter of grave concern is simply sensationalism and alarmist. It is not very different from the 'Endulkar' article. I am perfectly fine with an article like 'Endulkar' in a tabloid, but to cite it as a source and proceed to write an article trashing Tendulkar, anyone would agree, is unencyclopaedic, sensationalism and POV.

The sources -- aah...how far back to you want to go with the sources...some of the sources are well past their expiry dates and are more than 5 years old!! Even premji hadnt started complaining then. This way if you keep digging you might get something even more ancient. Also, like Sarvagnya has pointed out, you say work on the Airport has already started (and according to reports) is progressing well. So what again, is the 'concern'?? KNM 07:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The Tags explained

the sole purpose of this article seems to be to show bangalore in poor light. the entire article is based on half truths. while nobody is claiming that bangalore's infrastructure is the best in the world, or is even world class, it shouldnt be forgotten that Bangalore has arguably the best infrastructure in India after New Delhi and Bombay. Even New Delhi and Bombay have their own teething problems. Madras/Chennai, Hyderabad and Calcutta have even worse infrastructure problems and their own unique problems.

these are things that can be debated for days together without reaching any conclusions. heavily opinionated and 'POV' articles like this can be written about every city in the world. it is shameful that the author chose to write this mischevous article. i urge the admins to delete this worthless article67.164.5.90 09:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the above user is right. these are things that should be written in newspapers, tabloids and magazines not in encyclopaedias. it is high time people understand that WP is neither a newspaper nor a tabloid. and the author should

all the sources the author has cited would themselves not make it past WP's guidelines pertaining to POV/NPOV and sensationalism. to use such sources to advance one's own POVs is patently unencyclopaedic.

i urge the author to look at What Wikipedia is not.

And yet ... slapping that many tags on it looks a lot like a POV attack on the article and its contents (how is it a "hoax", anyway? And why do you need to say that it's disputed and totallydisputed?). The little in-bold-with-exclamation-marks bit about Mr Premji and 67's "you shouldn't say bad things about Bangalore because you can say bad things about other cities" justifiaction for the tagging doesn't help it look like sensible neutrality either. I've refactored Mr Premji to be a bit less hysterical-sounding and reduced it to just a disputed neutrality tag. --Bth 20:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on taking an another look at the article, i see that there no verifiable sources cited by the author!! NONE AT ALL!!...most certainly unencyclopaedic. and most certainly deserves a few more tags. 209.180.28.6 20:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is "Infrastructural Concerns in Banaglore". By the very nature of the topic, I would argue that it will highlight infrastructural challenges the city is facing. AreJay 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and how did you decide that the city is facing infrastructural challenges? and who asked you for your opinion anyway?? if it is your opinion that Bangalore is facing infrastructure problems, and that the problems are the ones you have trolled about in the article, keep it to yourself or maybe write a blog on it. or even write an article in the Washington Post or a cover story for Time Magazine if it pleases you(and them). there, however, is no place in WP for your POVs. nor does it have a place for anything unencyclopaedic. 209.180.28.6 23:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bangalore has infrastructural challenges. It is not an opinon. It is a fact. Political parties not in favor of improving Bangalore's infrastructure also accept that there are issues with the city's infrastructure.AreJay 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ever heard of Weasel Words and even if it is not POV, how is it 'encyclopaedic'. thousands of cities across the world have thousands of problems. you can write cover stories about all of them in any or all of the millions of tabloids across the world. but stay away from Wikipedia. Please. 209.180.28.6 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this an opinon? Also, please refrain from making personal attacks and remember to be civil. I do not appreciate your tone and attitude and I don't think it is helpful to the process. Please review WP:POV and understand what POV really is before raising a hue and cry about it. AreJay 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to annoint a billion tags on the article, just because its contents are not popular. AreJay 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC

the tags are self explanatory and the article deserves every one of them. it has nothing to do with the popularity or otherwise of an article. so much for someone who talks about assuming 'good faith' and what not. 209.180.28.6 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do however, agree that sources need to be cited to evidence the statements. If appropriate sources are not found, that particular section/statement needs to be removed. AreJay 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge those displeased with the article as it stands today to contribute by researching and citing appropriate sources to validate/correct statements in the article instead of attacking it as being "shameful" and "michevious". AreJay 20:39, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i wonder if there can be anything more shameful than your response above. what you are essentially saying is, "i will write bullshit. i will push my POVs no matter what. i will, however do so without citing any sources and if anybody disagrees with me, they will have to cite proper sources as to why they disagree with me!!! 209.180.28.6 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is not my business to around finding sources to every 'POV-infested' and 'unencyclopaedic' article on WP. the burden of citing sources is upon you, and if you cant, i will just go ahead and delete it. 209.180.28.6 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what i am saying is, you have a POV. and i have mine. no harm. but WP is NOT the place for our POVs. even if you were to cite sources where the source might have the same POV as you do about a subject, it doesnt become fact or even encyclopaedic. in other words, just because a columnist in some newspaper happens to share a POV with you, doesnt give your POV any legitimacy. it still remains a dumb little POV. 209.180.28.6 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would rather you read what I have written before retorting to my comments in the manner you just did. What you claim I have said, is exactly the opposite of what I have said. If you care to actually read what I have written, I state that sources need to be cited....

so u say sources need to be cited and havent been cited. you also say you have been around on WP for a while. you say you've been around on WP for some time now(many months?? couple of years??), yet you never felt it necessary to cite sources or ask the other co-authors/editors to cite sources, UNTIL i came along. and you also expect me to assume good faith!! huh!

...to evidence statements in the article and if sources cannot be found, those statements should be deleted. I fail to understand the need for hysteria when I state explicitly that appropirate citation is required in the article. Please review WP:CIVIL and assume good faith before attacking contributors or the contents of articles. AreJay 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to clarify even further, let us take the example of American foreign policy. that america was party to the Gulf War and many other wars around the globe is verifiable fact. but to say America is responsible for all the unrest in the world(this, in fact, is many people's view)is plain POV. not verifiable fact. not something beyond debate. and certainly not encyclopaedic. 209.180.28.6 21:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Huh? What does this have to do with anything? Let me speak plainly —

1. That there are infrastructural challenges in Bangalore is NOT POV. It is a fact.

thats your opinion(aka POV).

Please read WP:POV before making assertions otherwise.

Bangalore has infrastructural challenges, which is something that even past state governments that did nothing to address the city's infrastructural problems would accept.

can you tell me who these 'past state govts that did 'nothing' were? and where they have owned up to something you think they are responsible for.

That is plain as day.

only to you.

My Poin of View has nothing to do with my edits.

i guess i'll have to assume 'good faith' on that.

2. Secondly, why are you assuming that I was/am responsible for this article's contents in its entirity? I merely copied and pasted this section from the Bangalore article to address issues of Time Independence and comform to Wikipedia's Summary style format. This section had been built up through the contributions of many editors, including myself, over the course of at least the two years that I have been contributing to the article. AreJay 00:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cite Sources

Hi - I think the sources must be immediately cited so that the conflict may be properly defined, if not resolved. Also, the present tags are adequate to raise attention to any problems. Rama's Arrow 20:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the sources must be immediately cited and the sources themselves should be POV-free. just because an article appears in a newspaper doesnt make it 'news' or 'fact'. many articles in newspapers and magazines are POVs again and many times the concerned publications take the pains to inform readers that the following/preceding coloumn 'reflects the veiws of the writer and should not be taken to be representative of the publication's stand or even reality'. 209.180.28.6 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so dont cite an article full of shameless POV pushing to support your own shameless POV pushing. 209.180.28.6 21:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and another thing. anytime you write something on WP, the burden of furnishing verifiable and credible sources to prove that you are not merely POV-pushing and that what you have written is verifiable fact, is upon you. it is not contingent on someone who disagrees with you to provide sources to prove the contrary!!

Red Tape

A full scale international airport was planned at Devanahalli, 30 kilometers from Bangalore. The project, initially conceived in 1991, was repeatedly delayed due to red tape and tussles between the private companies involved and the Central and State Governments.

Red Tape. what red tape?? can you prove that it was Red Tape that delayed the project. AFAIK, the delay if any was due to the fact that the concerned parties had some dispute(details of the dispute is beyond the scope of this talk page and even the article) the resolution of which took time. everytime there is a dispute/litigation/delay in a public infrastructure project doesnt mean it is 'Red Tape'!!

209.180.28.6

209.180.28.6's empty rhetoric is not constructive in the process of addressing POV issues in the article. As evidenced by his tone and attitude above, I am not engaging in any more discussion with regards to this issue with him, as I don't think anything constructive can come of it. I am not going to spend the rest of the day defending my credentials or the contents of an article created by the collaborative efforts of the Wikipedia community at large to him. I cannot and will not accept sole responsibility for the contents of an article that has been around for as far back as I can remember. As indicated by me above, I feel that POVs in the article should be addressed. Those familiar with my edits over the course of the last 2 years will know that I have had to battle POV-warriors from both sides of the fence. My interest is to bring NPOV to articles. To that effect, I have started retrieving the relevent references to the various contentious issues in the article (many of which I have just added as inotes within the article) and will continue to do so until many of the contentious claims are addressed. AreJay 01:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stop indulging in self sympathy. cant you see what he/she is talking about? all that the user is asking you to do is

cite sources for whatever has already been written in the article
establish that the article is not merely POV and
establish that the article is 'encyclopaedic' - what this means is, ...EVEN if an article has all its sources cited, and it has been established that it is not merely POV, you still need the article to be encyclopaedia material to be included in one.

the way i see it, you have a long way to go before you even cross the first one. 67.164.5.90 03:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not indulging in self sympathy, whatever that's supposed to mean. All appropriate sources have been cited as inotes. I am, as you will see in the edit summary, in the process of converting them into <ref>s.

The links will sufficiently address POV concens in the article.

I do not agree with your assessment. This article in its entirity existed before the edits of today. All appropriate citations have now been added to the article. If you still feel that the article is POV, the onus is upon you to prove that it is. Not the other way around. AreJay 03:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words

Ideological clashes between the city's IT moguls, who demand an addressal of the infrastructural problems of the city, and the traditionally bureaucratic state governments, whose electoral base is primarily rural Karnataka's agricultural workers, are common. In 2005, however, the Central and State Governments allocated sizeable funding from their annual budgets towards the improvement of Bangalore's infrastructure.

Cite sources for the many many other instances of POV in your article before you add more POV. What do you mean by 'traditionally bureaucratic state governments'?? bureaucrats are an integral part of any democratic goverment anywhere in the world. why the special mention in this case? also what do you mean by '...electoral base is primarily rural workers...'?? last heard India is a democratic country and every adult - rural or urban, has a vote.

Yes, every adult gets one vote. 80% of Karnataka's roughly 50 million population is engaged in agriculture. That amounts to 40 million. That amounts to 40 million votes vs. 6 million. AreJay 03:33, 9 March 2006 (UTC)</ref>[reply]

and where did you get this bloated figure of 80% of Karnataka's population being engaged in agriculture?? and also, what makes you think residents of Bangalore ought to have more of a say in how the State capital is to be run than other Karnataka voters who reside outside Bangalore?? India is a democracy and Bangalore belongs as much to the guy in Hubli as it does to the Bangalorean and vice versa. again(and again and again) let me ask you to cite your sources before you make arbitrary claims. also, stop telling me that something has been there for 2 years...so its fine. just because its been there 2 years doesnt mean everygthing's fine with it. 67.164.5.90 03:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deciphering the problems

Hi - NPOV - if you see that Bangalore is painted in negative light, its becoz this is a fork focusing entirely on administrative, economic difficulties and issues. The title is "Infrastructural concerns" - not the "Infrastructure of Bangalore" that merits a full discussion of pros and cons. Thus the NPOV-disputed sign must go down.

While you may need to ease the language and add some details to show all the progress Bangalore is making, there is no need to counter every fact and section. However, the real issue is unencyclopedic coverage' - whether its ok for an article to be only discussing the concerns and problems in Bangalore. Rama's Arrow 14:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suspect sources

Bangalore's infrastructural woes have led to protests by students and IT workers in the city.

No sources cited. Sarvagnya 17:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In July 2004 Wipro's CEO Azim Premji threatened to pull his company out of the city unless there was a drastic improvement in infrastructure over the next few years, stating "We do not see the situation (state of Bangalore's infrastructure) improving in the near future" [8].

and yet he along with his company still sit cosy in Bangalore. so what is the CONCERN?? and also, even if he were to really carry out his hollow threat, can you establish that it should be of 'concern' to Bangalore? keep out sensationalism.Sarvagnya 17:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not a cause for concern if the CEO of the 2nd largest IT company makes good on his threat to leave a city that is considered to be India's Silicon Valley because of the state of this city's infrastructure? How is this sensationalism? I guess the bigger picture is because of the city's infrastructural challenges, be they real or imagined, that companies are at least threatening to leave, if not actually leaving Bangalore. The example was meant to clarify the perceptions of IT leaders in the city vis-a-vis the infrastructure.

Ideological clashes between the city's IT moguls, who demand an addressal of the infrastructural problems of the city, and the successive state governments, whose electoral base is primarily rural Karnataka's agricultural workers, are common [9]

The source cited speaks nothing about any 'Ideological' clashes between IT 'moguls' and 'rural workers'.Sarvagnya 17:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence says ideological clashes between IT moguls and the Karnataka government, not clashes between IT moguls and rural workers. I believe this is conveyed through the reference.

In 2005, however, the Central and State Governments allocated sizeable funding from their annual budgets towards the improvement of Bangalore's infrastructure.

What is this line supposed to mean? Its sticking out like a sore thumb - hanging in mid air, serving no qualitative purpose. either remove it or rephrase it.Sarvagnya 17:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence indicates that despite the assertion that the city's infrastructural challenges have not been met, there is indication that the outlay of capital both at Central and State levels may help in financing infrastructural improvements in the near future. Please be specific as to what your objections are, if any, wrt this sentence.

Airport Issues

the paragraph starts with a totally different project(the Tata project). even the source cited has to do with the Tata project. it has nothing to do with any delays(if any) in executing the present project(the govt-siemens-zurich etc team). cite more/better sources. Sarvagnya 17:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of who the stakeholders were at the time, the Bangalore International Airport project was planned in 1991. After plans were conceived, HAL decided that it wanted to stop providing civil aviation services through its airport. Its intention to discontinue service did not change with the change in stakeholders. The reference provided is quite relevent therefore.

also...article ends saying the construction has already started. so what is the 'concern'?? Sarvagnya 17:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The construction of the airport just began. It is not however operational and there is no indication that HAL has changed its mind on not wanting to provide its facilities for civil aviation, even as the volume of air traffic to the city continues to grow.

Infrastructure is NOT just roads and not just DELAYS in road projects

First of all, I dont understand why some editors here keep harping about roads, roads and roads in this article. Yes roads are part of the infrastructure of a city but they are not the only things nor even the most important by any stretch of imagination. Everything including drainage and sewerage, sanitation, hospitals, schools and colleges, scientific infrastructure, power infrastructure, telecommunications infrastructure, maybe even military infrastructure and many such other things IS ALSO INFRASTRUCTURE and some may argue, more important than having roads like 'hema malini's' cheeks. and...this article doesnt even make a mention of all that!!

SECOND OF ALL AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, i also dont understand why these editors keep harping about the DELAYS in these projects. Are you talking about infrastructure or about the delays in carrying out projects??!! stop talking about delays cause it has nothing to do with infrastructure. either you have the required infra or you dont have it. if it is there just write that it is there. if it is not there write that it is not there. talking about why it is there or why it is not there, what are some people's opinions about it etc., is hardly encyclopaedic as has already been pointed out ad nauseum here(and yet some people refuse to acknowledge it)

instead of talking about infrastructure, you people have turned this into a scoreboard to keep track of how many times, how many projects have been delayed in the past. and nowhere have you even shown the basic courtesy to mention the present status of the project!Balnanmaga 10:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that infrastructure is not just roads. Telephone and electricity, although not 100% are quite reliable. However, drains in many parts of the city are inadequate to prevent flooding during heavy rains. Also, the availability of water is not continuous in many (all?) parts of the city. --BostonMA 15:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patience, patience...

The lead editor for this article is user:AreJay. I ask that you guys give him some time, becoz he's researching this topic in detail to give a more balanced content and overall article. We are all in agreement that the article needs to be balanced, so if you help out with data contributions, it will help the resolution of this issue. Rama's Arrow 05:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also request the anonymous user who keeps creating new IDs to stop doing so. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppets - You are violating Wikipedia rules. It is not polite, or honest if I may say so. We respect you and we are prepared to listen to your concerns. Please do not insult our intelligence. Rama's Arrow 05:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor

Just a little note to the rewriters of this article that it will probably be worth discussing the Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Project in the article. Several components of the project - such as the Outer Peripheral Road, the new Link Road and bus terminal, and the new townships - are directly aimed at significantly enhancing Bangalore's infrastructure and when completed will address very many of the problems discussed in the article. Whilst the article does mention some of these (such as the OPR), it may make sense to also discuss the entire project as a whole. Wasn't there some talk about setting up a monorail along the route? -- Arvind 00:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars

I have been following this for sometime. Edit wars are bad. It is good to see some progress being made, in moving the article to a more generic title. I do hope that the users here are mature enough to resolve differences through talkpage rather than getting into unnecessary and unproductive revert wars. Also, seeing new users immediately enter revert wars raises concerns of sockpuppetry. I was reviewing this to see if the page requires protection - it doesn't seem to, so, I'll let it be. Page protection is bad and typically, the last line of defense - I hope that you will not let matters to deteriorate to that extent. Thanks, --Gurubrahma 04:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, to those not in the know, just a note, page protection does not mean that the protected version is right or standard. Protection only signifies that the article has been going through an edit war. --Gurubrahma 04:09, 15 March 2006 (UT)

what edit wars are you talking about?? just because some people here have a different view from yours and your cronies doesnt make it an edit war. to start with, this article didnt even have an sources cited!! and later it has added only specious sources and the tone of the article is far from neutral... and if someone points that out, you call it an edit war!!! PAGE PROTECTION!! what nonsense!! wonder who made you an admin!! 67.164.5.90

as for page protection, i'd like to see you do that!! i dare you to do that!! 67.164.5.90

hey gurubrahma,you cant enforce your views on anybody you want just because you are an admin. many wesal comments keep cropping up,why dont you stop that?why go for page protection. it isnt a POV,but you are making this one.--Jayanthv86 10:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not a good article

first of all,the article starts off with the history of bangalore. the city wasnt planned then,it began to take fruit only after the arrival of british.

and in the section development after independance,the article starts of well,and slowly slips off into another bangalore bashing article. you need to create a new subject,with the name criticisms or something. i tried doing it myself,but the article is very shoddy and cant be differentiated.--Jayanthv86 10:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first two statements are incorrect. As pointed out in the article, the town of Bangalore, which comprised entirely of the area within the mud fort was well planned and had two main road arteries N-S and E-W. The Bangalore cantonment area was developed with the arrival of the British but concurrent to that, there was also town development of the Bangalore pete as well. Can you be specific on what you find to be "Bangalore basing"? I am quite uninterested in "bashing" the city that I was born in, however, I am not going to depart from my intention of portraying the situation in the city as-is. This is an encyclopedia and all aspects, positive and negative, need appropriate representation. AreJay 19:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Infrastructure in Bangalore. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060324175253/http://www.airportsindia.org.in:80/aai/news/traffic-trends.xls to http://www.airportsindia.org.in/aai/news/traffic-trends.xls

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Infrastructure in Bangalore. 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) 05:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]