![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carmichael coal mine. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
The jobs and benefits growth is basically a list of various claims and quotations. That is not what we should be including in an encyclopedia. We need to summarise into Wikipedia's voice, not just regurgitate others speech or views. - Shiftchange ( talk) 01:07, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Try being unbiased. If that mine has cons, it has some pros too Abheygpt1 ( talk) 07:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The following cases need to be added:
Skinnytony1 ( talk) 09:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD regarding the refusal of ( talk) and ( talk) to provide any clear description of their reversions of the article, I ask here that they refrain from edit warring. they have stated that I did not provide a reference and i have performed original research. a statement under oath does not constitute original research. the reference directly contradicts the ABC article. The ABC article directly discusses the contents of this court case and misrepresents it. please review the reference.
dubious – discuss This is a reflection of the total mineral content of the entire coal deposit however Adani has planned to target coal seam strata for bypass coal, coal of lower overall ash content and higher quality than the total average of all coal in the basin ie. the most valuable coal, that does not require washing, a standard industry practice in which low quality deposits of coal are not mined. [1]
the dubious tag describes accurately how they are misinterpreting the evidence provided hence this source is unreliable because it is based on fabrication and omission. 49.198.21.145 ( talk) 08:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
References