Talk:Lavasa

An advertisement

This article has been written for publicity's sake from head to toe and it is impossible to re-write it as per Wikipedia policies. I propose that this article should be taken down and if there is any notability or importance asserted later, the article should be written NPOV Nshuks7 (talk) 06:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I declined the speedy deletion (not a G11), but you may nominate the article for deletion. Cenarium (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

No, actually. I think I will keep with heavy edits. Lavasa is actually a child of many a corrupt politicians and businessmen. Nshuks7 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Removing comments as the comments have been addressed

Do not remove anything from the talk page without consent. Nshuks7 (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion

FingersOnRoids (talk · contribs) wants to offer a third opinion. To assist with the process, editors are requested to summarize the dispute in a short sentence below.

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

Some users believe that the details of land disputes should be included in the article.

Viewpoint by (name here)

....

If someone finds any information to be missing then they should add the same. It does not qualify the article for deletion or mean that it is a advertisement or biased. The users who want the "unbiased content" are only putting up advert tags without any constructive feedback or editing on why they think something is biased.

Third opinion by FingersOnRoids

....

NPOV Dispute

The article fails to mention the controversies surrounding the land acquisiton and the Hill Station Policy. It also does not mention that the Project is being promoted by local politicians or the fact that several complaints including requests of a CBI inquiry into fraudulent land acquisiton and alleged cheating of tribals and villagers have been made. Several protests by NGOs and environmentalists are still going on.

Also not mentioned is that the builders (HCC Ltd) are in urgent need to raise funds for the project and are hence aggressively marketing the project to garner investment. They are also planning to come up with a Public Offering of shares.

It is also a fact that though the township is being marketed as being "midway between Pune and Mumbai", but it takes approximately 4 to 5 hours of travel from both Pune and Mumbai and thus more suitable for leisure weekend trips rather then for people wishing to commute for work from either of these major cities. Same applies to access to the nearest airport / railway station.

These facts are readily available on media reports online and these divergent views must find a mention here in order to comply with the Neutral POV policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.96.84 (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lavasa surely does not deserve a place in wikipedia. It remains only advt over here. This is something that is buit in by destroying nature and only for those rich few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.106.50 (talk) 06:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I came here because Lavasa owes money to United States Space Camp for licensing their installation of same, and news reports have suggested only trouble. In fact, before I found this article, I'd heard about environmental problems and charges against leaders. I was quite surprised to find this article which seems to have very little positive (or even neutral) to say about the operation aside from a brief description of the plans, and to come here and find out that the NPOV complaint is that it's not sufficiently critical! I think it's been resolved, so I will remove the NPOV note. If someone wants to go on about its virtues a little more, I think it would help neutrality at this point. -- ke4roh (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Some Improvements

The article has now been re-written to some extent so as to reflect the various contradicting viewpoints. The version of 20 July 2009, at 21:15 by 72.248.178.34 is actually quite interesting though a lot of it has been subsequently deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.102.94 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No longer true. Now it reads like a real estate brochure. 711Techwood (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Back to Square One

The interested parties (builders) seem to have removed all references to the controversial issues without any reference or discussion about whether they have been resolved or not.

The article is now once again a pure advertisement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyager39 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Controversial" hill station policy

The PDF reference provided does not explain why this policy is controversial. I have edited the citation accordingly.711Techwood (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Lots of changes

I made a lot of changes. Please see diff here. While Nshuks7 reverted the page to an earlier version, I will change it back if no one has any issues with my edits. Fleetham (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Fleetham. Thanks for the interest. The following points need to stay in the article:

1. List of 7 hill slopes in Lavasa

2. Unabridged controversies section. Preferably in the order they were in: "gated community" is not the worst of problems there.

3. There is no Mayor of Lavasa; we can leave the infobox as it is.

Beyond this, I would suggest that you carry out your changes by parts; it's hard to tell what went where when you make such a whirlwind edit. Thanks for your contributions :) Nshuks7 (talk) 06:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but the controversies did need some editing. Especially the "conflict of interest" section. That one needs to be removed entirely. How about I revert back to my version and you can make the changes you want? Fleetham (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

How about you change it one section at a time? I agree that the article needs shaping up. If you pace it well, we can probably get the best results. Nshuks7 (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's start with the lead, and we'll just skip any we disagree on and then do them later. Fleetham (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Done. A note: let's stick to the official citation template - makes it easier for bots to do the maintenance afterwards. Nshuks7 (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I added a history section that includes future plans. I don't know if you want these sections combined. I forgot to stick to the official citation template, I will go back and update later. There are other citation problems. For example, I cited this for the phrase "Lavasa is being developed by an HCC unit, Lavasa Corp." but the cited source doesn't explicitly say that. This also mentions Lavasa Corp., but not as a unit of HCC. We also need citations for the fact that the first town didn't make its completion deadline and for everything in the "development phases" section. I like the lead, but am unsure what is meant by the "utilization of infrastructure" bit. Fleetham 16:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Added some citations. I don't know if I can promise I'll add citations in the {{cite}} format because while it may be convenient for bots it isn't for me. Fleetham (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, no issues. I used to hate detailing refs too :) I will expand all your refs in good time. In the meanwhile I have worked on History. Bear in mind that there are 2 History sections now - I worked on the first one and the second one can be taken down I guess. One more thing: should we move all "plans" from History to the next section (currently Planned Economy Drivers) and rename the section "Plans". It seems to be a better flow - having "plans" in "history" seems incorrect. Once again, thanks for your time and patience :) Nshuks7 (talk) 08:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Can I also suggest removal of "artist's imression" picture? If someone has a personally taken picture, that would be a better display piece. Nshuks7 (talk) 09:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I edited the history section. Sorry, but I deleted a lot of your additions. Some of it wasn't cited and some of it seemed to belong in other areas such as the controversies section, not the history section. I also changed the pic to one I found on Flickr. Fleetham (talk) 16:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

And I still don't know what "utilization of the finished infrastructure" refers to in the lead. Care to clarify? Fleetham (talk) 16:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

It meant what ends the constructed buildings and roads are going to be put to. It's a 2-fold issue - first off, there are no plans/solutions for the displaced tribals and farmers who have no skills that can be put to use here and secondly, the urban development is not satisfying any existing "need" of either the region or the economy. I hope that clarifies it a bit. Nshuks7 (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but I had to revert it to my version:(1) I believe there are ample citations - wherever you think it's not so, please highlight, with a citation needed tag instead of deleting it outright, (2) I agree that some material might look like it belongs in the controversies section. However it is actually over the course of Lavasa's past that these events occured and it was much later that any of it actually became controversial. For example, there's nothing flagrantly illegal about a powerful Minister's daughter, also a Minister, holding 141 hectares of land along with some of biggest names in the business on the west coast. There's no case or controversy around it. However, it is an important piece of history of the land. Please refrain from deleting such sections. If you have any doubts about any particular piece, please ask for clarification or at least why you have doubts. I will be more than happy to respond at length. Nshuks7 (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think there is too much detail. For example, "Supriya Sule, daughter of Sharad Pawar and a member of Lok Sabha, was allotted 12.48 lakh equity shares and 26.64 lakh (6%) redeemable preference shares". Few people reading the article know who this person is, who her father is, and most don't care to know the exact number and types of shares she holds. Can we do something about all of these details? Instead of writing the exact shareholder percentages for the Lavasa Corp. I just wrote "Lavasa Corp. is majority owned by HCC". Fleetham (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I understand the concern. We could remove the share clasifications. We must, however, keep the names of all concerned parties since (1) that reflects on the nature of the place itself, (2) the information is presented without a POV and it's up to the reader to think since (3) this an encyclopedia (there's no such thing as too much detail). In addition, these details may have implications for controversies and such. Please reconsider: what may seem like detail to you may be crucial info for someone else. And wikipedia is where one starts researching. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and please read the Supriya Sule and Sharad Pawar articles. They are very eminently greatly noteworthy people in the region, in the country even. If there are people reading this article, they should know how Lavasa is linked to important people. I didn't know who Gulabchand was before I read this article for the first time. Nshuks7 (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with details, but rather where the details are. I want the article to be easily read by someone who has no knowledge of Lavasa or Indian politics, so is it okay if we make mention of things like the 141 acres being purchased at bargain prices in the "History" section and also include a more complete version in the "Controversies" section? As another example, instead of mentioning who owns what percentage of the Lavasa Corp., can we say it's "majority owned by HCC" in the history but make a section named something like "current ownership of the Lavasa Corporation" and put the specifics there. I think moving details to more-specific sections will make the article appeal more to the casual reader but also allow it to be a helpful resource for the knowledge-seeking one, too. Fleetham (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, let's do that when we get there. I assume there's no disagreement over the content itself, and it's purely a matter of arranging it. I'll go ahead with the next section for now.

No, as long as it's true it should be in the article. Fleetham (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I hope you agree with these changes. I have restored most of the History section, moved the only controversial bit to the Controversies section, removed the second History section, merged Development Plans and Plans sections and an overall cleanup. I further propose that (1) the neutrality contention be removed and that (2) Awards, Environment and Social Initiatives be merged since they all highlight similar points and are therefore closely related. Nshuks7 (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

What to do about self-referncing information? Stuff about Lavasa sourced from its own website? Nshuks7 (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I edited the history section and removed a lot of stuff that is better placed in controversies. I think the next section we should work on is controversies, and I don't think we should remove the neutrality thing until the very end, if at all. And I don't think there is any problem with citing stuff on the Lavasa website, unless it is about controversies... Fleetham (talk) 17:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I had revert your edits as (1) there was significant removal of relevant information and (2) referring to WP:SPS, I do not see any editorial control over Lavasa website, it is self-serving material and has their commercial interest in mind in having us believe what they write. Hence, we should keep references to Lavasa's site to a minimum. Please note, specifically, that it wasn't just some of the land that was leased at below par rates: the entire 140-odd hectares was leased out for that amount. Nshuks7 (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Please, let's collaborate instead of reverting. These are things I take issue with:

• The history section should include an overview of controversies, not a detailed discussion. I removed many details that should be in the article, true, but I thought we agreed those kind of details should be in the controversies section.
• 141 hectares is less than 350 acres, and Lavasa is a 25,000 acre project. Thus, "some of the land was acquired for less than its actual value" is a wholly accurate statement.
• Nothing I cited came from the Lavasa website.

Is it okay if I revert your revert to the history section? Because 1) the material removed is, we agreed, better placed in the controversies section, 2) none of my citations were from the Lavasa website, and 3) the statement, "some of the land was had for very cheap rates" is true because Lavasa is a 10,000+ hectare project not a 141 hectare one. Fleetham (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted your reverts and added to the "Awards" and "Plans" sections. Please don't revert my edits. See WP:OWN. I want to collaborate, but it seems you just want to remove my additions. Fleetham (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have tried every way of explaining. Whatever little real history there is of the land, you have cleared out. This article, in the present shape, reads like an advertisement and I have tagged it as such. If we started adding material about every car rally, blood drive, flower patch, wikipedia will be useless. Please stop with unsubstantiated, irrelevant, aggrandizing edits. I am reverting the history and controversy sections, leaving the awards section for others to judge. "Plans" shouldn't even figure in the article since we are not trying to document projects or pipe dreams. Please invite external mediation if you think appropriate. Nshuks7 (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand. "unsubstantiated, irrelevant, aggrandizing edits"? I don't like how you are treating me. You are being uncivil. I don't want to write an advertisement, but I also don't think you are the one person who knows what is acceptable content. If you think something I wrote is wrong, please talk to me about it instead of deleting it. The way you are going about this makes you look foolish and make me unhappy. Fleetham (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) You have not answered any of the points I have laid out above, (2) you do not add any material, and delete what we discuss on keeping (History section being a prime example) (3) now you have resorted to name calling (looking foolish? excuse me? And your happiness is not in my hands, sorry) I see you have a history of edit wars, so please, don't do the same here; (4) please abstain from using private pages for topic if editing this article. Point out the exact material and lines that you have a gripe about keeping and let me clarify why they are important.

As I said, you are free to ask for third party mediation.Nshuks7 (talk) 06:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I apologize. What you did made me unhappy, and I was expressing how I felt. What I don't like about your history section is it difficult to read. I think what you don't like about my history section is that it doesn't address Lavasa's many controversies completely enough. Can we have a compromise? I am happy to change my version of the history section so we have an easily-read and thorough history section that doesn't read like an ad for the damn place. I made a new talk topic to discuss this because this thread is pretty long already. Fleetham (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructuve discussion. To be precise: what I don't like in History as edited by you is that it leaves out the developments which led to the controversies. We need not even suggest the existence of a controversy in the section. Just give a blow-by-blow account of how things came to the present, give transparency to transactions and happenings. Simple questions can be answered. Who owned the land that is Lavasa now? Who owned the corporation before its current owners? Who suggested that there be a Lavasa in the first place? We need not point fingers but simply name names. The Controversy section may, then, point to events in History, or it may not. Maybe Venky's Chicken has a vested interst in Lavasa, or maybe not. We are not alleging anything in History section, but simply laying it down, that look, this is how it happened. Please let me know if you understand what I am trying to say. You edits removed these things rather than adding to the article, which is why I had to revert. I do not intend for you take any of this personally. Nshuks7 (talk) 07:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't Dilute Major Issues while Editing

Hope the above is not a prelude to removing or diluting the legal issues that have been thrown up.

The project as of now appears in considerable trouble and the article should focus more on those rather then the hype and awards given by agencies on payroll. Somehow, those are the only sections which retain prominence after every edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.215.211 (talk) 16:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Our effort is to present a clear article that can serve as a knowledge base. If there is anything missed, please add or suggest for addition. We are not trying to build a case against or for any issue. Nshuks7 (talk) 13:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it a hill station?

If, as Lavasa Corp claims, it is not elevated at more than 1000m, is it still a Hill station, by definition? Nshuks7 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Advertising again

I have tagged the article as an advertisement. Concerned editors may go through WP:SOAP and Wikipedia:Third-party sources and help clean up. Please note that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and forward looking statements are not par unless certain (in this case majorly clouded by court proceedings, as the end of the article indicates) and is not an indiscriminate collection of travel ideas. Nshuks7 (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

History section

Here's my version of the history section. I propose we use the talk page to discuss what changes need to be made so we both find it acceptable. Fleetham (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I re-edited "my" history section below to include yours. I do think we should include the picture. While I did not include everything from your version, the only part of yours I object to is the inclusion of Supriya Sule and Sharad Pawar. I don't know who they are or why it is important that, for a time, they owned a small portion of the Lavasa Corp. I feel this needs to be explained if we're to include it. Fleetham (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As noted above, the two are important figures in the development. I can understand if you do not realize the importance of this: it is similar to interests of Bush family in an oil company. The fact that they once were a part of a board is not significant or controversial by itself. However, if, at a later date, the same oil company gets profitable government contracts while one of the Bush's is heading the same government, the historical minor stake/interest takes up importance. I hope this illustrates the importance of this content. Please let me know if there's still any confusion. I'll be glad to clarify. Nshuks7 (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was something like that. But is there some way to explain the importance of their shareholdings in the article itself? Because when I read it is seems too small a thing to mention in the article. I trust that it's not, but I think adding context would be helpful. And besides including the Pawar thing, are there any other additions/changes/deletions you'd like to make to the version I updated below? Fleetham (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed the alternative below. I find that one easier to read and is not fragmented. If you still think your structure is better, let me know and I will make changes to your version . As for the expansion of Pawar background, we can definitely add more: depending on which structure you prefer, your's or mine, I will expand the context. Once again, thank you for your patience. Nshuks7 (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I do like my version better... sorry Fleetham (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you want to make changes, or is the history section below satisfactory for placement on the page itself? Fleetham (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No response means no participation. If you don't provide input I will place my version on the main page. I will remove anything that is not cited or is cited in such as way as to be unintelligible. Fleetham (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not that you care, but I will keep the uncited portions that I believe I will easily be able to cite and mark them with a cite needed tag. Fleetham (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

History

File:Uload.jpg

Construction work at Lavasa, July 2010

Billed as India's first hill station since Independence, this private city is being constructed by a unit of Ajit Gulabchand's Hindustan Construction Company, Lavasa Corporation.

Land

The area demarcated for Lavasa is located near Pune in the Western Ghats, on the banks of the Baji Pasalkar Reservoir behind the Varasgaon Dam. Lavasa is coming up on eight large hillocks that surround the elongated Varasgaon Dam Reservoir.

Since 1996, the area had been under the care of Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (MKVDC), <--- is there any way to translate this source? Google says, "the page is already in English" when it's obviously not. a government-owned corporation.

141 hectares of Lavasa were leased to HCC for far less than actual value by the Indian government, and the remaining portions were bought from farmers and landlords, possibly under duress.

Lavasa Corporation

Currently majority owned by Hindustan Construction Company (HCC), Lavasa Corporation is responsible for the construction of the city. It is preparing to make an initial public offering.

Legal name

Originally registered as Pearly Blue Lake Resorts Pvt Ltd on 11 February 11 2000, with Aniruddha Deshpande, Vitthal Maniyar, and Aniruddha Seolekar as directors. The firm changed its name to The Lake City Corporation Pvt Ltd on 12 December 2000 and around 2004 to Lavasa Corporation.

Ownership

As of late 2010, ownership of the Lavasa Corporation is Hindustan Construction Company (64.99%), Avantha Group (16.25%), Venkateshwara Hatcheries (12.8%), and individual investor Vinay Vithal Maniar (6%).

References

I am taking your version and adding to it. Please thing constructively: which one tells the reader more? Please keep in mind that there were people and towns present in Lavasa already: if we do not document them, they are relegated to obscurity. If readability is an issue, copy-edit, don't delete. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

1. added background of the land
2. removed the picture - does not seem to serve a purpose - isn't of any special interest
3. added background of the lake
4. removed lease controversy - to be addressed by appropriate section, not here
5. added history of the corporation - neutral tone. any issues/lawsuits here are to be addressed in appropriate section
6. arranged "History - Of Lavasa Corporation" in chronological order.

Please highlight anything that looks controversial (as opposed to encyclopedic knowledge) in the section below. Once again, if it hard to read, please make it easy to read, don't drop it altogether. Nshuks7 (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

History

Of Lavasa Township

The area that is demarcated for Lavasa is located in the Western Ghats of India, on the banks of the Baji Pasalkar Reservoir behind the Varasgaon Dam which is the primary source of water for nearby city of Pune. The city is coming up on eight large hillocks that surround the elongated Varasgaon Dam Reservoir.

Since 1996, the area had been under the care of Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (MKVDC) primarily for agrarian developments related to efficient usage of water from the many rivers and tributaries in the region. Primary investors in MKVDC had been state and central governments of India. 141 hectares of what is now Lavasa were leased out to Ajit Gulabchand's HCC for the Lavasa project while the remaining was bought from farmers and landlords.

Of Lavasa Corporation

A unit of Hindustan Construction Company (HCC), Lavasa Corporation is responsible for the construction of the city. Lavasa Corporation was originally registered as Pearly Blue Lake Resorts Pvt Ltd on February 11, 2000, with Aniruddha Deshpande, Vitthal Maniyar, and Aniruddha Seolekar as its first directors. The firm changed its name to The Lake City Corporation Pvt Ltd on December 12, 2000, and around 2004 to Lavasa Corporation.

Subsequently, on October 3, 2002, Supriya Sule, daughter of Sharad Pawar and a member of Lok Sabha, was allotted 12.48 lakh equity shares and 26.64 lakh (6%) redeemable preference shares by The Lake City Corporation Pvt Ltd. The other shareholders at the time included Aniruddha Deshpande, Vinay Vitthal Maniyar, Jyoti Bhale, Arvind Bhale, Hindustan Finvest Ltd, Srivenk Investments Ltd, Venkateshwara Hatcheries Ltd and Janpath Investment and Holdings Ltd.

Currently majority owned by HCC, As of late 2010, ownership of the Lavasa Corporation is: Hindustan Construction Company (64.99%), Avantha Group (16.25%), Venkateshwara Hatcheries (12.8%), and individual investor Vinay Vithal Maniar (6%).

NPOV tag

Unless anyone objects, I will soon removed the "Neutrality disputed" tag. I think the page conforms to WP:NPOV. Fleetham (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly you can. Its neutral now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.227.185 (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Reflects Truth Now

Finally we see a true and objective version. Thanks to those who modified this page and made it truly encylopaedic instead of the propaganda and bickering that it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.227.185 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

History must reflect the controversies

It is surprising that the "History" section makes no mention of the numerous controversies and legal battles that have mired this project. Have rectified that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyager39 (talk • contribs) 18:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The controversies have their own section. Your edit was redundant. CityOfSilver 18:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

The controversies are very much a part of the "History". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Voyager39 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Correct. I never said otherwise. If the history section is entirely redundant, though, it ought to be removed completely. CityOfSilver 19:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

You're simply trying to be clever and I don't agree with you. Most of Lavasa's recent history has been about the controversies and not the constructions. However, I am not reverting or changing things because its a waste of our time if we keep contradicting. That's so long as the controversies section is not diluted or tinkered with... Voyager39 (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Lavasa-city-pune.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Lavasa-city-pune.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 06:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent Neutral Makeover

Kudos for making the page almost 100% neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.168.31.68 (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

edit request on 15 January 2014

Divpatil0402 (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: You have made no edit request whatsoever.
If you want a change made to this page please ask in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite a reliable source to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Lavasa. 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/20110819222158/http://le-mont-high.org/about-message-head-of-school.htm to http://www.le-mont-high.org/about-message-head-of-school.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101124182317/http://lavasa.com/high/master_plan.aspx to http://www.lavasa.com/high/master_plan.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101216191410/http://lavasa.com/high/files/Lavasa_EBrochure.pdf to http://www.lavasa.com/high/files/Lavasa_EBrochure.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101216191410/http://lavasa.com/high/files/Lavasa_EBrochure.pdf to http://www.lavasa.com/high/files/Lavasa_EBrochure.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120528235338/http://www.punemirror.in/article/2/20120511201205110317458592daa7b13/Medha-Patkar-will-hold-the-torch-at-Lavasa-camp.html to http://www.punemirror.in/article/2/20120511201205110317458592daa7b13/Medha-Patkar-will-hold-the-torch-at-Lavasa-camp.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080731123053/http://www.cnu.org/awards/winners to http://www.cnu.org/awards/winners
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011195454/http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/water-being-diverted-to-lavasa-alleges-patkar/486570/ to http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/water-being-diverted-to-lavasa-alleges-patkar/486570/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130415175122/http://rtn.asia/451_lavasa-showed-higher-fsi-jairam-rameshs-moef to http://rtn.asia/451_lavasa-showed-higher-fsi-jairam-rameshs-moef

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 13:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)