Jump to content

Talk:Rahul Gandhi

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 14.139.213.146 (talk) at 21:18, 11 March 2016. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

Punctuation

Could an established article please fix the article punctuation? For example, independent clauses need to be set off by both opening and closing commas.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2015

Also known in media as pappu BJP leader Subramanian Swamy on 16-11-2015 alleged that Congress Vice President Rahul Gandhi has claimed himself to be a British national before the authorities there and has demanded that he be stripped of Indian citizenship and Lok Sabha membership. Subramanian Swamy. PTI Subramanian Swamy. PTI Circulating copies of documents extracted purportedly from the company law authorities of Britain, he told a press conference here that Gandhi had declared himself as a British national in the documents related to a now-dissolved. he said in a letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is a violation of constitutional provisions and demanded that action be taken against Gandhi.

Gogo-crime-master (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done See Talk:Rahul_Gandhi/Archive_1#Pappu --NeilN talk to me 19:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2015

122.160.17.103 (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2015 (UTC) 2011 -2जी स्पेक्ट्रम घोटाला 1,76,000 करोड़ 2011 कॉमन वेल्थ घोटाला 70,000 करोड़ 2010 आदर्श घर घोटाला 900 करोड़ 2010S बैंड स्पेक्ट्रम घोटाला 2,00,000 करोड़ 2010खाद्यान घोटाला 35,000 करोड़ 2009 चावल निर्यात घोटाला 2,500 करोड़ 2009 उड़ीसा खदान घोटाला7,000 करोड़ 2009 झारखण्ड खदान घोटाला 4,000 करोड़ 2009झारखण्ड मेडिकल उपकरण घोटाला 130 करोड़ 2008हसन् अली हवाला घोटाला 39,120 करोड़ 2008 काला धन 2,10,000 करोड 2008 स्टेट बैंक ऑफ़ सौराष्ट्र 95 करोड़ 2008 सैन्य राशन घोटाला5,000 करोड़ 2008 सत्यम घोटाला 8,000 करोड 2006पंजाब सिटी सेंटर घोटाला 1,500 करोड़ 2006ताज कॉरिडोर घोटाला 175 करोड़ 2005 आई पि ओ कॉरिडोर घोटाला 1,000 करोड़ 2005 बिहार बाढ़ आपदा घोटाला 17 करोड़ 2005 सौरपियन पनडुब्बी घोटाला 18,978 करोड़ 2003 स्टाम्प घोटाला 20,000 करोड़ 2002 संजय अग्रवाल गृह निवेश घोटाला 600 करोड़ 2002कलकत्ता स्टॉक एक्सचेंज घोटाला 120 करोड़ 2001केतन पारिख प्रतिभूति घोटाला 1,000 करोड़ 2001UTI घोटाला 32 करोड़ 2001 डालमिया शेयर घोटाला 595 करोड़ 1998 टीक पौध घोटाला 8,000 करोड़ 1998 उदय गोयल कृषि उपज घोटाला 210 करोड़ 1997 बिहार भूमि घोटाला 400 करोड़ 1997 सुखराम टेलिकॉम घोटाला 1,500 करोड़ 1997SNC पॉवेर प्रोजेक्ट घोटाला 374 करोड़ 1997 म्यूच्यूअल फण्ड घोटाला 1,200 करोड़ 1996 उर्वरक आयत घोटाला 1,300 करोड़ 1996यूरिया घोटाला 133 करोड 1996चारा घोटाला 950करोड़ 1995मेघालय वन घोटाला300करोड़ 1995 प्रेफ्रेंशल अलॉटमेंट घोटाला 5,000 करोड़ 1995दीनार घोटाला (हवाला) 400करोड़ 1995कॉबलर घोटाला 1,000 करोड़ 1995 वीरेंदर गौतम (कस्टम टैक्स) घोटाला 43 करोड़ 1994चीनी घोटाला 650 करोड़ 1992हर्षद मेहता (शेयर घोटाला) 5,000 करोड़।। बोफोर्स तोप घोटाला -राजीव गांधी 960 करोड़[reply]

 Not done No actual request made. And this is English Wikipedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Clarificafion

Please explain this SpacemanSpiff The URLs are dead. Name is not required as its the same as article title. Why write whole family? Mother and father are enough. It's not Geneology, is it? Also cn were placed where citation was not clear. Don't just impose your predetermined judgement as you have been doing for quite a while. Assess the edits then take action. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned on your talk page. —SpacemanSpiff 16:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Warning for what? Are URLs active? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pankaj, you should review your edits in the light of the revert, and you can reinstate whichever edits were non-problematic. I am not sure what you mean by "citation was not clear." You seem to have placed a cn tag for the attendance at St. Stephens, but it is mentioned in the reference cited at the end of the sentence. Why was this not clear? Did you check all the cited references before you added the cn tags? - Kautilya3 (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does that qualify for warning? I have made few edits 1) name removed 2) dead link tags 3) ancestry removal 4) 4 cn tags. For this I have been accused of cn bombing. 4 cn tags is such a long article qualify cn bombing? I checked the link that says doon school. It doesn't fully support the statement. For Stephens also please read the whole reference. The matter present on the article is not what's mentioned in the reference. 3rd cn is over tearing off ordinance. The ref is provided two statements above, so (I think) that also deserves a cn. 4th i agree was a mistake. Please clarify which can be reinstated as any and every edit i do qualify for a ban or block here and that too without being given a chance of representation. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 18:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should continue the conduct discussion on your talk page. This is not the place for it.
In general you should take responsibility for your own edits, but other people may selectively check to verify.
For the Stephens issue, the source [1] says: According to the educational details made available by Rahul, he joined St Stephens College in Delhi in 1989 and after passing the first year exam, moved to Harvard, which is almost the same as what is written in the article. I don't understand what you mean by "not what's mentioned in the reference." - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. this doesnt mention anything about doon school. Nor does the following citation. So it does qualify {{cn}}
  2. The links I referred to as dead qualify WP:Linkrot
  3. The heredity or generations to which he belongs is too long. If someone is really interested he/she can go to mother/father page and know grandmother or great-grandfather. So it qualifies WP:UNDUE
  4. name - whether you keep it or not doesn't make any impact on how its visible. Again WP:UNDUE

So please help me understand, how these are disruptive edits? -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · count) 19:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. No, this article doesn't mention the Doon School. But it is easy enough to find a citation with a google search.
  2. Tagging deadlinks is usually harmless. But if you care to be genuinely helpful, you can try to find the new urls where the material might be found.
  3. The family history is a bit of a judgement call, but I would think any biography of Rahul Gandhi would mention that he is Jawaharlal Nehru's great-grandson.
  4. If the name doesn't have a visible effect, why remove it?
Disruptive edits are in general when you create work for other editors. - Kautilya3 (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rahul Gandhi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk · contribs) 01:10, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest you put citations after punctuation where possible.
  • "Until 2006", shouldn't there be a comma after that
  • One sentence remains uncited.
  • "In an attempt to prove himself thus, ...". Is the "thus" necessary? Could the whole sentence be slightly reworded?
  • Some of the references need better formatting. For example, missing commas, missing periods, and incorrect punctuation.

--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211 (alt): Just a suggestion. Could you please point out the sentences you refer to more clearly, possibly along with the section of the article to which they belong, so that the nominator can work on them more easily? And are these the only issues? Sainsf <^>Talk all words 13:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomandjerry211: Nearly a month-and-a-half since this review began. This might need to be failed. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 12:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Thought we need your help here. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 15:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sainsf, I posted to Tomandjerry211's talk page several days ago, to see whether he wanted to continue the review or have the nomination put back into the reviewing pool, but he hasn't edited Wikipedia since then. Some of the issues listed could easily have been found by searching; there's only one occurrence of "attempt" in the article, and "Until 2006" is easily located. The paragraph with the latter, though, needs more work than was asked for, and the third Formative years paragraph also needs work. Also, I don't see any post to Royroydeb's talk page by the bot when this review started, so I think it makes sense to ping RRD now for a response; if there is none, then failing this is an option. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomandjerry211 (alt): Other than the unresponsiveness, per what criteria is this failed here? I'm confused. Could that be pointed out so that anybody renominating has a clear picture as to what to do? Ugog Nizdast (talk) 02:16, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am as curious as Ugog Nizdast. This sudden failing with such a few comments (sorry but this might appear like an incomplete review) does appear weird, please clearly give all the points that have to be worked upon before renomination. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 02:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sudden failing? The review was posted on March 17; this is April 30, and RRD was pinged two weeks ago yet did nothing. Although it isn't the best review, there were some definite issues listed, even if seemingly minor, along with some general ones; although they might not have required more than a couple of hours work, the nominator didn't do anything for over six weeks. It should have been failed weeks ago. If the nominator wants more details at this point (it would have been easy to request them any time these past weeks), a peer review is the way to go. There are also a bunch of "citation needed" templates and an "undue" template to take care of, and the article cannot be passed with them in place. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I might have been wrong about the "sudden", it escaped me perhaps because I was not so satisfied with the review. Yes, the article deserves a good peer review before it is renominated. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 04:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rahul_Gandhi&oldid=709594188"