Talk:Ramoji Rao

message: Should government intervene and liquidate Margadarsi Finance promoters assets to pay depositors? Maaparty 13:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Allegations may or may not be true, but they came in all papers, including Hindu. Nothing else has written to defame Ramoji except what was come in mainstream media including Hindu. Poeple who read wiki are not shallow minded and can judge themselves if the allegations are genuine or motivated. You need not endorse it,people are intelligent enough. Please do your link, if you think, the section can further be improved, but merely deleting it makes little sense and the page gets locked. 203.116.69.163 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you simply hide the fact about Hindu and Eenadu business dealings, as well as their left leanings. If something has come in Hindu in support of Eenadu, please update the Eenadu page, and also add a link for it here, nobody objects you, but simply deleting means, you are a chemcha of Ramoji.
Watching this space one thought that sanity did return to this posting after "Mel Etitis" 
is involved.It is very unusual that a person or couple of persons want to charge ramoji rao on fraud and cheating allegations.After reading the objections of some editors about the fraud and cheating ,one gets doubts about this post.It will be helpfull to provide information/links about the fraud and/or cheating angle..Any reports,government actions,depositors(i.e. margadarsi clientel) complaints etc..Mention clearly who has been cheated/defrauded.
Well, all public personalities face allegation including our dear chief minister, everything that comes in news papers are not ture anyway. But the section has to be left to people who read it instead of deleting it completely to hide the facts. Time only will tell if Ramoji who illegaly collected deposits (since he has cited no section of law that allows his business, except misplaced faith and under the disguise of freedom of press) to tune of 2500 crores (1/2 billion), and if he can pay back the deposits as they mature. Nobody will comment on his professional activities except when it collides with common people and against any law. 203.116.69.163 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll

message: If the anon editor doesn't stop removing material from the article, it will be protected against their editing. Claims like: "Wikipedia edits are sources of information,and not opinions,neither the editors are tabloid journalists.Alternative view points can be given as links but not as information." (sic. throughout) are very misleading, and have little to do with Wikipedia policies.  Alternative views are not banished to links, but explained and cited.
Also, would people please sign their comments (with four tildes: ~~~~); the above mess of unsigned comments is very difficult to follow. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 09:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is better to semi-protect atleast, I infact requested for page protection last week, but seems my request was not heeded. 203.116.69.163 07:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Warning

message: Irrespective of the legal aspects, pros and cons, not a single depositor of 'Margadarsi' has complained so far. On the contrary many depositors have expressed their complete trust and faith in Ramoji Rao in many public media.
What is the basis of warnings about the postings against unsubstantiated allegations .The comment of tabloid journalism may be a misnomer,though removing of links posted in defence of the unsubstantiated allegations gives rise to such suspicions.
:This is not true. Maaparty 11:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Faith & Trust

message: I just added a few paragraphs and links to this topic pointing to reports (external links) which contain the allegations (Rangachary Reports) and Ramoji's response (Ramoji Response).
It seems reasonable that we move the discusion of "interpretation" of these reports (and facts therein) to another section so the differences may be discussed.
For example, is the Rangachary Report politically motivated? Does it even fall under judicial purview of the Govt in the first place? Will it stand the scrutiny of the courts etc.
The other point of view is that Ramoji Rao's chit fund business is inhrently uncompetitive. His companies have ben making losses, but privately held companies that they are, they are not scrutinised by stock markets? Is it an Indian Enron?
Just a suggestion.
No doubt, Ramoji Rao is the best person in Andhra pradesh, He has some values, for the sake of others or for him also, he wont cross his values. He was the Media King. No one can beat him nor defeat him. 
Ramesh Kandrakota  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.222.229 (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts v/s interpretation of facts 

message: I've just done a copyedit and sorted out some of the random external links to provide sources for a few of the claims in the article. It still needs a lot more work. I've added a neutrality tag: the article is far too journalistic and discursive, and doesn't read like an encyclopedia. -- TinaSparkle (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Substituted at 03:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ramoji Rao. 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/20110305032931/http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2002/07/05/stories/2002070501670400.htm to http://www.hinduonnet.com/businessline/2002/07/05/stories/2002070501670400.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion