Who is a vandal, Mr.Dinesh Kannambadi 

Do not accuse others of being vandals.  Because Ninlil's intervention did not seem partial to you, you have resorted to getting the page 'blocked from edits in the garb of it being an FA category (howsoever inaccurate' by Yellowmonkey.

Now whom should the question be asked: whether it is appropriate to mention the demise of the Cholas along with the demise of the Chalukyas, when it is clearly known to everyone that the Chalukyas first remained without a capital for over 30 years up to 1160/65 and finally demised in 1189/1192 AD with the Cholas lasting another 9 decades before being routed and finally eclipsed by the Pandiyans in 1279 AD?. This is simply because there is no relationship between the demise of the two kingdoms, the Cholas did not cause extinction of the Chalukyas or vice versa. The demise of the Chalukyas does not deserve mention in the Chola page even though the Cholas existed, but mainly because the Chalukyas were mainly consumed by their local rivals.  Then what could be the reason for mentioning the demise of the Cholas in the page of the Chalukyas who demised many, many years before them?  

Can we also be enlightened under what rules of Wikipedia not understood by vandals, is this kind of editing and then awarding an article such as this riddled with holes is permissible?