Surely user 59.92.173.134 is a sock puppet 

As is standard practice with certain users and their preferred admins, the old story is being repeated and I hope it is noticed by neutral administrators who can take both corrective action as well as let contributors like me know if at all anything has been done wrongly or in error otherwise.  The above user has once again like a trained puppet in the hands of his masters, chosen to parrot words passing comments on my contributions rather than discussing the content.  Surely his observations 1(a) no professional standard might be to an extent valid in that I am not a trained in editing in placing the references in article, but certainly I cannot be faulted for getting and sourcing the right references and that too utterly reputable and hence verifiable, completely genuine and original references - I hope original referencing is not dubbed as Original Research, which I do know is not permitted in wikipedia.  Sourcing and repeating the findings of epigraphists, archaeologists of national and international repute (the epigraphists include some international ones too) is somehow being considered wrong and instead of directly discussing the subject (I have of course, placed huge material on this very talk page but that has not been touched at all - but the same source whatsindia.com or K.A.Nilakanta Sastri has been sourced and used in other pages, but different yardstick is being followed by admins with regard to the page on the Cholas.

The above user's comment on the standard 1(c) and 2(c)is completely false and is an utter lie for the sources are available both in print and on the web for all to see. Certainly only a blind person could not see and place the sources referred and quoted.

I am sure neutral admins will see and intervene in the right manner.