Is it a genuine user 

A user 59.180.173.138 (details given below) has deleted my contributions and has pretended to be an admin (probably) but his user page is blank.  I went to his user/talk page and saw the wikipedia message about the user page not existing and no messages either being posted for the said user.  what I saw on that talk page is copied below:

Support Wikipedia: a non-profit project. — Donate Now
Editing User:59.180.173.138
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. In general, this page should be created and edited by User:59.180.173.138.

Nonetheless, it is good to see such fictitious people emerging and these new 'entities' are probably one among the scores of sock-puppets being used for manipulation on wikipedia.  

It is of course pointed out that I have not made any personal attacks but pointed out not just glaring contradictions and discrepancies but also but steadfast refusal of such 'contributors' to realize these points and make corrective action.

I have posted in detail above about my contributions on the Chola dynasty and explanations and justifications for such postings along with not just the sources but also the quality of such sources and information.

I am indeed waiting for detailed discussions in case required. Unless that is done, any deletion of my contributions without assigning reasons is also as improper, as per established Wikipedia norms, as posting or making additions to an article without giving sources and references.

I am sure a neutral admin like Taprobanus and other contributors from the Tamil Nadu group will certainly reason in my trying to better the quality of the article on Chola Dynasty.  

Through the medium of this post, I also request the admins to initiate a debate on the origins of the so-called 'Chalukya Chola dynasty' which according to me never existed... (all the inscriptions right from Kulothunga I to the last Chola king Rajendra III) bear evidence to the fact that these kings either directly or indirectly, NEVER addressed themselves as Chola Chalukya or Chalukya Chola.  It is again the handiwork of manipulators who seek to maintain and continue the title Chalukya Chola.  By the same token kings after Vikramaditya VI in the Chalukya page should be called Chola Chalukya because that king was a son in law of Virarajendra Chola.. and Hoysalas after Veera Ballala II starting with his son Veera Narasimha should be called Hoysala Chola or Chola Hoysala because Ballala II was a son in law of Chola king Kulothunga III.

Thanks.