"

 Reply in good faith to Ninlil from Srirangam99 

  Dear Ninhil, I thank you very much for intervening... at least this much is accepted by a neutral arbitrator that in case two authors differ in their versions, both versions must be allowed to be retained.  Since you wanted specific instances, in the book named Ancient India (1956) by K.A.N.Sastri, he has stated clearly while describing Rajendra Chola I that among the list of conquests (at one point he stated clearly thus:) 'next was the turn Satyasraya who was defeated and banished out of his capital'.  This can be contrasted with the statement in this Article that Satyasraya was able to control Chola aggression basing his contention on material from author Suryanath Kamath, without commenting on the accuracy of Suryanath Kamath's version, I accept your verdict that both versions should be allowed to be retained.  Dinesh is also erring badly when he writes subsequently in this article about Jayasimha also fighting hard with the Cholas (in fact Rajendra Chola ruled during the time of Satyasraya as well as Jayasimha and has claimed to defeat both) and also goes on to add that both sides lost and won but both K.A.N.Sastri and Rajendra's inscriptions at the Tanjore temple (courtesy the summary of Prof. Huntzsch, noted epigraphist appointed by the Archaelogical Survey of India, a body of the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Govt. of India, whose finds are given in detail at inscriptions.whatsindia.com/ - a site despised unnecessarily by Dinesh Kannambadi as a POV site because its findings go against 'historical events and their conclusions' of his liking) state that he emulated his father in winning the 'seven and a half lakshas of Rattapadi' and where Prof. Huntzsch has clearly arrived at the conclusion (after reading Chola inscriptions from the times of Raja Raja Chola because it was from his time onwards that there were several wars between the Cholas and Chalukyas) that winning seven and a half lakshas of Rattapadi meant winning the war and levying tribute on the losing Chalukya king.  Satyasraya lost twice, once to Raja Raja Chola when the Chola army was led by his son Rajendra and once to Rajendra, who also went on to defeat Satyasraya's successor Jayasimha II and Prof. Huntzsch once again attests the expression by Rajendra Chola I in the inscription at the Tanjore temple, a World Heritage site ': ""the seven and a half lakshas of Iratta-padi, (which was) strong by nature, (through the conquest of which) immeasurable fame arose,[7] (and which he took from) Jayasimha, who, out of fear (and) full of vengeance, turned his back at Muyangi and hid himself"", as the Chola once again winning the war (this time it was over Vengi with the Chola army first routing the Chalukyas near Rajahmundry and subsequently at Masangi (called Muyangi in the Chola inscriptions in Tamil langauge), causing their king Jayasimha to banish and then levying tribute on the defeated Chalukya.' These have been attested by both K.A.N.Sastri and R.C.Roychowdhuri in their two books of the same name i.e. Ancient India.  

To repeat the above, the author R.C.Roychowdhuri in his book Ancient India borrows heavily by quoting extensively from K.A.N.Sastri - this unfortunately, goes against the thinking of user Kannambadi who is repeating blindly that I have no sources - I can assure you certainly I can read and write. It is very poor in taste, the expression of Dinesh Kannambadi who has gone on to justify my previous blocking, as is evident on my talk page dear Ninhil, this was done by user Blinguen an admin probably, who barged into my talk page and blocked me without giving any reason the second time i.e. he violated two rules of Wikipedia which are being advocated by Dinesh Kannambadi and another clique at work in wikipedia, first they ask people like us, who draw from sources and post at times historical events which are not palatable to them,  that we should first post on the discussion page, but in my case I was straight away blocked on the first occasion by user Blinguen who certainly did not discuss with me on the article discussion page nor did he discuss the topic itself with me.  The second time Blinguen entered my talk page, left a comment that he did not like what I wrote for he thought what I wrote was a personal commentary (when in actuality, it was a summary of Chola historty from which I drew from Prof. Huntzsch's summary from inscriptions.whatsindia.com/ but had made the mistake (I am not shy of admitting I make mistakes) of not posting the source, but before I realized and re-entered the Chola page, I found first that I was not able to edit and found to my horror that Blinguen has arrived at a certain conclusion and blocked me without giving me a chance to explain, discuss or argue with me on the concerned topic and its contents, just as Dinesh Kannambadi is trying to do now by painting anyone whose findings