"

 Lying comes too easily to you Mr.Kannambadi 

Mr.Kannambadi, 

Do you know that your attitude is also an equal put off to those who wish to contribute genuinely to wikipedia, engage in healthy discussions and arguments?  It is obvious that trusting you to be sincere in your approach and thinking you to be respectful of fellow contributors, I come up with explanation, sometimes or many a times in detail about historical events. Mind you the expression detailed in victory and silent about defeats was the one given not by me but by you to Nishkid. 

Also, do not resort to blatant lying on these pages (which you are clearly doing, first by saying that I have no sources - be realized that others can also read and write - and second, you are deliberately with malafide intentions creating a misimpression in wikipedia that I was banned for abusing and lack of sources. Be informed that it was neither of those reasons, because the first time I was blocked by Blinguen, it was completely and absolutely without any reason and the second time Blinguen came into my page, he did not express any objections to my contributions or changes to the Chola page, but first he commented that he is blocking me for he thought my contributions were my personal opinions and because he blocked me, he first of all did not engage in any discussions with me or try to explain as to how to make postings in the right manner (though I had indeed sourced the material properly but had not referenced the same) with the result that I got blocked before getting to discuss or even adding the necessary references or citations.  But it is good, this way you are only exposing yourself displaying your lack of spirit of accommodation.

I think I have put it as succinctly as one can, but what can you do, you will go on yapping I am writing detailed messages and creating confusion and what not?  Do you remember the manner in which you so very contemptuously retorted upon my providing even the weblinks like visitchitradurga.com, unnecessarily resorting to instructing about keeping one’s patriotism under control…. That is the problem with people like you, when people give reasons you come up with such unhealthy excuses, when people want to discuss history instead of talking about sources and citations, you tell them to keep their patriotism under control or start alleging that what we try to contribute are devoid of sources or are straightaway our personal opinions. How wrong can you be?  Well, that’s how some people like you are in this world!!!

So your way is pretty clear; either avoid any discussion, remove postings and contributions or cry and complain behind the back, get people blocked and start blaming them by speaking and spreading all sorts of lies.

The next time you want to speak about somone abusing, pl. recall with all vigour in what manner you retorted to Mahawiki - you told him first not to ""soil"" your talk page (what language and choice of words!!! and then you told him to go get the book by S.Kamat from a good library because you said such a library exists near your home..... if those are not insults, abusive manner of speaking, then what is.... but poor you, when I asked you to go and read Ancient India by either Roychowdhury or Sastri, you start looking out of the balcony!!!!!!

tsk tsk..

  

 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?

[