===Belated Merry Christmas and Hello from N.Srinivasan: a few submissions on contradictions in Indian History pages: Thanks for your affirmative action in unlocking history pages:=

Dear Tiptoety,

I request you to have a careful look at the pages of history edited by User Dinesh Kannambadi who while claiming to source material from ‘reliable’ sources, is at the same time indulging in feeding of completely unverified and unreliable pieces of information.

This communication from me may kindly be regarded by you as one among a series of interactions with you with my sole aim being the betterment of history pages of Wikipedia and nothing else. 

It has been my experience while trying to contribute to history pages or indeed indulge in discussions for betterment of Wikipedia pages, whatever we do users like Dinesh Kannambadi have objected to always and have branded our contributions as vandalism and sourcing from POV websites etc.  

Just take note of the contradictory nature of his editing of history pages especially on the Chalukya Empires especially with reference to the Chola Empire (pls. also remember that in Wikipedia for God knows what reason, the pages on the Chola Empire have been christened as Chola Dynasty despite that the fact that the Cholas prospered at the helm of an empire having large territories not just in India but also overseas including Sri Lanka, Maldives, very large parts of South East Asia for at least 150 years of their existence.  Here are the examples: but before that I would like to say this that deliberately, user Dinesh Kannambadi has been trying to mention or project the Chalukya dynasty as some sort of a contemporary of the Chola empire and has even gone on to mention the demise of the Chola empire (saying that the Chola territories were taken over by the Pandiyas), which has a great weakness:  

the Chalukya dynasty had very weak kings from 1126 onwards and between 1135/1140 to 1175 their kings were displaced and the Kalachuris under Bijjala I and Bijjala II ruled Kannada country in India.  The Chalukyas did make a comeback but that was for just 10-15 years between 1185 to 1198 after which they went into oblivion.  I request  that you may kindly contrast this with the fate of the Cholas, whose kings from AD 1170 though were not as strong as their kings between AD 848-1165, yet one of their last great kings Kulothunga III on the strength of epigraphical and inscriptional evidence is said to have occupied Madurai, Karur and Sri Lanka (then known as Ilangai) between 1185-1200 AD.  He ruled for around 45 years though near the end of his rule he was indeed routed by the Pandiyans and held on to his empire with great difficulty, having Hoysalas as his allies.  Yet, even with weak kings following him after 1218, the Cholas lasted till 1279, when their last king lost to the Pandiyas and the Cholas went into oblivion.  

Contrast the above i.e. the demise of the Cholas in 1279 or 1280 to that of the Chalukyas, who were first of all without a capital for over 35 years and re-emerged for just 10-15 years and became history by AD 1195 or thereabouts.  Yet, jingoism seems to get the better of user Dinesh Kannambadi and he has written in the Western Chalukya Empire page as under:  the link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Chalukyas and the relevant portion of text is the following:

“This period saw the fall of two great empires, the Chalukyas of the western deccan and the Cholas of Tamilakam. On the ruins of these two empires were built the Kingdoms of their feudatories whose mutual antagonisms filled the annals of Deccan history for over a hundred years, the Pandyas taking control over some regions of the erstwhile Chola empire.”
Though (technically speaking at least) as per the version of Dinesh Kannambadi, the Chalukyas fell and demised in 1191/1195 and the Cholas demised after almost 9 decades in about 1279/80…. i.e. within a hundred years of each other… I would like to raise the question what is the justification for his expression …”This period saw the fall of two great empires…”  I mean what is meant by “this period” surely if both empires had fallen within two or three decades of each other, then the expression could be a little contemporaneous… but even as a weak empire the Cholas lasted till 1280 almost 84 years after the Chalukyas demised.. then what is the reason and justification for mentioning the demise of the Cholas when the subject on the page i.e. the Chalukya dynasty, which went into oblivion in the year 1191 or 1195???? 

The point is that whether it is mentioning the Hoysalas another Kannada empire or the Chalukyas, he is obsessed with their portrayals as some sort of contemporaries of the Cholas.. even while mentioning Chalukya architecture, user Dinesh Kannambadi cannot resist bringing in the Cholas;;; see this write u