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 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 onwards and between to 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 years between to after which they went into oblivion i request that you may kindly contrast this with the fate of the cholas whose kings from ad though were not as strong as their kings between ad 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 ad he ruled for around 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 the cholas lasted till 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 or to that of the chalukyas who were first of all without a capital for over years and re emerged for just years and became history by ad 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 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 and the cholas demised after almost decades in about 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 almost 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 or 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