User talk:Srirangam99

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] willing to be adopted

{{adoptme|20080514092703}}{{-}}


Srirangam99 (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Zenlax has offered you adoption here. Are you seeking a different adopter? If not, just accept their adoption offer by replying on their talk page. Best, xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 17:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
If you are indeed seeking a different adopter, remove the nowiki tags from the dated adoptme request, otherwise, Zenlax's offer is still open. xenocidic ( talk ¿ review ) 02:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chalukya Dynasty

Hi. In the past two days you have been adding a lot of unsourced material which seems like POV to the articles on the Kings of the Chalukya Dynasty. I would request you to stop this and discuss about it. You have also tried to add unsourced info into the Badami Chalukya Architecture article without discussion. If you continue this, an adminstrator will be notified about this.Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Dinesh,

I find that in the articles on Chalukya Kings, attempts have been made to portray them in all glory while attributing both unverified and unsourced victories to Chalukya Kings and defeats to their opponents. An example in question is that after the defeat of Pulakesi II by Narasimha Pallava Vatapi remained in the occupation of the Pallavas for around 25 years up to AD 670 (with Narasimhavarman I or Narasimha Pallavan remaining in thrown up to 668 AD and being followed by Mahendra Varman II for four years). This being the case how come after accession to the thrown Vikramaditya I defeated Narasimhavarman I and drew him out of Vatapi? This itself is doubtful because Narasimhavarman I not only killed Pulakesi II in Vatapi but his armies are supposed to have completely destroyed Vatapi. Subsequent to Pulakesi II's death and destruction of Vatapi or Badami, the Chalukyas are supposed to have moved their capital from Vatapi to Aihole. There is no question of Narasimhavarman I being defeated and driven out of Vatapi. Pls. also read the page on Narasimhavarman I where it is said that he CAME BACK VICTORIOUS to Kanchi and installed a statue of Ganesha brought from Chalukya country which is still installed in a temple in Kanchi.

I am of course, new to the Wikipedia site and visited the site to collect information about Pallava architecture. But shockingly, contrary to whatever I have read in school, I found that the information given on a comparable basis between Chalukya Kings and the Chola kings is unfortunately composed in a manner that is blatantly favourable to Chalukya Kings. I do not know which historian it is who describes the Cholas as insufferably cruel in one page. Pls. tell me how the builders of such gigantic temples not only in Tamil Nadu but in Andhra and even in Karnataka deserve to be described as unsufferably cruel, when all they did was to fight with all their might and valour??? (as a proof, I would request you to visit the office of the Archaeological Survey of India at the Hoysaleshwara Temple premises where in a Board (to serve as a guide to various temples in Karnataka) where the list of Chola temples built by kings from the time of Rajendra Chola to Kulothunga I and Vikrama Chola are given - the list of Chola temples in Chalukya country or Karnataka itself is around 25 or 28 - yet, in none of the pages of Chola Kings these facts are attributed). Surely, these sort of machinations are being done by person or persons who are thoroughly jingoistic and do not have regard for what they regard as counter culture or people. Don't you agree that this is some sort of POV to the Chola Kings or kings not hailing from any part of Karnataka?

Also fancifully, it is described that in 992 Raja Raja Chola was vanquished by Tailapa II - pray, where is the proof of this unfounded and unsolicited information... Universally, the Gupta King Samudragupta, Maurya King Ashoka, Pallava Narasimhavarman I and the Chola Kings, Raja Raja I and Rajendra Chola I are universally regarded as the only great kings in Indian history who never lost a battle in their life. Then how come and from what source is the information about Tailapa II "Vanquishing" Raja Raja Chola I emerging from?All that has happened is that while Tailapa II did dethrone the Rashtrakuta and reclaimed the erstwhile Chalukya Empire, superlatives such as his imaginary victory over the Cholas have been added to his achievements. Equally shameful is the fact of Somesvara I (Ahavamalla) refusing to face Virarajendra I at Maski out of sheer feer, which fact is being masked by giving the information that Somesvara I was terminally ill etc. and that he drowned himself. The fact is Somesvara I suffered one defeat after another against the Cholas because even the act of Rajadhiraja I being killed on the battlefield at Koppam could not prevent the Chalukya army being defeated then and there by Rajendra II who immediately took the mantle of leadership on behalf of the Cholas. The glaring fact is that Somesvara I was unable and unwilling to face his own people for his inability to face the Cholas in the Battlefield and hence committed suicide. He was not terminally sick with any disease etc. which are utter lies.

Secondly, the next king Satyashraya is again described as having won victories against Rajendra and Raja Raja I. Let me inform you that NEVER in the history of the Chalukya and Chola Empire was a war between these two sides EVER FOUGHT IN CHOLA TERRITORY. WARS WERE ALWAYS FOUGHT IN DESTINATIONS LIKE KOPPAL, KUDALA SANGAMA, vIJAYAWADA (PART OF EASTERN CHALUKYA TERRITORY) AND OTHER PARTS OF KARNATAKA, BUT NEVER WITHIN ANY AREA CONTROLLED BY THE CHOLAS. With that being the case, what is the proof that Satyashraya defeated both Rajendra Chola and Raja Raja Chola I. It is also a fact in Chola history that after becoming the Yuvaraja Rajendra Chola was the one who participated in all wars for the Cholas with Raja Raja I only deputing his son to wars. That is the reason the statement of Satyashraya defeating Raja Raja I and Rajendra Chola I is absolutely concocted and false. You can consult any number of historians and they will all tell you Raja Raja I, Rajendra I, Ashoka, Samudra Gupta and Narasimha Varman never lost any wars in their life.

Also in the page on Satyashraya, how shamelessly the Cholas have been described: See for yourself:

Rajendra marched up to Donur near Kudalasangama and Unakal near Hubli and plundered the entire county, slaughtering women, men and children and threatening the Chalukya capital Manyakheta. Satyasrya was thus compelled to withdraw from Vengi and retreat to his kingdom in the western Deccan.

LET ME SAY IN CLEAR TERMS: NEVER IN HISTORY HAVE RAJA RAJA, RAJENDRA CHOLA I EVER BEEN KNOWN TO ATTACK WOMEN AND CHILDREN, AND THE ONLY MEN THEY ATTACKED MIGHT ONLY BE SOLDIERS. WHILE I SHARE YOUR DESIRE THAT ONLY THE CORRECT INFORMATION ABOUT CHALUKYAS SHOULD BE WRITTEN, IT DOES NOT GIVE ANYONE THE RIGHT TO ALSO WRITE ABOUT THEIR RIVALS OR ENEMIES ALSO IN DESPICABLY DEROGATORY TERMS. Please take time and read about the Chola country and society including status of women etc. which will prove how wrong is their description of attacking women and children. I am sure you will advice the concerned to delete those remarks against Chola Kings also. It is described that Rajendra marched up to Donur and Kudala Sangama. That shows the capacity of both Rajendra and the Chola army to penetrate deep into enemy territory. How many attacks did Chalukya Kings lead into Chola territory. They have nothing except the night attack and looting of Gangaikondacholapuram by Vikramaditya VI on the orders of Somesvara I during the time of Virarajendra, for which the Chola army not only routed them from their territories but also led the battle right in the heart of the Chalukya territory. No doubt the jingoists, not wanting to digest what actually is the truth are resorting to such cowardly and manipulative tactics as describing the greatest Chola kings as looters and killers of women and children.

I am sure you will surely have something to say on this despicable manner of interpreting history on the part of the interested persons.

Dear Srirangam, those articles I wrote are sourced from K.A. Nilakanta Sastri and S.U. Kamath, just to name two reliable sources among many. You are perhaps wrong. Vatapi was not in Pallava pocession for 25 years, rather opinions may vary, 12 years being a more popular number. DR. K.V.Ramesh (Director ASI) also confirms that. I also find much of the content in Pallava and Chola pages very wrong and misleading. So lets not try to reinvent the wheel and carry on with other issues, or this process could go on for ever. Since you are new to wiki, you may not be aware but this discussion has been had on other occassions with other wikipedians. Keep your "Uppecased" arguements to your self. Its extremely rude to write in uppercase. You are not the first wikipedian to come along and claim Pallava/Chola supremacy over the Chalukyas, nor will you be the last. Lets just sit back, savor the thought that all four empires; Badami Chalukyas, Kalyani Chalukyas, Pallavas and Cholas were great in their way and time. Lets leave it there and focus on building other articles. good luck.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dinesh,

What is the meaning of keep uppercased arguments to yourself?

I find it odd that a point I was trying to emphasize by bringing to the fore aspects of history that had completely been ignored in the articles which purport events surrounding Chalukya kings, but end up rubbishing and speaking in a very derisive manner about Chola kings has been taken by you in a wrong spirit. Moreover, you say the content shown in Chola and Pallava pages are unacceptable to you, then I would like to say that yes, I am indeed prepared for a discussion on those unacceptable aspects (to you) regarding the Cholas and Pallavas. In the same breath, were Prof. Nilakanta Sastri and S.U.Kamath direct witnesses to the fact that Raja Raja and Rajendra Chola plundered and looted people in Chalukya country and killed women and children? Did the Director of ASI also attest the fact that women and children were molested, raped and killed by the Cholas? It probably is in the pages on Chalukya and Hoysala kings that they are desperately sought to be portrayed to be superior over any one existing during their time. Much in the same breath the raiding, looting and damaging or property at Kanchi and Gangaikondacholapuram by Vikramaditya VI during the reign of his father Somesvara I is portrayed as a sack and attack while the victorious march of Rajendra I in Donnur and Kudalasangama is sought to be portrayed as pillaging, looting and killing of innocents including women and children. The Chalukyas in their lifetime never occupied an inch of Chola territory of any part of Tamilakam (even the war between Satyashraya and Rajendra Chola as representative of Raja Raja I was over control of Gangavadi and Nolambadi which were under Chalukya feudatories. Yes indeed, I am new to Wikipedia, but it appears that the falsification of history replete with lies and half-truths had been carried on with impunity, without anybody presenting the other point of view or there being a determination not to see the other's point of view. srirangam99

Please keep your patriotism under control. In wiki, we go by what the historans say. We dont write what we think is right.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 13:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

In the same breath, can I know which historian has attested to the fact that Rajendra I looted and killed women and children? At wikipedia, do historians also have wholesale sanction for spreading lies and half-truths. Pls. also see the wikipedia's own pages on Tailapa-II and Raja Raja I. In the Tailapa-II article a statement is made that in 992 Raja Raja I was vanquished while in the page on Raja Raja I, it is stated that Raja Raja I did not undertake any expedition till the 8th year of his reign, which must correspond to the year 993... plus also when we corraborate this with the historical events concerning Raja Raja I's conquest of Kandalur Salai and areas under the domain of Pandyas and Chera kings. All this was in the year 994 and the excerpts from that page are these:

The southern kingdoms of Pandyas, Cheras and the Sinhalas were often allied against the Cholas.[5] It was the case when Rajaraja came to the throne. Rajaraja's initial campaigns were against the combined Pandya and Chera armies. There is no evidence of any military campaign undertaken by Rajaraja until the eighth year of his reign. During this period he was engaged in organising and augumenting his army and in preparing for military expeditions.[6][7]

Kandalur Salai The very first military achievement of Rajaraja’s reign was the campaign in the Kerala country c 994 C.E.. Rajaraja’s early inscriptions use the descriptive ‘Kandalur salai kalamarutta’ (காந்தளுர் சாலைக் களமறுத்த). In this campaign Rajaraja is said to have destroyed a fleet in the port of Kandalur, which appears to have been situated in the dominions of the Chera King Bhaskara Ravi Varman Thiruvadi (c. 978 – 1036 C.E.).[8][9] Inscriptions found around Thanjavur show that frequent references are made to the conquest of the Chera king and the Pandyas in Malai-nadu (the west coast of South India). It is also further added thus in wikipedia pages only:

Some years' fighting apparently was necessary before the conquest could be completed and the conquered country could be sufficiently settled for its administration could be properly organised.[11]

This only goes on to prove that having fought his first war only in 993 i.e. the 8th year of his reign, there was no way Raja Raja I could have fought a war against Tailapa-II and either lost or won against him. Also if at all we have to join or gather pieces of history about a conflict between Tailapa-II, then two things become clear:

1. certainly Tailapa-II and Raja Raja I did not fight each other in the year 992 which is further corraborated by another illuminating fact of Raja Raja not undertaking any war expedition till the 8th year of his reign which is 993... that means Tailapa-II and Raja Raja did not fight in the year 993 also.

2. Because Raja Raja I undertook expeditions from the year 994 onwards towards the Pandya and Chera territories and could not have won those areas in a single day which is further backed by the lines "Some years fighting was necessary before the conquest could be completed......."" which means if nothing else the period 994 to at least 996 (if not a more practical period of 5 years between 994-999) was the one during which Raja Raja I was fully pre-occupied with his southern conquests. Further there is no evidence of any friendship between the Chalukyas led by Tailapa-II and the Pandyas/Cheras (because Pandyas and Cheras were definitely together mainly because of marital alliance and common interest in Sri Lanka) to commonly fight Raja Raja I that can be a supportive evidence to the existence of a (direct or indirect fight) between Raja Raja I and Tailapa-II. In any case when these very history pagest attest to Raja Raja-I's victory over Pandyas and Cheras followed by conquest of Sri Lanka earning him the sobriquet Mummudi Chola (occupier of three territories), there is no way that either this way Tailapa-II either crossed swords with Raja Raja I or was either victorious or defeated.... the fact of the matter is that Tailapa-II and Raja Raja I never confronted each other... The reason for this is also very clear:

Tailapa-II, in all fairness was a king who re-gained the Chalukya kingdom (thus far lost and controlled by the Rashtrakutas). He himself was controller of the Tardavadi-1000 province under the Rashtrakutas, surely during the period 965-973, he would have spent considerable amount of time and energy planning and plotting of ways and means to re-establish the Chalukya kingdoms, a task which was made easy with the last few kings of the Rashtrakutas being very weak with frequent rebellions by their feudatories. After Tailapa-II re-established the Chalukya kingdom in 973, surely he would have concentrated (especially considering the fact that he was based in Manyakhet which is extreme north-east of what is modern Karnataka), he would have concentrated in controlling and conquering areas that are immediately concurrent to his territories which would mean parts of South-West A.P., Western Karnataka (also Southern Karnataka) and Southern Maharashtra and parts of Gujarat which was under the control of (probably the) Anhilwad Chalukyas who probably were known as the Solankis and Shetrunjis. He could not have ventured into Chola territory as soon as 992. Further Raja Raja I did not fight any war till 993... also from 994 for at least 2 to 6 years Raja Raja would have been fighting Pandyas, Cheras and the Lankas. In any case, it is also mentioned in the Raja Raja page that he (probably first) invaded Sri Lanka in 993 and would have fought the Cheras and Pandyas during the later years which conquest as brought out earlier would have consumed time for the territories won to be brought under proper administrative control. This once again rules out any war between Tailapa-II and Raja Raja-I. When we consdier that Raja Raja I would have completed the conquest of the Chera/Pandya territories after 'Some years' (i.e. after 994) then he would have been free only between 998-1000 AD. In any case Tailapa-II himself was succeeded by his son Satyashraya in 996 or 997 AD.

Here is my basic attempt is to establish the fact that there was indeed no war between Raja Raja-I and Tailapa-II at least in 992. There is also absolutely no evidence to prove that these two crossed swords between 993-997 AD either. In fact the first known evidence of any war between Chalukyas and Cholas under Raja Raja I was later than AD 1000.

The above are the basis of my opposing what has been written in various history pages by wikipedia. I damn care about any claim of supremacy, real or imagined of either the Cholas or the Chalukyas, one is neither my cousin nor the other my uncle. I hold absolutely no brief, but at the same time when representing history before neutral readers, let us not at least resort to falsification and villification of people who cannot contest their portrayals.

Against these attempts of mine, I have noted Dinesh with utter disgust and dismay that you chose to give a dismissive reply using contemptuous words as under:

Please keep your patriotism under control. In wiki, we go by what the historans say. We dont write what we think is right.

Don't you think that the writers of rubbish who surely are blind as bats, under the garb of 'history' should be propagating falsehood as has been done under various history pages in this site, are the ones who need to keep their regionalistic jingoism under control and start writing what is actually correct and corraborative rather than foolishly imagining that what they think and do is right and others have no brains or thinking capacity? Let me add, that when two separate pages or chapters on contemporaneous personalities are showing different perspectives, points of view, then it should at least be admitted that there is indeed a different point of view existing or that the exactness of the concerned episode is unverified.

N.Srinivasan Srirangam99 (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

And now I suggest you watch your language. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a local newspaper where you can abuse other users. You will get the same advice from every senior wikipedian. Thank you. Dineshkannambadi (talk) 12:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply:

Is there nothing more for you to say (as a Senior Wikipedian) other than instructing people to watch their language? The incorrect and inaccurate content on the page on Tailapa-II was sought to be corrected and changed by me which I backed up with enough reason and evidences from wikipedia's other pages as explained above. No attention is sought to be paid on that and instead what we get are two line answers.

Srirangam99 (talk) 05:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article talk page

A tag has been placed on Talk:Tailapa II/Comments, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

redundant and orphan article-talk subpage. Comments moved to article talk page Talk:Tailapa_II#Comments

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. KNM Talk 17:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and the date will then be automatically added along with a timestamp when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. - KNM Talk 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Srirangam99, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk Page comments: Do not create a sub-page

A tag has been placed on Talk:Satyasraya/Comments, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Orphan sub-page of an article talk page. Comments moved to talk page.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. KNM Talk 15:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Satyashraya Concern

Hello. I have read through the post you left on my talk page and I feel I might have a few suggestions to help solve some of the issues about the article. First off, I would like to say that on wikipedia, discussion is key to solving problems. I would recommend that instead of adjusting the content on the page, you address your concerns on the talk page where other editors can discuss and share their input together. If edit warring was to occur, the article could be subjected to page protection or could result in editors being blocked. Both of these results are undesirable, so it is important that discussion, not edit warring occur. Also, if you wish to adjust the current content in the article, it is important that you provide reputable, third-party sources. If you see information that you feel is questionable and does not provide a source, you are welcome to add the {{fact}} template after the sentence in question and request for sources on the talk page. If after discussion occurs you are unable to reach a consensus, you are welcome to make a request for comment or a request for a third opinion. Hopefully this information will aid you. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 20:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] From Anup

Dear Srirangam,

Firstly wish you a Happy New Malayalam and Tamil New Year a bit in advance. I read your piece on my Talk page, and also most of your Talk page here before posting this. Before anything else, I have to tell you that while Wikipedia is a very novel idea and site, there were, are, and will always be people who shall try to post what they 'like' to see than even what they might really see, by either turning a blind eye to the fact or by refuting it. If you view my Contributions, you shall see that I have interest in a variety of topics, including History, both beyond and within Conventional. However I have been in a lot of trouble with some mean, fanatical Sachin Tendulkar fans who are claiming rubbish and lies for their man and they have been reverting my changes despite not authenticating their own claims.

In your case, it seems to be a kind of Chola vs Chalukya and Pallava vs Chalukya thing. The best I can do is make the changes for you, I can formulate the language if you want, but please keep in mind that Wikipedia wants sources, and valid ones at that. So please supply the correct articles's addresses on the Net along with what you claim. That is the best I can do in this regard. Also I usually cannot log into Wiki other than on Friday or Saturday night (I am in New York). So I shall not be here till before next week. But you could contact me at arkrishna1@yahoo.com and send me the points you claim and links to articles mentioning the same. Please do so after Tuesday, its difficult for me before that.

Regards, Anup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anup Ramakrishnan (talk • contribs) 03:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your query

Please see my message in response to your request here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I can't be your mentor because I don't have too much time for Wikipedia. I'm sure someone else will take you through. The problem with relying purely on epigraphic evidence is that interpreting them would amount to original research or synthesis. We need established scholars writing research papers or books on those instructionsinscriptions and not general websites. Something like the following:

Morrison, Kathleen D.; Mark T. Lycett (1997). "Inscriptions as Artifacts: Precolonial South India and the Analysis of Texts". Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 4 (3): 219, 224. 

You can add such citations by following the instructions here. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. By the way, please address me as just "Sundar". For your comfort, I'm younger. :-)

I see that you are continuing to add POV material which is either unsourced or WP:OR. This is against wiki policy. In one of the articles, a featured article, you have even put a tag right next to an existing citation in addition to adding ou own point of view in other sections. Your edits have even corrpted existing citations. You cant change the content of a citation from a reputed historian by adding your own point of view there. Do you understand what your are doing?. Please keep your ethnic patriotism under control. I seriouly suggest you discuss your edits with senior wikipedians who can guide you as to how to edit in wikipedia.thank youDineshkannambadi (talk) 13:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Further, I saw your comments on the talk page of user:Venu62 which goes like this portrayal of the Chalukya kings as being lovers or art or as exhibiting exemplary conduct and at the same time trying to portray the Chola kings in a relatively poor light, this despite the fact that during the entire existence of the Later Chalukya kings, not an inch of territory of Tamizhakam belonged to them and the Chola kings inflicted defeat after defeat on them. Your comments reek of jingoism and with such an attitude, it is hard to make positive contributions. To contribute in wiki, you need to come with an open mind and a broad approach in addition to bringing reliable sources. You cant write on any topic with such jingoistic feelings. Being new, you dont understand that the content in the pages you are edit warring on have already been scrubbed by Venu and myself to give a balanced view of multiple scholars from multiple locations in India. You cant just come in and start adding patriotic statemtnts that suit your ego. I hope you can try to be more deliberate and thorough in the future. I hope I dont sound rude, but you need to learn hpw to contribute on wiki. Thanks.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response to your query

Could Sundar do the needful for me pls.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For starters

Why dont you using reliable sources clean up Pandya kingdom that is in pitiable shape and will not create any POV problems. Once you learn how to edit without edit warring you can start balancing out other articles based on WP:NPOV Taprobanus (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I thought you may be interested in joining WikiProject Tamil civilization. We work on creating, expanding and making general changes to Tamil related articles. If you would be interested in joining feel free to visit the Participants Page! Thank You.

[edit] history of Western Chalukya Empire

Hello Srirangam99, I read with interest your discussion with Dinesh K here. You seem to have a good understanding and interest in South India's empires and kings. Please don't hesitate to add or delete details based on good reliable sources. Please take a look at WP:RS policy on reliable sources. I just reverted Western Chalukya Empire's page to the version you had. Please provide proper citastion to the details you add then nobody can question them/remove them (of course some disruptive editors do but that can be tackled). Please keep your cool when debating some points with your opponents. Looking forward to good contributions from you.--Aadal (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Srirangam99, it is best you listen to more experienced users like Sundar, Taprobanus and learn how to provide reliable information. Some users visit wiki occassionally and dont really have the grasp of it yet and may lead you in the wrong direction. This is the best I can advice you. thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Sundar and another user Arvind are indeed experienced editors. Some editors, you'll notice, will spend all their time here and yet they present a very one-sided view, as you've already observed in some of the articles. They have very little understanding of the importance of presenting a neutral perspective. This often happens because they are driven by some chauvinistic/nationalistic views (this applies to all kinds of regional, religious, linguistic types and it often applies to both opposing camps), to present the material in a skewed way. So sometimes, it is hard to convince either one of these camps to present the material in a neutral way. But there are many good and neutral editors and they also understand all the quirky, biased behaviors of some editors. The key thing is to have solid reliable sources WP:RS (books, journal articles and not websites, unless they are reputed academic websites - remember that some of the contents of books and journals can be searched using google facilities, like google books, and some through amazon.com's facilities). Please be polite, focus on the points and refrain from making comments on persons, in spite of their abrasive comments. Hope you have an enjoyable ride and make useful contributions.--Aadal (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

Hi there. I saw this in which you added a significant chunk of text with unreliable sources. I would advise that you use reliable sources like history books or scholarly works to source your additions. Please also don't edit war. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 19:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Srirangam99, I have gone through the lengthy message you have left on our talk pages. These are the things I see, Not one of the opinions are based on book sources. All comments are based on web pages. You are continuing to interpret inscriptions single handedly leaving us wikipedians no reason to depend on historians. This is against wiki rules. This , as explained by myself and two admins, (Sundar and Nishkid64) is WP:OR and hence unacceptable. Your comments such as these reek of WP:OR,

  • Can someone pls. tell me how a historian would come to conclusions like XYZ being the extent of his territories and of which were the empires or kings he confronted and won over or got defeated in war?
  • my reply, Dinesh, is a simple inscription (yeah it helps if it is available in the first place and sure, it establishes facts even more, if it is undamaged or has minimum damages or is in a condition that makes it readable and translatable by established and expert archaeologists
  • What I mean is that when these irrefutable evidences are present, what is the need for anyone to 'rely' on historians to tell us (in any case they cannot say anything new) either about historical events like these or indeed about the contents of these inscriptions.
  • * in fact I have made a list of all these inscriptions and would be forming a team with my brother to go and see this inscriptions personally, not that I may understand them because they too are in old Tamil and Tamil Grantha characters - but just to corraborate whether they are indeed planted or placed on the locations mentioned in www.whatsindia.com.

I sincerely suggest that you step back, take one topic and one issue in that topic at a time. You seem to be really confused, jumping from article to the next, one king to the next and one issue to the next with little cohesion. You are new wikipedian. Wikipedia etiquette requires you to work with established wikipedians in a deliberate and purposeful way so as not to get dejected. You have already shown strong ethnic feelings in your note to Venu. I really hope you can slow down. Every statement in a FA has to be balanced across several book sources since it is common for historians to differ in views. I sincerely hope that you learn to follow wiki rules. I have tried to be patient with you. Even two admins have explained to you to use reliable book sources, but you are continuing your own research. I have left a gist of my opinions about all your comments on Admin Nishkid64's page. I hope we can resolve this amicably. FA's take much effort to write, balancing view across the spectrum. It is very easy to edit war, wield a few web pages, cause commotion and try to rewrite history based on ones WP:OR.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi Srirangam99, please be patient. I fully understand the points you're saying and the validity of them. However, in order to succeed in your goal of straightening out many of the POV statements in the articles you're interested, one has to go rather deliberately, armed with incontrovertible facts and evidences. Some of the editors are using the "literal sense" of the policies and are pushing POV. But it has to be opposed with proper methods and so please don't be in a rush to correct them without sufficient quotes from WP:RS. You can use inscriptions and the website you're referring to is something I know well. But the contents of that website will have to be used in combination with words from books and articles. Your deep interest and knowledge in this filed can be very helpful in correcting POV in many articles, but please don't be agitated and go slowly, armed with citations from books and articles. Please don't clash with senior admins and a certain amount of order is important. Some of the words of certain editors can cause you emotional agitation and so please don't fall a prey to those. I'll be happy to help you, but let us go one step at a time. More later..--Aadal (talk) 21:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Let me know which article you want to first start making correction to. I know there are many interconnected articles, but if we line up the evidences from published sources (including specific inscriptions, if one can point to), in support of your points, them it is easy to insert or modify the contents based on the evidences you have. For example you added a "fact" tag for the statement "Satyasraya was able to defeat crown prince Rajendra Chola", but then there is a quote from Kamath 2001 page 102, immediately after your "fact" tag. I don't have the book now, but the google books has this citation on page 107, which says "Satyashraya had even defeated crown prince Rajendra Chola according to.." See here Now, Kamath may not be presenting a correct view or the complete view. So, in order to counter this, you can bring reliable evidences (say original inscriptions, with details and citations from books or research articles). Next you added "(with the Western Chalukyas ceasing to exist by 1189 with the Cholas lasting nearly another century)" in the article, but have not provided a support from books or articles (you need to cite these precisely). The present write up in the article may be faulty or may have a POV, but the way to correct it, is to provide evidence for the opposite view. Eventhough you may be right about a point, it is important how you present it in a convincing and clinching way. Please note that there are lots of biased writing even in books and articles, but the way to counter is to provide evidences with opposing views. I'll be watching the corrections you'll be bringing to these articles with interest. But please be cool and follow the wiki rules and policies. It is possible to bring the right perspective and NPOV. Good luck.--Aadal (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Further, as we handle one point at a time (and one article at a time), it has to be done on the talk pages. No content can or should go on a FA unless proven with reliable citations. Again, personal interpretations of inscriptions are not accpetable per WP:OR. The theory has to come from a historians from a reliable source. All book sources must come with publisher, page number, book ID number (ISBN/OCLC). And most importantly, the theory has to be a world view, in other words, a popular view. If three historians make one claim and one sole historian makes a different claim, the majority view gets credibility. So long as you follow Wiki rules, you have a chance of getting your inputs accepted and into the articles. Remember, no amount of etnic jingoism can help on wikipedia, only hard work and research (not original research) helps. Hope you keep this in mind. Eventaully, any source you bring will be examined by more users then just you and me.Thank you.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Despite repeated requests from multiple users asking you not to use POV websites, you are continuing to violate an FA. This is in violation of wiki rules. You are a new user and are supposed to discuss matters with established users, bring reliable sources to the table. I advice you to stop this. I request you to step back, go one step at a time, bring book sources with Pubisher, ISBN/OCLC and page number information. I have informed an admin about your activities.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adoption

Would you be interested in being adopted? If so, please don't hesitate to leave me a message. Zenlax T C S 20:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:OWN

Hello Srirangam,
Couple of edit-summaries provided by you while editing Chola Dynasty article made me to post this message to you. I am referring to your edit summaries such as Let this page be in the care of the Tamil Nadu group and let this page be maintained by the T.N.Group pls. These are unacceptable demands. No individual nor any workgroup has any kind of ownership on any article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that anyone can edit. To get more details on what I am trying to say, I request you to read and understand WP:OWN policy. Thanks, KNM Talk 06:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peace

Dear Mr.Srirangam, please see my message at Talk:Chola Dynasty#Major revert. Let's first defend its FA status fixing issues being raised at its review. Otherwise, the article may lose its coveted status. Being featured means it's considered among one of the few hundred top quality articles of the two million plus articles in this Wikipedia. We can always implement the changes that you intend to make including moving to a new title. But, please wait until the review gets over and we can have a discussion on this. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 06:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reply

Sundar (you can call me Srinivasan or Cheenu)... I think first of all the title of this page is a misnomer.... if it is to be retained as an FA with the name Chola Dynasty -- then let it not be an FA. Besides, all attempts seem to have been made not to describe the Geography and the Political history of the Chola empire.

I think the 'Chola Dynasty' (sic.) page does not give correct or accurate information and it appears to be sufficient opportunity was not given to the building of this page as 'Chola Empire' instead of Chola Dynasty.

In case the article has to stay and exist in its current form then I OPENLY SAY LET IT NOT BE AN F.A. AN ARTICLE WHICH GIVES FALSE INFORMATION AND STARTS OFF BY (FIRST OF ALL) HAVING A PATENTLY WRONG TITLE NEED NOT REMAIN AN FA.

In case my opinion matters, I will vote on any day for this article to be taken off the FA list. Rather I would prefer an article which speaks the truth even while remaining a non-FA.

Your communication to me after Blinguen blocked me without interacting with me or assigning any reason whatsoever was very strange to say the least.

Also funny was KNM wanting to tell me what is right or wrong, but not at all bothering to reply to me when I wrote a long and lengthy note on his talk page regarding my genuine objections on a Chalukya article.

Thanks

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Srinivasan, I noticed the block only after posting the above message. If you want to get the block revoked, you can add {{unblock}} to your talk page with a valid reason.
As for your concerns about the "misinformation" in the article and FA status, I've expressed my position at WP:FAR#Chola Dynasty. You're welcome to disagree. But, in any case, Wiki is not set in stone, so we can always get factual inaccuracies as POV-pushing fixed by checking sources. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 08:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I've blocked you for repeatedly disrupting the Chola dynasty article, persistently adding in large chunks with no references at all, personal commentary and continually changing the title of the article. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


This will not get you anywhere, calm down do you research get WP:RS sources, write up in Neutral language and do it without without attacking anyone personally otherwise you will get blocked for good and Wikipedia will loose a commited editor who happens to be a newbie. Taprobanus (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sundar is right that Wiki is not set in stone. After all, in my honest opinion, Wikipedia for some people is a playground to live out their fantasy dreams. For some folks it is a place to change history by stating that the Cholas were not an Empire, and that Saigon still exists. Other than that, keep up the good work in presenting the truth, but please do go by the guidelines of Wikipedia. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reply

Ok Taprobanus and Wiki Raja that may not be getting me anywhere. In case any method was wrong then it should have been pointed out to me. Instead, those who actually had a problem simply went to Blnguen and he comes in and starts blocking people. Wasn't he himself blocked twice in 2006? I don't deny that I was indeed angry and did make personal comments which I wouldn't call personal attacks because the points I made pertained both to the earlier unwarranted and unnotified intervention by Blnguen in blocking me, which everyone is sure he did not do it on his behalf and he did thus entirely because others did not engage me in any discussion but rather they wanted someone to act on their proxy.

I have two questions: First of all I saw the history of the Chola article in which all Blnguen must have done is to review and make grammatical changes, his own profile shows that he does not know Hindi or any other of the languages spoken in India except English. I objected to his blindly commenting on me not posting sources and indeed going on to say I made a personal commentary on that important page of history which is being constantly vandalized. He misused his powers because he is too aware that he is an admin while people like me aren't. A good admin must act as a good guide in case he feels that a wikipedian is not up to the mark in his contributions. Instead he comes and acts like a bully. In notifying me this time (that too wrongly, for he should have pointed out that my method wasn't proper and should have told me the right way to go about it instead of blocking me and then telling me he did so), he should have told me what he knows about the topic in question and how much I do not know or how much was I on the wrong path. The history of this article shows no contribution whatsoever from Blnguen. At least someone who has made a direct contribution, reflecting his knowledge of the subject has the right to make a justifiable intervention. Whatever little Blnguen did appears to have been indirect and passive work on this page. That being so, what is the justice for his coming in and blocking people and then commenting on what they have done etc. etc.

Besides I too have been keeping my eyes and ears open at least on this increasing notorious field called Wikipedia history pages. I too did search on not just some people with narrow vision thought of me but what other wikipedians in general have thought about my ways in wikipedia. It is fine user Earth did some reversions but at least he was careful enough to notify another senior wikipedian like LittleOldMe (I don't know if the latter is an admin or not).. but the reply of LittleOldMe was an eyeopener. While he did not commend me on what I am doing, he was clear enough on commenting on the way Earth objected and labelled my editing as 'vandalism' and that too he made his views clear not once but twice. Are we therefore, to believe that Blnguen is made of some other stock to remain complely untouched by similar and proper conduct, decency and values as exhibited by other Wikipedians?

All said and done I am indeed having one wish unfulfilled: I would like to interact with Blnguen on what he knows about the history of the Chola kingdom and enlighten myself about all thus far unknown and fascinating details of (the imaginary kings - who seem to be a favourite of a chosen clique and coterie in wikipedia) - the CHALUKYA CHOLAS.

Srirangam99 (talk) 08:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] WP:INDIA Tagging with TinucherianBot for WikiProject Tamil Nadu

FYI- Your attention and help is requested .You are receiving this note as you are the member of the project -- TinuCherian (Wanna Talk?) - 09:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)