`   === 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 he doesn't like, in black.  Mr.Kannambadi has repeatedly contested two points unnecessarily in my view:  First in the page on the Western Chalukya dynasty he has himself contributed as agreed by everyone that this dynasty came to an end by 1189/95.  When one reads the article on Chola dynasty, it emerges that the last king of the Cholas Rajendra IV was defeated and we do not hear of any successor after his defeat by Pandiyans in 1279 AD which means that even though the Chola dynasty ended by 1279 (maximum 1284 as has been stated by most historians - here we are not talking about minor rulers using the title Chola in both Tamil and Telugu countries up to 1480 AD - that is the year probably 1489 when a 'Chola' king is supposed to have repaired and renovated the Jambukeswarar temple on the outskirts of Tiruchirappalli as per inscriptions found inside this temple... but we accept that the Cholas were no more after 1279/80.  Sir, the basic question rises is that first Kannambadi says that both dynasties fighting each other drained themselves out, but that may be or may not, but we can see clearly that while Cholas continued (more apt to say limped after 1220 AD because by that time the Pandiyans were most powerful and had sent out the Hoysalas out of Kannanur Kuppam by 1260/68) up to 1279, the last valiant king of the Chalukyas was Someshwara IV who regained his empire somewhat from the Kalachuris in 1183 but he too was not heard off atleast after 1190 (maximum 1195) so 1195 and 1279 are years separated by nearly eight and a half decades. Then why should the demise of the Cholas be mentioned in the page of a dynasty that went into oblivion 84 years earlier?  You may judge for yourself. When I mention this point he talks about sources as if no one has any proof on this. Sir, to make the point straight, no historian disagrees that the Chalukyas were no more after 1190 or 1195 and the Cholas were not heard of after 1279/84. Yet Mr.Kannambadi wants proof.  If he cannot believe that the Chalukyas did not demise by 1195 then in which year did this dynasty end... if at all he found this contention unacceptable why did he not challenge it? I too have never claimed that Chola dynasty lasted beyond 1279 or 1284, but only that because it demised LATER, the same never merited mention in the Chalukya page that too the expression that the territories of the Cholas were taken over by the Pandyas.  Sir, they were, but why mention it in the page of a dynasty that demised 84 years earlier?  Comic, it seems, doesn't? That too, in a page which has been (I don't know by which enlightened brain) graded as FA category article.  Second, Mr.Kannambadi has interfered with actual history in the Chola dynasty page, by repeatedly seeking to retain the expression that the Chola power waned and finally demised due to the Pandiyans and Hoysalas.  Sir the Chola power waned and it was consumed finally by the Pandiyans, but not the Hoysalas.  Because the said expression (that the Chola dynasty demised due to growing power of Hoysalas and Pandiyans) is completely wrong and misplaced, because in the first place, histrory is witness to the fact, that the Hoysalas and the Cholas DIRECTLY fought only one war, i.e. the war for Gangavadi.  Subsequently, during the times of Veera Ballala II, while surely the Chola kings were not as powerful as kings like Aditya, Raja Raja, Rajendra, Veera Rajendra or even Vikrama, still Veera Ballala II, who along with his son Narasimha was defeated by the Kalachuris under Bijjana II were themselves facing strong adversaries in Kannada country and to strengthen themselves in Kannada country they simply allied through marital relations with Kulothunga III's Cholas. This helped the Cholas, though only for a limited period, to counter the growing power of the Pandiyans of Madurai.  The Cholas and Hoysalas under Narasimha defeated Maravarman Sundara Pandiyan after which the Cholas also invaded and occupied Ilangai (Sri Lanka). This as again attested by Prof. Huntzsch, was the reason the king Kulothunga III of the Cholas bore the epithet or title 'the one who took the crowned head of the Pandiya (an expression used by Raja raja and Rajendra Chola I also), who took Karuvur (modern Karuvur from probably the remnants of the Adigaimans) and one who took Ilangai (he also occupied Cheranadu).  This is attested by Prof. Huntzsch as well as by R.C.Roychowdhuri in his book Ancient India where it is mentioned that Kulothunga III also fought successfully against Veera Ballala II (probably this was prior to their friendship and their marital alliance). Veera Ballala II's son Narasimha was also allied to Raja Raja III (a weak Chola king) by marriage and helped him escape the clutches of the later Pallavas under Kopperinchunga.    Sir, I mentioned the above historical incidents to prove that while indeed the Hoysalas were power, probably more powerful than the Cholas, there still was no threat from them 