User talk:Anup Ramakrishnan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Anup Ramakrishnan, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  deeptrivia (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Links for Wikipedians interested in India content

Welcome kit

Register

Network

Contribute content

 
deeptrivia (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Hello from Cyril

Hello, Anupji, Hope you are the same Anup Ramakrishnan from Manorama. Just to say hi...thanks for the edit in Marayoor section. --Cyril Thomas 19:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruins in the Gulf of Cambay

Hi Anup, that's fine, if you think the article could be more clear about the role of NIOT, and that of the other parties you mention who exaggerated the claims beyond what was published by NIOT, then by all means go ahead. As you can see from the article history and the discussion on the talk page a couple of months ago, much of it had been rewritten by a geoarchaeologist contributor who I think did a fine job of detailing the lack of any convincing evidence that this is a man-made site of great antiquity, and citing sources which debunk such claims. Perhaps it could be criticised for being written in a somewhat technical style, and it may not be clear to the general reader that (as you note) the only basis for thinking that the "findings" have anything other than a natural origin are one or two sensationalist claims which somehow have been picked up on in the wider media, but otherwise the idea that it is a genuine archaeological site are universally dismissed.

However, I don't think that straight deletion of the paras is the way to go- maybe reword them if you think they can be made clearer. And as for NIOT's role in all this, perhaps as an institution they have been more cautious, but the quoted paper by their chief geologist Dr Badrinayan does explicitly call their findings "genuine artifacts"- whether he is on his own here or is (or was) supported by others in the institution, I do not know. Regards, --cjllw | TALK 23:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That's OK, Anup. Will be happy to review the article and make any necessary adjustments, but will first have to do a little more research to find just what was officially published by NIOT, and what was perhaps just the personal view of Dr. Badrinayan- so it may take a little while to redress. If in the meantime you have access to such information, by all means feel free to do the rewording yourself. Kind regards, --cjllw | TALK 23:33, 27 July 2006 (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 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sachin Tendulkar

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Sachin Tendulkar page. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. - KNM Talk 03:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been adding nonsense again and again to that article, and please stop that. You wanted to know what 'nonsense' you were putting. Content such as "It is a shame though...." in an Encyclopediac article is nonsense and would be reverted on sight, and thats why your edits were reverted immediately by an admin User:Blnguyen on that day and by another admin User:DaGizza today. Please always provide a citation from a reliable source for the content you add. If you want to see citation for any of the existing content, please use {{fact}} template, or ask for the citations in article talk page. Hope you understand. Thank you - KNM Talk 15:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

+ Hello Dear Anup,

I am a new user of Wikipedia and I had difficulties in getting across my views on what I consider inaccurate pieces of information (even biased and blatantly partisan, if you like) in the history pages on Chalukya and Chola Kings. I tried to point out the inaccuracies and request wikipedia (neutral historians, that is) for reviewing my submissions and proofs and convey to me their decision. But nothing seems to be happening. Can you kindly get in touch with me and guide me.

My name is Narasimhan Srinivasan. email i.d. srirangam99@gmail.com. I am based in Delhi. I live in Ghaziabad on the outskirts of Delhi.

Could you pls. help me and get in touch with me pls.?

Srirangam99 (talk) 12:44, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

NEW MESSAGE FROM Srirangam99 - N.Srinivasan, New Delhi (hailing from Srirangam, Tiruchy, Tamil Nadu)

Dear Anup,

Many thanks for your encouraging and supportive response to my query.

You are correct about wikipedia demanding valid and verifiable sources in support of contentions and claims made in many of its pages. Like you of course, even I have varied interests like sports (tennis, football/soccer, table tennis, golf, indoor games like badminton etc. followed by cricket). I came into wikipedia pages because it was my son who wanted some material regarding the history of cricket, its evolution, various times when rule changes etc. were introduced, the MCC etc. Subsequently, he wanted something on Shakspeare and some South Indian Dynasties. That was when I started going through wikipedia history pages. Anyone like you and me would remember clearly being taught about the fact of great Kings like Ashoka, Samudragupta, Raja Raja I, Rajendra Chola and Narasimha Pallava being spoken in equitable terms as the main Indian (but not necessarily Hindu) kings who never lost in battle and made great contributions in fields other than administration and war etc. It is against this background that I merely took up the issue with Dinesh Kannambadi, regarding a claim made in the page on Chalukyan King Tailapa-II, who revived the Chalukyan dynasty by overthrowing Rashtrakuta kingdom. In this page (i.e. exclusively as mentioned in wikipedia pages), a claim is made that in 992 he vanquished Raja Raja I while in Raja Raja I's page in the same wiki, it is said that he took over as King in 985-986 (because Hindu calendars and Cholas followed the Shaka calendar, both of which do not begin from January 1 like English calendars)... and further that till the 8th year of his reign corresponding to 993/994 he did not fight any war nor led any expedition on behalf of his empire. That being the case, according to me there was a contradiction, according to me, in the page on Tailapa-II about his (forget about winning or losing in war), having fought Raja Raja I on the battlefield. Towards this (as you may have found out by going through my talk page and exchange of views and arguments with Dinesh Kannambadi), I made efforts to view the websites http://www.visitchitradurga.com/linkfiles/historyfiles/rechalukya.php and www.whatsindia.com/inscriptions (south indian) and found inscriptions between 990-996 issued by Tailapa-II and in none of those he has claimed any war (victory or defeat) against any Chola King. In contrast, on the Tailapa-II'page (you may like to have a look at this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailapa_II, where this claim is made about Tailapa-II's (imaginary, I would say) victory over Raja Raja I, but (in an exact mirror of your comment about reverting of your claims by other vested interests on the Sachin Tendulkar article in wikipedia "without producing verifiable sources") this very claim has not been backed up with any verifiable source.

I on my own, (I do admit) am relying heavily on mainly one source which I consider both authentic, honest and one that is thoroughly verifiable i.e. the www.whatsindia.com/inscription (South Indian Inscriptions).

As you may like to notice once again on my talk page, whenever I tried to back up my statements with verifiable information from websites, "historians" like Dinesh Kannambadi start lecturing on me on how we cannot write whatever we feel, when in fact, it is people like him (plus KNM, Blinguen etc.) who are not only writing whatever they feel and spreading lies in the process (especially in the pages on Chalukya and Hoysala pages, for they feel that it is their duty to portray any element, part and personality from the Kannada speaking region as being superior to others, as if people or persons or aspects from non-Kannada region have no identity at all. You see, they have indeed written in Rashtrakuta pages about kings from Pandya, Pallava or Chola trembling whenever the Rashtrakutan army moved [ref. page on Amoghavarsha-I and Govinda-IV) (is that not both superlatives being attributed to their favourites and showing the opponents of Rashtrakuta kings in a very poor light)?

Further consider this: Chalukyan Vikramaditya VI became king with the help of Virarajendra Chola by falling at his feet, (verifiable reference - Virarajendra's inscription at the Rajagopala Perumal temple at Manimangalam (pls. feel free to open, verify and feel satisfied yourself the hyperlink: http://www.whatisindia.com/inscriptions/south_indian_inscriptions/volume_3/no_30_manimangalam.html), became the Chalukyan King by dethroning both his father and his brother Somesvara-II, who was routed by Virarajendra Chola. So much so it is only around 50 years after his coronation that the Chalukya empire became strong enough to defeat the Cholas in the war for Vengi in 1119/1120... but this occupation too remained barely for 6 years for Vikrama Chola who succeeded his father Kulothunga I regained Vengi by routing the successors of Vikramaditya VI. Yet, in the page on Vikramaditya VI, it is shamelessly claimed that the Chola empire would never be able to emerge as a powerful kingdom in South India, when what is actually true is that not just Vikrama Chola but his successors like Kulothunga-II, Raja Raja-II not only retained control of Vengi (but Vengi was never occupied by the Cholas nor they had Chola vassals in charge at Vengi, but Eastern Chalukyas always had a ruler who was always friendly to the Cholas and participated in Chola wars against both the Western Chalukyas as well as against kingdoms like Kalingas etc.). Even more shamelessly (I feel Dinesh Kannambadi, KNM and their ilk are acting more like extensions of parochial elements from the forward looking state of Karnataka, like the Karnataka Rakshana Vedike and Horata Samiti - pls. see that in the pages on Karnataka (index), in the list of Important personalities feature undeserving personalitieslike Narayana Gowda, the founder of Karnataka Rakshana Vedike, which leads in agitation, violence and anti-lawful activities against non-Kannadigas in Karnataka plus Vatal Nagaraj, MLA from Chamarajnagar, whose anti-non-Kannadiga, especially anti-Tamil stance is very well known), it is claimed in the Hoysala pages about the victory of Vishnuvardhana over Cholas in regaining of Gangavadi, this was correct indeed. But what has been bypassed is the information on regaining (partially but not fully) of Gangavadi by Kulothunga-I's successor Vikrama Chola who regained Vengi also decisively by routing the Chalukyas. Vikrama Chola has claimed in his inscriptions as a King who caused actually the Kannadas, Kalingas, Pandyas and Cheras to tremble.

Well what I mean is that indeed I have been painstakingly accumulating information in support of my claims, I also represent to people like KNM and Kannambadi (looks like one is the alterego of another - you may see on Kannambadi's talk page of another gentlemen from T.N. pointing out about Kannambadi's needless opposition to what he thinks unwanted Tamil influence on Kannada language by pointing out many similar sounding words in Kannada to Tamil words and his admonishing and advising him to promote and love his language and culture, but not to hate culture, language and identity of people from other areas). But after my representation to KNM about my willing to be referred ti wikipedia for examination by neutral observers for appropriate representation of POV through verifiable sources, these people (deliberately in my view) have been keeping a steady and studied silence, I feel that they are unable to do anything about my irrefutable and thoroughly verifiable claims through historical inscriptions and proofs from the Kannada areas itself, but are unwilling to make any changes in the history pages which are very much preferred by them.

Pls. read my post carefully and offer your suggestions. Today being Tuesday, (yesterday, since Sat. last, I had offdays, being in Govt. service), I thought it was opportune for me to write to you considering your busy routine. I am so sorry for any unwarranted interference in your private routine.

Thank you so much and I eagerly await your reply in my talk page.

Srirangam99 (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3 rr block

I have blocked you per the edit warring as an IP on Viv Richards. According to [1] it appears to be you. Please edit constructively after the block exrired Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 2008

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Hi, please stop attacks against Blnguen. There is absolutely no need for the tone like this Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)