Talk:Malliya Rechana

No disputed accuracy

Some people are purposely maligning the article.I have meticulously gathered so many online evidences.

If scholars say 'earth is round' some half-knowledged person will argue that 'earth is flat'. It does not become disputed. Personal opinions don't count.

One person was disputing Central Sahitya Academy's reference.But there was no counter evidence filed.

After some one put disputed tag ,I have provided hard-hitting web available references of P.V.P Sastry, Arudra, Nidudavolu Venkat Rao, Chaganti Seshayya etc .

There was no counter reference by anyone for the following.

1)https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.491601/2015.491601.telugu-marugulu#page/n95/mode/2up

2)https://books.google.co.in/books?id=ObFCT5_taSgC&q=Mallia+Reca#v=snippet&q=Mallia%20Reca&f=false

3)https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.373092/2015.373092.Sri-Andhra#page/n17/mode/2up

4)https://archive.org/stream/Palkuriki_233/NidudavoluVENKATARAOGariRachanaluParisilana#page/n97/mode/2up

There is no better EXPERT/SCHOLAR than Arudra or P.V.P Sastry or Venkat Rao because Arudra has written six volume Telugu history.That is why central Sahitya Academy mentioned Arudra in its references.

If you still you want to prove earth is flat, go ahead,do some R and D or hire an expert outside the scope of this article.But don't mark this as disputed, because no one challenged the above references with a counter-reference as of date. And even in case you find a challenge, MAJORITY scholars' opinion matters- This is wikipedia guieline.

To visitors of the page

I have not replied(and not interested)to some allegations (both personal and content related) made by one of of the persons here who was just writing some things based on just prejudices,stereotyping etc with out doing any balanced research and rubbishing earlier scholars' works.

I have provided all these references in the articles

1) Scholars have as far as 1-2 centuries ago considered references to Lemulawada and Bheema kavi .1829 - Biographical Sketches of Deccan poets( calcutta antiquarian dept with authentic sources).1918,Prabandha Ratnavali, 1917 Kavijanasrayam , 15th century Simhasana Dwatrishinka etc etc

2) Scholars have identified Malliya Rechana with Nizam Rashtram and Kavijanasrayam's affinity to Vemulawada,Karimnagar and possible antiquity more than 100 years ago.(Veturi Prabhakara Sastry's pre-Nannayya Chandassu)

3) Vemulawada was the only Jain Literary/Knowledge hub in Telugu speaking areas - P.V.P Sastry.

3) Unlike the British,the Nizam has not encouraged Telugu,research on Telugu history and many scholars had to learn only Urdu.Peots had to keep their works in private.People had a memory of their history only in their minds and not in books.Until Suravaram Pratapa Reddy,not much has happened in Telangana with regards to writing the history etc.,

While on the other side,in the Madras British Presidency,CP Brown has written Telugu dictionary, British govt encouraged works on Telugu history.So a lot of scholars from the British ruled areas were front runners in composing many works. and there was a competition too , a lot of differences of opinions with in their works.

Obviously a number of references will be from the works of scholars from the British presidency.Since wikipedia accepts only references and not from people's mind, it is inevitable.

4) The regionalistic differences that arose after 1968 were due to the people who discriminated based on prejudices and stereo typing and it has got nothing to do with the balanced people

5)Some British presidency scholars wrt Pothana who have not considered Nizam rashtram intially(due to a distance developed between the Telugu speaking regions) have later changed their view and finalized that Pothana belonged to Warangal atleast 100 years ago. --Abrahmad111 (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Abrahmad111 and SubhashiniIyer:
The edit warring between you two is making the article unstable. Assuming good faith on both of your side, it is requested to both of you to discuss any disputes or differences of thoughts on this talkpage instead of talkpage of any individual user, and not at all through edit summaries. Also, kindly take this discussion as a formal notice. Further disruptive editing will be reported at WP:ANI.

If you two cant agree on something, then it is suggested to take the issue to dispute resolution center. Happy editing (without disputes). —usernamekiran(talk) 12:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

---

Thanks usernamekiran for your advise. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Both of you were blocked previously for 24 hours, if your behaviour continues the same, the next block will be even longer. @SubhashiniIyer: Thank you. I hope both of you will edit politely. If there is a difference of opinion, I suggest both of you to try to talk it out. If it isnt solved this way, it is suggested to get a third person's opinion. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks usernamekiran, will keep honoring what you have said. I hope the other person tries to work together and not incite edit wars. He removes authentic 100 yrs old The Indian Antiquary research publication information and adds much newer information from thesis works and individual debating works and also combines his own personal theories which do not have any references. I have kept his referenced works and added my much older well documented information, he still removes mine to only put forth his theories. Anyways Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by SubhashiniIyer (talk • contribs) 12:47, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks usernamekiran

usernamekiran,

First things first.There is no point in arguing with a person who rejects "Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature" book which is the latest 2003 book and compares it with 100 year old 1902 journals. Kendra Sahitya Academy are not fools NOT to consider all these journals.She should present new references rebutting the Sahitya Academy books and books mentioned below.

Having said that,I can continue debating on normal issues

SubhashiniIyer, Please note that I have a lot of regular work and I am already spending more time because of repeated disruptive editing.Kindly wait for responses

Please do 1) Unbiased discussion 2) Focus on content 3) Stop degrading a region 4) stop saying personal theories.. All Info I put is from BOOKS.She can buy the following hard copies And there are NEWSPAPER ARTICLES.She should go to Telugu library.

Arudra samagrandhra sahityam - Arudra Samagrandhra vignanan kosam - Nidadavolu Venkat Rao Toli Telugu Grantham - Y.V. Rao

5)Infact she is telling personal theories of lembulawada , politically motivated etc.,

She is not a scholar nor submitted research to comment about Vemulawada and have her own personal theory .I have given "Encyclopaedia of Indian Literature" she should ARGUE with Kendra Sahitya Academy. She must not have double standards in the following ways.

1)She accepts and rejects the same book/evidence according to her own convenience 2) She ACCEPT new evidences when it suits her thoughts and REJECTs them as per convenience--Abrahmad111 (talk) 13:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

All the above apply to you. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

--- Dear usernamekiran, SubhasiniIyer has disrupted the pages again without arriving at a consensus over here. --Abrahmad111 (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You do not like history. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The MOST antique reference 11th century Tamil literature 'Yaappirungulam Kaarikai' mentioning the Kavi 'Renchi kouyaaruseyida vaduga chandamu' [vaduga in Tamil means telugu] Page 21 of 1950 https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.333847

'Pre-Nannayya Chandassu' - Veturi Prabhakara Sastry. Page 21

'Samagrandhra Sahityam' - Arudra

https://archive.org/stream/andhrasahityacha025940mbp#page/n25/mode/2up page 19

The most antique reference by Tamil literature is in line with the latest evidence that Malliya Rechana is the author of Kavijanasrayam.You are wasting time with antiquity debate--Abrahmad111 (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Abrahmad111, Vaduga actually is a word for the Kamma Telugu people in Tamil Nadu. So you mean to say that Vanchayya was Renchi or Recha and he was a Kamma from Madras Presidency. Do not know what you are trying to prove with this illogical postings of yours trying to confuse the readers. I said there have been older Telugu literature like the Addanki and Renati poems from before 8th AD. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

For the well being of the stainless rules of (Peosy) the sweet poet Mallia Recan(Worthy of the favour of bolds) hath composed in the Telugu language this admirable prosody entitled the Refuge Of Poets - C.P. Brown --Abrahmad111 (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

1989 samagrandhra sahityam - Arudra Samagrandhra vignanan kosam - Nidadavolu Venkat Rao Toli Telugu Grantham - S.V. Rao--Abrahmad111 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

How is this going to alter the course of the article's debate. I have all the views unlike you trying to force your views. Did CP.Brown also say he was from near Karimnagar. I have corrected the article to have all the views and all the debates but you have only one view, that is yours. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

After you bulldozed and got warnings, you pushed the facts to the bottom and removed many useful things to suit you even after no consensus over here. Brown did mention Malliya Rechana(and not vemulawada bheemakavi). Pampa's father was immigrant,Somadevasuri was immigrant but Malliya Rechana was a local( Confirmed by evidences.Check the above books)--Abrahmad111 (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC) --Abrahmad111 (talk) 19:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Unlike you who completely removed the history of the debate and the beginning, I have your theories also in the chronological order. How would you feel if tomorrow somebody biased like you from another region comes and claims everyone for themselves and removes the history? Your cheap biased brain revolves around local non-local immigrant etc. That is all you are taught. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Ya so Brown did mention Karimnagar as well, didn't he. Why are you calling Lembulawada as Vemulawada. Why don't you like the older much pure form? Biased double standards of yours. Where is the reference? Throwing all kinds of rubbish at me. I will not reply to more of your rubbish and only reply where it is useful. You are not going to change your ways. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't talk rubbish with out reading literature or books. Koravi Goparaju(14th AD) and Ganapavarapu Venkata kavi(17th AD) used the words Vemulawada and Lemulawada as synonyms in their works. You are rubbishing a central Sahitya Academy publications. That shows your vandalistic nature.. --Abrahmad111 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

They cannot be synonyms. I have explained it and I have given enough references. It was dubiously changed to Vemulawada to misappropriate the history belonging to the real Vemulawada. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

"Local" and "Non-Local" that is what your seed is in. Biased and shameless. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You are so biased that you are trying to find an older reference. So be it. Put the reference here. I will add that as well. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Abrahmad111, why do you believe in theories of non-your region authors such as Arudra, Nidadavolu, Veturi, Brown, Jayanthi, PVP, etc if you keep bad mouthing their history? Lembulawada (Kannada) has patronized the newly founded Telugu poets of the Vengi such as Pampa, Jina, Recha and later on Kakateeyas (Kannada) have patronized Telugu poets from Vengi empire just as Vijayanagara empire (Tulu speaking) and Mysore etc. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 18:53

FACT is a FACT who ever talks the truth.This is not a debate on Region. This is about bring facts to wiki.Stick to the point.--Abrahmad111 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not want to get into regional debate like you. I am focusing on the point.If you want Telangana scholars' then read Sanganabhatla Narasaiah, Dr.Malayashri,S.V. Rama Rao who have given the same conclusion about Malliya Rechana similar to Arudra,P.V.P around the same time (1989-1995) --Abrahmad111 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sanganabhatla is a regionalist like you. He has validity. You are shamelessly quoting Arudra and PVP because they were not regionalists. I gave Jayanthi's ref which mention why the confusion was why it was mistakenly attributed to Rechanna, people you mention went with the mistakened theory. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes FACT is a FACT, and I have all the facts unlike your biased one sided theories. Now you talk stick to the point, you are a chauvinist and not of balanced and unbiased nature. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop using bad words unrelated to the subject--Abrahmad111 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

wow, stop using bad words, liar, you were the one started using absolute dirt to address me. You were the first one to use chauvinist on your talk page, such a liar you are. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

--- Dear usernamekiran, SubhasiniIyer has disrupted the pages again without arriving at a consensus over here.--Abrahmad111 (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Abrahmad111, as long as people like you think that yours is a separate country, you will remain biased. The reason you are able to shamelessly quote again and again only the seemandhra writers is because they were not biased like you fellows. They were open to debate, they did not break statues or steal hardwork of others like people from some region that you tend to support. They did not claim anything for themselves though they could have easily. They had a very balanced thought and put forth all the theories. And I am doing the same. What is the Soyi with you I do not understand? BTW Soyi could be a Gondi word that is why it is not in Telugu dictionary, stupid people even cried about that. First learn that there were so many languages and dialects in India, the peoples spoken languages prior to them becoming extinct because of rulers such as Eastern Chalukyas or Western Chalukyas or Cholas or Pandyas. This is not my theory. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

You are forcing me to talk Unrelated stuff to the current topic ...You are wasting my time. Coastal Andhrites broke Prakasham Pantulu statues and broke railway lines and trains. The notorious Coastal Andhrite Lagadapati used PEPPER SPRAY vandalism in the PARLIAMENT SHAMING the democracy system.. The Coastal Andhrites even DISRUPTED public life after SUPREME COURT OF INDIA's JUDGEMENT.They don't even value supreme court's judgement.This article(and Kendra Sahitya Academy) is nothing for them.Everybody knows to what extent they go..--Abrahmad111 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

look at how shameless you are you do not know where I am from, though I am balanced and do not take sides, you sell you regional hatred filled political propaganda. SubhashiniIyer (talk)

You are forcing me to talk Unrelated stuff to the current topic..You are wasting my time. Just picking a random NOUN like Soyi and discrediting Telugu from Telangana is non sense. This is UNSCIENTIFIC LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS.The most important parts of a language are VERBS. English has many Latin/Greek rooted nouns, but basic verbs form the core. I can talk about Tamil,Kalinga,Persian rooted nouns in coastal Andhra dialect as well. And the fact that Gondi and Telugu are sibling languages and they split around 1000 BC in the present Western Deccan geography area and spread into coastal andhra from telangana is a proven LINGUISTICAL ANALYSIS of PROTO-DRAVIDIAN languages unlike the chauvinistic UNSCIENTIFIC reverse origin theory postulated by people like you--Abrahmad111 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I have not discredited anything, you are the one discrediting it. Soyi is not a Telugu word, there were 6000 dialects and languages in India and Soyi comes from an area where Gondi is spoken. That is all I said. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Abrahmad111 and SubhashiniIyer

You both need to stop sniping at each other. You have both been blocked for edit warring twice and are now working on being blocked for disruption. Either use Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or stop editing Malliya Rechana and Kavijanasrayam. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:05, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I am very sorry CambridgeBayWeather, I do not know how else to fix the article. I have added all the historical theories in a neutral balanced chronological manner. Nothing is written in stone about this subject. Some people who are of biased nature are trying to claim the subject to their region without showing the historical debates and the controversial nature of the subject. I will wait and see for now. Please do advise. Thank you SubhashiniIyer (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear CambridgeBayWeather, I have not edited the articles since Usernamekiran asked us to get to a consensus on this page.It is supposed to be discussed in this talk page and arrive at a consensus before any further controversial edits.But she broke this decorum in many ways.I told her to focus on content and not get into regional debates.She broke this too. She wanted antique references from old to new. When I presented 1000 year old antique source, she still puts the controversial 100 year old source as the first line because it suits her BIASED nature.The most antique 1000 year source and the latest 1980,2003 sources confirm the Author of Kavijanasrayam as Malliya Rechana.--Abrahmad111 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

To Abrahmad111, Oh good Lord, what a complete lie, did you present a 1000 year old antique source. Produce the reference here if you did. The one I produced was the British India's The Indian Antiquary 1902 which was written by highly qualified editors. My salute to the British and Indian researchers then. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

She is getting to blaming a particular region which is unrelated topic.For that matter , I want to say that hey don't even value Supreme court of India's judgement and they have used PEPPER SPRAY to vandalise the parliament of India.This article is nothing for them--Abrahmad111 (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

To Abrahmad111, Blaming a region, oh my God! you were the one talking Local, Non-local, Immigrant, claiming the subject to yourself, trying to hide other info, and putting political videos on regional propaganda on your talk page and cursing me. They are still on your talk page as of today. What is Pepper spray, dirty headed you are, what is this unrelated regional hatred you are trying to spread. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear @CambridgeBayWeather: She is using bad words over here again and again.I think you are not noticing that.--Abrahmad111 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the world is on your side, I saw it. Unfortunately I started debating with you. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@CambridgeBayWeather: this is right, Abrahmad111 did not edit the article at all. As I know nothing about the the poet/subject; I dont know how his edts are. @Abrahmad111: Do you think SubhashiniIyer's edits are uncontroversial? —usernamekiran(talk) 07:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I realise that Abrahmad111 didn't edit the article and that is good that they didn't revert. But they also need to stop going on at each other. That's why they should use the dispute resolution. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Abrahmad111 did vandalize after the first block as he did not want the other side of the story to be heard. He was the cause for the second block. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

My congratulations for becoming the cause of the Third block as well and escaping from the eyes of great people. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You were blocked and you requested admin to block me.... And that is all before this consensus page where everyone agreed mutually to stick to the topic and you still continue your UNPARLIAMENTARY words over here--Abrahmad111 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Very unfortunate that I have wasted so much of my lifetime arguing with you. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

usernamekiran, thanks for taking sides. You say you know nothing about the edits and the poet/subject, then how can you misjudge it as Indo-Pak war or whether my edits are uncontroversial. What is controversial in them, I have put all history as it is and in chronological order. Abrahmad111 put only the history that he wants to show and he has been inciting regional and political dirt (what is pepper spray, such an indecent fellow he is?, what is with the youtube videos on separatism he is posting to counter my replies on his talk page). Ex: Let's say your great grandfather (X) wrote a book 100 yrs back, and after 30 some years, somebody said it "may be" written by someone else (Y) and after 60 years (during political movts that Abrahmad111 is part of and is quoting by his cheap posts like pepper spray, youtube videos or some unrelated stuff) someone else comes and says that it belonged to them. I do not know how you would feel, but I would feel awful and would want all the history to be mentioned in a chronological manner. Did you know that the region he politically takes side had destroyed the statues of Poets of other regions (I post this because he has been posting political rubbish), yet he shamelessly quotes from other region's authors. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

usernamekiran, lastly on your talk page, I posted this and you agreed. I feel sorry for you and for myself for asking the initial help and making you part of this.SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

       Hi usernamekiran, Thanks for your advise. I will include my old and well referenced content as I did previously and not remove his well referenced content though they are thesis and debatable individual works. I will keep the theories in chronological order too. I will wait until I hear from all the relevant Admins on this subject. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
       @SubhashiniIyer: this is a wise decision, for now. Some other editor with knowledge of that particular field can work on the article after that. —usernamekiran(talk) 12:42, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Abrahmad111 had undone and created duplicate pages and vandalized existing pages several times. He does not want the other side of the argument to be posted and he constantly posts politically motivated unrelated things like pepper spray, and videos on regional propaganda, etc. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:02, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You are the one who have started insulting a region by using the words shameless etc., MIND YOUR WORDS.. You don't have VALID points. YOu don't stick to the topic.--Abrahmad111 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

You are right. Very unfortunate that I have wasted so much of my lifetime arguing with you.SubhashiniIyer (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Usernamekiran:, Malliya Rechana is not at all associated with Eastern Chalukyas. 1)There is no evidence of development of Jain literature in 900-1000 AD in Eastern Chalukyas

yes there is evidence, stop your lies. This is the last reply for this subject as you are a unstoppable liar.

URL REF 1 written by the Seemandhra archaeologist V. V. Krishna Sastry whom your people shamelessly refer to as the Father of Telangana History -- https://books.google.com/books?id=sr21AAAAIAAJ&q=eastern+chalukyas+jain+literature+andhra&dq=eastern+chalukyas+jain+literature+andhra&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJno7Dyf7UAhWi5YMKHT-1A0oQ6AEITzAJ URL REF 2 https://books.google.com/books?id=5J4sAAAAMAAJ&q=eastern+chalukyas+jainism&dq=eastern+chalukyas+jainism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixj8uSyP7UAhWo4IMKHVT2CWAQ6AEIJjAA

YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND ENGLISH/DON'T ACCEPT FACTS. Existence of JAINISM is different from DEVELOPMENT OF JAIN LITERATURE.All your articles point that Jainism existed as a religion. There is no development of JAIN LITERATURE. that is what I have said.--Abrahmad111 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

The links I provided clearly say that there was "...evidence of Jaina literature..." but you deny. Very unfortunate that I have wasted so much of my lifetime arguing with you. Pampa himself was a jain and from Vengi ancestry and you repeatedly mislead.SubhashiniIyer (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Sign SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC) 2)There is a rapid development of Jain literature from 850 -1000 AD under Chalukyas of Vemulawada

The above links provide prior to 9th century. Also Adikavi Pampa's ancestors traveled from Eastern Chalukyan provinces to Karnataka and then to Lembulawada (which you call as Vemulawada) to find patronizers. Jinavallabha, whom you shamelessly quote is Pampa's brother and he helped Rechanna/or somebody to write the Kavijanasrayam. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

THIS ATTITUDE is WORST.I can also argue like a cheap person like you.Nannayya too SHAMELESSLY took HELP from Narayana Bhatta,a kannada poet.What a SHAME.--Abrahmad111 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

I did not belittle any Poets as you did, unfortunate that you demean Nannayya in such manner, Nannayya is the very person why the language that is your mother tongue is in the great stature that it is today. Very unfortunate that I have wasted so much of my lifetime arguing with you. .SubhashiniIyer (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

3)Kavijanasrayam is a Jain literature.All sources unanimously agree to its Jain origins.She removes the reference of it being a Jain work at the beginning purposely.

It is not a Jain literature, it is purported to be written by a vaisya, who is later considered as a komati or a jain komati variously. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

She is misleading..Komatis, Brahmins undertook JAINISM is an AGE OLD FACT.She seems to SUPPRESS JAIN works.--Abrahmad111 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Great reply to what I wrote, I write about the book, you write about a caste. They do not relate. Very unfortunate that I have wasted so much of my lifetime arguing with you. Suppressing, you are right, the person who keeps all the history and in chronological order is the suppressor and the one who keeps the one-sided views and vandalizes the contents to bulldoze the rest is the great historian. Hopefully this will be my last reply.SubhashiniIyer (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

3)Rechana refers to "Jinendra" - who is also referred by Pampa kavi

This does not have any relevant purpose for our discussion. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

4)Rechana refers to "Vachakabharana" - which is available in JinaVallabha's inscriptions in Karimnagar (Chalukyas of Vemulawada) . She removes the poems

This does not have any relevant purpose for our discussion. What is the purpose of pasting telugu snippets which do not have any relevant substance and are not even confirmed of the author and all this is debated. You removed Lembulawada, the real name of the Vemulawada and refer it dubiously as Vemulawada. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

DOUBLE STANDARD spotted.What about the poems you put in Vemulawada Bheema kavi--Abrahmad111 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Very unfortunate that I have wasted so much of my lifetime arguing with you. They were added by somebody and they have content which is relevant to the debate unlike the ones you added.SubhashiniIyer (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

5)Rechana refers to "Madanavilasa" - which is available in JinaVallabha's inscriptions in Karimnagar (Chalukyas of Vemulawada)

What is this you are writing, how is this important to our discussion, you are just trying to write more to confuse the readers. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

6)Rechana refers to "Jayadeva chandassu" - which is also referred by Nagavarma who wrote poetry in Kannada during 990 AD

What is this you are writing, how is this important to our discussion, you are just trying to write more to confuse the readers. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

7)Rechana himself his father's name is "Bhima" and mother "Mallama" - I want to cite the poems from the books directly.There are so many people with 'Bhima' out there during that time.

What is this you are writing, how is this important to our discussion, you are just trying to write more to confuse the readers. His father's name was Malliya as per Jayanthi Panthulu that you quoted initially. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Check Mungili, Arudra Samagrandhra Charitra,and Telugu toli grantham--Abrahmad111 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Very unfortunate that I had argued with you. Books of no govt literary association you quote without ref to the content, and first and last were written by propagandists.SubhashiniIyer (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no particular citation style that one needs to follow.Initial contributor of the article is totally disrespected and not even consensus was arrived.Anyways she was citing that the most antique reference as belonging to 1902 Journal must come first.When I give the 1000 year old Tamil literature reference,she does not acknowledge the most antique reference as per her style.Because she does not like it.

Where is the 1000 yr reference, post it here. For a week, you tried to bulldoze my evidence of 115 yrs and since yesterday you came up with this 1000 yr old cock and bull story. Consensus does not mean your theory is the right theory. Consensus may mean all the theories would have to be known to the readers. That will make true consensus. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

DOUBLE STANDARD spotted.She invariably rejects the Kendra Sahitya Academy assertion on Vemulawada and Kavijanasrayam.So your theory abt 1902 is also not right.--Abrahmad111 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Very unfortunate that I had argued with you. 1902's reference is from British India's Indian Antiquary journal, nothing can beat standards and morals of those authors and researchers. 1917 Jayanthi Ramayya Panthulu's reference is from Sahitya Academy of that time which was known as Sahitya Parishath(Academy). The govt organization publication you quote is after so many decades and headed by unethical establishment.SubhashiniIyer (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Abrahmad111, all your lies have been countered since a week. I extend to you to send more. I am ready to counter them too. 1000 yr old reference is the biggest lie that you came up after a week of lies that you showered on the audience here. You created duplicate pages, vandalized in different ways, sold your regional political propaganda, cursed, did every possible cheap trick. You taught me how to reply to liars and hatred-filled people like you. You do not have the least respect for the people that you shamelessly quote. That is how deeply you fellows have been brainwashed during the dirty sentimental propaganda you were shoved with since so many years. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 11:50, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Unrelated ::: Dear @CambridgeBayWeather: please note this UNRULY behaviour with out minimum ethics

Very unfortunate that I had argued with you. Hopefully this will be my last reply.SubhashiniIyer (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2017 (UTC)