User talk:SubhashiniIyer

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! 220 of ^Borg 07:36, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kavijanasrayam, Rechanna, Bheemakavi Discussion

Hi, I have a question. Abrahmad111 is constantly fooling and undoing and removing much older and antique (The Indian Antiquary) research references in order to attribute a poet to his region rather than sticking to the history. I have kept his references (which are mostly a thesis and individual writings unlike The Indian Antiquary) and only removed his unreferenced personal theories but he has been removing all my referenced info to put forth only his theories. Now he undid my content again and call it that one has to stick to the old style. This fellow creates duplicate pages and vandalizes pages to put forth his theories. He is not able to bear if I keep the theories in chronological order and removes the old theories which do not attribute the work or the poet to his homeplace. Unlike him I am trying to keep both theories but he keeps the newer theories and adds his personal theories as well. What do you advise? I am going to wait for your advise. Thanks SubhashiniIyer (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at your contributions and you have done many disruptive things here on Wikipedia. I ask you kindly to stop.The references you have given DON'T contain any reasonable discussion on Malliya Rechana. The references(1950 Vavilla Ramaswamy Sastrulu and Sons && 2003 Kendra Sahitya Academy, P. V. Parabrahma Sastry) I have given logically prove that Malliya Rechana is the author of the book and is associated with Vemulawada,Telangana.And the contradiction is that the authors are also not from the same region with which you ascribe regionalism . And don't write your OPINIONS on regions on articles.Present content from the books/articles.However I am willing to INCLUDE YOUR REFERENCES although they don't have any discussion on the subject.Please refrain from writing personal opinions on regions in articles not related to regionsAbrahmad111 (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop BLUFFING the administrators and stop trying to CONVINCE them. I don't put personal theories like you.I have put forth the scholar P. V. Parabrahma Sastry views.None of the references you have given have any detailed discourse on the subject.I have added one more reference with an explanation on the subject http://hdl.handle.net/10603/100276 --Abrahmad111 (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahmad111, you are the one who vandalized and created duplicate pages and you blame me. Wonderful. Stop removing older theories and references and putting some politically motivated newly created theories. I have given ample evidence. Don't fool around and vandalize content. If you like to add something, add it after the older theories. Don't expect me to reply to your nonsense. You think by doing this you can cause the admins to block me. If they are fair and knowledgeable they will try to do their own research. 2003 Kendra Sahitya Academy does not have any of your lies in it. SubhashiniIyer (talk)

Abrahmad111, STOP fooling, vandalizing pages and keeping your references of Thesis of people and removing authentic information from journals such as The Indian Antiquary. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahmad111, you are the one who vandalized and created duplicate pages and you blame me. Stop removing older theories and references and putting some politically motivated newly created theories. I have given ample evidence. Don't fool around and vandalize content. If you like to add something, add it after the older theories. Don't expect me to reply to your nonsense. You think by doing this you can cause the admins to block me. If they are fair and knowledgeable they will try to do their own research. SubhashiniIyer (talk)

Abrahmad111, you are very successful and shameful in blaming and using harsh words and constantly causing trouble. You repeated the same fault again and I will show it to you, unless you take time to correct it now. You have removed the older The Indian Antiquary 1902 (nothing supersedes this authentic antique research) reference and other references from the Malliya Rechana article and created your own personal theory about his life which is not even present in your fake references. If you are true you would have not removed my references and content. Mend yourself. You fix it or I will fix it. Add the older theory prior to your politically motivated theories. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 06:15, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahmad111, are you serious I have used such remarks, you are a specimen of lies. You are one causing trouble and abusing me and politicizing the issue and blaming me instead. Put an end to your cheap mindset. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahmad111, I have both the theories. Your cock and bull stories or the theory of Jayanti Pantulu's theory are much newer than the well established and prestigious The Indian Antiquary theory. All your references are based on individual thesis or books written in debating style. You are not able to bear the truth, that is your problem. You are not of debating mentality, you want to put forth your personal theories and thesis and do not honor other things. No where did your references mention that Malliya Rchana belonged to Lembulawada of Karimnagar. Stop calling it Vemulawada, its original name was Lembulawada. The original and only Vemulawada is in East Godavari where are poets are associated with originally under Eastern Chalukyas. Unlike you I have kept both our theories but you have come up with another fooling around and removed my authentic references. STOP vandalizing pages and keeping your references of Thesis of people and removing authentic information from journals such as The Indian Antiquary. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahmad111, you are fooling yourself, your own kurikyala "inscriptional" reference mentions Pampa to be from a family of VengiNadu and you are not able to bear it, and that is also the oldest theory. Banavasi is "debated" as his place of birth but his ancestors were noted to be always from Vengiparru in Venginadu. You are not able to bear the fact that Bheemakavi or Rechana belong to after Adikavi Nannayya. Palakuriki of Rayalaseema also wrote in more antique Telugu style than Adikavi Nannayya, that does not make him older than Adikavi. We could probably research and write in more older style, that will not make us older than Adikavi Nannayya. Because people learn and write in Shakespearean dramatic language of hundreds of years old, they do not become antique writings than some contemporary writers. STOP vandalizing pages and keeping your references of Thesis of people and removing authentic information from journals such as The Indian Antiquary. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 12:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When a SCHOLAR evaluates something he does not consider just one piece of info(like say archaic Telugu).The thesis above talks only 2 points. There are much more evidences(Pampa and Malliya Rechana described the Jina guru Jinendra in their works) not considered in the thesis. P.V.P ,Arudra have used other MATERIAL evidences like the above and concluded in 1986,1989 respectively.Hard Copy of 'Samagra Andhra Sahityam' by Arudra has confirmed that Malliya Rechana is 10th century poet and has written Arudra.These are the other evidences considered by SAHITYA ACADEMY.

And you are a LAYMAN. So you just consider one piece of info (like antiquity journal which suits your bias).--Abrahmad111 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahmad111, none of the references you give are older or authentic than The Indian Antiquary which is a advanced research publication by the British India Govt when people of regional political chauvinism like you were not around. Your references are thesis's or individual works or are written after the advent of regionalism. And many more of your references do not even have linkage, you just have book shop links. You have to learn respecting the authors that you keep quoting. You are also referring of my Lembulawada as it is as a negative remark, you do not like the history as it is. Do not repeat the same sentences twice on my talk page every time you write your theories. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahmad111, Kavijanasrayam is not the earliest Telugu work. It was originally considered as from between 11th and 13th centuries and later as 10th and 11th centuries. There are much earlier ones such as Adikavi Nannayya's works (whether you agree or not) and Addanki Taravoju and Kadapa works. You keep talking about poets going from one place to the other, so why can't you digest that so many poets traveled from Eastern Chalukyan provinces (first to convert from Kannada to Telugu, that is why Adikavi Nannayya and every other poet had kannada influence) to spread Telugu in the Western Chalukyan provinces (Lembulawada). If you speak Telugu, your ancestors may have immigrated from somewhere or you may have learned Telugu. Even lately Viswanatha Satyanarayana traveled to Karimnagar to establish the first Telugu department in the Govt college over there because there was no Telugu medium. Rayaprolu Subbarao travelled to Hyderabad to establish Telugu department at Osmania. His cousin established it in Nizam College. Those are the facts, and you have to go along. I extend the friendship to you, it is up to you. We are all Telugus now and our history was not created during the 60-90 year communal or regional political events that took place, starting from the Andhra Mahasabhas in Hyd State that were originally established by Telugu people of Madras State to educate the Telugu people in Nizam state about the atrocities of Nizam, which slowly created regionalism and fascism in that region and a bane and headache to the same people who taught them to revolt. Unfortunate events in history. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1) Kavijanasrayam is ONE of the earliest works.There are even earlier Jain Telugu works which are not available.

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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) 21:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry state of affairs.It is my bad that I have to educate you how language evolves

And you use the same Seemandhra people's works to educate me while demeaning them. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1)Spoken language develops first then only literature.

3)Language can not be imposed/replaced by some body.Despite 200 years of British rule, local languages of India are not replaced unless the conquest is a violent conquest

4)The only time when the language was replaced was in the case of Arabic invasion of Egypt.It was an extremely VIOLENT conquest.I don't know who taught you this theory that vengi people migrated to spread Telugu(It is nothing but expansionist imperialism) and if you think Vengi gurus are that VIOLENT to replace a spoken language,God only bless you.

Weren't you taught that Seemandhra people are colonials etc during the fake movt. Why do you blame others? No real Gurus have to be violent like your fake Gurus such as "so-called profs of a fake movt." who taught some people to break the statues of personalities like Arudra, Brown etc, yet these shameless creatures and their offspring keep quoting from the books of the same so-called colonials again and again. Srikrishnadevaraya was of Tulu speaking, yet he was so mesmerized by the Telugu poets that he officially took to Telugu as the official language. That is what happened with Kakateeyas as well. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 22:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who said the poets travel and get patronized. And Pampa, Jina, Bheemakavi etc everyone had Vengi link. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

5)Cynthia Talbot talks about EPIGRAPHIC language and not SPOKEN language.If you don't know the difference check the dictionary...So in your theory ,I should call you English speaker since you were ruled by BRITISH?

You are now talking much more rubbish after quoting from Kurikyala Epigraphic inscription you yourself. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what was the spoken language then? You are a biased person. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the spoken language of Nizam region was Kannada and partly Gondi. That is where the word Soyi comes from. You fellows have even blamed others for your own fault of not using the word. At one time India had 6000 odd languages plus dialects. Telugu took over Savara, Yanadi, Gondi, Koya, Konda, Redu, Kommari, Vanjari etc every language. Soyi could be a Gondi word. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Throughout the false movt. people like you rubbished, called names and spread hatred and lied that your history was not written or this or that by the Seemandhra people, yet shamelessly you bring every possible book written by those Seemandhra people to counter me. Shameless fellows. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

6) P.V.P, Adivi Bapiraju,Garikipati Narasimha Rao have already realized that Telangana has the oldest and archaic history of Telugu development.Still you are in a self-centric mode.

That is why the oldest Telugu is found elsewhere such as Addanki and Renadu. Rayalaseema people speak much better Telugu. Arundhati Roy, Jhampa Lahari, Slaman Rushdie etc so many Indian authors write better English than the British. Kannada people take pride in Pampa and do not refrain from saying Adikavi Pampa's ancestors were from Vengi. But people like you who were created from a mean movt are very cheap. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No one realized anything, it is the same prior to the Vadukabhasha udhyamam which did not affect Nizam region and Ceded regions as much as it affected the Circars. If they realized why do you fellows blame others that they demeaned your language. Double standard of yours. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

7) I am a pure Telugu guy.It is not me but you have ADOPTED Telugu.(You might be a Dravida sect Vadiki probably with a bias against Jain literature)

Why do you have Brahma in your name if you abhor the Vaidiki and like Jain? Did you adopt brahminical ways and want their language too. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

8) You called Kannada Origin Eastern Chalukyas as Telugu Chalukyas(Do you know what they spoke at home? Many Telugus in TamilNadu speak Tamil outside and speak Telugu inside home) and called Telugu speaking Kakateeyas as Kannada kings who adopted Telugu. What an illogical theory to suit your Telugu bias

What is this illogical stuff you are talking. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahmad111, you should just marry all your family to seemandhra people, then you will not have to change the history with your biased ways. Your family shall be proud of the unified culture and language and the history. History of Telugu people did not begin in the last 100 yrs. Local, Non-local, one day your own poison will work wonders on you. Time will teach a lesson. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't disturb me again with ILLOGICAL biases.--Abrahmad111 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one causing trouble with your regional political views. I have all views unlike you. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 09:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not edit archive pages

Please do not edit archived pages. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 00:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I reply then to a one-sided blame on the content? Can I have the old content and my reply as a new posting. Thanks SubhashiniIyer (talk) 00:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You start a new discussion on the article talk page, or the talk page of the editor you're talking to. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:57, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for quick reply. But I would like to post it on the same page where this was initiated. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 01:00, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like everyone's tired of hearing you, I'd move on to something new. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right about this one too. I hope you should be too then. Thank you again. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to add, my reply was so innocent to my heart, sincere, decent and straightforward but your reply was as though from a person who views the world in a cynical manner. Believe me there are still good people in this world otherwise it would be a whole different world. I am sorry if my reply hurts you. SubhashiniIyer (talk) 01:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]