User talk:Abrahmad111

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) 16:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Vemulawada_Bheemakavi
__NOINDEX__

Welcome!
Hello, Abrahmad111, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Check out WT:IN for India-related discussions.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! utcursch &#124; talk 13:40, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

__NOINDEX__

Discussion at Talk:Malliya Rechana
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Malliya Rechana. — usernamekiran (talk)  12:34, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Sep 07
@Abrahmad111 At first please visit Malliya Rechana page History and verify edits done by me. When coming back to the confusion tag make sure that the article is about a poet Malliya Rechana (or) Malliya Rechana it self a book. I think that article is about a poet. Provide information about the poet at the top then you can provide additional information. Now the page looks like unconstructive (or) a essay in 4 sections. My opinion is to make article clear.

Dear Joshq1234, I know you have not made any disruptive edit. But I don't want someone else again to be influenced by SubhashiniIyer. Thanks for pointing that the article is not clear. I will definitely make it cleaner in the coming days. --Abrahmad111 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate your contribution to Wikipedia that you have done a great job by collecting the old information which is not know to many people.

Dear Joshq1234 Thank you !! --Abrahmad111 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I think you understand this and please don't make it a big issue. If you have any additional questions regarding this you can leave a message here (or) in my talk page.  Joshq.JQ  (talk)17:59, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Joshq1234

Discussion at User talk:Usernamekiran/Archives/2017/September
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Usernamekiran/Archives/2017/September. — usernamekiran (talk)  18:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Is a CU appropriate for this situation? — usernamekiran (talk)  10:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * and his sock are  so checkuser isn't going to be of much help. PhilKnight (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Kavijanasrayam for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kavijanasrayam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kavijanasrayam until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 02:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)