User talk:Voltigeur/Archive 1

Welcome
 Hi Voltigeur, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Roleplayer Good luck, and have fun.

User: Voltigeur
I noticed that you had left a notice on the talk page of the user of I.P. address 203.101.110.2 a week ago, concerning his vandalism of the page on Vadama. He appears to be continuing to do so, despite repeated reversion of his vandalism. I do not know whether any more warnings will work with him, given his history. I solicit your assistance in this regard.Voltigeur (talk) 13:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response.203.101.110.2 has been vandalsing articles despite warning but it has not been active since 19th Feb.We will see what it does report it if it violates again.Keep up the good work.You are very good for a newcomerPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have got Vadama semi protected for a month.IP editors cannot edit it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Walter Cuming
A tag has been placed on Walter Cuming, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Excirial ( Talk, Contribs ) 16:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of tips
Hello, Voltigeur. I noticed the edits you made to SMS Emden (1906). First, thanks for making substantial, properly referenced additions to the article. I noticed a couple of mistakes you made though, and wanted to let you know, so you can avoid them in the future. When you use the "ref name" tag to cite several different statements to one source, make sure you include the forward slash after the reference name. To demonstrate, it should be, not . Without the forward slash, the template doesn't work correctly, and it causes all text following it to not be displayed on the article. Also, you mentioned several ships in your additions; you want to ensure that you have the proper links, for example, Japanese cruiser Chikuma (1911), instead of Chikuma. You may be aware of the usage of piped links, which give a cleaner appearance, like Chikuma, which shows up as Chikuma. Thanks again for your contributions to the article. Happy editing, Parsecboy (talk) 16:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem, I'm glad I could help. If you're so inclined, you may want to join a Wikiproject relating to your interests. There's WikiProject Military history, and WikiProject Ships, among others. Both provide a lot of information about how pages should be formatted, naming conventions, and so forth. If you have any more problems/questions, feel free to ask me, and I'll do what I can to help. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Vadama
Thank you for your message.Vadama article has been protected for another 2 weeks.The user Vyaghradhataki has been blocked for 24 hours.If indeed the user has edited within that period using the IP.It is a serious violation.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Cecil Rhodes
(04:12, 23 April 2008) (edit) (undo) Voltigeur (Talk | contribs) (POV removed Undid revision 207410810 by 85.86.34.229 (talk)) Actually, it isn't POV, it's a fact. However, I'm not reverting your revert because: 1) it's a very sloppy edit, 2) it should have some supporting evidence (which, believe me, is very easy to find!!) and 3) other bits of the article already say it. So why am I posting here? Well, because although I agree with the fact that you've reverted, I disagree very strongly with your stated reasons. Fortunately, this doesn't really matter, but I do hope that either you reconsider your motives, or that in future you explain yourself better. The above is my POV. I hope you find it useful, but if not, well, ignore it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I entirely concur with your statements concerning Cecil Rhodes's attitudes towards race. Nevertheless, from what I have known of him, he held strong views concerning the superiority of Europeans vis-à-vis Africans, and had a general bias in favour of his own people, the English. Therefore, in my opinion, it is unjustified to claim specific attitudes of Anglo-Saxon superiority when his opinions of racial superiority were much wider than that and his Anglo-Saxon pretensions played a rôle only when questions of Empire came in.
 * Although I very much appreciate your having taken the trouble to intimate your opinions to me, perhaps it would be much more helpful, if your statements could be a little less presumptuous. Voltigeur (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Mmmmm. Good points. So it seems I was being sloppy too. So it's not fact, it's "ill-informed fact" (whatever that means). I suppose that falls into the class of "opinion". If so, then your edit summary was correct. And my POV was based on a faulty chain of logic. But I'm not sure what you're refering to about being presumptive. Do you mean my chain of logic was faulty? If so, yes, it would be good if I never made mistakes. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 22:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I am glad that I was able to throw some light. When I wrote 'presumptuous', I meant more or less what you have inferred - that your statements assume a few things that are not necessarily true. I look forward to further co-operation. Voltigeur (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Me too.

I guess that I'm currently on a bit of a hobby-horse about people not using the edit summary, or if/when they do, putting cryptic, uninformative and/or irrelevent comments there; to me it often seems the case that editors put what they did there (which is generally obvious, and doesn't need an edit comment), not why they did it. (Let me hasten to add that this is NOT the case with your edit!)

I guess your comment was open to interpretation, and I intepreted it in a manner different from your intention, and focussed on other issues. e.g. Had you said something like "rv misleading statement - he was British-Empire-centric, not just anglo-centric" (or preferably something more concise and more informative than what I just wrote!!), you would have got a differen response from me - probably no response at all. However, you can not be expected to guess and cater for the multiple ways your statement might be interpreted (if you did that, you'd never finish doing anything). I think the lesson I've learned is to review my assumptions before making bold statements, and perhaps state the assumptions along with the statements. Again, however, if I never assumed anything (e.g. that gravity will still be working tomorrow when I wake up), I'd probably never get out of bed in the morning!!

Yeah well, this is probably getting boring. Look forward to crossing paths again. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Vyaghradhataki
Thanks for leaving messages in my page. I saw your stuff regarding nayaks/vijayanagar which is nothing short of non-sense. Neither were the nayaks/vijayanagar "rulers" eligible to take the place of great chola/pallava emperors who were crowned kings and virtuous vedic royalty of ancient times, nor did they actually do so. They were mere colonists who exploited the anarchy following the decline of the great above mentioned clans of cholas /pallavas. we have evidence about their usage of terror/guerilla tactics and subversion.We have evidence for their usage of foreign mercenary soldiers. First and foremost of all they were certainly related to those wicked dynasties that suffered annihilation at the hands of chola/pallava emperors for centuries. during the dark medieval ages very few "rulers" actually possessed an army, however useless it may have been. It was trade and commerce(however filthy) that by large settled things for many "rulers". More over The incoming colonists mostly were insurgents who used cover of night for their passage. They are also known to have really spoilt the ancient institutions of south by introducing prostitution and bestiality in name of temple dance and music.Of course by the time these new colonists appeared the demography of that ancient place had far ceased to be what it used to be during chola/pallava times.

I really suspect that the so called "vadama" groups could have been sramanas(buddhists and jains) of past, because they lack any temple rights in TN, most of whose temples(nayaks are not eligible to appoint priests) were independent priesthoods(like chidambaram and srirangam), and whose serving priests mostly perished during the hazardous last years of cholas/pallavas that saw numerous wars. The pagan nayaks were also responsible for ridiculously creating a small and non-descript and fictional "vaishnavite divyadesam" within great chidambaram temple. I say i have to suspect the antecedents of many such people(remember ramanujacharya's conversion spree). In short they(vijayanagar/nayaks) existed because nobody else was there and that some body has to be there to co-ordinate change.

As far as munificence to temples go it does not underline virtuousity as much as it does of brand oppurtunism. The above mentioned chidambaram incident should serve as a good example. If i were to consider the donations of those pagan nayaks, the same holds good for tipu sultan, hyder ali,humayun, akbar, and the list is endless. It is duly noted that these donations or creations would never be the same as the ones of great Raja Raja, Rajendra, simha vishnu, narasimhavarma and a host of chola/pallava emperors. I can consider the immigrants during late medieval ages to be oppurtunists. It may be possible to get me blocked or getting the edit capability removed altogether but i call a spade a spade.I will not be responding any further to such sour embittered polemics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyaghradhataki (talk • contribs) 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Quo vadis Mr.voltigeur

With each and every word of your reply you have only cleared my doubts regarding your eternal foolishness. I do not want to lecture you on the subject of cholas/pallavas and rest of the things at which i'm confident about my knowledge. Thanks for giving the feedback now i'm very clear and feel justified at my opinions on matter of "different brahmin sects" that made into TN after the rule of the previously mentioned dynasties. I just hope i can also participate in ridding the world of the wretches exactly the way they did.It also clears my doubts on as to why the chola/pallava emperors were so brutal in their expeditions.It is very much possible for the likes of you to declare that the author of saundarya lahari namely sankaracharya did not know what he wrote and also that the great tirugnanasambandar did not know about his own compositions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyaghradhataki (talk • contribs) 12:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Vadama
Yeah, he has been uttering nonsense from heavily anti-Brahmanical books and articles. The anti Brahmin mindset is  quite strong in Tamil Nadu. These claims of his are simply speculations. Ramanuja was born a Vadama and he lived in the 11th century AD while the Vijayanagar Empire rose to power only in the 14th century AD thereby indicating the presence of Vadamas in the Tamil country even prior to the rise of the Vijayanagar Empire.

Yeah, I've reported him/her at the vandalism centre. However, no action has been taken so far. It would be better if these admins shun their bot-like behavior and have a look at the case before deciding a case based on the number of warnings given. Never mind! I'll try again. And thank you very much! :-)- Ravichandar My coffee shop 01:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No mention. :-) I don't mind him including material derogative to Iyers as long as the material is referenced with proper citations from neutral sources. But he has been repeatedly adding those lines with some sort of motive in mind. Wikipedia is an unbiased encyclopedia not an online forum to engage in slurs or counter-slurs and encyclopedic standards need to be maintained. Unless he references his stuff from reliable, unbiased, third-party sources, he is violating WP:NPOV andWP:OR.- Ravichandar My coffee shop 13:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article Vadama itself is full of original research. It requires a complete cleanup- Ravichandar My coffee shop 12:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Be advised that should you by your nefarious means try and get the article on sholiyars, who howeever a rapidly declining and microscopic minority are also along with nambudiris last remaining ancient sects, removed then be ready for the entire iyer article to be removed from wikipedia because no such group exists. The "brahminical groups" that came later on are simply obscure in origin and identity and certainly heterogenous and for that they cannot be considered brahmins, particularly of TN. I also advise you strongly not to try and justify your vague and completely incorrect assertions like" brahmins who came after and during gupta period are vadamas" using spurious documents that you have cited. Wikipedia is not a place for malicious propoganda and is certainly not an internet group like orkut. -vyaghra dhataki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyaghradhataki (talk • contribs) 12:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Threats from Vyaghradhataki
Well, well, I would have added more tags to Vadama too (though not for deletion) if references have not been added. Anyway, I tagged Sholiyar for deletion only because it has been edited by an user whose edits have suspected POV and bias. If not for Vyaghradhataki's propaganda, the article could survive with cleanup. But then, the article has been rigorously edited by Vyaghradhataki, whom I suspect, is bent upon caste glorification. Unreferenced content is atleast permissible, but articles replete with POV could be deleted on sight. - Ravichandar My coffee shop 18:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I request you to express your opinion in the deletion discussion page for Sholiyar.


 * The article is full of unreferenced content which need to be removed. This issue is not just with Sholiyar alone, but also with regard to those of other Iyer groups as Vadama and Vadhima too. Online references could not be found for any of these Iyer subgroups which has resulted in a situation wherein the articles become a target for all sorts of unsubstantiated claims and OR. As page blanking is not permissible in Wikipedia, the articles need to be deleted and rewritten completely with citations. However, the article on Sholiyar would qualify on one more count as well due to the fact that it has been written largely by someone with malicious intentions. Of course, since references were added a couple of days ago, Vadama is now off from the list. But there are issues with the citation styles which I request you to rectify. Also, I think adding more external links would favor verifiability


 * Once the article Sholiyar gets removed, we might start upon a new article which conforms to Wikipedia standards. I solicit your cooperation and help in this venture :-)
 * - Ravichandar My coffee shop 01:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Besides I have given a detailed reply to Vyaghradhataki's nonsensical allegations in the talk page on Vadama. Do have a look :-) - Ravichandar My coffee shop 01:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD
The AfD link is here:Articles for deletion/Sholiyar- Ravichandar My coffee shop 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please express your opinion in bold as Keep,Merge or Delete. See this.Thanks - Ravichandar My coffee shop 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if encyclopedic standards need to be maintained then all the stuff that Vyaghradhataki had entered should blanked and work begun afresh. However, Wikipedia rules do not allow blanking. Wikipedia recommends deletion of articles in cases such as these. Don't worry! We could create it new:-)- Ravichandar My coffee shop 14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Francis Day of Madras :-) - Ravichandar My coffee shop 14:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Reg Vyaghradhataki
Hi! How are you? :-) Just saw Vyaghradhataki's attack against me on Talk:Iyer page. He does not seem to have reformed. And I suspect that he was the one who added those outrageous comments on the relationship of Iyers with white Europeans. This clearly indicates that he is not here to contribute anything constructive. As for Sholiyar, Vyaghradhataki seems to claim that the Sholiyars were the Brahmin priests in temples. However, it is a well known fact that temple priests in Saivite temples were from the Sivacharya or Gurukkal sub-sect. This sort of caste-supremacist propaganda seems sickening- Ravichandar My coffee shop 16:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

=
From Harish

I am proud to be a vadama and I have my own share of Information. I belong to the legendary vadadesha vadama, in particular I belong to Palamadai and in particular,we have people in our village who have the complete family history for each and every direct male ancestor dating for many generations before appaiah deekshitar that is starting from atleast 14 century.There is no record of them being associated with any thing other than tamil land in this family tree. So I am in this regard much in the right. In fact your statements that they have originated in 16 th century is not based on a historical record which can be utilized for such a statement. I have provided arguments and disputes on date but I have been careful to highlight that date can not be asceratained and on the contrary you have taken up an audacious task of rewriting history by making specific statements on date, on the other hand I have indicated records which mention that they existed in tamil nadu on so and so date. Whose information is more reliable?

In 14 century I might ask you to place a record that states that tamil was the official language in the kerala region. On the contray the iyers who migrated to kerala have started using malayalam words rather than tamil, and there is no evidence that non iyers used significant tamil.Why would kerala vadama just adopt tamil. This legend of bypassing tamil land is 19 century legend, not found in a traditional record and more a 18-19 century bias of a few english speaking keralaite iyers, one of whom converted his own self created pet thoery into a family legend.

Please dont enter your fantasy adventures, may be given to you by some story writers in your family and recreate a history where none exists. If you have specifics in terms of so and so books stating so and so vadama emigrated from so and so place at so and so date, then mention that date. All records I have mentioned are well known records and I have read them with my very own eyes, I dont like history being rewritten falaciously in front of my eyes.

Moreover you foolishly stick to an opinion that they could not have originzated prior to 13 century in tamil ndau is pure ignorance as ramanujacharya, the son of keshavasomayaji deekshitar and kanthimathi ammal belongs to 11 century add. Does this name sound like a maharashtraian name dude. There are so many other practices in his family which are not only bvery typically tamil brahmin but are also very much in line with smartha culture peculiar to tamil nadu, and not to be found in smartha culture elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 12:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

===From Harish

I am okay with sparse details and no ellaborate points. But I will not accept falacious details. You did not have to tell me you were a vadama, I knew it. As I said lot of people have a grand view of their community's beginnings- which is really not so grand after all. I dont want my kids later growing up reading an incorrect history.

I am not sure whether you are aware, that there is a strong opinion that vadamas are so called because of their settlement in north tamil nadu. You must understand that all most all brahmins have come from north of tamil ndau to tamil nadu, excepting a few. I dont want to doubt your family tree, but even their stay in deccan cannot be ruled out, but that ends there. I am aware of the fact that Appaish deekshitar's ancestors originated in nasik, but when? Why do vadamas keep calling themselves as dravids (in maharashtra), dravidlu in andhra? The real question is why they stayed where they stayed and when, while its easy to prove that they stayed at some place in tamil nadu,as records in tamil nadu indicate their presense, that they stayed in certain other places is neither proven and I am sure such a factual detail is not available with you excepting from family stories. What is true is that they have come from brahmadesham a very long time ago ,crossing naramada and settloing down in tamil. This definately did not happen in 16 th century.But if you look at it that way even brahacharanam have come from north india, you dont need to be a geek to deduce it. Vathimas are also too fair to be native of tamil nadu. Underestand that just like today our ancestors kept moving across countries for different reasons, but their base location did not change frequently.

We need something concrete to include dates like 16 th century. Making a statement that 10 th century is earliest possible date is audacious. Because there are too many vadamas with different family stories to tell.

I am not going to include certain points of mine, beacause the moment I stop watching this topic you are going to remove them. But I am not allowing any statement which cannot be traced back to a proper historical record. If you are quoting anything from any textbook, please specify what it contains and which kind of historical record is being used to make the inference.

Get out of sectarian mould. There is nothing so very northy about vadamas - there is nothing glamorous about a north india which declined more than 3500 years back, because of buddhism.Now age of budhism - thats a controversial topic and I am not getting into it.

My latest date for vadamas to arrive is 8 -9 century and early dates well nobody knows and I am not in the business of falsifying history with my speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 16:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear friend, I have myself seen such articles indicating 13 th century origin. I believed in it a few years backs. The story began with myself locating an a person called swaminatha deekshitar on the web. He lived many centuries back. The story mentions how muslims attacked nasik in 13 century and the family moved down. I belived it entirely ! This group, which is highly linked to my ancestors were supposed to be from near trayamabkeshwar. Now so easy to gooble up the date. But it is not so simple. First thing the crucial peice, who fixed this date,is it indicated in any written family records? Is it there in family legends? Come on even mutts and institutions are not able to provide convincing reasons of their date of origin. I approached a number of elders in my family who know nothing of any date of origin. I asked some elders who are actually doing research on the family tree front. One person, a direct descendant of Neelakanta deekshitar a wing commander by profession, corrected me, he said vadadesha vadama means north arcot, north with respect to tamil heartland - which is chozha land. Added no tirunelveli vadama is truly of origin in tirunelveli. The people maintaining family trees and who have done substantial study on this matter cannot themselves say with certainity about dates. I dont believe that any family notes down the date and p;lace of birth of every individual. It only notes the name. If there is any unnatural thing like shift from one region to another they might mention that so and so ancestor( with name) moved from x to y? do you have such a concrete proof in the form of record? Our ancestors were much more practical, than counting the number of seasons since they left maharashtra, Then how come people claim 13 century origin of vadama?. Well if people claim in the families it could be true, isnt it? Depends on how ancient the belief is! When did they start believing that they came in 13 century ? Nobody knows! No record has been found! On the contrary we have evidence that by 14 century the practices of the so called "new vadamas",the vadamas we are talking about,were completely similar to other vadamas+no record of any integration+ complete exclsuion of deshastha+ other brahmins of andhra. Now the andhra site mentions the origin of saurashtra for dravidlu. How did they come to that date. The same source which spread that vadamas came during 13 century. But if it all comes down to 1 source and if the reliability of this one source is not strong, then we cannot accept it as true. I read the british gazette on Satara Brahmins. It lists down all brahmins in Satara Maharashtra. I have not quoted this as I am not able to locate that article again. But what it says about dravid brahmins is that - dravid brahmins have come here in 17 th century from tamil nadu. They speak tamil at home, they belong to two gotras - bharadwaja and kaushika. If what you say is true, then these folks should be remembering their origin better than us. Why is there no indication that they are deshasthas? Why is there no indication that they were originally from maharashtra. At the same period, deshastha started coming to tamil nadu. Here again they were not accepted as tamil brahmins. The sourashtrians came much earlier. They were not accepted as tamil brahmins once again. None of the vaidikulu of andhra intermarried with dravidlu even in 16 century. How come? Though I dont want to rule out 13 century origin, there is no proof at all. We have the srivasihnava literature that thankfully spares us a lot of the ordeal. In this not only ramanuja, but a whole set of vadama get coverage and their origin is clearly indicated. Everything starting from the nombu practice to the way muruga is the kula devatha, to the way a whole set of rituals are performed indicate a clear integration with tamil culture for atleast 1000 years. Atleast such an assumption has some basis, but nothing to the contray has any supporting material evidence.How about earlier than that- Well I will be entering an area of speculation. I will just put a full stop and say nothing is known when they have come. If you browse sufficiently on the net, you will even read that some namboothiris mention that their ancestors were vadama living in villages of tamil nadu. But nambbothiri society had become extremely rigid by the time the first vadama appeared in kerala.So you have an entire process - namboodization of vadama, taking place atleast 1000 years ago. You might agree that presense of vadama is indicated in tamil nadu for atleast 900 years. You might also agree that presense of vadama in north tamil nadu is certainly indicated in those 1000 years. Now examine the records of Brahacharanam, ashtasahasram ,vathima and chozhia. Who among them lived in kanchipuram? None of them excepting the famous gurukal. But read sivananda's article which mentions gurukal as an exclusive vadama clan - not without basis. But kanchipuram was more than a land of agama shastras, It wss a land of shrauta and yagna culture. It had the strongest sanskrit culture. This is the land which vadama dominated and lived. Vadama I belive after all my reading were the people who lived in northern tamilnad. Does that mean vadamas were homogenous not necessarily. To be more specific vadama were the ancient vaidiks of north tamilnad who could have been from anywhere before a certain period.North tamilnad composedd of places as north as tirupati and north arcot and as south as chidambaram.Look at the closely linked andhra vaidiks. How are they divided. They are divided into velanadu, mulukandu etc etc on the basis of region. Do you think all their ancestors came from the same part of country not at all. But the base location for being velanadu was costant for atleat 1000 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

http://fortheloveoflife.wordpress.com/2008/06/02/tracing-my-roots/

Refer to this article and you will be amazed about how unclear people are about their dates.

This is what I am saying all along, not only is 13 century too late for vadama migration, it misses a whole period when there were serious arguments between vadama and brahcharanam in pre ramanuja era. which is also part of legend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harishpsubramanian (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)