User talk:Chaipau

Happy New Year, Chaipau!

Happy New Year!

Chaipau,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Dimasa Kingdom

Please don't revert sourced content of Dimasa Kingdom. Dhruv Hojai (talk) 11:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bengali–Assamese languages; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Za-ari-masen (talk) 09:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop edit warring, Za-ari-masen. Chaipau (talk) 02:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary deletion

• Sharma, Chandan Kumar (2006), "Oral discourse and Bodo identity construction", in Muthukumaraswamy, M.D. (ed.), Folklore as Discourse, National folklore support centre, pp. 73–94

This is just book. Different tribe have different folklore. Baraha is title not Barahi subtribe of chutia. So, Is there any Barahi in Cachar ? Cachar name itself originate from Kachari. Just like Varman ,Pala, Khen are just dynasty name. Similarly baraha is just dynasty. It doesn't mean different should be seperate tribe. Is there any sworgodeo tribe ? Dhruv Hojai (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Dhruv Hojai In the book, look at the section "Who are the Bodos?" (p75). It says "The Bodo-Kacharis belonging to the..." and then goes on to use the term Bodo and Bodo-Kachari synonymously ("In western Assam they are more popularly known as Bodos or Bodo-Kacharis"). It has been the bane of Indian writing that the name Bodo has been so badly misused. So we have a situation where the term Bodo is used to denote the western politically dominant group (the Boro) as well as the greater group (which will include Boro as well as Dimasa, Thengal-Kachari etc.).

To avoid this confusion, we are trying to develop a convention in Wikipedia such that this confusion does not arise. Bodo-Kachari peoples refers to the greater group and Boro people refers solely to the western group. The Barahi people belonged to the Bodo-Kachari group, but they were subsumed by the Ahoms. It is not clear yet that the Baraha king, Mahamanikya (of Saptakanda Ramayana fame), is the same as the Mahamanipha the Dimasa king. If you see a reference that clearly states/proves that, then do include it in the Kachari kingdom article. Till then, Sharma's article belongs to Bodo-Kachari peoples because in the article Sharma is referring to the bigger group, not just to the Boro.

Chaipau (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Baraha means descendent of Pala of Kamarupa. Pala also used Sri-Varaha.

Kāmarupa Heramba Hidimba three Kingdom. Three royal dynasty of Dimasa Dhruv Hojai (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You have to provide reliable sources for these claims. Anyway, nothing to do with the issue at hand. Chaipau (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Mleccha dynasty or Kamarupa Kingdom

Do you have any evidence of Sukafa except your Buranjis ? Similarly we have our historical evidence of hachengsa dynasty who ruled kamarupa. Hachengsa means earth-born. What is your problem with our history ? Why are you deleting claims of Historian in support of Bodo-Kachari ? Dhruv Hojai (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

@Dhruv Hojai:, it was I who inserted the reference to Ha-Tsung-Tsa in the Kachari kingdom ([1]) and this is where it belongs. So do not accuse me of any bias. This association does not belong in Mlechchha dynasty or Kamarupa kingdom.

Also, the earliest historical mention of the Kacharis come from Buranjis, when Sukaphaa encountered them in the Tirap region currently in Arunachal. And much of what we know today about the Kachari kingdom comes from Ahom Buranji collected in Kachari Buranji. So be mindful of what you say about Buranjis too.

Chaipau (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Buranjis are not necessary for Ha-tsung-tsa family. We have ruins , coins , stone , inscription. Dhruv Hojai (talk) 11:16, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ruins, coins and stone inscriptions are from the 16th century onward. The Buranji reference notices Kacharis in the 13th century. Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ha=land , Tsung= cheng = split , tsa=sa=son=born , hachengsa = earth-born, Kamarupa means Kachari kingdom. Kalika puran Mahiranga = Mairong deity of Kacharis , Kalika puran , Tripura Rajmala etc have Kachari history. We don't lack evidence , We lack proper research. Dhruv Hojai (talk) 11:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC) @Chaipau: Hachengsa family deserve a place in kamarupa kingdom because it's royal claim and achaeologically evident. Hachengsa means earth-born. Dhruv Hojai (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Dhruv Hojai, we look forward to such research; when it exists, you can use it as references for Wikipedia. We need reliable sources. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Assamese literature

In your recent edit in Assamese literature (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/937987696) you changed "Ancient era" to "Early Assamese", but this ancient era is actually Kamarupi Prakrit (aka Old Assamese as mentioned by Chaterjee). Early Assamese comes in "Medieval era" of Pre-Vaishnava/Pre-Sankari and Vaishnava/Sankari perids. Then Middle Assamese comes under the "post-Sankari period (1700-1826)". Msasag (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Msasag: Yes. In the standard literature, Kamarupi Prakrit is not considered Assamese. Assamese, as found in literature, is only from the 12th century. But one should mention the earlier Charyapada etc. as shared origins. If Kamarupi Prakrit is proto-Assamese-Kamata language, then we do not know how it differs from proto-Bangla without a proper reconstruction. Chaipau (talk) 23:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

But early Assamese literature period is 14th-16th century, which is after 8th-12th century, the period of Charyapada. Msasag (talk) 05:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. That was a typo. Fully distinguished Assamese is found from 14th century, not from the 12th. So Early Assamese is from 14th-century. The 12th-14th period is the mixed period. I am following the time-boundaries as set down by Kakati, and followed by others. Surendranath Sarma follows the same division, but he calls Middle Assamese Vaishnavite period, ignoring the secular literature from Buranji etc. The current standard Assamese is pretty much the language of the Buranjis.

I shall help expand on the 4th century boundary.

Chaipau (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Greater Kamrup

I declined your speedy deletion request on Greater Kamrup, since it doesn't meet the definition of blatant hoax. In your edit summary you mentioned WP:POVFORK. Those are not speedyable, especially for one that's been around for seven years already. If you feel it should be deleted, feel free to take it to AfD (I will contest a prod not because I feel it must stay but because I think this needs discussion).----Fabrictramp | talk to me 04:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Asia

Hello Chaipau. You have been invited to join WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Asia-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the participants. If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by: {{subst:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge Invite (1)|~~~~}} Thanks, Chandan Guha (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Bijni kingdom concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Bijni kingdom, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive edit

You have been removing content related to Boro people. Your act is against a community. I don't think Wikipedia allow this type of Behavior. If you'll keep repeating same behaviour then you may be blocked DinaBasumatary (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The Dimasa are not Boro. Let us be clear on that. Chaipau (talk) 09:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Dimasa aren't Boro and Boro aren't Dimasa. Don't you understand English ? Go and read what is written in Kakoty research. It's related to memoir of Sylhet and Cachar... That paper talk about Kacharis of Cachar. Ramsa migrated from Cachar to Plain. You've no right to distort Boro History. Your act against Bodo community is not acceptable as per Wikipedia rule DinaBasumatary (talk) 10:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

You've removed Boro from Mahamanikya page also. That claim was backed by modern scholar. Read it. Sen, Debasis (1984). "ETHNIC ELEMENTS IN THE POLITICAL LIFE OF ANCIENT ASSAM". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 45: 101–106. DinaBasumatary (talk) 10:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@DinaBasumatary: Don't mix up Bodo with Boro. The Boro are the Tibeto-Burman speaking people from the Bhutan foothills. On the other hand, use of Bodo has been changing, in academic contexts, so be careful. You cannot use the Bodo/Boro confusion and make outlandish claims on Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Who is mixing ? Bodo = Boro. Don't you know pronunciation ? DinaBasumatary (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are a literate person then just look at census of all the districts of Assam.

Don't talk like a jealous person. DinaBasumatary (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This discussion is continued in Talk:Kachari_Kingdom#Bodosa. Chaipau (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You have cited Bathari very much. So, Add batharis claim about river crossing . That happened between Dimasa and Moran. Gogoi assumption of Kachari ghat is mistake. DinaBasumatary (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Boro–Garo languages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Creole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

You are welcome. Have some tea! (offering tea to the chai guy ) Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week from certain pages (Boro people) for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Yunshui ^雲_水 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I've lifted the block; since the opposite party has now been blocked as a sockpuppet and since your message on my talkpage clearly showed that you recognised the problems with your own approach, I see no likelihood of the edit war continuing and thus no reason to maintain a block on editing the article. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Chaipau (talk) 14:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Bodo-Kachari or Boro-Kachari

Since, Boro is phonetically better. Don't you think , Bodo-Kacharis page should be moved to Boro-Kacharis ? Scholars used Bodo with Boro pronunciation. S.K. Chatterjee, Grierson , Endle clarified the exact pronunciation. Thank you2409:4065:12:5789:E080:12CE:BAE1:C42F (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

We are trying to come to a consistent use of Bodo and Boro here in Wikipedia. Boro for the subgroup and Bodo for the super-group. Since this article is about the supergroup, we should continue using Bodo-Kachari. Chaipau (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Boro, Bodo, Boro-Kachari, Bodo-Kachari are all used for Boro people. Early Scholars used to add race for super-group. Now, race is obsolete concept, So, confusion arised. Modern scholars are using Bodo-kachari for super-group and Bodo(=Boro) for sub-group. So, we can remove Bodo super-group word from the beginning. Etymologies clearly explain Bodo and Kacharis separately, mixing these two become bodo-kachari. 2409:4065:12:5789:7427:97B2:1D59:5FC8 (talk) 20:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we are using Bodo-Kachari for super group, so no change required. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

We can make change from Bodo-Kachari (also Kachari, Bodo]) to Bodo-Kachari (also Kachari). 2409:4065:8D:ED9F:106:B716:BEBA:D92A (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

There is a problem in statement related first publication of Bodo word. Martin Montgomery(1838) in The history, antiquities, topography, and statistics of eastern India writes that Proper name of Kacharis is Boro.(page 549) 2409:4065:8D:ED9F:106:B716:BEBA:D92A (talk) 05:39, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Qwertywander again

I semiprotected the Bodo-Kachari article as the IPv6 is clearly either Qwertywander or Sairg. Please ping me or WP:ANI if you spot any more. The latest sock to be blocked was Paragkumardas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Guy (help!) 12:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Thank you.

I was about to ask for semi-protection—and I shall ping you in the future as you have suggested.

Chaipau (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Moamoria has been accepted

Moamoria, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cerebellum (talk) 02:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Barāha Mahamanikya

I think you misunderstood my edit. I'm not linking Mahamanikya with Khalang or Borahi because Khalang Borahi were Chutiya and Barāha of Nagaon were Kachari. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 11:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: yes, but who Mahamanikya was is not certain. Best to leave out the link to him. Chaipau (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 11:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Kachari Kingdom

Is it require move entire Kachari kingdom to Dimasa kingdom as you did here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kachari_Kingdom&redirect=no ? There were many small small Kachari kingdoms. Shin ignored beginning and took Hachengsa as base for Dimasa history. So, we can keep the confusion part as Kachari history. Some scholars confusingly connected Dimasa with Kachari kingdom of Ganeshguri. We can keep these unclear history in Kachari kingdom page. Thanks Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes. By Kachari kingdom we invariably mean the Dimasa kingdom and they are used synonymously in literature . The others were not "kingdoms", unless reported in literature (we need to follow WP:RS and avoid WP:OR). Please note that autonomous chiefs, like the Beltola chief, were called Datiyaliya Raja, but they were not kings in the true sense of the term. Even Darrang was not a kingdom---the "king" reported to the Borphukan. Chaipau (talk)

Ok then. I'm actually referring to the kingdom before rise of Koch and Ahom. There was a Heramba kingdom in Guwahati. Later it split into many pieces. Though Dimasa kingdom is in literature, Actual History is very different. Anyway, It's WP:OR. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 11:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Most interesting thing about Ahom kingdom is administration. We can create a separate page for Ahom administration. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Many of these smaller fiefdoms too were actually older—Beltola, Rani etc. They were not independent. They could have been independent for short periods of time, but most often they were not. And the chiefs did not necessarily belong to the same ethnicity as the peasants in that. Chaipau (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Neolithic

"Neolithic correlates of ancient Tibeto-Burman migrations" , This paper says many things about neolithic culture of Tibeto-Burman Northeast because many things discovered in northeast have relation with China. I would prefer to categorise Austroasiatic and Tibeto-burman within a new section "Neolithic" people of AssamLogical Man 2000 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: I have read many papers of van Driem. He keeps changing his positions and he can never clearly say anything definite. He looks like he tries too hard. I don't think we should use him for substantial. Same goes for his student, Manjil Hazarika. van Driem is also the one who is claiming that the Austroasiatics domesticated rice in the northeast. I am averse to using that.

As far as calling the Tibeto-Burman people in Northeast neolithic---let us not use labels, because the Tibeto-Burman display many different cultures. Some display hunter-gatherer and forest-dwelling characteristics, so we should not go into that debate.

Just keep it at pre-history.

Chaipau (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay then. As per DNA report, There is very less difference between Khasi and Tibeto-Burman of Assam. Tibeto-Burman is very big group. Hill people are different from plain people. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 21:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

If the Tibeto-Burmans are so different from each other, how could they be so similar to the Khasis?

In any case, why do you want the Tibeto-Burman be so similar to the Khasis?

Chaipau (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Tibeto-Burman is big group. They can still migrate from Tibet. Obviously there will be difference. And your second question don't make any sense. It's not my claim. You can read other journals. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I know which paper you are referring to. That author has changed his conclusions after recent discoveries. Chaipau (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

In sequencing the immigrations, we are following the schema put down by Taher. So there is no WP:OR. Chaipau (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Guha had written that Indo-Aryan brought wet rice , iron etc without any reference. How can we believe it's true ? And Taher, Mohammad (1993), "The Peopling of Assam and contemporary social structure" have mixed Bodo-Kachari with Monpas, Naga etc. Naga itself is mysterious name for many different tribes. If you've better source then please add it. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Guha's claim is historical, and accepted widely. Have you seen a refutation somewhere? Taher has mentioned TB, and these groups are TB. Some of these groups did enter Assam just prior to Colonialism. Chaipau (talk) 10:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Bhaskar Varma and his ancestors also had contact with China. Wet rice cultivation was known to China. So, This technology was already known or borrowed from Indo-Aryan is hard to say. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You can carry on with his claim. But I'm not convinced because he hadn't given any logic. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

It is now clear that the TB did wet rice cultivation, of the kharma ahu variety, but not sali. This settles the issue. Chaipau (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Boros did asu , sali , pharma . You can check correct spelling in endle. And one more thing :

I would suggest you not keep tagging everything with Bodo-kachari peoples. It's no more racial group. Garo of hills were headhunter. Dimasa had completely different culture from Boro. Koch-Rajbongshi is confusing. So, Please be specific instead of mixing everything. Just like Pre-historic or medieval Indo-Aryan don't want to be categorised with Recent Bangladeshi immigrants. Infact, There is lots of opposition to Bodo or Bodo-kachari umbrella from other groups. Anybody can learn a language. Scholars have already suggested that Boro-Garo was kind of lingua franca. So, Based on language we can never say everybody were same people. Thanks Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Boros might have done ahu, sali and kharma in colonial times, but you cannot project ethnic identities even a few hundred years, leave alone a thousand. That is WP:OR. We are sticking here to the right category as given in the sources. Also, Endle had limited sources, and on Wikipedia colonial era writings, especially from these kind of authors are considered not reliable. For what it is worth, Endle could not even spell Boro properly and he used two to three different spellings in the same paragraph and mixed up the categories. Ahu and Sali are standard spellings.

IA immigration after the medieval times are treated differently, as are Muslim immigrations.

Chaipau (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, please note identities do not remain constant over time. Boro identity developed in the post-colonial period. Assamese identity developed in the late medieval and colonial period. So it would be wrong to call the IA immigrants in the prehistoric times as Assamese. It would be wrong to call the Tais who came in in the 13th century as synonymous with the Ahoms today. And so on. Chaipau (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? When did i say anything about Assamese? Which scholar have proved that Assamese identity medieval and Boro identity is post colonial ? Assamese means Ahom according to your Wikipedia edits in etymology of Assam. Boro identity isn't artificial thing to be developed. You can carry on your imagination. Remember one thing Boro isn't name given by others. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

If you still don't know who are Kacharis of Brahmputra valley then please read any recently published History book. I just said that there is lots of difference within Bodo-kachari peoples. So, I suggest you to be specific. But your replies made me uncomfortable. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. We will go by Wikipedia policies here. Chaipau (talk) 14:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please follow wikipedia rules

Don't remove cited content as you did here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&diff=954219881&oldid=954216885 . If you have any problem then seek concensus from other editors Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: This issue has been extensively discussed here: Talk:Mahamanikya. Other Wikipedia editors too have given their opinions. You are pushing the same opinion that another editor was pushing, who is now banned. Even we discussed it here User_talk:Chaipau#Barāha_Mahamanikya, where you agreed to keep Mahamanikya out.

I have seen a surge in POV pushing from an ethnic point of view in recent times. Be it Ahom or Boro or Assamese or some other group. Wikipedia is here to tell everyone's story, but in a reliable NPOV way, but not participate in their real-life political conflicts.

Chaipau (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

History always lies between certianity and uncertainity. This time , i disagree with you. Please ask a admin, if he agree with your revert then it's okay. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not my POV. It's the scholars who think Varaha --> Boro. If you ask my POV then Boro --> Varaha. Boro was sanskritized into Varaha. Your edits in etymology of Bodo in Bodo Kachari peoples are also twisted version of reality. You have written Bodo for Boro is confusing. But the truth is Bodo for everyone is confusing. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 09:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You cannot just quote a scholar because he agrees with your POV. Chaipau (talk) 10:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Look at what Moshahary says---It should be Boro for the Boro people, not Bodo. It is not my opinion, you see. The 'd' entered here due to Hogdson, because of the way some phonemes in Hindi are romanised. It did not help that he confused categories of people as well. Look at Jaqeusson. Chaipau (talk) 10:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not my POV. It's the truth. If you're here to erase the hardwork and sacrifice of Boros then carry on. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Bodo is pronounced as Boro. For example , Bidi for Biri. Hodgson took Bodo ( = Boro ) from Boro people and used over other groups. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We seem to be saying the same thing. Hogdson made a mistake (1) Using Bodo for Boro and (2) Using it to define all people including the Boro. Unfortunately, Bodo caught on, after Grierson. Now we have "Bodoland Territorial Region" and "Bodo language" enshrined in the official documents.

For the purpose of Wikipedia, we can dissociate Bodo from Boro, following Mushahary. As far as possible. We cannot call Bodoland Boroland. We cannot call Bodo language Boro language. So what is your solution? Chaipau (talk) 10:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: I did not understand how I am erasing the hardwork and sacrifice of Boros. Chaipau (talk) 10:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You have either twisted or removed most things which goes in favour of Boro. Since, Mech word is related to founder of Koch kingdom. You opposed merge of Mech with Boro. Since, Varaha have relation with Boro. You removed the information from etymology. You can carry on. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Mech is considered to be an independent language according to Burhling 2003. His classification is: Bodo languages: (1) Dimasa (2) Kachari (3) Boro and (4) Mech, as reported by Jacquesson. Given that Mech is listed separately from Boro, there is enough doubt that Mech and Boro should be listed differently. This has nothing to do with the Boros. Chaipau (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Roman script isn't enough to represent all the letters of Varnamala. Bodo and Boro will go in parallel just like Assam and Axom Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, as long as we know what we are talking about. The linguists (example Burhling above) clearly makes a difference between Bodo and Boro. Jacquesson too. Chaipau (talk) 11:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We are talking about people. We can create different page for language. Within Boro there are four dialects. I'm talking about Mech people. You are talking about language. There is difference. No mech of Goalpara or Original Mech call themselves mech. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 11:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Dimasa also have hojai language and different certificate. These aren't real name of community. These are just by product. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Etymology of Bodo

Do you understand meaning of etymology ? If you don't know then please check it. BTW , Here Assam#Etymology, you've defined Ahom. Do you have any personal problem with Boro people ? Logical Man 2000 (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: Yes, I know the meaning of Etymology. I have no problems with any Ahom or Bodo people. I have problems with editors trying to push a POV on Wikipedia, both Ahom and Bodo. There is no doubt Assam's Etymology is related to the Tai-Shan people. It is specifically mentioned that Hogdson named the "Mech and Kachari" as Bodo. But all who were called Kachari do not call themselves Bodo or Boro. The Dimasa is an example So you should provide critically nuanced texts and not push Boro-centric definitions. Doing so in an example of disruptive editing. Chaipau (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

If you really know meaning of etymology then write how that term come into existence. There is no difference between Bodo and Boro. If it says Bodo people then it means Boro people, If it says Bodo race or Bodo linguistic group then it means everyone. You're making things complicated. I tried to make it simple but may be you don't understand other than yourself. It's not my POV , instead you don't want anything other than your POV. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am NPOV-zing the text. Chaipau (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for removing confusing word. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Bodo-Kacharis

Since, Bodo or Bodo-Kachari is linguistic and anthropological term. Don't you think - we should change Bodo-Kachari_peoples to just Bodo-Kachari Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: This category of peoples is used in scholarship often, so keep for now. Chaipau (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Logical Man

That style looks awfully familiar... Guy (help!) 18:49, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Chaipau (talk) 19:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Very familiar. Richard Keatinge (talk) 07:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG, Richard Keatinge, and Chaipau: Stumbled by coincidence into this just a few hours ago. Looks like a very obvious duck. –Austronesier (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier, I suggest an ANI report with diffs, which requires a degree of familiarity with past accounts that I do not have. All I can say is that no genuinely new user has ever set a committed identity on their user page with their first edit. Guy (help!) 17:22, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Guy: I'm in the midst of collecting evidence and maybe can already go straight to SPI tomorrow. –Austronesier (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Austronesier, thanks Guy (help!) 18:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@JzG, Richard Keatinge, and Austronesier: I would help out with both SPI and ANI. This time there was also a strong push to legitimize/popularize a set of old colonial texts, and we may need some explicit policy alignment with User:Sitush/CasteSources. @Sitush and Phil Bridger:. Chaipau (talk) 14:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have been waiting for your diffs, but now I have taken action already, SPI filed. –Austronesier (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Your Latest Comment

Hey, if you think a page should be deleted you could either start an AFD or request speedy deletion. Idan (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zvikorn: I did not want to start a different process even as the discussion on the draft was going on. Do you recommend a speedy deletion? I shall go ahead an submit. Chaipau (talk) 14:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Chaipau, I don't recommend anything. I haven't looked at the article fully. You can look at the different types of speedy deletion and if it fits one of the categories then go ahead. Idan (talk) 14:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Zvikorn: OK, done. DB-G11. Chaipau (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Hello, I'm Logical Man 2000. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mech people without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't remove cited content of padmasri awardee scholar Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Logical Man 2000. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mech people have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. If you'll not stop pushing your POV then i'll go for WP:ANI Logical Man 2000 (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you want to directly use colonial source ?

No modern scholar use this Note on the Tribal Name "Mes (Mech)" Stuart N. Wolfenden . This is just arbitrary guess without proper investigation. It is WP:FRINGE. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:30, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Stuart_N._Wolfenden was a linguist from University of California, Berkeley. Not colonial. Mlechchha → Mech, OTOH, is definitely colonial. Every other etymology is speculative. Chaipau (talk) 10:45, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject India 10,000 Challenge

Hello Chaipau. You are invited to join the new WikiProject India 10,000 Challenge, a challenge which aims to see 10,000 improvements, destubs, and creations for Indian articles, covering every state of India and topic. Articles on all related topics are welcome. We need numbers to make this work and do something extraordinary for India on Wikipedia! Every 100 articles submitted will be copied into the wider Asian challenge. Sign up on the page if interested and start contributing! If you know someone who might be interested, please invite them by: {{subst:WikiProject India/The 10,000 Challenge Invite|~~~~}} Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Boro people, you may be blocked from editing. If you don't know history of Boro then don't edit anything related to Boro people. Please stop doing disruptive edits. Boro culture is different from your culture. Boros have much more than you could even imagine. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Logical Man 2000: Please follow the discussion in Talk:Boro people. If you have issues, please follow DR procedures, starting with WP:3O. Chaipau (talk) 12:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Mech-Kachari people

Please create a new page called Mech-Kachari people , then all the problem will be solved. Mech-Kachari are ST-Hill in Nagaland, So they identify separately. They can't leave Kachari word for ST-Hill , They can't join Boro for ST-Hill. Historically, Kachari and Mech are names of two different region. Mech aren't Kachari and Kachari aren't Mech in History but they are same people. Among them most people call themselves Boro. Other call themselves Sarania Kachari, Sonowal Kachari , Thengal Kachari , Mech Kachari , Dimasa Kachari etc Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Not necessary. There are historical Mech people. And there is a language called Mech that linguists talk about. There is actually no problem and it has been resolved to keep the page after discussion. Chaipau (talk) 16:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Mech Kachari speak Assamese. Historical Mech and Kachari are names given by other. But today Kachari is also divided. Mech is also divided. Nobody can claim they are the entire Kachari or entire Mech. We can keep this page and we can also create Mech-Kachari. Mech is just like Kachari. Many Rajbongshi are Mech. We can divide Mech into Boro , Rajbongshi and Mech-Kachari Logical Man 2000 (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

We don't know who gave these names. From the literature, even Mech and Kachari are self designations. Chaipau (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

There was no community called Indian. But now we call ourselves Indian. Now Indian is self-designation, It doesn't mean we don't have other designation. This is basic thing. S.N. Wolfened took from grierson. Grierson took information from Bengali clerks. This is how confusion occured. He hadn't done field work. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 17:32, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Chutia people

I've undone several of your edits at Chutia people because you didn't provide a source. When editing, please find reliable sources first, write a citation for them (see Help:Footnotes to learn how), and then add your changes to the article along with the footnotes at the same time. Please respect Wikipedia's core principle of WP:Verifiability. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my Talk page. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on People of Assam; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 21:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: welcome back from semi-retirement. The discussion is here: Talk:People_of_Assam#HbE_frequencies. Chaipau (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Chaipau simply undertook a laudable effort to keep fabricated info (which was not in the least supported by the cited source) out of WP. The only reproachable thing that I see here is the fact that Chaipau failed to immediately bring the disruptive IP edits to ANI. –Austronesier (talk) 13:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I admit I am in the wrong just as you have said. I am/have been struggling a bit with the ethics of reporting an editor who I disagree with. But I am trying to come around to the view that not reporting harms WP and wastes everyone's time. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Changing Bodo-Kachari to Kachari

I edited added the information into talk page of Bodo-Kachari. Bodo Kachari is currently only to address the Boro/Bodo tribe. Other Kacharis are not known as Bodo-Kacharis, but only as 'Kacharis'. Tribes like Sonowal, Thengal, Dimasas, Sarania etc aren't considered as Bodo/Boro but instead Kacharis. Tizen03 (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Discussion in Talk:Bodo-Kachari_Peoples#Change_the_title_of_the_page_from_'Bodo-Kachari'_to_'Kachari_People'. Chaipau (talk) 14:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Atleast adding the word 'Kachari' after the word Bodo-Kachari is possible right ? Tizen03 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

To create a new Wiki article

Hey, I need your help in creating a new Wikipedia article for 'Ahomization'. Currently there's no Wiki page for that. Tizen03 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tizen03: that is a good idea. Could you possibly work on Draft:Ahomisation (Indian spelling) article, and I shall definitely add to it. Currently I am a little short-changed for time. Chaipau (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, can you check the Ahomisation page. If its okay publish it. Tizen03 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

@Tizen03: I think it requires some more information. Currently it has information which already is available in Wikipedia. There was a lot of converts—even at the aristocratic Ahom levels. I think this article should get into those issues. Chaipau (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, check the Ahomisation page again. That's all the information I was able to find. If you have some more information, you can add it as well. If its correct then publish it. Tizen03 (talk) 12:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, should I remove the genetics part or should I leave as it is. Tizen03 (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Chaipau help me in the process of creating this 'Ahomisation' page. As I'm actually on a tight shedule, also I'm not that experienced in Wiki editing. Tizen03 (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: The Ahomisation page have enough content now. Should I move the draft to article now ? Tizen03 (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tizen03: I think it requires a little bit of editing. There are some original thoughts there and references are missing. I shall look into it in more detail in a few days time. Thanks for your efforts! Chaipau (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Tai languages

I've been busy filling up the pages of these Tai languages in Assam, besides Ahom, such as Aiton, Phake, Khamti. They're finally starting to have some content. Glennznl (talk) 13:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

@Glennznl: yes, I have noticed. Thank you Chaipau (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Zayeem ^(talk) 15:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You are most welcome.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Have you seen the recent edits here. Looks unreliably sourced and excessive. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk: I have not idea what this source is about: http://www.populationu.com/ The IP-editor seems to be adding up all these numbers. I have no idea what the source is, will have to dig into census data to verify. In any case, I don't think we need to give the detailed breakup as given there. Also, i don't like the picture—makes the article look like a tourism brochure. The same is true for Meitei people. Chaipau (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Hello, Chaipau! I already discussed with you that mythological and mythical are similar words. That article does not have only one source. Mythological is more suitable word for these kind of characters which are found in scriptures. Ratan375 (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ratan375: If they are similar words, I don't see the problem in using mythical, which is what the reference is saying. Chaipau (talk) 19:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I wonder what's your problem! That Bhagavata Purana citation is not reliable since its only have verse. That's why I replaced the with https://books.google.co.in/books?id=fb_VDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT70&dq=narakasura+mythological&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi71eeX7ZPrAhVTILcAHWMmAucQ6AEITjAF#v=onepage&q=narakasura%20Varaha&f=false

And I changed location of a (Sircar 1990:80)</ref> this source because it's mention about Narakasura's successor. So this source is more suitable for that line. Ratan375 (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Sircar is not God that whatever he writes you have to copy, when other citations clearly mentioned it as mythological story. Mythology is a less offensive word for a particular community. Mythology means a collection of myth. It's a best word for modern era. Ratan375 (talk) 01:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ratan375: Dineshchandra Sircar is a renowned scholar. We follow WP:RS in Wikipedia. Wikipedia cannot add value with cherry-picked web-search results. And please do not raise irrelevant issues here. Chaipau (talk) 03:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

A mythical entity is an entity in a myth. Mythology is the study of myths. It's also true that "mythical" and "mythological" are commonly used as synonyms, but if we are to maintain the, slightly useful, distinction between the two words, Sircar is using the correct one. Richard Keatinge (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi

I have met you in a bitter dispute and an ANI, not the best places to meet, and certainly no place experience and enjoy the good work you have done. But from the little I have seen, you are probably awesome.

I am here to request you that at the ANI stay true to the complaint you went there with - hostile edits at articles on Bengali-Assamese language/script. You have a valid complaint there, and you don't need to get muddled into discussions about Liberations Wars and stuff. If someone has a problem with the person you are complaining about, they definitely can take it outside. No need to get pulled into somewhat childish debates about topic-bans. Even if the person deserves a topic ban, you ANI is not a place for that discussion. I would rather offer my assistance to develop the articles in dispute. And I think I agree to your stand on those articles.

Thanks for reading this. The last few disputes and debates I have seen are so painful and upsetting, as well as a total wastage of time and energy! Y Here let me offer a cup of tea (to the Chaiwala, the irony). I hope its not as bad as my talk page comments. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: As you might have noticed I have no comment on the his other activities besides the ones I have encountered with him. And I have explicitly stated that I am not taking a position on his topic ban. And, thank you. Your contributions on all these articles will be much appreciated. I don't WP:OWN them in any case . Chaipau (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

You absolutely don't need to own them to be the awesome scholar you seem to be. I would probably begin with Bengali–Assamese script, a subject very close to my heart (though I can't claim to have any scholarship in that direction).

BTW, you are from Assam, right? I recently drew some flak at Quora (but not on Reddit) for suggesting that Bangla maybe a daughter language to Assamese. When I checked for academic sources, I was shocked to find that almost everything written about the subject was by Bengalis (guess what their opinion was... ). Do you have any idea which books I should be reading to get a clearer picture on that? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Your Quora claim was probably too WP:BOLD and not just by Wikipedia standards. I am afraid all of us are in quest for a clearer picture, and it probably will not be found in a few books. Look forward to collaborations in the future. Chaipau (talk) 11:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: I know why I shun Quora and Reddit LOL. Yes, that was pretty bold. The Bengali-Assamese dialect continuuum is quite similar to the continental West Germanic dialect continuuum (i.e. German and Dutch, but excluding Frisian). Like Standard German, Standard Bengali has long been a center of gravity which served as a point of reference for peripheral lects, however divergent they may be (Swiss German ≈ Chittagonian language). Dutch and Assamese came to thrive outside of the sphere of influence of their dominant neighbors. Nevertheless, Bengali and German "dialects" have a high degree of internal diversity, that is just as significant as the difference between Assamese and Standard Bengali, or between Dutch and Standard German. –Austronesier (talk) 12:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Yes. Masica says the Standard Bengali-Chittagonian distance is greater than Standard Bengali-Standard Assamese. Chaipau (talk) 13:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Much much greater. In that, Chittagonian may be the Dutch in the continuum (no pun intended). Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Some clarification

The comment I made was directed not to you but to Srijanx22 who claimed that I was misrepresenting sources. I think the source can be interpreted in different ways, I interpreted it as the Rajbanshis are using a form of earlier script which they could call their own and which has some similarities with Assamese alphabet but not entirely Assamese. You interpreted it as Rajbanshis are using Assamese alphabets which I respect, but was it really a WP:CIR on my part? You also said I help Wikipedia in nothing but just few comments above, another editor said I helped him create an article while one of my articles has been approved for DYK. You do know that I'm in a position where I at least have to refute the arguments who are supporting a ban against me. Za-ari-masen (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

A new article page for Assamese phonology ?

Shouldn't Assamese phonology be a completely different page ? A lot of other languages have a separate page for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tizen03 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tizen03: We usually split out phonology sections into articles of their own when the main article exceeds a certain size and if there are sufficient sources to built a descent specialized page. The first criterion is fulfilled at a level of still being optional, but NB mostly due to the presence of massive unsourced tables. The phonologyy section is perfectly sourced for a separate page, but splitting it out would somehow be a pity, because it is the best sourced part of the page next to the lede and "History". –Austronesier (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I agree. The massive tables are exhaustive and possibly should be split out, with encyclopedic summaries taking their place. Where do you think they should go? Chaipau (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: There's the rub. As long as they are unsourced, we cannot split them anywhere. Actually, their size is still decent compared to what has been going on in Hindustani grammar. And I am sure their content is valid. But personally, I would prefer comprehensive, yet concise tables with good sources which readers can consult if they want to learn more (per WP:NOTMANUAL). –Austronesier (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: you are absolutely right. @Msasag: could you please help get some references for the tables. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Draft page for review ?

@Chaipau: Regarding Ahomisation Do I have to manually add the article (by moving it to draft first) for review ? I haven't created any article from scratch before, so please help me on this one. Tizen03 (talk) 11:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tizen03: I don't understand what you did there. It was in the main space, but you moved it back to the Draft space. Chaipau (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Chaipau: But last time I didn't submit it for review, I just moved it from draft to main space. And a lot of articles says I need to submit it for review first. Moreover the article wasn't showing in Google search, so I thought it was because of this reason. So what should I do now ? Move it back to main space or let it stay this way for review ? Tizen03 (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Tizen03: Can I edit the draft? I hope I can add some value.BTW, you don't need to ping editors on their own talk page. :D Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya Kabir: Sure you can. The more contributors the better. Tizen03 (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Bengali–Assamese script

I have some stuff on me that I am going to put into the article. Please, be there, check if they are appropriate, and make ncessary changes (or suggest necessary changes).

BTW, my little research on this has increased my conviction that Assamese is the mother language to Bengali, the language that became more influential with help from our colonial overlords. Do you have any idea where I can get a copy of The Evolution of Assamese Script by Mahendra Bara? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Check the article. I also am thinking of a section on usage, and add some information on how Meithei and other languages treat the script. By the way, Sylheti Nagri appears to be unconnected to Eastern Nagri. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 12:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aditya: yes, some usage details by Meitei and others are given, but some fleshing out will certainly help. Chaipau (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Meitei

Luwanglinux (talk) 15:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)Ah for God's sake how many time should I tell you Meitei is an ethnic group. this is not about language.our language is presently known as Manipuri language officially

@Luwanglinux: please slow down. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, so you need to cooperate with others. There are policies and guidelines the community has developed, please follow them. This is probably a good place to start: WP:LOP. Please familiarize yourself with at least the content and the behavior related policies. Chaipau (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

Your recent editing history at Bengali–Assamese languages shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 07:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Bhaskarbhagawati: That's an utterly weird warning, considering that Chaipau has edited the page only twice this week (one single edit, one string of edits). Only the first was a revert, and FWIW the back revert in "violation" of WP:BRD was made by Za-ari-masen who to be fair is not edit warring on that page either. They fervently discuss on the talk page, and that's per se not reproachable at all. @Chaipau: This had to be said, if you want to remove the totally unsubstantial warning, feel free to remove my comment as well. –Austronesier (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thank you for saying that. The notice is the fallout of a longish engagement I had on an issue. The irony for Bhaskarbhagawati is that they invited their own semi-retirement by posting just such a notice on someone else's talk page.[2] I think I shall just let it stand as a reminder that Wikipedia has a long memory, its policies are fair and they actually work. Chaipau (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Austronesier, i had pinged by one editor of Bengali–Assamese languages on long standing conduct of User:Chaipau. When i checked indeed user has violated 3RR rule as confirmed by Wikipedia algorithm. It is long behavioural issue as ascertained by number of warnings he got. Obsequiousness helped him to get away with anything which he has taken it as granted. He invited his own block [3], although he promised to behave, it seems he has not changed his ways.भास्कर् Bhagawati संवाद 16:37, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: Someone pinging you about me?? Hmmm...interesting... You might know that there is a policy against that. Thanks for your alert. Chaipau (talk) 17:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Bhaskarbhagawati: How do you define "currently" (cf. the first sentence of the warning)? –Austronesier (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, I totally deserved the block]. Chaipau (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Rudra-Singha-Jayata-Kachari-inCourt.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rudra-Singha-Jayata-Kachari-inCourt.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Dimasa polity at Jorhat

(Sarma 2016:76–77)It was built by Chokrodoz (Chakradhvaj), 4th raja of Cachar but long subsequent to the erection of Ghergong in the Jorhat district. (Wade 1997:130) A Chinese plate was found in Jorhat which was deciphered and found to be the verification tally issued in the fifth year o-f the Yong-le reign (1407/08) to the "Di-ma-sa Pacification Superintendency". Historical records clearly prove Dimasa had capital at Jorhat before Dimapur. Why are you trying to remove this part ? 2409:4065:20C:A3F6:18A1:9A5F:9452:ECA4 (talk) 12:08, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information (WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Just because some information exists out there does not mean it deserves to be here. There is no other source that says the Dimasa kingdom was a province of the Chinese. And the references you have cited (Sarma) mentions political contacts with not just the Dimasa but with the Ahoms and the Tripuris as well. And Chokrodoz is no know Dimasa king. Furthermore the Dimasa did not control Cachar in the 14th century. There are too many problems associated with this. I shall remove the entire paragraph because it has no value. Once this has been examined by historians, and placed in the right context, then cite those historians. Right now this is just WP:PRIMARY so not reliable. Chaipau (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Pre-16th century's Ahom kingdom was originally part of Dimasa kingdom. Ahom invaded Dimasa and Dimasa had to move westward. Cachar was originally part of Twipra kingdom. 2409:4065:20C:A3F6:C927:FC57:2D2D:69B1 (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)