Archives

Archive1 • Archive2 • Archive3 • Archive4

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

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

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Okay! 'Mech' and 'Mech-Kachari' two are different now. So Pages should be created soon separately for these two's. Thank you Eulerfan1999 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eulerfan1999: Mech and Mech-Kachari are not two different entities. They are same. Please look at the discussion Talk:Mech_people. What are not same are Boro people and Mech people. Chaipau (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All 'Mech' peoples i.e., Mech people of 'West Bengal' speaks Bodo as their mother tongue And identify themselves as Bodo/boro But All 'Mech-kachari' are partially Kacharies and different than 'Mech'. So New page should be created soon. Eulerfan1999 (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eulerfan1999: Please take this discussion to the talk page. I wonder why you are adding your comments here is a discussion with a user who has been banned. This section is closed. Chaipau (talk) 19:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

You are most welcome.

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

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

@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)[reply]

Hi, can you see this? Is it our guy Sairg? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Yes, very likely. He has been editing without logging in since the last block. Chaipau (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, thanks for the revert. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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) harvcol error: no target: CITEREFSircar1990 (help)</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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If the rajbongshi population shows more in West Bengal's scheduled Cast figure then we will follow that. Eulerfan1999 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy Diwali!!!
		Sky full of fireworks, Mouth full of sweets, Home full of lamps, And festival full of sweet memories... Wishing You a Very Happy and Prosperous Diwali. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply] Send Diwali wishings by adding {{subst:Happy Diwali}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Chaipau, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Fylindfotberserk: Thank you and Seasonal Greetings to you too! Chaipau (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This would also apply to Chhattisgarhi, right? What do you think, move back per BRD? –Austronesier (talk) 11:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Austronesier: Yes. I moved the page back. Chaipau (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Fylindfotberserk: Happy New Year to you too! Here is looking forward to another great year in Wikipedia! Chaipau (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and same to you . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is better to replace ethnic identifiers (Assamese, Bengali, Odishan, etc) from the this with the nationalities. What do you say? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I agree. I added a name and did not include the ethnic identifier. But we could make exceptions for poets, writers etc. who write in a particular language. Chaipau (talk) 16:53, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edits thats why. For poets and writers, I prefer the format "Indian XYZ-language poet/writer", etc. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would work very well indeed. Chaipau (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - Chaipau (talk) 11:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chaipau, how are you? You added a reference {{harvcol|Wade|1997|p=220}} in Dimasa Kingdom [4]. Could you please tell me the book's name? Thanks so much.--Xiliuheshui · chat 00:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@瑞丽江的河水: I see that was a typo. I think it should be 1994, not 1997. Chaipau (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! It is 1994 page 220, I found it [5] ,thanks.--Xiliuheshui · chat 01:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Islamic Invasions of Assam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mughal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chaipau (talk) 06:54, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All 'Mech' peoples i.e., Mech people of 'West Bengal' speaks Bodo as their mother tongue And identify themselves as Bodo/Boro But 'Mech-kachari' peoples are partially Kacharies and different than 'Mech'. So New page should be created differently for this two's soon. Eulerfan1999 (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may please use references to prove your point. Chaipau (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already given valid citetion. Eulerfan1999 (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eulerfan1999: you have given a citation but it is not valid (not RS). Per [6]. Chaipau (talk) 22:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaipau. This is Gazal world from Gujarat. I just wanted to know that do you know Boro language ? OR do you know any person here who knows Boro? I need a small help regarding Boro language. I want to get written a Boro book title into Hindi. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gazal world: thank you for the interest. I am unable to help you with this. Sorry. Chaipau (talk) 04:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop manipulating Ahom History related pages otherwise I will make sure this doesn't get unnoticed by the descendants. 11Anonymous1122 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that you should get your facts clear before making any changes. If you search in google you'll get the actual facts about the first Borpatrogohain. 11Anonymous1122 (talk) 23:29, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supimphaa

Check this out before clicking the undo option. 11Anonymous1122 (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@11Anonymous1122: Wikipedia can be very easily improved with reliable sources. Descendants are not treated specially in Wikipedia and they will have to provide reliable sources too. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines if you want to make positive contribution to Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since you wanted clarification. These are some of the facts from Assamese History Books.

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1455574801282396&id=100004896692397&set=a.1056539917852555

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1447189865454223&id=100004896692397&set=a.1056539917852555

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1352904591549418&id=100004896692397&set=a.1056539917852555 11Anonymous1122 (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to go through this Book

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=HyD5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT216&lpg=PT216&dq=kancheng+Borpatragohain&source=bl&ots=o4wAPsfWGY&sig=ACfU3U0XGALQiVWhMzyNkPX2i_SnP6Tpiw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi3_L_TjpnvAhV6wzgGHc_cCsgQ6AEwEnoECBEQAg#v=onepage&q=kancheng%20Borpatragohain&f=false 11Anonymous1122 (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@11Anonymous1122: this book is not necessarily RS because its primary topic is something else. (WP:RSCONTEXT Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable. It does not cite the source of the claim it is making either. Please provide another reference. Chaipau (talk) 15:36, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chaipau. I hope that you are in a good health. Recently, when I read the articles on KRNB lects and Goalparia dialects, I was confused whether both the lects are one and the same, or are different from each other. Since these lects are spoken approximately in the same region (North Bengal, West Assam), it becomes very difficult to differentiate them. Can you please clear my doubts? I will be very grateful to you. Thank you! Mahakaal2003 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahakaal2003: KRNB lects deals with the lects associated with the proto-Kamata language. This article article has a historical lingustics focus. Goalpariya dialects is associated with the Indo-Aryan dialects in the Undivided Goalpara district and it has a more socio-lingusitic and current focus. These two articles are not mutually exclusive. Chaipau (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: Thanks! Mahakaal2003 (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would like you to check this edit by the IP. This IP had tried modifying and adding OR before in this article and the related ethnic group before. I've reverted the Grierson part since it is sourced, but not the better tag they added. Please take a look. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I agree with your edit—the claim is supported by the source. The better tag is also justified to some extent. So agree that they should remain till someone gets to address them. Nevertheless removing easily verifiable source is DE. Thanks. Chaipau (talk) 10:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and welcome . That editor has some POV issue. I reverted them before. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Syloti language should be free of Bengali Master Vampire Shihab (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the citation of Chutiya jatir Buranji with A Comprehensive History of Assam not releasing that these two authors are the same - Swarnalata Baruah. The same author in Chutiya jatir Buranji in 2004 claims that Habung to be under Chutia domain!! Homogenie (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Homogenie: The Chutia Jatir Buranji is not WP:RS Chaipau (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The chutias were offered schedule tribe status not schedule caste in 1950s. Our leaders made a mistake of not accepting it. And they khels are originally chutia clans. Sarbananda singha of matak kingdom was a chutia of buruk clan, kanaklata Barua the Assamese independeence activist waa a chutia whose original was Kanaklata dolakasharia. Dolakasharia and khanikar , bharali are found in chutias were originally chutia clans later used by ahoms. Source sarbananda singha of buruk clan -http://atributetosankaradeva.org/mayamara.pdf page 13

@Homegenie: no one is disputing they are Chutia. But clan has a specific meaning in anthropology and the Chutia clans you describe are not clans. Sarbananda Singha called himself a buruk to establish his legitimacy. Dolakasharia, khanikar and bharali are professional titles, and do not define clans. The kinship relationships that define clans do not exist among the Chutia people. Chaipau (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sarbananda singha claim was buruk chutia written clearly in matak and their kindom page 31!! http://ignca.gov.in/Asi_data/72269.pdf And may i ask why is Chutiya jatir burnaji by a Phd author not reliable? Homogenie (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historians are adamant that legends were created in the 18th and 19th century and they have no historical basis. Read Neog (There are various accounts and succession lists of the rulers of the Chutiyãs (I do not call them Chutiyã kings precisely because in these accounts they are not described as Chutiyãs except the last one of them) with dates also assigned to their reign ; but these accounts are too much at variance with one another to deserve serious consideration as being of proper historical value.), D Nath ([T]his so called ancient chronicle might have been a later work of some members of the Chutiya aristocracy, as is possibly an attempt to legitimize the claims of the Chutiyas over a part of Assam during the establishment of the Matak kingdom in the beginning of the 19th century (1805) or after the Ahom power was abolished.), R Buragohain (The legends relating to the origin of the Chutiyas is full of absurdities without any historical moorings.) and even S L Baruah. There are no historical basis for these claims. Chutiya Jatir Buranji is an extension of these legends, even though it is "edited" by S L Baruah---but it is published by a political organization with a political agenda, a handbook of sorts for a political movement. That is why it is not reliable. Chaipau (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neog, D Nath, R Buragohain and S L Baruah wrote about the rulers list to be full of absurdities!! What is have to do with Chutia clans!! If Mishing had a list of rulers which is full of absurdities and than someone writes about the mishing clans!! So the because the rulers list of rulers were legendary that means the mishing clans dont exist??!! And books are bias more of them are!! Before Jae Eun Shin all the Kamrupa kings were Indo Aryan now all of them have before Tibeto Burman. So whose is reliable?? What will Kamarupa kings later become.!?? It seems that most authors were liars or unreliable??! Its seems most reliable authors were being politically motivated for last 100 years!! It seems some authors were systematically liars who books were taught as history in schools and colleges!! So now whose books will you consider a truth or whose books a liar And it is already written it was "ORIGINALLY" divided into clans!! You wouldnt find this in cities would you !! Visit villages in eastern Assam in dhemaji. Homogenie (talk) 23:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TrangaBellam (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tripura Buranji. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: And who am I edit warring with? Chaipau (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2012, you added a short cite to "Baruah 1983" but no such source is listed in the bibliography. Is that a typo in year? Can you please add?

Additionally, Ahomisation is missing full citations for Boruah 2007, Gait 1887, and Phukan 2010. I did not check who added them, but would you be able to track them down?

Also, suggest installing a script to highlight such errors in the future. All you need to do is copy and paste importScript('User:Svick/HarvErrors.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Svick/HarvErrors.js]] to your common.js page. Thanks, Renata (talk) 03:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: It seems to be a typo. I have corrected it. Chaipau (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chaipau. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bijni Kingdom, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Koch is not a Indo aryan tribe. The language clearly falls under Tibeto burman language. I provided source for it . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homogenie (talk • contribs) 15:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. UserNumber (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RFC Statement. Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:04, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: you are violating WP:RFCST and gaming the system. Chaipau (talk) 06:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Schazjmd does not agree over the ANi thread. If you do not revert, I will be opening a 3RRN thread. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please go ahead. I am curious where this will go. Chaipau (talk) 06:28, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chaipau. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Migrations to Assam, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. 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 here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neutral notice sent to all non-bot/non-blocked registered users who edited Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics in the past year that there is a new request for comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics § RfC: Where should so-called voiceless approximants be covered?. Nardog (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peopling of Assam section is filled with lots of speculations and some unprovable claims. Shouldn't we write about peoples of assam in 1st century ? It's historically correct. Kirata isn't only IA term in the page like Brahmans, Aryan etc are also IA terms. KPAhmed (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@KPAhmed: The claims made in the reference you have used are not entirely correct. Only Ptolemy uses Kirhadia. Periplus uses a different name. I have included this at the bottom of the Tibeto-Burman section, but this has to improve. We may mention the People of Assam having trade relations, but this would be incorrect. Because the goods were just collected without any real exchange taking place. Trade, therefore, was not what was happening with those people. Chaipau (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. I've one confusion. If AA and TB are mixed people then is it reasonable to divide the peoples based on today's linguistic status. Many of them have shifted to indo-aryan speaking population. KPAhmed (talk) 21:35, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand the question. Chaipau (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaipu, but what is the source for Gait 1887 and Phukan 2010 on Ahomisation? Dangling refs are showing up on Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aussie Article Writer: Gait 1887 should probably be Gait 1906. But it is a very old source, written by a colonial administrator - so a different source should be used if available (and there are many). I do not know Phukan 2010 off-hand, and will have to look around. But what you have done is probably the right thing to do there. Chaipau (talk) 20:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kautilya3 (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on McMahon Line. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Kautilya3 (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: who am I edit warring with? Chaipau (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Please check the wiki page for maharani Gayatri Devi, it is already mentioned there that she is from a koch-rajbongshi family. So inclusion of these notable people should not be removed. Some random guy edited the page and removed this info and now everyone is after removing already verified inclusion. Please edit with an neutral point of view. Robo Zay (talk) 10:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Robo Zay: we need reliable source. Please check WP:WINARS. Chaipau (talk) 10:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

She was a princess from coochbehar, what other reliable source do we need? Robo Zay (talk) 10:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is based on WP:SYNTH, which is not supported in Wikipedia. Please look at WP:RS for what a reliable source is. All the references about the origin of Rajbanshi people refer to an agitation to shake of the community's identity as a lower social group in the Hindu caste system. The Bijni family did suffer due to the low status, but did the Cooch Behar family suffer? It had no problem marrying into other royal families.

Nevertheless, the 16th century kings being named in 19th century categories is all the more problematic.

Chaipau (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the two historical figures are out of question by mere chronology. As for Gayatri Devi, I would like to see more sourcing that clearly and explicitly links her to the Rajbanshi community. Can we move this to Talk:Rajbanshi people? –Austronesier (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue discussion here: Talk:Rajbanshi_people#Notable_people. Chaipau (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Chaipau. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bijni Raj Estate, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read J B Bhattacharjee s pre colonial political structures of Barak valley to know about pre colonial Bengalis of Barak valley. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 07:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have. But the refugees from partition is well established. Chaipau (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Laskar, Nitish Ranjan (1985). Mahishya Das of Cachar and their Social Background. Proceedings of North East India History Association. North East India History Association. p. 456.

E M Lewis (1868). "Cachar District: Statement No. XVIII: Glossary of Local Terms". Principal Heads of the History and Statistics of the Dacca Division. Calcutta: Calcutta Central Press Company. pp. 406–408.

External links Truthfulsoldier (talk) 07:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please publish information given in these articles too. As these articles mention the pre colonial history of Bengalis in Barak valley Truthfulsoldier (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis (1868) is not WP:RS. Chaipau (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP: RS? Please publish information about the Pre independence history of Bengalis in Barak valley from the other sources I have mentioned. Otherwise the information about refugees when mentioned without mentioning the pre independence history of Bengalis in Barak valley will subject the Bengalis of Barak valley to even more discrimination and persecution which we already face. Famous personalities like Syed Mujtaba Ali, Arun Kumar Chanda, Moinul Haque Choudhary, Santosh Mohan Dev, Nibaran chandra Laskar all were born in Barak valley in the pre independence period. Despite that this aspect of history is often deliberately ignored or sometimes even deleted when published

Truthfulsoldier (talk) 08:19, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS stands for reliable sources. 19th century colonial writings are generally not considered reliable for Wikipedia.

You had removed the section on refugees, here. Which has been restored. The issue of refugees from Sylhet in 1947 and after, and the presence of Sylhetis in Barak valley are different things. Why do you think they are same? Chaipau (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many Bengalis from Sylhet region migrated to the Cachar - Hailakandi region back when it was a part of Dimasa Kachari Kingdom ( 1745 - 1832 ) . The Bengalis worked as Soldiers, Labourers, Revenue administrators, agricultural labourers etc. The Bengali Brahmins who performaned the marriage ceremony between Prince Lakshminarayan Chandra Hasnu and Princess Kanchani ( daughter of Bhim Singha, the last Koch Rajbongshi king of Khaspur) we're given land grants by Maharaja Harishchandra Narayan Hasnu of the Dimasa Kachari kingdom. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 08:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Kachari kings had settle people from Sylhet before 1832. That does not mean there were no refugees in 1947 and after. Chaipau (talk) 08:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand. But adding information about the history of Sylheti people in pre independence Barak valley is important. The Sylheti ( Bengali) Mirashdars played an important role in the history of Barak valley. Just mentioning refugees without mentioning the pre independence history of Sylheti people in Barak valley in unfair. Even today the Bengali hindus of Barak valley , especially those having origins in pre colonial times worship Goddess Kachakanti ( known as Kechaikhaiti in Upper Assam) like their Barman Kachari neighbours.Some Sylheti ( Bengali) people both Hindus and Muslims used surnames given to them Dimasa Kachari kings in accordance to their post in the Mirashdari System. Some examples are Choudhary, Mazumdar, Deshmukhya, Barbhuiya, Mazarbhuiya, Laskar, Barlaskar and Sodial. My ancestors are from Patharkandi area of Karimganj District. My Paternal Grandfather was also born in Assam Province during the British period.My ancestors have lived in that area since ancient times. Even Sylhet was a district of Assam before independence. But these facts are deliberately ignored. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 08:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only Karimganj is from the Sylhet region, not the rest of "Barak valley". The history the non-Karimganj region is well known and mentioned in the article: Tripura kingdom → Khaspur of the Dehans → Kachari kingdom. If you want to document the settlement of people from Sylhet by these powers, please do so, but use WP:RS.

But if some people from Barak valley worship Kechaikhati from Sadiya, it might mean they, or at least some of them, are from Brahmaputra valley not Sylhet—even if they speak Sylheti language. The term "Sodial" could be derived from Sadiya.

Also, the people who were settled by the Kachari kings will likely retain the landed titles from the Kachari king, not the landed titles from Sylhet. It is only those who immigrated on their own will retain their landed titles from Sylhet. Chaipau (talk) 09:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the refugee part is important of course. But l am requesting the editors here at Wikipedia to add information about pre independence Bengali people of Barak valley in the article about Barak valley. Even today we are facing the problem of illegal migration from Bangladesh just like our Assamese brethren. Most of them are from Greater Mymensingh region, Dhaka region, Grater Comilla region and Greater Noakhali region, not even Sylheti. But we are often confused with these migrants and subjected to discrimination and persecution. Our pro migration stance is the result of discrimination at the hands of the political elite of Assam , rather than some real concern. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please document the different types of immigration, and their origins, using reliable sources. Chaipau (talk) 09:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bengali people of Barak valley adopted the worship of Kachakanti Devi from Barman Kacharis.The Barman Kacharis are related to Dimasa Kacharis,Bodo Kacharis,Chutiyas and Deoris etc. Moreover the Mirashdari system was modeled after the revenue system of Bengal. Sodial is generally used by Bengali Muslims of Cachar - Hailakandi region. You can search for people with the surname Sodial on Facebook. Plus Dimasa Kachari Kingdom and Ahom Kingdom were rivals. Why are you so reluctant to accept that there were Bengali people in Cachar-Hailakandi region in the pre independence period? The presence of Bengali people in Barak valley is well documented. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 10:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Barak valley was ruled by Tripura Kingdom then Koch Rajbongshi dynasty of Khaspur and then Dimasa Kachari kingdom. It is possible for cultures to be influenced by one another. Just like the Bengali (Sylheti) culture of Cachar- Hailakandi region was influenced by Dimasa Kachari / Barman Kachari Culture. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 10:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Brahmin priests of Kachakanti temple in Udharbond are Bengali Brahmins whose ancestors came from Sylhet during the Dimasa Kachari period. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 10:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the 1700's century, the Dimasa Kachari rule extended into the plains of Cachar. The plains people did not participate in the courts of the Dimasa Kachari king directly. They were organized according to khels, and the king provided justice and collected revenue via an official called the Uzir. Though the plains people did not participate in the Dimasa Kachari royal court, the Dharmadhi guru and other Brahmins in the court cast a considerable influence, especially with the beginning of the 18th century. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Khels were organise on the basis of Caste and religion. The khel was headed by a Choudhary under whom there were Barbhuiyas Followed by Mazarbhuiyas, Barlaskars and Laskars. The Uzirs or Mazumdars were incharge of revenue collection. The Deshmukhyas were land surveyors. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 10:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Patras and Bhandaris ( Ministers) led by BaraBhandari ( Prime Minister) we're exclusively Dimasa Kachari and in rare cases Koch Rajbongshi. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthfulsoldier: sorry for the misunderstanding, but what I meant was that you should document the immigration and settlements in the relevant pages with the appropriate citations to references. Not here. Chaipau (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. I don't know how to edit properly. That's why I was adding information from JB Bhattacharjee s book and other sources without providing citation. I was actually requesting you to add information about the pre colonial history of Barak valley. I have copied some information from Silchar page and added it to Barak valley page. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthfulsoldier: I have problems with JB Bhattacharjee on this point. His approach is nearly evangelical.

A case in point is the name Kachari which he is loath to admit is used in the Brahmaputra valley widely. It was used in the 16th century itself. Instead he goes on to creating colorful and speculative theories on how this name originates in Bengal. We need a better, more critical source for this. JB Bhattacharjee is not very good. Chaipau (talk) 13:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing is that we must represent all points of view. Some of his theories are at best speculative. The tribal designator Kachari is very ancient and used to denote the original pre - Indo Aryan and Pre - Ahom inhabitants of this land such as Bodo Kacharis, Dimasa Kacharis, Barman Kacharis etc. It is even used to denote groups like Sonowal Kacharis and Sarania Kacharis who have adopted Assamese language and Culture abandoning their original Tibeto Burman - Boro Garo languages. But he is on point as far as the 1745- 1832 history of Dimasa Kachari kingdom is concerned. In this regard Colonial sources are more reliable as these are free of Assamese - Bengali POV. I have mentioned some other sources too. Please quote those. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JB Bhattacharjee himself refers to British sources. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the Sylheti people generally identify as part of the larger Bengali Community. It was the Hindus and Muslims of Sylhet who migrated Truthfulsoldier (talk) 13:58, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term Sylheti is used to identify a particular section of Bengali people. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grieson in his Linguistic survey of India identified the dialects of Sylhet and Cachar as Bengali. Truthfulsoldier (talk) 14:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Truthfulsoldier: please follow up here: Talk:Barak_Valley#Immigration/Refugee. Chaipau (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently made a draft about ahom war against kachari and Jaintia kingdom.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ahom_expedition_of_Jaintia_and_Kachari_Kingdoms.... I need some help and more references and sources .. If you can edit and add some more sources it will really help. Can you please suggest me some books's about Ahom history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant (talk • contribs) 09:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, I have seen your work in editing Ahom related pages on Wikipedia. You're doing a good job. Can you write about 'Rajkonwar' surname? Because people with Rajkonwar surname are actually direct descendants of the first Ahom King Chaloung Sukapha, and are Prince of the erstwhile Ahom Kingdom. So there must be a page or atleast a category on them. AccurateInformation2004 (talk) 14:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AccurateInformation2004: Thank you. But my interest is in improving encyclopedic knowledge in Wikipedia, not promoting any point of view. I have worked on other areas too, not only on Ahom-related pages. You are welcome to create content in Wikipedia, but please take some time to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia probably with Help:Getting_started. Please pay particular attention to policies and conventions. Chaipau (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Faster than Thunder. I noticed that you recently removed content from Dimasa Kingdom 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 your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You removed 1,594 bytes to be exact. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions | block) 15:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Faster than Thunder: sorry, my bad. I should have been clearer. The deletion was related to this discussion: Talk:Ahom_kingdom#Extended_discussion. In short, I was removing material that have newly emerged in PhD theses and the discussion determined that these material do not belong in Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello sir! Please help urgently, someone has been vandalizing the wiki page for Ahom kingdom.... Please take strict action as soon as possible . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant (talk • contribs) 06:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the puppy. Kitteh for you . Good Night.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you were trying to restore this version. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: Ah! Corrected it, thanks! Chaipau (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome . = Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now who is this guy? I've reverted them yesterday. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure - very few contributions. I went ahead and reverted some of their deletes. Chaipau (talk) 16:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole sentence has OR. The research doesn't mention anything particularly about the state and the river valley in question, only northeast and two communities, the samples of which may or may not have been taken from the state. Secondly, the lineages associated with the linguistic group is not restricted to this specific clade as can be seen here. I wonder whether we need to reword it having only the percentage part or drop it completely for being primary and synth. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk: I agree. I made some changes, but I shall remove this if it is not supported by others. Chaipau (talk) 13:05, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, You've reverted my edit. But that's just one view. There are other views too and that source itself is just claiming someone else's claim. It would look better without such claims. Northeast heritage (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Northeast heritage: please cite references. Neither your edit nor your edit summary[7] give any indication of what you mean. Chaipau (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I edited two times consecutively. I had re-inserted the citation removed by Homogenie. That's not my point here. Does Sarma's claim belong to WP:NEUTRAL ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northeast heritage (talk • contribs) 13:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Northeast heritage: Only one of the edits was reverted, the edit mentioned above, and not both. Chaipau (talk) 14:08, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but i think that revert was not required. It doesn't seem to be NEUTRAL. If you don't have any objection, I am willing to remove it. If you have any objection, please tell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northeast heritage (talk • contribs) 14:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove it without citing source. You cannot make changes without citations and claim that is neutral. Chaipau (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are other views too. Also the Manikpha name is taken from Kachari Buranji which isn't reliable source. Northeast heritage (talk) 15:39, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bodo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boro language.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, some has distroted the facts of the the Battle of Alaboi , I request you to restore the page as soon as possible. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article needs an overhaul. Chaipau (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers which are shown are not correct also just add the numbers who actually fought in the battle not the total force Jonardondishant (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the page about the battle or the entire ahom mughal conflict? Chakradhwaj Singha and Udayditya Singha were not even present at the battle, same with Aurangzeb, so what's the point of adding it. Ram Singh army composed was of 30k infantry, 15k archers, 18k cavalry and a small fleet of 41 war boats. Jonardondishant (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonardondishant: the article is about the entire campaign, not just the final battle. This is clear from the material that is presented. If you want to present the numbers of only the battle, then do so in Battle_of_Saraighat#Final_battle_at_Saraighat. Chaipau (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChaipauThe other things should be in the Ahom-Mughal conflicts page, if still it stays, then a other infobox box should be there. Jonardondishant (talk) 10:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonardondishant: I don't understand what you are suggesting. The Ahom-Mughal conflicts address the entire 1616-1681 period. And there we numerous battles and campaigns in this period, including the one by Mir Jumla. If you want to RS numbers for only the final naval battle, then do so in the section I mentioned above. Chaipau (talk) 11:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau There is written infantry 2 times, as well as archers, I just added the numbers and wrote it as one. Is there a problem?

I suggested of putting a another infobox there, in the Battle of Saraighat section. Jonardondishant (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonardondishant: please go by the cited reference. There is no need to add numbers ourselves. Chaipau (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi . You added a quote to Ahom kingdom with the reference Baruah 1983. However there is no 1983 work by Baruah in the article, did you mean 1986's A Comprehensive History of Assam or 1993's Last Days of Ahom Monarchy? Both of these are already defined in the references section. Could you let me know which work you meant, and I'll coorect the error? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: thanks for pointing it out. I have since corrected it. Chaipau (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have added that, persecution of Shudra mahanta's started from the reign of Siva Singha and Tungkhungia kings, which is completely false and subjective. Since Pratap Singha their disciples and the Shudra Mahantas were persecuted. One eg of it is- 'Jayaditya Singha had executed the Mayamara Mahanta by an executioner, and threwed his body in the river. However, his body was rescued by a old women whom she gave to their disciples'. Please refer to- Last days of Ahom Monarchy and Matak and their kingdom.

Also execlusively by Shudra Mahanta they mean the Mayamara Mahanta, other shudra Mahanta had received patronage from the kings and the nobles like of 'Dihing'. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vishwanath2008: No, Baruah is explicit that all Shudra Mahantas were persecuted, but just that the Moamara Mahanta was most offended. The support to Dihing began after the monarchy tried to isolate the Moamorias.

Pratap Singha tested his officers and when they died, he stopped the tests. It makes sense since Pratap Singha could not have persecuted his own people, because he was dealing with the Mughals and he could not afford to antagonize half his population. In fact all kings from Pratap Singha's successor Jayadhwaj Singha to Sulikphaa were initiated by Vaishna Mahantas. The Tungkhungia kings had vanquished the Mughals and subdued the Kachari and Jayantia, and they could afford to persecute the Moamoria and others.

Furthermore, I see that you are again challenging cited/referenced material, just as you had done with Assamese cuisine. Please stop pushing your POV.

Chaipau (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do you justify the work of Jayaditya Singha. Furthermore the persecution was not a crusade against one's religion.

Also the persecution was a pure political cause, referring to a event- 'Jayadhwaj Singha actually wanted the initiation of Mayamara Mahanta but, he refused to initiate the king as same as Shankeedeva did to Naranarayan'. Jayadhwaj mainly wanted to do this because of the Mahanta's influence, here doesn't come the thing of being a sakta.

But solely blaming the Tungkhungia kings for the persecution is POV push. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'The support to Dihing began after the monarchy tried to isolate the Moamorias'

This is what I am saying, whatever the cause may be, but the persecution was mainly turned towards the Mayamara satra. Even though they belonged to the same sect. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 14:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Religion has always been used politically. It is clear from the passage. I don't see what your objections are to the claims made in a well cited reliable source. There is no escaping the fact the persecution happened under Tungkhungia kings. The social and political causes and their political/religious nuances can be discussed elsewhere, in Moamoria rebellion and Moamoria, for example. Chaipau (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My clear objection is that, you have wrote that 'only from the Tungkhungia ahom kings (Siva Singha) the persecution started', whereas even before the tungkhungia the other kings had persecuted them which you have missed. I never claimed that there was no persecution under tungkhungia's. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you are entitled to your point of view. I have stated what Baruah (1986) has explicitly connected the persecution of the Shudra Mahantas and the Moamaria rebellion. I shall now include the intervening text in the citation to make this clear. Chaipau (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'and the persecution of the shudra Mahantas and their laity that began during the reign of Siva Singha ultimately led to the Moamoria rebellion and ultimately the eclipse of the kingdom'

Also it seems that this reference is outdated as even during Gadadhar Singha (ig) and Jayaditya Singha times when their Guru was killed, there were talks of vengeance and revenge and a event not to be forgetted. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 15:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The introductory part of the history section ends with how the kingdom ended. The main cause was the Moamoria rebellion, and the starting point of the rebellion was the Durga Puja incident. This part is not the place to discuss persecution of the Vaishanvites, which actually began at the time of Suklenmung, when Sankardev's son-in-law, Hari, was executed and the two gurus had to subsequently escape the Ahom kingdom. Chaipau (talk) 15:27, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The execution of Hari and the imprisonment of Madhabdeb was not the cause of the downfall of the Ahom kingdom. This happened before whatever happened during the time of Pratap Singha and Jayaditya Singha. Were these incidents connected to the downfall of the Ahom kingdom? No, they were not. So stop being an apologist for the Tungkhingia kings. Their failure to resolve the conflict ended their kingdom, and depopulated the entire region, which is why we have so many demographic issues today. Chaipau (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not being apologist to the tungkhungia's, nor I am justifying the sevre and tyrannical actions taken against rebels. I have not even edited the text of that. The seeds of the downfall was long sown by the preceding kings (before Siva Singha), and the seeds grew to give fruits during Lakshmi Singha reign, which he couldn't control in anyway being, because of those same old massacaring, which made the people more upset. Also nor could any aristocrat thought image of this, because anytime in past they had taken them out of troubles by any means.

Leaving all aside my main topic was about under whoes reign the shudras were first persecuted, you have wrote in a way by which it seems that all the Shudra Mahanta persecuting thing only started from the reign of Siva Singha.

Vishwanath2008 (talk) 15:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phuleswari insult to Mayamata Mahanta lightly might have affected the new Mahanta Astabhuj. Astabhuj referred the Ahom raja as his father till very late. And the first rebellion was organised by the disciples of the Mayamara Satra, not some other Satra, however later on point it inspired many oppressed subjects to take arms against the government. Vishwanath2008 (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the issue here is the end of the Ahom kingdom, not when the insult of Shudra Mahantas started. Chaipau (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will appreciate you keeping a tab. Best, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and thanks for your edits. Chaipau (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaipau! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Hinduism several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Hinduism, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I have reverted your edit just once: here. I reverted your edit, but added a citation quote that showed that those texts did not use the word "Muslim" or "Musalman" which you had inserted, something which the author specifically mentioned. I also let a note in the talk page (here). This is not edit warring, but your edit second edit (here) definitely is. Chaipau (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The normal procedure is to discuss it and gain consensus before thinking of reinstating it. If reinstate it without consensus, it constitutes edit warring, not serious, but nevertheless it is. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: So stop reinstating your edits. Stop edit warring. Chaipau (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't make any edits yet. You did. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: These are your edits: [8] and [9]. Please retract your statement above. Chaipau (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. As this diff shows "distinguish ... from Muslims" was already present in the original version. Instead of playing all these games, it would be best to engage in informed conversation on the talk page, and work towards a consensus. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You always revert edits!! And add low quality bad photos. Orang srang17 (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have anything specific to discuss (Which revert? Which photo?), this comes close to a personal attack. –Austronesier (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very fascinating guy. Was quite perplexed about whether his own documentary supported Love Jihad or not :3 TrangaBellam (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phongsawadan Tai-Ahom: Ahorn Buranji [Tai-Ahom Chronicles], 2 Vols. Transcribed and translated by RENU WICHASIN. Bangkok: Amarin Printing and Publishing Ltd. Pp. xxiv, 993 [Continuous Pagination]. Map, Photos, Tables, Glossary. [In Thai]

Reviewed over here. Do you have a copy? TrangaBellam (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wichasin translated it to Thai, not English. I do not read Thai, so have not looked for a copy. Chaipau (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. TrangaBellam (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The section Violence_against_Muslims_in_India#1983_Nellie_massacre reads completely different to the Nellie massacre page. Hope you can do something about it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will give it a try. Chaipau (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3: I struggled with the different pushes and pulls in the current version, and decided to pull the plug after all. I rewrote the entire section based primarily on Kimura 2013. I shall make updates and fold in other sources in later iterations. I think I shall update the main article as well. Chaipau (talk) 18:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I will pare it down a little so that it fits with the page better. But please free to include the full detail in the main page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have come to think it does not belong there. That is why the context and aftermath became larger than it should. It was not a "communal riot" as is understood in India. Chaipau (talk) 11:46, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Northeast heritage (talk) 12:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have seen it earlier. Chaipau (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional order is primary source and simply gives list. It doesn't say anything about actual ethnic group. So there must be secondary source to claim - Boros are listed as ... Also these are not give under quotation mark so it is misleading because nobody uses "Boro, Borokachari". Northeast heritage (talk) 06:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution is an official document, it is simply used to show the official spelling used. You don't need a secondary source to say that the "Constitution calls the Boro people either "Boro" or "Borokachari". The quotation marks denote that the Constitution uses those exact spelling.

Unlike what you claim, Boro is widely used, and different formations of Borokachari is also used. Chaipau (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read the Constitution. Where is the exact spelling "Boro, Borokachari" used except the list? Boro, Borokachari means either Boro or Boro-kachari.

Anyways, These spellings given in list have typing constraints in computer. Adding quotation mark might confuse people to believe it as a single term. Northeast heritage (talk) 12:34, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you explain what "Boro, Borokachari" means using secondary source. Northeast heritage (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not raise objections with "might confuse people" hypothetical situations. Besides, there is a lot of explanation going on in that article. All extensively cited from secondary sources. Chaipau (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not expert in using quotation mark. I googled about it and couldn't convince myself that "Boro, Borokachari" is right. So I raised the so-called objections. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Please check the ST list of Meghalaya. You will find "Boro Kacharis" which is listed name for ethnic Boro. So secondary source is important in confusing cases. Northeast heritage (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You had added an argument of Bareh's claim in some articles.

"Other scholars have pointed out that other river names such as Dibang, Dihang, Doyang and the like were mixture of Bodo di and -ong (Austric) which means water." (Bareh 1987:269–270)

Austric is proposed language family encompassing Austronesian and Austroasiatic languages. Neither "ong" means "water" in Khasi languages nor "ong" is Proto-Austroasiatic construction. Is it not a fringe theory? Does his claim belong to Wikipedia because he doesn't seem to refer any expert scholar? Northeast heritage (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We go by sources. Your expert opinion does not count. Sorry. The notion that the Austroasiatic were settlers before the Tibeto-Burman is well settled. Chaipau (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC) (edited) 02:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I know the scholarly assumption that the Austroasiatics settled before the Tibeto-Burmans. I am not objecting this assumption which you advocate. Here I am objecting addition of fringe theory related to the names of rivers. Also, the source doesn't say Austoriasiatic, it says Austric but you interpreted Austric as Austroasiatic in the articles.

@Austronesier: Would you like to comment on this? Northeast heritage (talk) 05:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC) Northeast heritage (talk) 05:07, 6 February 2023 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

Please have a look at this change as well as the discussion about this in the talk page. Such identifiers are unnecessary. - 117.201.119.23 (talk) 18:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see some POV removal of content and sources in these articles, possibly a sock [10] [11] [12] [13], especially the edit summary → "This inclusion is only done purposefully to Assamese alphabet only, not bengali." here isn't true when this line → based on the Bengali-Assamese script is present in in this article. Pining @Austronesier and Kwamikagami:. Thanks. - 117.201.115.79 (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have reverted it further that is this one (looks like the same POV user), restored the ancestral script and have added the Richard Salomon source for it. I restored similar POV edits in another article, buut not sure about this. 117.201.118.14 (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If the Author, J N Sarkar, of some chapters of "The Comprehensive History of Assam" is the same person as Jadunath Sarkar who died in 1958, Could you please tell me his original articles regarding those chapters? Actually, I don't have the book. Northeast heritage (talk) 06:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have them. Chaipau (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyways Northeast heritage (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading his thesis makes me feel like I am reading your arguments on Boro identity formation. http://gyan.iitg.ernet.in/handle/123456789/2261?show=full Northeast heritage (talk) 16:20, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Northeast heritage, those are not "my" "arguments", but the sum total of findings from a plethora of academics in recent times. That section is profusely cited. Chaipau (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. His thesis also discusses naming issues related to Boro and generic Bodo and such discussion might be helpful to some articles. Northeast heritage (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Northeast heritage, thanks, I shall read it. The naming of Bodo/Boro is pretty much settled now, and we in Wikipedia have been following the lead provided by the linguists. Chaipau (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.

According to CNRS Brahmaputra research group, Dimapur's brick gate was built in 17th or 18th century. Have you seen it earlier? Northeast heritage (talk) 06:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That, unfortunately, is not WP:RS, even though it is more plausible. Chaipau (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any solid evidence regarding this ? If you don't have any evidence for you claim, Please avoid nurturing prejudice. Northeast heritage (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have used Urban and other recent authors. There is much research that is happening here. But I do see what you are trying to do here. Chaipau (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing what you have used. I had provided an alternative, if that is not acceptable , I am not pushing POV.

Nothing personal. I am following WP:P&G. Northeast heritage (talk) 20:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative is very old and not endorsed by recent authors. That is why it is not a viable alternative. The current convergence rests on a wide variety of evidences. But if it is indeed of Boro origin, then then the new evidence has to be extraordinary and better than the current evidence. Chaipau (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the research problem but field-works by scholars like Ramirez will definitely make things clear.

If you read Bareh's thesis then you will find he claimed not only Kamakahya but also Hidimba, Sri-rajya, Manikya etc. You can understand the type of scholar he is.

And I appreciate your hardwork in maintaining good quality articles related to Assam. However, Your understanding seems to be largely based on The Comprehensive History of Assam by HK Barpujari and these sources are also extension colonial knowledge Northeast heritage (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true. I consult very many authors. The most important in this case is Urban, of course. But what he has said agrees with anthropologists, linguists, and political scientists and also geneticists. So, taken together, this builds up a rather solid picture of our past. Chaipau (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Urban cites Bareh 1967. Before Bareh, Kakati invented the Austric origin of Kamakhya, however it was criticized by Chatterjee.

R M Nath also invented an formation from Austri

Do you know the Dimasa prayer about their journey? That prayer mentions Kamakhya as transient point. There is some similarities between Dimasa prayer and Bareh's folk story.

Anyways This is a historical problem.

Good night 😴 Northeast heritage (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I shall not directly address the Kamakhya issue now because I know your position on this and what you are trying to do. But since you mentioned Ramirez, I shall just mention a paragraph from him:

Tribe-by-tribe depictions of the North-East undoubtedly stem from a nineteenth century European vision of human diversity which in many aspects converged with local representations. In this respect, colonial censuses have greatly contributed to the freezing of categories although its precise role in ethnogenesis has recently come under debate.

So, Ramirez in fact does not come to your rescue. He refers to the work of a number of authors with this claim. What is in debate in the precise role the colonial process played in ethnogenesis, not whether it actually did. Daimari says in the very first page of his thesis:

Colonial knowledge production and classificatory practices assigned a place for the Boros within a racialised hierarchy.

p1.

So, he too agrees with Ramirez. The best he could say about what existed before is:

Prior to the coming of the British and being subjected to their ethnological inquiries and census enumerations, Boros were, what could be termed as a 'fuzzy' but 'practically precise' community sharing kinship ties in the Northeastern region of the Indian sub-continent.

Though part of this claim is correct, other parts run into the primordialism problem that Austronesier had pointed out last year.[14] No matter how much you try to back project these categories, you will continue to run into this problem here in Wikipedia for a very good reason. Chaipau (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim prove that you don't understand primordialism. When a scholars writes about Identity Construction of a social group, He doesn't endorse primordialism. Identity formation is dependent on historical process. Historian will find out when an Identity formation began. Northeast heritage (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me to search for Kamaika (phonetically Khamaikha) in a PhD thesis which is all about Bathouist version of Bathouism. There is no mention of a single Hindu deity. Also it is folkloristic study, foklores are continuously being made and remande. There is be no mention of Khamaikha (Kamakhya) because She is now part of Hinduism. I wasted my time searching for Her in PhD thesis.

I consulted a Boro researcher. He told that Endle and Hodgson mention about Ai-deo / Ai and C A Soppit in his book "An Historical and Descriptive Account of the Kachari Tribes in the North Cachar Hills: With Specimens of Tales and Folk-lore" mentions bato , Kamaika etc when he compares Boro pantheon with Dimasa pantheon. I varified Endle and Hodgson but I could not read C A Soppitt's book. Also Hodgson confirms that Ai means Kamakhya Northeast heritage (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this is not good enough for Wikipedia. WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE all apply here. You seem to be fishing for a reference.

If folk religions are made and remade, then it is possible that Ai itself is/was an external goddess. For all I see, Ai/Khamaikha has not been recorded/observed in recent times and this goddess is not part of the Bathou pantheon. This goddess is not even mentioned as a minor goddess. Bathouism itself is going through a re-imagination, which is part of the political process, which Narzary calls ethnic assertion. Wikipedia cannot take part in this political process (WP:PROMO), but only report on it. Chaipau (talk) 08:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither I claim this is enough for WP nor I am fishing for a reference. I simply thought you are interested to know about her. Sorry, I have done a great mistake of starting this discussion.

You can freely believe any possibility but Only the Historians expert enough to find out the plausibility. And for you kind information, Bathou is single god, There is no Bathou pantheon but Boro pantheon. BTW, Narzary reported on re-imagined and politicized Bathouism. Northeast heritage (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For obvious reasons . Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It is a greater pleasure working with you. Chaipau (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Have at look at this, may be our old friend. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

Novem Linguae

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

Bureaucrat changes

MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

---

Hi, it is regarding these additions. Do you think adding an unreferenced section tag would be a good idea? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is best to just delete them. Only referenced people. Since many of these people could be living, we have other problems. They may or may not want to be known by their ethnicity or caste.

There are other problems. Where do we list Bishnu Prasad Rabha? He grew up with a Rabha family. But he was born into a Boro family. But he likely identified as an Assamese. His disciple called him a son-of-Kirata. What was he? Chaipau (talk) 21:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assamese and Boro. Rabha only if self-identified.

I have reverted the edit. Maybe we need a discussion on policy elsewhere? Chaipau (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. What do you think of this change? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i reverted it. Chaipau (talk) 12:21, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand what to make of these changes, possibly the user doesn't like some of them being referred to as languages. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. "Language" here means "speech" not a standard language. There is no need to replace "language" with "dialect".

But there are other problems. The "Bangals" are people from eastern Bengal and "ghotis" are people from western Bengal. Though there are "Bengali" speaking people in Assam, Assam is not part of Bengal. So those parts in Assam also have to be removed. Only the Karimganj district was originally part of Bengal. The Hailakandi and Cachar districts of the Barak Valley were not part of Bengal. Chaipau (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relevant changes in those articles. Have a look at this and this, thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing them out---reverted. Chaipau (talk) 12:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. This user with their 'canned summaries' again. While POV is there, in this case it looks like they tried replicating the source quote, though the flow of the sentence is a bit off IMO. What do you think? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. I think the original text is good since it has been vetted. If it is not the vetted form, then we should go back to the vetted form. Chaipau (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this please. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a new editor (from the empty talk page). I have reverted the GF edits. Chaipau (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the issue with the other editor here? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what their issue is. It seems to be related to the Boro people. From my perspective, they just drop names like van Driem and claim these scholars prove their point. No matter how many times I quote these authors to show that the scholars prove just the opposite of what they claim, they keep repeating the same things over and over again. Chaipau (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saw this? Maybe one of our old "friends"? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that someone (or somemany) has been systematically changing texts and replacing the standard references with non-standard ones. The article has a long list of references and now they are un-cited---all hanging around doing nothing!

Yes, really looks like it. Chaipau (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nuked this article. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please go through my edit summaries, I removed unsourced informations. Kindly assume good faith. Eduardo2024 (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eduardo2024: here is an example of you removing sourced material. I can see where you are coming from, but you need references to back up your claims. Chaipau (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I can see where you are coming from" what is this for? see the edit summary of this removal. I think we don't discuss racial theories in WP. Eduardo2024 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• When something is "poorly" sourced, you either insert a better source, or tag it {{bcn}}, unlike what you did here.
• And [15] you replaced a cited text along with the citation.
• Here you removed cited text[16].
• Here you just removed cited text[17].

There are other edits which are problematic. Chaipau (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• First source is not saying anything about Asamese Brahmins, second source is not reliable for caste articles. Also it is UNDUE.
• I replaced this non academic source with an academic one.
• Removed the first source as per WP:HISTRS and the second source only mentioned migration from Bengal not from other regions.
• I think it was a mistake from my side, it is relevant, thanks.

Eduardo2024 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

Firefangledfeathers

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

Interface administrator changes

Novem Linguae

Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

---

Hello,

You are invited to participate in a dispute resolution regarding contents of 2023 Manipur violence.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#2023 Manipur violence Tms369 (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit. Shouldn't we stick to the sources or are we suppose to be more precise as in the change. I mean it is entirely possible that other branches of AA or TB, like some form of Mundari or a non-Bodo-Kachari language may have been spoken in ancient Kamarupa. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:16, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I reverted that edit. Thanks for pointing it out. Chaipau (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Another one I noticed. Considering this users POV, I wonder whether this edit is in good faith. I mean, considering that it existed till 13t century (per the article), wasn't the language spoken then? Another one is this edit. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He could be right on 13th century Bengali since Bengali is a Modern Indian language, whereas 13th century falls in the end of the Middle Indo-Aryan languages time period. So unless there is a specific reference that claims that a modern language, such as Bengali, was spoken in the 13th century, we should not be using that.

In the second edit, the same context applies. But I am also intrigued that Sanskrit is given in "common language". Was Sanskrit commonly spoken? Chaipau (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sanskrit was possibly official and/or used in rituals and by the learned ones, similar other kingdoms/empires of that era. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you have a look at these changes -

1. First - some of the revisions seem logical but are Assamese a stateless nation, apart from what separatists orgs like ULFA thinks? 2. Second - highlighting one group Khacharis? 3. Third - this one looks like a logical edit but source [18] seems to be emphasizing religion. 4. Fourth - This is OR, source explicitly mentions the 3 districts. Possibly needs to be reworded. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chaipau, I will be mostly offline for about a week starting today. I hope you can take care of all the discussions where we are both involved. If agreements cannot be reached, please feel free to start RfCs. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. I was busy but I shall set some time for this. Chaipau (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. I was busy but I shall set some time for this. Chaipau (talk) 12:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am back now, but will take a while to get up to speed. Here is an inteteresting speech by CM Biren Singh. It doesn't seem to have been covered in the newspapers. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back.

Yes, not this speech, but the pre-violence writings in WP:RS did point to this as the central issue. There are other characterizations now which has been reported in the press---and I shall put some links in the article talk page. Chaipau (talk) 19:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

Technical news

• Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

Arbitration

• Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

Miscellaneous

• The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

---

Some heavy reading here.[19] :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen a copy. He is generally a very thorough and meticulous historian. I found him very rigorous while researching for Buranji. It is sometimes easy to miss some significant findings he might have reported because he often omits giving too much context. I have some of his previous books. Chaipau (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

• Ragesoss
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
• There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
• Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
• Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
• Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
• Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
• Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
• An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

• The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

---

@Chaipau, hello, I am here to discuss regarding the historicity of Bagh Hazarika's wikipedia page. The whole page is devoid of any reliable sources, it's completely made of pov led e-articles which proves nothing about his originality or historicity of his character.

Please if you get some time to spare, read this thesis, Ch 8, page 299 to 301. https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/handle/10603/66700 Ch ComparingQuantities (talk) 07:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
• The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

Please have a look at these changes. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes after some digging. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this them I wonder. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible, but this IP is more interested in promoting Ahom revivalism. Let us wait and see. Chaipau (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk, please do follow the discussion on Talk:Ahom kingdom. Thanks! Chaipau (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See this move, as well as the accompanying change here. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is plain wrong. "sh" in Assamese is pronounced /x/. But "kh" is a different letter altogether. So the editor is trying to approximate the correct sound but got it completely wrong. Chaipau (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I had moved it to "Dex" in 2013. I do not agree with that move at all. We should move it back to State Anthem of Assam.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_Anthem_of_Assam&action=history Chaipau (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, since we already have IPA-as mentioned in the lead, there is no reason to change Desh → Dekh. Actually changes the meaning ('country' to 'have a look'). - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I have made the follow request: [20] Chaipau (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this. Are the language groups mentioned in the source? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I shall check. But the editor who removed it is our friend. Chaipau (talk) 11:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is he our friend? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I replied. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it. Let us go ahead. Chaipau (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the 'bat' part. Do the indigenous communities eat them routinely. I noticed it after I did the cleanup work. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wor... again. Both of these guys need to be blocked. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk, I have a suspicion that they have met here before, and we know them well! Chaipau (talk) 16:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started one both of them. Could you please have a look. I used to provide detailed rationale but I am short of time these days. Chaipau (talk) 15:03, 18 June 2024 (UTC) (edited) 15:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this correct? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this and the page move. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:34, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk, yes this is OK. Toulmin used a different acronym in his later works and abandoned the one he used in his thesis. But I think there should be a note calling this out. Chaipau (talk) 09:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sock edits. Revert or partial-rev? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the alert @Fylindfotberserk! We should remove all promotional material! Chaipau (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a sock of Wordain considering their Bhutan/Tibet related push in various NE articles. Pinging @Kautilya3: as well. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fylindfotberserk, thanks. It could be. I shall keep watch. Chaipau (talk) 15:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

Technical news

• Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

---

In Ahom history, It is said that Borahis were completely absorbed into Ahom fold. Could you tell me which Assamese Buranjis mention that event? Northeast heritage (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

Administrator changes

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

---

Hi! Thank you for your contribution of File:Northeast India States.svg. Am I correct that you intended to license the file under the same license as the source file? Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 15:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2024).

Administrator changes

• Asilvering
• Significa liberdade

• Good Olfactory
• Hesperian
• I JethroBT
• TommyBoy
• Woody

CheckUser changes

• Barkeep49
• Izno

• Doug Weller
• Spicy

Guideline and policy news

• Administrator elections are a proposed new process for selecting administrators, offering an alternative to requests for adminship (RfA). The first trial election will take place in October 2024, with candidate sign-up from October 8 to 14, a discussion phase from October 22 to 24, and SecurePoll voting from October 25 to 31. For questions or to help out, please visit the talk page at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections.
• Following a discussion, the speedy deletion reason "File pages without a corresponding file" has been moved from criterion G8 to F2. This does not change what can be speedily deleted.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether there is a consensus to have an administrator recall process.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Historical elections has been closed.
• An arbitration case regarding Backlash to diversity and inclusion has been opened.
• Editors are invited to nominate themselves to serve on the 2024 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission until 23:59 October 8, 2024 (UTC).

Miscellaneous

• If you are interested in stopping spammers, please put MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist on your watchlist, and help out when you can.

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2024).

Administrator changes

• Crisco 1492

• Babajobu
• Daniel
• Elf
• Jayron32
• Thue
• Wugapodes

CheckUser changes

Maxim

Oversighter changes

Maxim

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, the discussion-only period proposal that went for a trial to refine the requests for adminship (RfA) process has been discontinued.
• Following a request for comment, Administrator recall is adopted as a policy.

Technical news

• Mass deletions done with the Nuke tool now have the 'Nuke' tag. This change will make reviewing and analyzing deletions performed with the tool easier. T366068

Arbitration

• RoySmith, Barkeep49 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. ThadeusOfNazereth and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.
• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate from 3 November 2024 until 12 November 2024 to stand in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections.
• The Arbitration Committee is seeking volunteers for roles such as clerks, access to the COI queue, checkuser, and oversight.

Miscellaneous

• An unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in November 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2024).

Administrator changes

• Ahecht
• DoubleGrazing
• Dr vulpes
• FOARP
• Peaceray
• Queen of Hearts
• Rsjaffe
• SD0001
• SilverLocust
• Sohom Datta
• ThadeusOfNazereth
• Voorts

• Ajpolino
• Fathoms Below
• Pppery
• Tamzin
• Worm That Turned

• Aervanath
• Christopher Sundita
• Dank
• Dennis Brown
• Dragons flight
• Fastily
• Graham87
• JaGa
• Kbh3rd
• Marine 69-71
• Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington
• Yamamoto Ichiro

Interface administrator changes

• SD0001
• Sohom Datta

Pppery

CheckUser changes

• Spicy
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RFC, the policy on restoration of adminship has been updated. All former administrators may now only regain the tools following a request at the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard within 5 years of their most recent admin action. Previously this applied only to administrators deysopped for inactivity.
• Following a request for comment, a new speedy deletion criterion, T5, has been enacted. This applies to template subpages that are no longer used.

Technical news

• Technical volunteers can now register for the 2025 Wikimedia Hackathon, which will take place in Istanbul, Turkey. Application for travel and accommodation scholarships is open from November 12 to December 10, 2024.

Arbitration

• The arbitration case Yasuke (formerly titled Backlash to diversity and inclusion) has been closed.
• An arbitration case titled Palestine-Israel articles 5 has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case will close on 14 December.

---