User talk:Homogenie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hi Homogenie! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! Kj cheetham (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Indo-Aryan migration to Assam
Disambiguation link notification for February 6
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cooch Behar State, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tibetan.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Pala dynasty
Please stop your WP:POV runs in Wikipedia. Shin has said specifically said both areas—Karatoya to Lalitakanta and from Lalitakanta to Dikkaravasini—are part of Kamarupa (Both the areas were deemed Kamarupa). This was pointed out to you here on Feb 4, to which you had no reply. And yet on Feb 11, you claimed falsely that Shin clearly did not consider Upper Assam to be part of Kamarupa here: .
Ahom kingdom
Do not remove cited texts. Your edit summary "Ahom knew about kamarupa in 16th century when they reached Karatoya river , did they excavate the site and found evidence about kamarupa and wrote that down in their buranji, this line is ahistorical)" is not enough to remove this. Amalendu Guha is a well known historian, who has published extensively.
Removing texts which are cited with reliable sources is WP:DE.
Chutia people
You have again removed reference in Chutia people here: []. Please do not remove citations because it is WP:DE.
Chaipau (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
@Chaipau:: WP:CONTEXTMATTERS Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable;editors should cite sources focused on the topic at hand where possible.
Do know which source to cite. The journal hardly talks about the Chutias but mostly is limited to Bodo-Garo language Homogenie (talk) 02:18, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Kamarupa
You have again removed cited texts here: Please do not remove these texts. WP:DE
Chaipau (talk) 11:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- This is the second time you have removed relevant material. Please stop doing this. Chaipau (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- Do not engage in slow-edit-war. Please discuss your issues with the text because I am at pains to see any. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Please stop
Please stop adding unrelated castes and social groups in the "See also" section of Kalita (caste). This is just disruptive. It's not a good way of drawing attention to other castes, if that's what you're trying to do. Bishonen | tålk 15:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC).
Mlechchha dynasty
Ahom kingdom
Please do not "imply" something in Wikipedia. That is WP:SYNTH. If there existed a connection between the Ahom kingdom and China, please use a direct quote. Chaipau (talk) 13:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
@Chaipau: : the capital appears in the chronicle, "without" any political links, how do think it appeared there??!, also direct quotes are primary , there are direct quotes but they cant be used as secondary source are preferred.Homogenie (talk) 13:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
ARBIPA sanctions reminder
Homogenie, you have been informed of the ARBIPA sanctions. Please avoid WP:tendentious editing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Varman dynasty
Ahom kingdom
Your recent editing history 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. Chaipau (talk) 05:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
Foods habit of Ahom
Editor... Beef is not commonly eaten or not even eaten.... Why 14th-century food habit of ahom are mentioned?? Nowadays hardly any ahom even eats buffalo... When mentioning about this there should be a separately written about the things of nowadays not of 14th century ahoms.... abandoned culture — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonardondishant (talk • contribs) 06:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- As you clearly added a citation that they (Ahoms) stopped consuming it during the reign of Siva Singha, so it is not 14th century as you have claimed, again in the section we are referring to the original food habits of the Ahoms not the present one. Also see the citation of Gogoi (2011) p227, it states that they have no given up on their habits Homogenie (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Homogenie A small minority doesn't represent the whole of the community of above a million people, beef became a taboo subject by the 18th century many reference's are also given. Also why are you removing the indic name of the kings?? The indic name is given in the buranjis, the kings used the title of Maharajh. The ahom name of later kings were only used by the ahom preist, that's why you can see that mostly they are referred by their indic name. Jonardondishant (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Because the Tai names are standard, they were used from 13th century till the the end, will you write half in Tai and the rest half in Indic, know the meaning of STANDARD Homogenie (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Homogenie I have clearly stated that due to some error I am not able to add the other name, also I had said to add the ahom name as well. Jonardondishant (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Look at the template of Ahom dynasty, the standard is Tai, not Indic. Even you want to put the Indic name as standard, what would you add as Hindu names pre-Suhunmung era, before Suhunmung, Ahom didnot used Hindu name, Tai is standard Homogenie (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @HomogenieSuhunmung was the 14th king, In total there were 40 kings in which 12 kings were there with no indic name, there are more kings with indic than only their only ahom name... And what are you talking about, do you think that indic name was just given for no reason, The indic name was the formal name for the later king starting from Tungkhungia's, the tungkhungia were totally indianzed they had their coins struck on hindu gods. The coronation ceremony of the kings were based on 'protecting cows and brahmanas. When putting the name of a king put the full name with honours. Jonardondishant (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are 40 kings with Tai names, there are only 26 king with Indic name, what indic name do you give to the previous 14 kings before Suhunmung as they dont have one, moreover the Indic name is given in the lead itself, why do you want to keep repeating that twice! Makes no sense Homogenie (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- there is Bamuni Konwar Jonardondishant (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- It's really annoying that you are just on the names, your logic doesn't apply everywhere. The hindu name was not a second name, those who have the hindu name is there a problem to let it say there. Jonardondishant (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Isnt the Hindu name already in the lead!! you want to reintroduce again to show that some kind of mystical king resided near naga-assam border in 1700s, your editing shows that you are!! Homogenie (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- What are you talking about??? use clear words totally not understandable Jonardondishant (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Isnt the Hindu name already in the lead!! you want to reintroduce again to show that some kind of mystical king resided near naga-assam border in 1700s, your editing shows that you are!! Homogenie (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are 40 kings with Tai names, there are only 26 king with Indic name, what indic name do you give to the previous 14 kings before Suhunmung as they dont have one, moreover the Indic name is given in the lead itself, why do you want to keep repeating that twice! Makes no sense Homogenie (talk) 03:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- @HomogenieSuhunmung was the 14th king, In total there were 40 kings in which 12 kings were there with no indic name, there are more kings with indic than only their only ahom name... And what are you talking about, do you think that indic name was just given for no reason, The indic name was the formal name for the later king starting from Tungkhungia's, the tungkhungia were totally indianzed they had their coins struck on hindu gods. The coronation ceremony of the kings were based on 'protecting cows and brahmanas. When putting the name of a king put the full name with honours. Jonardondishant (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Look at the template of Ahom dynasty, the standard is Tai, not Indic. Even you want to put the Indic name as standard, what would you add as Hindu names pre-Suhunmung era, before Suhunmung, Ahom didnot used Hindu name, Tai is standard Homogenie (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Homogenie I have clearly stated that due to some error I am not able to add the other name, also I had said to add the ahom name as well. Jonardondishant (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Because the Tai names are standard, they were used from 13th century till the the end, will you write half in Tai and the rest half in Indic, know the meaning of STANDARD Homogenie (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Homogenie A small minority doesn't represent the whole of the community of above a million people, beef became a taboo subject by the 18th century many reference's are also given. Also why are you removing the indic name of the kings?? The indic name is given in the buranjis, the kings used the title of Maharajh. The ahom name of later kings were only used by the ahom preist, that's why you can see that mostly they are referred by their indic name. Jonardondishant (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
Dimasa kingdom
There is no consensus that the speculations of Wade are acceptable in Wikipedia. Please do not insert this material in Dimasa kingdom till you get consensus agreement on it. Chaipau (talk) 13:53, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well Dimasa is recognised by Ming, it is proven by the Metal plate found in Jorhat Wade 1994 page 130, so it is not speculative and they are accepted Laichen (2000)
Most of these places have been succcessfully identified but locations of places such as Dagula, Xiao Gula, Dimasa, Diban, Menglun, Bajiata, Diwula were been wrongly put in modern Burma by especially by Chinese scholars. As a matter of fact these places were located in western Northern Mainland Southeast Asia, with Greater and Lesser Gula on northern and southern bank of the Brahmaputra valley respectively.p78
Homogenie (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Please follow the discussion at Talk:Ahom_kingdom#Ming_Shilu before putting up speculations by Wade etc in "Wikivoice". Chaipau (talk) 11:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Bhaskaravarman
You have removed a map with just an edit summary without and specific reference other than a vague "Shin (2017)". Please note that you are such edit summaries are not sufficient. I have since added references to support the map. If you object, please take this to the talk page. Chaipau (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- The quote
In Assam,this process began in 1871 when Cunningham ascertained that 'Kia-mo-Ieu-po' mentioned in HiuenTsang's account was 'Kamarupa', the kingdom of Bhaskaravarman, and equated it with modern Assam. For him,'Kamarupa' is the Sanskrit name of Assam, and its extent is defined as the whole valley of the Brahmaputra River, or modern Assam, together with Koch Behar and Bhutan. 63 This is, however, aproposition unsupported by either contemporary historical records or etymological explanation. p.34 Shin 2017
- S.L Baruah has repeated the same claim from British historians without any modification for 100 years, this is bad history!! Homogenie (talk) 03:44, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
