Logical Man 2000
Welcome edit
|
Inserting Urban everywhere edit
@Logical Man 2000: please reconsider inserting Urban reference into all article. Yes, he has an interesting observation, but he made it in the context of legitimization and Sanskritization. I am removing some of your references, where they are not appropriate, or moving them to where they are. Chaipau (talk) 14:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok. I think that table should remain in History of Assam otherwise some people may consider them to be Indo-Aryan immigrants. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
- That table reinforces the legends created by Indo-Aryans. The tribal origins are best discussed in the respective pages. For example, look here: Varman_dynasty#Origins. Chaipau (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Varman dynasty edit
I have reverted your edits in Varman dynasty. There is no need to assert the ethnicity of Naraka, since he was a mythical figure---not real. Please discuss in the talk page first. These issues have been extensively discussed earlier. Chaipau (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Chaipau: I think that citation can be used to back S.K. Chatterjee's claim. Thank you Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
S.K. Chatterjee concluded Mleccha king based on Mlecchadhipati Bhagadatta and Mlecchadhinath Salastambha. Dynastic History written by H.C. Raychauduri is backbone of Dynastic historiography in India. S.K. Chatterjee also referred him. Latest journals by Prof. Jae Eun Shin also used same logic given by H.C. Raychauduri. Thank you. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Myth need not be real but myths were used based on racial, social and political status. For example, Assam was land of Kiratas. So, Myth related to kirata was reused in Brahmputra valley. Originally Naraka-Bhagadatta myth belong to Nepal. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Some of your recent edits edit
@Logical Man 2000: I have reverted some of your recent edits. The Indo-Aryan immigration began around 500 BCE, which is in the prehistoric era. It is the Indo-Aryans who triggered the historic era in Assam. Also, proto-Boro-Garo language was just emerging in the Kamarupa kingdom. So what exists now is correct. Chaipau (talk) 17:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Chaipau: Ok. I've no idea about this - "It is the Indo-Aryans who triggered the historic era in Assam". May be script brought by Brahmin is more important than hardworking people. In my opinion, Tibeto-Buramn word can be replaced by Proto-Boro-Garo as per S.K. Chatterjee to modern scholars. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- S K Chatterjee is too old, and he is basing his inferences on LSI. proto-Boro-Garo has not been fully reconstructed, and things are still unclear. No, Brahmins are not more important than hardworking people---this is about leaving records. Even the Indian historical period is rather recent, and 500 BCE falls in the Iron Age in Indian history. Leave alone Assam which lags Indian historical periods. Chaipau (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you don't mind , Can you help me to know the exact evidence that proves Indo-Aryan migrated since 500 B.C. ? Thanks Logical Man 2000 (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
- S K Chatterjee is too old, and he is basing his inferences on LSI. proto-Boro-Garo has not been fully reconstructed, and things are still unclear. No, Brahmins are not more important than hardworking people---this is about leaving records. Even the Indian historical period is rather recent, and 500 BCE falls in the Iron Age in Indian history. Leave alone Assam which lags Indian historical periods. Chaipau (talk) 17:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Boro-centric point of view edit
In your recent edits you seem to be either running down other communities in Assam or glorifying the Boros. This is disruptive editing. Please do not do so. Instead please focus on improving our understanding in general with a neutral point of view. Chaipau (talk) 12:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- If you're talking about Baro-Bhuyan then I think it was neutral view point. I read Wikipedia instructions and it says that promotional words aren't allowed. And if you're talking about Pre-historic Indo-Aryan then i just divided that based on table given below.Logical Man 2000 (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- The Baro-Bhuyans at that time had just removed Hussain Shah's rule in Kamata. They were indeed powerful together. Vishwa Singha was defeated by them on some occasions. That Vishwa Singha could eventually overcome them and establish his rule speaks of his military genius. These are not mere promotional claims. So instead of removing what you think are promotional words, fill in more details of what Vishwa Singha actually did.
- The table is from an earlier period, and it will disappear at some point.
- The point remains. Please do not make disruptive edits.
@Chaipau: I got it. There was two type of Bhuyans - Migrant and Aboriginal. For example - Hajo was aboriginal. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Everyone in Assam is a migrant and everyone in Assam have mixed with the aboriginals (whoever they are). There is no clear way to distinguish one from the other especially for communities from pre-colonial times. This migrant-aboriginal is a recent political narrative best avoided in Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- In this journal "Pre-Ahom Roots and the Medieval State in Assam: A Reply". Amalendu Guha had written that Sali kheti was brought by Indo-Aryan without any reference. How can we believe it's true ? Logical Man 2000 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Everyone in Assam is a migrant and everyone in Assam have mixed with the aboriginals (whoever they are). There is no clear way to distinguish one from the other especially for communities from pre-colonial times. This migrant-aboriginal is a recent political narrative best avoided in Wikipedia. Chaipau (talk) 14:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Removing reading list edit
I have removed them from History of Assam. There is a reason they are not used in Wikipedia. There is no point in promoting them. They are more likely to mislead. Chaipau (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Please stop messing about. 81.108.136.100 (talk) 07:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC) Please create an account if you want to contribute more. IP edits look very suspicious. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Activities of Chaipau edit
User:Chaipau mail other editors and admins to block other users with sockpuppet allegation. He remove those specific information to match the conflict with other blocked users.
1. "Bishnu prasad Rabha not considered Boro" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boro_people&oldid=956995177
2. Personal attack with sock puppet allegation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Boro_people&oldid=957013326 Logical Man 2000 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Unblock request edit
Logical Man 2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I have been blocked for sock puppetery based on series of heated argument with User:Chaipau. I haven't vandalised single page. I haven't disrupted any page. He removed those specific content to match the conflict with other blocked users and he mailed other editor to file SPI User talk:Austronesier#The duck. Conflict page Talk:Boro people. If am wrong then keep the block but User:Chaipau have clear goal to dominate other users. He did disruptive edits to match my conflict with other blocked users. Please keep eye on his edits. Thank you Logical Man 2000 (talk) 05:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Since you indicate that you are retiring from Wikipedia, there is no need to remove the block, as blocks only prevent editing. If you change your mind, you may make another request. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- That unblock request just reads to me as "I have been blocked for sock puppetry ... lots of stuff not related to sock puppetry". If you do decide to come out of retirement and make a new request, you will need to address the sock puppetry. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Your UTRS Account edit
Right now you do not have wiki email enabled on your onwiki account, and therefore we are unable to verify you are who you say you are. To prevent duplicate notices to your talkpage about this, the account has been deleted and you will need to reregister. -- DQB (owner / report) 19:15, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
WikiLoop Battlefield new name vote edit
Dear Logical Man 2000,
Thank you for your interest and contributions to WikiLoop Battlefield. We are holding a voting for proposed new name. We would like to invite you to this voting. The voting is held at m:WikiProject_WikiLoop/New_name_vote and ends on July 13th 00:00 UTC.
xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 05:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Interesting edit
About Chaipau edit
Hey @Za-ari-masen:, Chaipau is blindly supported by some admins because he was also admin of Assamese wikipedia. His behaviour is full of propagandas. He has distorted many historical pages of Assam. He tries to be judge of wikipedia. Just check his beaviour on these pages - talk:Boro people , talk:Chutia Kingdom , talk:Mech people, talk:Dimasa Kingdom, talk:Assam. He tries to create conflict among the communities. He is very cunning. He will ask you to prove reliability of your sources or accuse you nationalist but he will behave like his sources are most perfect in this world. I wasn't a sock puppet but first account was blindly blocked. So, I created new account and this is also blocked. Chaipau will try to block you first then he will remove all your edits. Be careful. Logical Man 2000 (talk) 10:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Join the RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck edit
Hi Logical Man 2000,
you are receiving this message because you are an active user of WikiLoop DoubleCheck. We are currently holding a Request for Comments to define trust levels for users of this tool. If you can spare a few minutes, please consider leaving your feedback on the RfC page.
Thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts. Your opinion matters greatly!
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to modify your subscription to these messages you can do so here.
New, simpler RfC to define trust levels for WikiLoop DoubleCheck edit
HI Logical Man 2000,
I'm writing to let you know we have simplified the RfC on trust levels for the tool WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Please join and share your thoughts about this feature! We made this change after hearing users' comments on the first RfC being too complicated. I hope that you can participate this time around, giving your feedback on this new feature for WikiLoop DoubleCheck users.
Thanks and see you around online,
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
If you would like to update your settings to change the wiki where you receive these messages, please do so here.
WikiLoop 2020 Year in Review edit
Dear editors, developers and friends:
Thank you for supporting Project WikiLoop! The year 2020 was an unprecedented one. It was unusual for almost everyone. In spite of this, Project WikiLoop continued the hard work and made some progress that we are proud to share with you. We also wanted to extend a big thank you for your support, advice, contributions and love that make all this possible.
Head over to our project page on Meta Wikimedia to read a brief 2020 Year in Review for WikiLoop.
Thank you for taking the time to review Wikipedia using WikiLoop DoubleCheck. Your work is important and it matters to everyone. We look forward to continuing our collaboration through 2021!
María Cruz
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)