User talk:সম্পাদক খিলঞ্জীয়া

This is সম্পাদক খিলঞ্জীয়া's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Barua

The article is on Barua, and therefore, the MOS:LEAD should only contain information that identifies the topic and establish context.

The addition of the word Chao Phu-Ke at the start and at the top of the info-box is meaningless, more so because the word is derived from a language that is now dead and extinct having no relevance to present times, and therefore; not acceptable.

That said, I have incorporated your citations to the article, and have moved your recent contents to the history section, besides rephrasing where necessary, however, anything new you wish to include should conform to WP:BESTSOURCES guidelines, failing which would result in disqualifying them under WP:NOTE and WP:FAILN norms.

Thank you.

AnjanBorah (talk) 01:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AnjanBorah: For your kind information Barua was an officer of Ahom kingdom later adopted by descendants of Barua officer which should be included in the section with a short description. The word Chao Phu-ke is used by many people, also the original word should include in the description. Tai language is not an extinct language but it's used by almost six tribes in India. Not like Sanskrit which already extinct but still used as origin word. I think you need a study on Barua Official.--সম্পাদক খিলঞ্জীয়া (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should be included isn't must be included, esp., when it is being covered in minimum detail under history. By virtue of it being a spoken word, it is colloquial and forceful multiple insertions isn't justified as already covered later in the article. Not sure what are you contesting here by stating it is the original word? Original or not the lead is Barua and not Chao Phu-Ke, and hence multiple insertions isn't necessary here. Based on your cited source, the language referred to is Ahom and not the whole family of Tai-Ahom languages, which is officially categorised as extinct, and as for Sanskrit, unknown to you, it isn't, and is ancient.

As far as study is concerned, I would kindly suggest that you follow WP:TALK guidelines to extend courtesy while communicating with editors rather than your reactive comment like the one above, and please don't insinuate unwarranted discussion whether or not I need a study on the lead, when clearly you need to face facts on extinct vs. ancient classification of languages.

AnjanBorah (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahom people - your edits

Your edits are disruptive, clearly POV. Please desist from such editing practices. Chaipau (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: Huh? Really? have you seen WP:SHORTDES? And this applies for every Wikipedia article, This can't be a Push clearly. --সম্পাদক খিলঞ্জীয়া (talk) 09:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing part of the lede. Chaipau (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your POV edits

You have made some very POV edits, representing the Ahoms as they are not, especially in the ledes of Ahom religion and Ahom people. The Ahom religion is not followed today, though some revival has occurred; and the Ahom people today are not purely Tai but an admixed population. You have been removing these from the ledes on one pretext or the other. Please stop doing this. You are new here, and these have been discussed earlier and we have gone through these issues earlier. Chaipau (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: You should place the section in the correct section also, A target of 40 characters has been suggested. But you're expending it too much. If you want to include you can keep it short and simple.--সম্পাদক খিলঞ্জীয়া (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHORTDES is not what you think it is. What applies here is WP:MOSLEAD. Chaipau (talk) 15:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Link to Chao Pha

Please stop inserting links to Chao Pha in the lead of Ahom kings. You may create infobox and insert titles there, and there are a few examples available. Nevertheless, the Ahom Chao Pha office was not necessarily the same as the other Chao Pha offices and it had evolved much under the Ahoms. Chaipau (talk) 17:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: I know you can't improve a content but you can revert other's edits. Go ahead and revert some vandalism, not the good edits please.--সম্পাদক খিলঞ্জীয়া (talk) 07:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to make the Ahoms into Tais. Sorry. Chaipau (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaipau: I am trying to include the real information from the real sources, and the sources said that things sorry, you can't decide Who are Ahoms!

Sorry!--সম্পাদক খিলঞ্জীয়া (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Sairg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]