Talk:Kamboh
RFV edit
See Talk:kamboji. - -sche (discuss) 19:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:-sche edit
As I have already took with you some time back that the scholar community, in general, connects the Kamboh/Kamboj/Kamoz/Kamojee/Kam/Kom tribe with the Ancient Kambojas. There is no doubt about this now. H. A. Rose which reference you often try to bring every time was written first by him in the early seventies of last century and then in a book, in 1882 ( first Edition of Glossary) which is already outdated. Anyhow, bring any latest refeences from notable scholars which dispute this claim of the other scholar community. This time, I have provided enough actual citations so that you understand this. If you want to dispute this, let us discuss openly on this page. But I am sure, the references I have provided will make you understand this now. Thanks
Hi Sch, this is my third message to you. Please abstain from reverting my edits without giving reasons for reverting. And let us discuss in a civil manner to reach an agreement on differences if any on this issue.
Thank
71.193.5.163
Hi Sch-,
Please visit the discussion page under main entry Kamboh. You are requested to join me in discussion so that your uncalled for reversions of all my edits are discussed and the issue resolved. I think you are irresponsibly reverting back all my edits which is not fair. I again request you to join me in discussion on the discussion page under KAMBOH. And discuss and assign reasons if you want to revert my edits. And I again request you to revert back my edit on Kamboji and also make all entries on Kamboh, Kamboji and the citations etc open for edit. You have restricted the edit of these entries.
Thanks 71.193.5.163
- Hi! Thanks for adding citations to Kamboh. I and other users have reverted your edits because they also restructured things in a way that we're going to have to check, but I'm currently formatting the citations you added so they can be re-added into the existing structure, which will then make it easier for everyone to look over them and see if thing need to be changed. - -sche (discuss) 01:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
hi,
Go ahead and restructure as you wish, but don't delete any of the references I have researched. on kamboj/kamboh and kamboja link. i wiill get back to you soon and see how have you restructured.
Hi, I had edited Kamboji and had added the name of music mode or raga Kamboji under the main entry. But you have taken it out. I think this meaning under the main entry is correct and very much relevant. Do you want me to give citations/reference for raga Kamboji to justify the edit I made? please let me know. Thanks 71.193.5.163
Hi sch, I have read your edits on citations under kamboh. They are arbitrary, and speak of your lack of knowlledge and clarity on the kamboh/kamboj history. you may be a good editor for writing good english, checking spellings and refining the wording of the entries, but your historical knowledge on kamboj betrays prejudice. Please do remove the restrictions on edit so that I may contribute my part to straighten out the real issues and unjumble your edits under citations. I see lot of problems with your latest edit on citations under kamboh entry. And restrict your self to refining the entries for this topic. I hope without further delay you would lift the restriction on editing for kamboh/Kamboji and the citation part.
Thanks 71.193.5.163
Kamboh/Kamboj and Kamboja link edit
Hi SCh, I am starting discussion forum here to see if Kamboh/Kamboj nd Kambojas are linked historically. Please joiun me in discussion. I have inserted below some references including your pet one from H. A. Rose in his Glossary (1882 Edition) along with others which I have researched and placed below for your reference.
I invite you to come and discuss if you dispute any of my cited references. On another note, I edited Kamboji (Wictionery entry) and added that it is also the name of musical mode (Kamboji raga) which is also written as Kambhoji, Kambodi, Kamode, Kambhodi, and Khasmbaja/Khamach raga. But you have taken it out. If there is structuring problem, you may want to refine it, but why did you take my edit completely out. Can you explain? Do you want me to give you references on Kamboji as connected with ancient Kamboja?.
Please let me know.
Thanks
Hi sch, your edit on citations for kamboh entry needs further editing and improvement. As I already stated, please remove the editing restrictions as your placing restriction on others bespeak of arbitrariness and highhandedness on your part. I want to edit the citation part and also the main entries kamboh, Kamboji to mprove it. Hope that you would open the page for editing for every one.
This is my fourth request to you. And please restrict yourself on improving the English and the Format of the entries on kamboh/kamboj, rather than playing with their essential contents.
Thanks
- Some/many scholars think the Kambohs/Kambojs are descended from the Kambojas. Some scholars think the Kambohs/Kambojs are not descended from the Kambojas, or that there isn't (enough) proof of a connection. The entry on Kamboh notes that it is an alternative form of Kamboj; the entry on Kamboj states (since your recent tweak of its wording) that the Kambojs are "generally considered to be descended from the Kambojas". This seems sufficient, given that it's a short dictionary entry, not a detailed ethnographic history. - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Who are the SOME/ MANY scholars except H .A Rose who deny connection of the kamboh/kamboj with the ancient kambojas? Can you list them here? H. A. Rose wrote his glossary in 1882 and even he could not completely reject the connection. He was ambivalent on some counts but he did not reject the view of earlier scholars like pandit Tara singh narotteam completely. Only he placed a question mark on Tara Singh Narotteam' view and even further latter scholars have evidently ignored Rose' views. But you are the only person who ipersistently giving undue undue weightage to Rosé' glossary which is now outdated. I have presented about 20-30 citations , many from later scholars and they all accept the connection. The view of Rosé if at all to be included should be placed at the head of the citation entry and then the view of the later scholars be given as countering his opinion. So your reediting of my edit on citation needs to be modified accordingly so as not to confuse the ordinary Wiki readers. You are misusing your authority to block editing to others while doing the edits yourself on the kamboh/kamboj entry in wictionery thus enforcing your opinions on readers. So once again I request that you remove the editing restrictions which you placed arbitrarily and wrongly in the first instance. and allow so others also to do the edits and contribute so that we all together may improve the wictionery entries together. Also on other note, you have removed my editing on the main entries Kamboji and kamboh by reverting my edits.
Awaiting early unblocking editing on your part on kamboh.kamboji and the citations. Are you operating under different assumed names.? I suspect it. anyway thanks again.
Sche-, once again I request you to lift restrictions on editing on kamboj entries including the kamboh, kamboji and the citation part on kamboh. It looks to me that you are are misusing your position as wictionery administrator to advance your own point of view and the ways of presenting the material which suits your whims fantasies while blocking or reverting genuine edits by others. Please note that the citation part of the kamboh entry contains lot of misprints and ambiguities which need to be addressed so that the general readers gets the right kind of information and understanding. but you are doing harm to the cause by blocking others. Also the citations which have been presented by you in this entry are arbitrary, skewed and misinformative and I want to add to these citations the missing parts (to unskew them) and this you either dont know or else you are intentionally trying to omit. Wictionery is not your personal property but is open to all to edit and add the genuine information. As I stated earlier, you may be a good English writer, spelling checker or defintion writer or creator of a good format but that does not mean that you also are an expert on the kamboj related information.
I again hope that you will see the reason and stop using highhandedness and misusing your position as wictionery administrator. After all, there are other avenues open to the readers/editors/ contributors to correct the misusers of authorities if they do not behave reasonably inspire of polite requests. Once again, I Suggest you that we need all to join cooperatively and contribute our mite to improve the wictionery entries togather in a civilzed manner displaying a cooperative manner and a spirit of courtesy.
Thanks and have a great day.