W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Longewal

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(5d)
| archive = User talk:Longewal/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
| archiveheader = {{Monthly archive list}}
}}
{{talk header}}
{{Ds/aware|ap|ipa|gg|a-i|e-e|cc|ps|blp|gg}}

regarding deleting philipps assesment



ok so you reverted edit regarding medinan wives. the reason for edit was because william Philipps is not talking from actual historical perspective. polygamy existed largely in arabia even before the prophet of islam. nor is there any evidence that medinans showed resistance to marriage. chief of khazraj tribe of medina Saʽd ibn ʽUbadah had two wives for example. Sa'd ibn Rabi' also had multiple wives and offered to divorce one and give her to a companion. another major thing to consider medinans converted to islam how did they not approve of practices? Darklightsd (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

"BRD" ...



... is an essay describing an optional process.<br>
Hello {{u|Longewal}},

while editing the article about Rooh Afza ↗, you seem to have treated "BRD" as a policy justifying reverts. Neither is it a policy nor does it justify reverts.

Consensus obtained through editing ↗ ends in the moment someone disputes or reverts an edit. There is no bonus for "longstanding content", for example.

WP:ONUS ↗ favors the removal of disputed content. WP:BURDEN ↗ and, for biographies, WP:BLPRESTORE ↗, go into the same direction.

BRD may be a fine essay, but please don't treat it as a reason for re-adding disputed content.

Thanks and best regards,<br>&#126; ToBeFree (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

:Noted. Thank you! — <b>Longewal (talk)</b> 01:26, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Caste



Sigh. I had originally responded to this by removing your section at WP:AE ↗, but it wasn't part of the problem, so this is an isolated incident. The restrictions you claim to be aware of contain an extended-confirmed restriction for the WP:CT/CASTE ↗ area. We can discuss the topic when you're extended confirmed. Which is very soon, which is why I felt a need to place a quick block instead of warning and receiving a 5-edit message in return telling me that the warning has just become irrelevant. But I was wrong about the AE messages, so the perceived need for a block for you suddenly diving full-depth into an extended-confirmed restricted topic at ~485 edits was not actually there. Sorry. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

:All good. — <b>Longewal (talk)</b> 21:11, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
::I have now restored the messages at {{slink|Talk:Suvendu_Adhikari#Caste}} and on my talk page. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 00:31, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics


{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to ''' the region of South Asia ↗ (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee ↗. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators ↗ have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully and constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

<p><strong>Additionally, you must be logged in, have 500 edits, and have an account age of 30 days ↗ in order to make edits related to two subtopics:</strong> (1) Indian military history, or (2) caste-related topics in South Asia.</p><p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics <em>procedures</em>, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard ↗ or you may learn more about this contentious topic ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> Sutyarashi (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

:I have a template at the top of my talk page that says I am aware of these CTOPs, and I should not be alerted. Seems passive aggressive at this point. — <b>Longewal (talk)</b> 20:00, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
::If that's so, it was a lapse on my part. You can remove it. Sutyarashi (talk) 20:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)
:::All good, fam. — <b>Longewal (talk)</b> 21:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Report on ARE



There is a report about your conduct here ↗. Orientls (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

:Will look into it next week. Enjoy Juneteenth. — <b>Longewal (talk)</b> 21:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

July 2026



My own statement is in excess of the word-limit, but I would suggest that before dumping a lengthy response like this ↗ (almost double the word-limit), you should personally ask one of the admins (on their talk page) for an extension to your word limit. Best, UnpetitproleX (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

:You are right - I need to fix this. — <b>Longewal (talk)</b> 23:30, 9 July 2026 (UTC)