User talk:Longewal

This is Longewal'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.

This user is aware of the designation of the following as contentious topics:

post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people
the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
the Arab–Israeli conflict
the Balkans or Eastern Europe
pseudoscience and fringe science

They should not be given alerts for those areas.

October 2025

Hello, I'm ScrabbleTiles. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 09:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

As per MOS, I added a summary of the controversy section in a NPOV manner. I didn't add citations because I don't think citations are mandated for ledes. Longewal (talk) 09:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Longewal. Thank you.) Zalaraz (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

February 2026

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ayurveda. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Hipal (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Don't recall doing that. Which edit are you referring to? Longewal (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

All the major edits you have made so far. --Hipal (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

"All" major edits is a bold claim. Let's start with one, and why do you think it's my own personal analysis Longewal (talk) 19:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Nothing bold about it. All your edits to the article have been reverted.

If you want to attempt to restore any of the changes, bring up the matter on the article talk page, and point out which sources support the changes. --Hipal (talk) 23:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The fact they're reverted doesn't imply they were personal analysis. I am still waiting for the "personal analysis" diff. I want to see how "all" of my major edits were my own point of view. You took the pain to leave a warning on my talk page. You have responded several times here. It shouldn't be this challenging to produce one. — Longewal (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Also, I see how you were quick to revert @Sgroey:, who restored my version with the edit summary, "Reverted edit where important & properly cited information was removed for no reason." So, your take isn't even unanimous. And it's obvious you didn't like their edit, because you left them an unnecessary "alert" knowing fully well they're an experienced Wikipedia.

In fact, not sure if you bothered to notice that the text I added and the sources I cited were actually verbatim from the article's body. So, please make an honest attempt to qualify your "personal analysis" claim. I am waiting. — Longewal (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

On Sgroey’s user talk page, I see no similar notification. Therefore, informing them that pseudoscience is a CT is appropriate. — EarthDude (Talk) 08:07, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

March 2026

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Ayurveda. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. --Hipal (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles