User talk:Tonkarooson

Hello there

You placed a template on the WP:Australia article stating that there were repeated references. If you have identified a problem, it would be more helpful if you fixed it yourself. If you don't want to do this for whatever reason, please go to the Talk page and specify the duplicated references so others can fix it.

Thanks Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

That’s only for foreign organisations, I suggest you revert yourself. I don’t want to as. We are only allowed one revert on 24 hours. Self reverts don’t count. Doug Weller talk 07:19, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks I really appreciate that. Have a good day. Hope you are ok. Doug Weller talk 08:30, 11 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, if you’re going to use that script, could you please just use it to flag the issue and fix as many of them as you can yourself? Since your edit in July, Masalit massacres (2023–present) has had that massive tag which harms readability (WP:RF), and it’s not really a big enough issue to warrant that. Kowal2701 (talk) 18:39, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

According to my notice above, I probably won't do it, but I appreciate the WP:Justdoit. But if it really is that much of a problem, I'll try my best to do so in the future. Tonkarooson • (📭|Edits). 04:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Progressive Front (Syria), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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 carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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 procedures, 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 {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Please not as well that some articles will have additional rules which you'll be able to see on the talk page and in an edit notice. On Political positions of Donald Trump the following rules also apply:

• You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
• Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:31, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

i’m sorry. i was assuming due to the user’s political views, but then added the hidden comment so that it still was omitted from the viewer’s eyes. i will do my best to refrain from such actions. Tonkarooson • 📭|edits. 11:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

I believe "left-wing" can also imply "center-left". Altanner1991 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

mmmm, yes. i suppose that could make sense, since some Americans would say it's left-wing when it really isn't. but then what about the cited under Policy positions? — Tonkarooson • (📭|edits) 04:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Well I will say that it is interesting that the Communist Party of China infobox doesn't say "far-left" because in that country it is simply the government there, however that might not be the case for the CPC/policy positions sources! Altanner1991 (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

heheh, yeah. i had added it before tho, but an editor removed it. i saw the discussion u opened up on talk:Congressional Progressive Caucus, but idk why u went to my talk page haha. — Tonkarooson • (📭|edits) 04:30, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

ok Altanner1991 (talk) 04:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who are critics of Wikipedia has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{in solidarity} 17:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Category:Authoritarian states has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 05:28, 26 June 2026 (UTC)