User talk:Green Montanan: Difference between revisions

Here’s wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Green Montanan! I see that you’ve already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! 〜 Adflatuss • talk 07:12, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Green Montanan (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent edit to Women in the U.S. House of Representatives I noticed that you inserted a reference to Fox News, which may be unreliable and even controversial at times. I did not revert your edit, but this is just a reminder to try to avoid inserting references to Fox News in the future, particularly when sourcing claims concerning U.S. politics. 1101 (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think everything other than Keith Self calling Sarah McBride’s femininity a “fantasy” can be found elsewhere. As far as I know, Self used the word “fantasy” only in an interview with Fox News. I’ll replace the reference and rewrite it. Green Montanan (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Green Montanan! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay8g [V•T•E] 22:30, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do something wrong? Green Montanan (talk) 22:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn’t :^) 1101 (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Acroterion (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Relm (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia article titles policy and Manual of Style is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t want to make the discussion at WT:Notability (people) any longer than it already is, but I did want to see if I could help on a misunderstanding you seem to have regarding Wikipedia:Notability. Your assumptions about why Usha Vance and Casey DeSantis are notable enough to have an article are incorrect. Notability comes from significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. It does not come from who they are associated with.

There is no article about Courtney Kennedy Hill, the fifth child of Robert F. Kennedy because she is not notable; she does not inherit Notability from her famous father, although nine of her siblings have articles. Kim Kardashian and Kanye West have four children; three are not notable, North West is. Paulo Picasso has no article. Neither do Marigold Churchill, Anna Lea Dylan, Beatrice Milly McCartney, Lee Starr, Catharina Dorothea Bach, Doud Dwight Eisenhower, Simon Teihotu Brando. Need I go on? I think you get the picture.

Although you are still a fairly new editor here, you have already edited and been reverted at several project pages, including MOS:BIO (see 1, 2) and the Notability (people) page. In at least one case you altered a policy page while discussing a content disagreement to lend support to your view at a Talk page (I have to go find that one again). You have attracted the attention of at least one admin who has mentioned possibly blocking you if you don’t change course (diff).

But despite all this, you seem to keep going on and on at the Notability discussion, arguing with senior editors and (at least) one admin. This would be a good time to pull back and reflect; could it be that you might be mistaken on this? Making changes to policy pages so that they reflect your understanding of an issue, or what you think they should say, is not a good way to go at this stage, and I agree with another editor at the discussion that you consider avoiding those topics for a while. I fear that if you carry on much longer at that discussion, or if you repeat the pattern at other policy or guideline pages, you will end up blocked, and you don’t want that.

You can ask pretty much all the questions you want regarding Notability or any other aspect of editing Wikipedia at the WP:Teahouse, and I suggest you start there next time, if you have questions about inheritance of Notability or anything else; you will find plenty of helpful volunteers there happy to answer your questions. The last thing you want to do now is make controversial edits, especially to policy pages. I hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thank you. Green Montanan (talk) 02:32, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gaza war hostage crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Filipino. 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) 07:54, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Montanan!
Strictly speaking, IPs are not allowed to respond if they’re OK with the edit being made, and we don’t really want to encourage them to do so.

From WP:EDITXY:
“Similarly, edit requests to extended confirmed restricted topics by editors who are not yet extended confirmed are expected to be uncontroversial without requiring further discussion.”

Would you be ok with self-reverting? Once an edit request is acted on in any way, as long as no other ec editor weighs in, it’s standard practice to delete or archive the request so that the talk page doesn’t get cluttered Mikewem (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Green Montanan (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please see the page and the concern i addressed at it’s talk. It should probably be drafted or signifantly trimmed, unless someone fixes it. AlexBobCharles (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Green Montanan, I saw that you have previously edited the article about Montana’s Senator Tim Sheehy. I posted an edit request with some additional details about his military service and I hoped you would take a look at it here. They seem to be in line with what is included in the sources and similar sections on other pages, but I wanted to get the community’s input. Thanks so much! Clarkfork79 (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answered at Talk:Tim Sheehy. —Green Montanan (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As they say; I say you have a big pair for being (I think) the first person to edit the fact into the article. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:02, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you’re talking about the fact that the URL contains the name of the suspect (which was added as an exception to the filter) or the content that I added (the voter registration & policial leaning of the suspect).

Either way, I wouldn’t think that my edit would be very controversial. Green Montanan (talk) Green Montanan (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, it’s a good edit. I meant the leanings. Some people are going to learn that for the first time coming here. Ergo, brass balls as your entry is going to be particularly… impactful, I’ll call it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 22:19, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. —Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in my recent close, per WP:BLPCRIME, one should not imply someone is guilty before convinction. I know this leads to somewhat awkward phrasing, but this bit of the WP:BLP policy is clear. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I used Brown’s name in the section that describes the crime. But in the next section, the Aftermath section, I would think that the following substitutions could be made that would not be in conflict with WP:BLP. For example:

• “The suspect was subsequently charged” could be changed to “Brown was subsequently charged“
• “A judge ordered the suspect to be evaluated for 60 days” could be changed to “A judge ordered Brown to be evaluated for 60 days“

The fact that Brown is the suspect is not in conflict with WP:BLP. Wouldn’t that be true? Green Montanan (talk) 07:44, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s perfectly fine, yes. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Green Montanan,

I’m Demt1298, and I patrol new pages here on Wikipedia.

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged a page that you created (Leading from behind) for deletion because it is an unnecessary disambiguation page per one of the criteria at WP:G14.

If you feel that the page shouldn’t be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Demt1298}}. And, don’t forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Demt1298 (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see how the page qualifies under the G14 criteria. It provides links to two existing articles, both mentioning the topic. Green Montanan (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

^Complex/_Rational 15:59, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your fixes. Some stuff may have copied over incorrectly, so I appreciate very much the double checking. Metallurgist (talk) 05:22, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And again, an excellent idea to add the ones who werent taken to Gaza. I appreciate your thought to expand that, even if my main intent was the Gaza hostages. Metallurgist (talk) 20:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not surprised about your intent. The crisis with the hostages kidnapped to Gaza lasted for two years (and is not yet fully resolved), whereas the hostage multiple crisis inside Israel were resolved within less than 24 hours. Therefore, the hostages kidnapped to Gaza received most of the attention. Green Montanan (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Air Force One insult incident appears to be with regard to a different person than the one covered in this article. There is no evidence that I can find that the Bloomberg reporter is an MD professor. Robert K S (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re right. I self-reverted. Green Montanan (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:Gaza Yellow Brick (Nov 2025).jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled “Contest this speedy deletion”. This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Whpq (talk) 02:16, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to respond to your comment at the Herzog park RfC, but I felt that doing it there would at best create an off-topic digression, and that taking it to your talk would be more productive. First off, I agree with you about the comment about the journalist’s place of residence being a disturbing one, and one without basis rationally or in policy.

That said, I don’t think you were right to bring up the spectre of pro-Hamas editors, or the Rindberg piece. It’s possible that some of those editors are pro-Hamas, but I suspect that most if not all actually aren’t. You didn’t quite accuse them of being pro-Hamas, but to me your comment reads as waving towards that accusation, if not implying it. I think making that kind of comment (and I can understand why you would make it) is likely to get you banned. More substantively, I think having that kind of mindset (imputing motives, of the most extreme kind, to “the other side” in content disputes) is likely to make you engage combatively and disruptively in the topic area, which is why you’d need to be banned. Please don’t think I’m condescending to you – I was banned not long ago from transgender healthcare, basically for falling into that mindset there. It led me to impute motives to editors who disagreed with me and read things into their comments which they hadn’t written, which is basically what I was sanctioned for. I’m trying to share lessons learned through painful and embarrassing mistakes.

The other thing is is that Rindberg was covering an organised canvassing ring trying to skew coverage of Israel-Palestine topics. Maybe I’m wrong but I didn’t see the comments at the RfC as a manifestation of that at all. I’m familiar with very few of the editors who participated, I don’t know if they’re Israel-Palestine regulars (and I’m not going to go to the trouble of checking) but to me it seemed more like people who are not particularly seasoned at dealing with contentious topics on wikipedia addressing the issue in a way that makes sense in most non-wikipedia contexts: Giving their opinion on the content and its quality. That’s inappropriate in a wikipedia context, but it’s a relatively minor sin compared to forming a co-ordinated canvassing ring to influence the topic area.

Wikipedia editors can be biased, political, inappropriate or just plain wrong – in fact I would say most every editor is likely to be these things from time to time. Mostly, that’s not evidence of bad faith, let alone deception. I suggest you edit your comment and step back from the scale of the accusation you seem to be making there, and take a breath. Just my opinion, but please take it as the friendly advice it’s intended to be. Samuelshraga (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was a very good idea to place this comment here, and not at talk:Herzog Park. Green Montanan (talk) 20:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bondi Beach Terrorists.jpg, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/File:Bondi Beach Terrorists.jpg and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of File:Bondi Beach Terrorists.jpg during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. orangesclub 🍊 16:49, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bondi Beach Terrorists.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A page you created has been deleted as an attack page, according to section G10 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

Do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject or any other entity. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia, and users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing. – bradv 19:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an encyclopedic use for this image you are welcome to upload it with a more neutral title. Please be aware of our WP:BLP policies, particularly WP:SUSPECT and WP:MUG. Thanks for understanding. – bradv 19:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the issue is the file name, I can re-upload with a different name. That’s not a problem.

In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with the file name, because the people who are in the image committing the terrorist attack are terrorists. WP:BLP only covers the attchment of the names of the people who commit to the act before being convicted. But I have no problem using a different file name. Green Montanan (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is absolutely not how WP:BLP works. It is of the utmost importance that you understand this. – bradv 20:14, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What part of WP:BLP says that you cannot label people who commit terrorist acts as terrorists? To the best of my understanding, BLP just says that we cannot call a person a terrorist until they are convicted by a court as such. Green Montanan (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

we cannot call a person a terrorist until they are convicted by a court as such — but that’s exactly what you did. You posted a picture of them and said they were terrorists. – bradv 20:36, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let me make myself perfectly clear:

Labeling an image of people committing a terrorst act: Not a WP:BLP violation. Y

Explicitly stating that Naveed and Sajid Akram were the terrorists prior to conviction in a court of law: A WP:BLP viloation. N

And if you really want to go into the weeds, since Sajid is dead, he is no longer covered by WP:BLP. Green Montanan (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, still not correct. It is not up to you to decide whether those people are terrorists. It is up to the legal process in their country, and to reliable sources, per WP:BLPCRIME. And to your last point, recently dead people are still covered by the same policy, per WP:BDP. Even apart from the WP:BLP issues, you are still engaging in original research by using terminology and making connections between facts that our reliable sources do not. – bradv 20:51, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. It’s all over WP:RS that the incident was a terrorist act. Green Montanan (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a large step between saying “officials labelled this an act of terrorism” and “here is a picture of some terrorists”. We follow the sources, we don’t draw these conclusions ourselves. – bradv 20:57, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this large step. I don’t see a difference between the two.

But even if there is “a large step“, that doesn’t make the file name an attack page. Green Montanan (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are you still not getting this? A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. I’m not going to repeat myself any further – either you take the time to understand this policy and agree to abide by it, or you can’t be trusted to edit. You decide. – bradv 21:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are you still not getting this? A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law, but an image of a person committing a terrorist act is a terrorist. There is no question that this was a terrorist act. The only thing that BLP covers is whether Naveed and Sajid Akram are the terrorists in the image. For Naveed, we have to describe him as the “suspected terrorist” until he is convicted, and for Sajid, we don’t need to say “suspected”, because he is dead, and will never get convicted. Green Montanan (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the recently dead, their WP:BLP coverage is severely limited in scope. So labeling Sajid as a terrorist is not covered by WP:BLP, since he will never be convicted in a court of law. Green Montanan (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Then we wait until reliable sources make that determination. Again, we don’t draw these conclusions ourselves. – bradv 20:58, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bondi Beach gunmen.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. orangesclub 🍊 20:41, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to suggest that you clean up your above discussion and remove the names you have repeated multiple times. Also, you might want to review WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPTALK Kaotac (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember @Kaotac‘s very kind reminder as you’ve violated WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPTALK again. Continued BLP violations may result in a loss of editing privileges. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have not violated WP:BLPCRIME. Just because you think I violated WP:BLPCRIME does not make it so. Green Montanan (talk) 15:06, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m referring to this edit with a clear BLPCRIME violation that has now been redacted. It is not something of my personal belief, but it is considered a BLPCRIME violation in accordance to the principles laid out in BLPCRIME and BLPTALK. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this edit. Saying that we cannot refer to (BLP violation removed) as a terrorist, and must refer to him as a suspected terrorist, is the policy that is detailed in BLPCRIME. Your redaction was inappropriate, but I just don’t care to revert you. Green Montanan (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely allowed to redact BLP violations and personal attacks. These are exempt from TPO. See Template:BLP violation, which states {{RBLPV}} is a notice that a comment has been removed from a discussion. Violations of the biographies of living persons policy should never be used on Wikipedia. This template allows an editor to remove BLP violations without removing context or completely deleting a comment. Such comments should preferably have their revisions deleted or suppressed, to minimize potential damage. You have committed another BLP violation in your earlier comment. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may also find it helpful to note that BLP applies to recently deceased persons. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also recommended you read BLPCRIME, which states …that suggests the person has committed, is suspected of, is a person of interest in, or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured for that crime. Youshouldchooseausernamethat (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose contentious topics restrictions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia’s policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. Additionally, the following restriction(s) apply to this topic area: All articles in this topic area are under WP:1RR (a limit of one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert. Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. Editors who otherwise violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. TarnishedPathtalk 13:38, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]