User talk:Green Montanan

A belated welcome!

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]

Is foxnews.com a reliable source?

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]

Welcome!

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.

I've noticed that you've expressed an interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict. Unfortunately, due to a history of conflict and disruptive editing it has been designated a contentious topic and is subject to some strict rules.

The rule that affects you most as a new or IP editor is the prohibition on making any edit related to the Arab–Israel conflict, which includes discussing articles on talk pages, unless you are logged into an account that is at least 30 days old and has made at least 500 edits.

This prohibition is broadly construed, so it includes edits such as adding the reaction of a public figure concerning the conflict to their article or noting the position of a company or organization as it relates to the conflict.

The exception to this rule is that you may request a specific change to an article on the talk page of that article or at this page. Please ensure that your requested edit complies with our neutral point of view and reliable sourcing policies, and if the edit is about a living person our policies on biographies of living people as well.

Any edits you make contrary to these rules are likely to be reverted, and repeated violations can lead to you being blocked from editing.

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]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.

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 here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

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]

GENSEX CTOP Notice

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]

Contentious topic alert

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]

Notability is not inherited

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]

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

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]