User talk:Sally Season

Welcome

Hello, Sally Season, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Sanctions on Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund

I don't think there is any problem with my edits. I just added more information from the news story. Sally Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/2012_Presidential_Campaign/Log. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/StillStanding-247 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw your mention of my name. You are the squirrel who gives lectures on civility and good faith right? True colors.

OPSEC

Please stop removing the fact that the Obama Campaign are the ones claiming it is a Republican group. The sources all clearly cite the Obama campaign as making the claim, with one instance of a pro-Obama PAC echoing those claims. See this quote from the Reuters article:

“

The group, the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund Inc, unveiled a documentary-style video featuring interviews with former spies and U.S. military commandos on Wednesday.

The Obama campaign hit back.

"The Republicans are resorting to 'Swift Boat' tactics because when it comes to foreign policy and national security, Mitt Romney has offered nothing but reckless rhetoric," said campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt.

”

The source is clearly noting this response from the campaign as addressing the group. It is hard to take that as anything other than accusing OPSEC of being a Republican effort and they are the only ones noted as making this claim, save for the pro-Obama VetPAC. Again, please stop removing this important fact supported by the various cited sources.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say "it is hard to take that as anything other" when just the opposite is true? Your "take that as" words scare me. Are you saying we should guess what the source means, since they didn't explicitly say what you say they did? In the quote above, the only accusation made by the O campaign is that Opsec is resorting to swift boat tactics. The campaign doesn't accuse the group of being Republican, they only refer to the group as Republican. The O campaign never said "smear", that was from the reporting source. You say the Obama campaign is doing the accusing, then you contradict yourself in the next paragraph by admitting others are also accusing. Please stop adding false information.

While we are on this subject, your edit also removed information not addressed here, so add that to the reasons why I will undo your edit.Sally Season (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this from a source already in the article:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-08-17/news/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-leaksbre87g0z3-20120817_1_republican-party-media-campaign-opsec

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A group of former U.S. spies and commandos that launched a media campaign this week criticizing President Barack Obama's national security record has extensive links to the Republican Party, public records indicate.

Records filed with federal and state authorities, and material posted on the Internet, show that key players in the campaign by the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund include individuals with current or former affiliations with national and local Republican Party organizations. These include the group's treasurer, lawyer and TV producers.

To use your words, The source is clearly noting this group is run by Republicans. It is hard to take that as anything other than accusing OPSEC of being a Republican effort. That is another news source describing it as a Republic effort, not just VetPAC and the O campaign. Do you see yet why it is clearer to simply say the group has been described this way?Sally Season (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User page

Do you mind explaining why you have taken to listing editors on your user page?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's prefaced "notes." They're probably trying to keep record of users they've interacted with. Maybe they don't know about the WP:WATCHLIST? Sædon^talk 06:03, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sædon, that is a helpful link. I remembered seeing "Watchlist" somewhere before, but it has since become a little star at the top of my article screens so I didn't recognize it. I am using my page as a temporary notepad. Is that okay?Sally Season (talk) 23:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what this list of editors is supposed to represent.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's trade. I'll answer your question if you answer mine.Sally Season (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What question is that?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The one in the previous section, where you insist the O campaign is saying something, when sources show that the O campaign is just one of many sources saying it. I asked if that was clear o you now.Sally Season (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, you really need to start explaining what this list of names is about and not set conditions for providing such an explanation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attack pages are against the rules. By setting it up this way, he walks a tightrope between the rules. You could take this to WP:ANI, but your better bet is probably to keep an eye on the guy's interactions with those users. If it becomes clear that it's an "enemies list", then it's toast. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to ignore it, it isn't your business anyway. I'm just using the page as a notepad since I don't always access wiki from the same local system, so keeping notes locally isn't practical for me. She is right that you can take this to WPANI, but then you run the risk of that backfiring like last time. I am following [User page] rules, and I am not attacking anybody. Why do you guys always phrase things as if you are on a battlefield?Sally Season (talk) 00:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just your business, as you do not "own" your user page, and it is subject to rules. My advice to TDA would be not to flatly ignore it, but to put it on the back burner... for now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put words in my mouth. I did not say I "own" the page and I did not say anything about it not being subject to rules. Now I will repeat, so to be clear, that what I write there are notes to myself, and are not your business. Either of you. Your suggestion to put it on any burner, front or back, smacks of assuming bad faith. If you want to play those games, do it out of my sight, please.Sally Season (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes about other editors on a public page are the business of the people you are naming. Could you please explain the meaning of these notes?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I sure could. Could you please answer my above, repeated, question? By the by, I am referencing wp:User pages policy. Can you direct me to the policy you are referencing on notes about other editors on a public page? Thank you in advanceSally Season (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:POLEMIC "material that can be viewed as attacking other editors" is not permitted. Unless you can give a satisfactory explanation as to what these notes about other editors represent, one that complies with the above standard, the list should be removed.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is the same page. So unless you can show me an attack on an editor there, you should probably drop this. Or better, we can head back over to that admin page again, that works for me too.Sally Season (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the guidelines: If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so—such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. As a member of this community I ask you to remove the notes on your userpage. Naming other users on your user page for no obvious reason - and unwilling to give any reason at all when asked - may make the named users and the community in general uncomfortable and create a bad atmosphere on Wikipedia . It thus undermines the purpose of this project rather than advance it. Iselilja (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the community let's me know, through the channels described in the part of your guideline that you omitted, then I will give it consideration. Your false accusations and clueless description of the situation make me uncomfortable and contribute to a bad atmosphere. What is your real purpose on this page?Sally Season (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user is walking a tightrope. I will raise the question at WP:ANI and maybe we can get a ruling one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The complainants here (i.e. the ones on the list) need to provide some diffs that suggest it's an "enemies list" rather than, for example, a list of users Sally Season holds in high esteem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The high esteem theory seems unlikely. The user's contribution history includes edit summaries of reverts of Collect and Adventurous Squirrel and The Devil's Advocate earlier this month, which seems a bit more than coincidental.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has now cleared the page, and intends to block the user if he restores it. So, hopefully, that's the end of this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:26, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What admin would that be? --Malerooster (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you are telling me not to open my beak? --Malerooster (talk) 02:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No administrators were involved in clearing the page. None of the people who did are listed in Wikipedia:List of administrators. - Takeaway (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, none of the people who blanked the page were admins and I'm not sure where that idea came from. FYI, easiest way to check for adminship is to have WP:POPUPS enabled, then just hover over a user name and it will say "sysop" at the bottom if it's an admin. Sædon^talk 02:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I had thought Viriditas was an admin. Whatever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone that clearing, explained as "rm enemies list", and am left to wonder how such a person could be appointed admin. The way to the end of this is to stop poking at me.Sally Season (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the way to end this will be on MfD. I will see you there shortly. Viriditas (talk) 06:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read it. What am I required to do?Sally Season (talk) 23:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing.--Malerooster (talk) 01:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binders full of women

Thank you for restoring my content. I could have done it, but it would have looked like a one woman edit war here. With multiple voices,it will be harder for those POV people to bury that there is a real reason why the remark became controversial and a meme. Perhaps we should even explain that there is substance revealed in the remark, rather than it being superficial controversy (the guy who both proposed the deletion of the article and removed the content glosses it over as "silly season.") TruthtellernoBS (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI again

Hello, there is a discussion about your userpage going on. Please comment over there on the purpose of that page. De728631 (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have the right to remain silent. They have the privilege of conducting a lynch mob. That's sort of the way WP works. That said, if you're running an enemies list on your page, don't do that. And if you'd like to put aside the campaign 2012 idiocy and to start working on serious biography or history in the future and have any questions about WP footnoting techniques, policies, etc., feel free to drop me a line either on my talk page or by email at MutantPop@aol.com. POV warring is idiotic and ends badly always; there is plenty of serious work to do at Wikipedia though. Best regards, —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sally, I'm on that list, and I really don't care that much why, and whether it stays or goes, but I think you have to understand that others care more and they are wondering. I wouldn't go so far as to call that a lynch mob, but a few careful words can avoid much acrimony later on. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One editor, who isn't even named in the list, kept insisting that Sally Season said that they "owned" the talk page, even after having been told by Sally Season that they have never had said that and also didn't feel that they did. Why this is being repeated again in an ANI without anyone saying anything about it is beyond me and does speak of a "lynch mob" mentality where apparently nothing that Sally Season says will even be acknowledged for it has already been decided that Sally Season's blood shall flow. I stumbled upon this whole issue in ANI and I can only say that the level of childishness and the use of thug tactics have shocked me. I am very disappointed that this is allowed to happen. - 20:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read and understand WP:UP#POLEMIC. At this point, Sally Season is just trolling and should be blocked. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why I am on the list? I didn't see any notes after my name. --Mollskman (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to answer your question last night, Mollskman, but kept getting "edit conflict" errors, and after the third try I had to leave the terminal. It seems my pages have become the new hot social center and everyone is here. I'm honored. Anyway, I noted your name as a reminder to me to follow up with you on what I felt was an error in representing a source. Nothing more came of it since then, so I would have removed it if you had not already done so.Sally Season (talk) 20:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok. I don't remember the interaction but I NEVER make errors, j/k. I don't think having the list is the best idea, especially with all the drama surronding it now, but I also hate restrictions and would rather err on the side of giving a user a benefit of the doubt. I am not doing to vote on the deletion request one way or the other since my name was removed. Also, do you know about adding colons ":" to the thread to have your comments indented "correctly"? This would also be a "good" practice but again, I hate rules :) --Mollskman (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed my name from this, but please feel free to use my talk page if you like. Thank you, --Mollskman (talk) 02:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says more about those that feel this to be an "enemy list" (as some kept calling it despite assurances that it wasn't) if one feels attacked by this short list of names which have no negative words at all attached to them. My reading of this list is that it is a very neutrally formulated reminder to Sally Season of certain editors they have encountered. Is one "attacked" if it is written that one might be a republican? Is one attacked if the word "advice" is attached to one's name? Is one attacked if OPSEC is connected to one's name if that is the page where the two editors first encountered one another? WP:UP#POLEMIC talks about "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". Please tell me where this list contains "very divisive or offensive material"? If Sally Season is trolling, I must commend their subtlety and sense of humour. As I see it, only those who truly make a conscious effort to feel trolled, will react and take offence to this list. Alas, a few did and proceeded to turn a molehill into a mountain. I'm very happy that I have nothing to do with the partisan politics now taking place here in Wikipedia due to the elections in the United States where apparently every tactic is allowed to silence the opposition or raise unsubstantiated suspicions about their actions. It is disgraceful! - Takeaway (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The user has stated on the ANI boards that the list is for a reminder of positive and negative interations. Of what possible benefit is it to the user or the project to maintain negative interactions even if interspersed with positive ones? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you lie, Red Pen? I stated that I only have a list of interactions with other people and potential follow-ups, regardless of positive or negative interactions. Maintaining a list of negative interactions would serve me no purpose, which is why I don't have such a list. Go back and read what I said, then tell me if you are intentionally lying, or are simply being stupid. Thank youSally Season (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mwah, other people keep lists, Sally is not the only one. It's not that big of a deal though, again, a bit of explanation would go a long way. An ANI thread...well...that's a bit much, yes.

I think I get along with a lot of people (though they don't necessarily don't get along with me) because I forget a hell of a lot, and very quickly, so if someone really pissed me off I'm likely to have forgotten after a few months, and I can interact with them happily as if nothing ever happened. Happy Alzheimer's everyone, Drmies (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and closed that ANI thread. If anyone disagrees, they can reopen or start proceedings against me, and we can have an eternal shit storm. Or we can just move along. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I reopened it. The page wasn't blanked at the time. Arkon (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal Sally season, would you be willing to move your notes to a user subpage such as User talk:Sally season/Notes? Perhaps that will help quell the drama that seems to be following you at the moment. To everyone else: most of you are established enough to know that (i) we give users a lot of leeway on their user pages (ii) you're assuming bad faith by assuming that this is an enemies list (iii) this is very bitey for a new user. Please cut it out; there are much better things to do around here and until this is a problem it isn't a problem. Yes, I know SS has refused to answer your questions, but since you're not the Spanish Inquisition.... Sædon^talk 23:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, SS, you have the right to ask other users to stay off your user/talk page. Editors generally have to adhere to such requests except in extenuating circumstances (e.g. admins posting about policy violations). I'm confident that with Drmies around the right thing will happen here so don't sweat it too much. Welcome to the world of Wikidrama. Sædon^talk 23:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the editors named on the user page have the right to remove them if they feel they constitute an enemies list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you meant to say was "In my opinion the editors named on the user page should have the right to remove them if they feel they constitute an enemies list without having to prove it's an enemies list" because WP doesn't allow a lynchmob to simply assert their will onto other editors without actually proving an offense. For the 23089th time, if it's so obviously an enemies list then just MFD it and I will eat my hat when you all prove that a list of users juxtaposed with remarks like "policy," "advice?" and "OPSEC" is an attack page. Sædon^talk 01:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who feel that they are being personally attacked have the right to remove such attacks. A user does not own his page. And FYI, experience tells me that anyone who maintains an enemies list is not going to be editing wikipedia much longer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I am being personally attacked by your comments, can I remove them? No, of course not, because what I feel is not the same as what I can demonstrate. If you could demonstrate that this was an attack page then I would agree with you. And yes, a user does not own their page, but neither do you. Sædon^talk 02:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can, although it would probably be better if SS did it, since he's the steward of his user page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get the distinct impression I'm being trolled because there's simply no way you have as many edits, not to mention as much time, as you do, and believe that. Sædon^talk 02:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am against enemies lists, and to anyone with experience in this area, it's clear that this is an enemies list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am also against enemy lists. If I should manage to edit here long enough to acquire "enemies", which should certainly take longer than 2 weeks, I wouldn't post such a list on this website. The only "list" I have created so far is of people with whom I've interacted with, or of subject matter that I intend to visit or revisit at greater length. I am not "experienced" in the area of enemies, as you appear to claim to be, but I do have some experience with idiots, and trolls, and people who keep repeating lies with the hopes that less observant people will believe them. Maybe I should begin to create a list of such people, I certainly have sufficient starting content from the past few days.Sally Season (talk) 20:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are being trolled, Saedon, as is clear to anyone with experience in this area. And thank you for your words of common sense, even if common sense isn't valued by some.Sally Season (talk) 20:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Sally Season

User:Sally Season, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Sally Season 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. No unique names 07:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this may be an effort to antagonize or be employed by some to cause you grief. It might be wise to slow any responses and see if others will either be persuaded by sound reasoning or find others to torment. Insomesia (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]